PDA

View Full Version : [Houseruling] Is it taboo round here?



Kiero
2007-06-30, 07:26 PM
I have to ask the question because I was quite surprised by the level of resistance and even outright hostility in the thread about Epic6/Ry20 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49106).

I've seen a fair bit of discussion on a number of topics (the metagaming one comes strongly to mind), and it seems round these parts "we play by RAW" is some kind of badge of honour. Or even the only way deemed acceptable to play. Tinkering with anything beyond the most minor things like "we don't allow Class X with Class Y" is some kind of major affront to your gaming prowess.

There's a similar thread over on RPGnet which isn't anywhere near as reactionary, and I wonder if demographics has a role to play in that. Namely that it's an older forum, the average age is probably a decade older than GitP (if not more...). I had companion polls there and here, and for most people here 3.x was their first edition of D&D, whereas there OD&D was.

This is relevant because I think there were very different philosophies of gaming between them. The older editions were pretty piecemeal (especially AD&D1e) and often required fairly judicious kit-bashing to make them work for your group. Indeed I think the spirit of them was that you were expected to muck about with it until you liked what you got.

Whereas the design and ethic behind 3.x seems much more "this is carefully balanced, don't touch anything". I know even little changes can have unforeseen consequences if you haven't throught them through. Which I muse could be why people on this forum are much more reluctant to make sweeping changes, even when they're of the simplifying variety like E6 is. After all, cutting out two-thirds of the game or more does not make things more complex, only simpler.

Is there anything behind my suspicions? Are there any grognards who started their gaming when 3rd edition was but a twinkle in Ryan Dancey's eye? Was there a greater encouragement to tinker in earlier editions? Do some of the younger gamers really feel the only way they can play is if it's all by RAW (whatever that means)?

Saph
2007-06-30, 07:33 PM
I've yet to see a game that didn't have some houserules. Depending on how strictly you define it, even saying "you can't move or attack once you're dead" can be a houserule.

That said, I try to minimise houserules as much as I can, and I normally keep them to negative ones (ie "you can't do this" rather than "you get an extra ability that does this"), because it requires less effort on the part of the players to learn them. One of the great strengths of D&D is that so many people know it, and you don't need to teach the system to every new player who shows up at the table. Using too many housrules negates that.

But I play D&D at a club, where groups shift and change from month to month. If you play with the same group of friends for months or years or decades, then there's no reason not to develop your own houserules over time, as you find out what works and doesn't work for your players.

- Saph

SpiderBrigade
2007-06-30, 07:43 PM
Well, for one thing, I think a lot of the directly "let's make a houserule" stuff ends up over in homebrew. Which does make sense.

Honestly, though, I think the hostility you were seing towards the E6 thing was more just people who A) wouldn't enjoy playing with those houserules and B) dislike the implication that those rules are somehow "better" than the way they do like to play. Not that anyone was necessarily saying that, but it's an easy thing to get defensive about.

There are plenty of threads where people ask for advice about houserule decisions, or discuss houseruled methods for dealing with game problems etc. And the forum is more than willing to do that. Pretty much any of the rule-experts around here will tell you that some houseruling is almost inevitable to deal with the weirdness that is 3.5 balance.

I'm too lazy to dig it up, but there's a great thread about "The RAW and you" which I think would answer some of your concern. The hostility to discussing houserules is really only in the context of "is X ability too strong" or "does X work this way" hard rules discussions, where one needs to start with the basic assumption that everyone is dealing with the plain RAW. If you're discussing whether wizards are too strong, and someone vehemently argues that they're not, his point is invalidated if he has a lot of wizard-nerfing housrules in place. So in that context, yes, people wouldn't really want to hear about it.

ClericofPhwarrr
2007-06-30, 07:45 PM
I have to ask the question because I was quite surprised by the level of resistance and even outright hostility in the thread about Epic6/Ry20.
Reading through the thread right now, there's a few people that are quite opposed to it. A large number, however, seem willing to give it a try, or even like the idea a lot. I think you're overreacting to the nay-sayers.

Zincorium
2007-06-30, 07:48 PM
To be honest, I don't really see what it is you're basing your question on. I'm only 21, but I started playing with an old copy of 1st ed, and I've followed the game through all it's evolution, so I am a bit of a grognard I guess.

What you may be seeing and misinterpreting is the concept that most posters who hang around here a lot tend to agree on: that RAW is the only common basis for discussion. People use houserules, I know I do, but they are seldom relevant to rules discussions.

For an example, say you don't have the ethereal plane in your campaigns, because it causes problems. Okay, house rule there, but it's a reasonable one.

However, say someone is asking for the easiest way to go ethereal. Quoting your house rule adds nothing to the conversation, and instead, we go by how etherealness works as per RAW unless stated otherwise.

Also, as far as the thread you were talking about, RAW had next to nothing to do with the hostility or whatever you were feeling, based on what I could see. What was proposed was an arbitrary restriction on leveling, and a lot of people didn't see that as a good house rule to make. Separation is required here, just because people dislike a specific change should not be taken to mean that all changes will be disliked.

Lastly, why would we intentionally decide not to talk about something that really forms the basis of the game (DM and player creativity, which is what house rules really are)?

Emperor Tippy
2007-06-30, 07:50 PM
Houseruling is generally ignored or not assumed to be in effect on these forums for one really simple reason: everyone plays with different houserules. The RAW is used as the accepted, communal basis for all questions that don't specifically talk about houserules on this forum.

Everyone knows that the RAW is filled with utter crap and makes absolutely no sense half the time, but it is the only common ground that our individual games have, so it is what we use.

Now in the case of the particular thread you mentioned, that has nothing to do with any like or dislike of houserules. It was an unoriginal solution to a problem that very few people experience and it inadvertently messes up both the flavor and mechanics of what is generally accepted to be D&D. To keep the feel of D&D with E6 you have to rebalance a very large number of monsters and effects.

As I mentioned in that thread. Take dragons. They are so ingrained in what is D&D that they are even in the title. D&D is a game where the band of 4 worthy heroes can go out and slay the dragon terrorizing countryside. Where the heroes can be like the Spartans and holdout against an army many times their size. It is a game where 4 guys go and sneak into the demon camp to assassinate the demon general.

The heroes in D&D are supposed to save the world and take on epic challenges. Their deeds are the basis of bards tales that are sung of long after their deaths.

Unless you vastly rebalance dragons a band of hearty adventurers will never take on the dragon terrorizing the countryside without you adding in a McGuffian or weakening the dragon to the point where the commoners don't need heroes to take it down. That Demon will laugh in the face of the heroes. The party will die in the first charge by the enemy army.

Now lets go with a level 15 party. A Dragon that terrorizes the countryside will be an overwhelming challenge for the party. Victory is not guaranteed but it is possible. The same with the Demon general. And a dozen 15th level fighters with terrain on their side can hold an army for days. A party of 4 adventurers can do the same.

D&D capping at 15th level can work and is infact a fairly good idea. D&D capping at 6th level is not D&D. Play Shadowrun if you want gritty.

asqwasqw
2007-06-30, 07:52 PM
I think most of the hostility to Houserules is because you don't discuss them here. You can make a character balanced with houserules, but what is the point of that in a discussion? You can say nobody dies in a houserule too. The point is, in a discussion, only RAW applies. If houserules are introduced, then what you are discussing has no meaning. A warrior is only weaker than a mage with RAW, with houserules anything applies.

SpiderBrigade
2007-06-30, 08:11 PM
I just thought I would pop back in and mention, if you want to delve into the reasoning why there's not a lot of houserule discussion, take a look at the "A somewhat complex question (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49145)" thread. What you can see there is one or two people insisting that their particular houserule is so superior, so logical, that anyone who doesn't use it is playing the game wrong.

Another point is that due to the complexity of the game system, pretty much any houserule is going to have far-reaching effects on balance, in ways that may not be immediately obvious. The discussion about whether these effects are good, bad, or neutral can get so involved that it can completely derail a thread which was originally about something else until someone brought up the housrule that they use.

So here's how I would describe this board's general reaction to houserule discussions: they're fine, as long as that's the point of the discussion. If someone wants to know how to make melee classes stronger, this is a great place to talk about houserules. I don't think anyone will object. But if the OP is asking for a "really good warlock build," it's almost entirely useless to bring up your personal houserule that gives warlocks d20 hit dice.

Matthew
2007-06-30, 08:37 PM
Yes, indeed. I think SpiderBrigade has hit the nail on the head there. People fall into the trap of defining D&D and then expecting everybody else to fall into their definition of what it 'really is'. Take, for instance, Tippy's definition above:


As I mentioned in that thread. Take dragons. They are so ingrained in what is D&D that they are even in the title. D&D is a game where the band of 4 worthy heroes can go out and slay the dragon terrorizing countryside. Where the heroes can be like the Spartans and holdout against an army many times their size. It is a game where 4 guys go and sneak into the demon camp to assassinate the demon general.

The heroes in D&D are supposed to save the world and take on epic challenges. Their deeds are the basis of bards tales that are sung of long after their deaths.

Now this may be a fair definition of the default Third Edition of this game, but I don't share this opinion. For me, this is just one way that D&D can be and mainly at high levels of play.

Now, I have been playing a fair length of time and I am not all that enthused about Third Edition (Some of it I like a lot, some of it I strongly dislike). However, I don't generally mess around with the RAW unless something is seriously out of balance (like Drowning Rules), because if I changed it to the way I wanted it to be, it would look exactly like my House Ruled (A)D&D Game, I would have to modify any purchased Adventures I wanted to run and I would be playing just one version of D&D (which I don't find desirable).

At the end of the day, Third Edition is somebody's (extensively) House Ruled version of (A)D&D, and it conforms to their ideas about D&D. It doesn't conform to my ideas about D&D, but it's fun to visit.

However, when it comes to discussing D20/Third Edition D&D we do so with the default Rules in mind. That is something of an oddity, because it's not always clear where to draw the line. Very often somebody turns up and says "Hey all, X, Y, Z" and the Forum responds, oh you should get Leap Attack and Shock Trooper, to which the Poster replies "?!", because he only has the PHB and doesn't know what the hell we're talking about.

Everything discussed here comes down to defining your terms. If you don't define your terms, people assume the discussion will be about what they think D&D is and how Official Wizards stuff interacts with that.

Probably good recent examples of why you need to define your terms would be the 'Making a believable Drizzt' or 'Analysing Aragorn' Threads. Any 'Alignment' Thread will pretty much demonstrate the same thing.

The E6 Thread is a good example of something that is going to excite negative commentry, because it essentially says "what do you think of this?" and as you have observed, a good chunk of the posters here don't like the idea very much on the basis that it doesn't conform to their ideas about D&D. Is that age related? More than likely, there is some element of that.

Emperor Tippy
2007-06-30, 08:56 PM
I would have to respond: What is D&D then?

It isn't gritty. The basic health and damage system sees to that, along with the prevalence of healing magic. Even at low levels it really isn't gritty.

It doesn't model social challenges that well. Look at the diplomacy rules for example.

It isn't realistic for the rules it has in any setting. Just look at what happens when you apply magic in a reasonable manner to the economy and war.

So what does D&D do fairly well? It models epic heroes and grand quests to save the world and all of that kind of stuff.

All of the mechanics hold up on the surface but if you really look you start getting problems. D&D models hack n' slash heroes on great epic tales fairly well. Because those epic heroes never bother with economics, or building armies, or political intrigue.

That is D&D without houseruling. I would venture to say that is the belief of what D&D is to most people.

Tallis
2007-06-30, 09:01 PM
I use lots of houserules. They come up quite a bit on the baords, so I assume a lot of other people do too.
RAW is just a common point of reference that everyone can discuss.
For the record I started playing with OD&D.

TheOOB
2007-06-30, 09:09 PM
People also tend to assume D&D games are going to be played as magical high fantasy because thats what the D&D rules represent. If you are going for gritty low magic low fantasy, for example, it makes more sense to play Mage: Sorcerer's Crusade then D&D.

Assuming a D&D game is going to have certain elements is common with most others is like assuming that a carpenter is going to use a hammer to pound in a nail. Sure you can use a screwdriver to do that, but a hammer is much much better at it with no modifications.

Matthew
2007-06-30, 09:13 PM
Well, you see, that is a valid way to look at it, but it's not the only way. Applying magic in a logical and reasonable way to economy and warfare goes against the grain of actual campaign worlds like Greyhawk, where it hasn't resulted in any such thing.

As I said, your definition of D&D may well apply to the common understanding of the Third Edition of the game, but that's not what I think of when I think of D&D. I think of it more like this:

http://www.geneticanomaly.com/RPG-Motivational/slides/victory.jpg

To be clear, I'm not talking about default D&D 3.5 RAW when I am talking about D&D, that's just one possibility.

Jack Mann
2007-06-30, 09:23 PM
D&D is however people play it, Tippy. If it works for them, and they enjoy it, then that's D&D. If it feels gritty to them without house rules, then it's gritty, no matter how it would feel to you. There is no right or wrong way to play D&D, so long as everyone involved has fun.

Also, here's RAW and You (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47350), the thread Spidey brought up.

TheOOB
2007-06-30, 09:28 PM
D&D is however people play it, Tippy. If it works for them, and they enjoy it, then that's D&D. If it feels gritty to them without house rules, then it's gritty, no matter how it would feel to you. There is no right or wrong way to play D&D, so long as everyone involved has fun.

Also, here's RAW and You (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=47350), the thread Spidey brought up.

Thats entirely true, but with with no frame of reference it's natural for people to make a number of assumptions.

Jack Mann
2007-06-30, 09:35 PM
True. I just object to the idea that someone is somehow playing it "wrong" because they get a different experience out of it. Some people just have an extremely low grit threshold. For them, anything above Toon levels will feel gritty to them.

How the rules work, mechanically, is a constant. The experience you get from playing by these rules is not, even if there are going to be similarities (largely enforced by setting and fluff).

Matthew
2007-06-30, 09:35 PM
Sure, which I think is what we were just saying. People make assumptions about what D&D is and they have their own definitions which may or may not gel with somebody elses' [i.e. Monks are Overpowered, Wizards suck, etc...].

The RAW is a frame of reference for default D&D 3.5, but it isn't a definition for D&D.

[Edit] Ninja'd by Jackmann, if I'm reading him right... (I think he put the point clearer)

Swordguy
2007-06-30, 09:58 PM
Whereas the design and ethic behind 3.x seems much more "this is carefully balanced, don't touch anything". I know even little changes can have unforeseen consequences if you haven't throught them through. Which I muse could be why people on this forum are much more reluctant to make sweeping changes, even when they're of the simplifying variety like E6 is. After all, cutting out two-thirds of the game or more does not make things more complex, only simpler.


There's an interesting and highly off-topic point I'd like to bring up regarding that. I have an uncle, Jon Pickens, who worked at TSR and WotC during the late 80's, 90's, and until just after 3.0 was released. I've asked him about play balance in 3.x several times, and he's got a great deal to say about it. The part of this that concerns us at this moment is this:

WOTC playtested D&D under their own preconcieved notions about what D&D should be. A fighter SHOULD run up and hit things. A cleric SHOULD stay in the back and heal, unless the fighter goes down, and a Wizard SHOULD primarily be a blaster. They did this because that's how they had been playing for years. The same thing happened with the DM: when the BBEG got run at by the fighter, who starting whaling on him with a sharp object, the BBEG did not immediately Dimension Door away and ignore the fighter - the DM ran the encounter in a particular style that predicated this from happening. The "balance" in D&D 3.x is only supposed to work when the players take on the party roles that the WotC playtesters assigned them. In short, if you don't play the game the way the playtesters did...it's not ever going to balance! They didn't playtest for Batman, or Pun-Pun, or CoDzilla. The ideas behind an arcane caster (and I quote uncle Jon on this) "Why would anyone NOT want to do lots of hitpoints of damage? That's what mages are for."

Play the paradigm that WotC developed, or don't. Just understand that if you don't, then the game isn't going to balance the way you think it should.

Emperor Tippy
2007-06-30, 10:02 PM
So WotC is made up of a bunch of idiots? It took 1 glance at the spell list to realize that you don't play a blaster if you want to make an optimal wizard.

Jack Mann
2007-06-30, 10:06 PM
Here's the problem with that notion. If they only intended wizards to be blasters, then why include so many other spells?

Matthew
2007-06-30, 10:07 PM
I took one look at the Spell list and realised that WotC was made up of a bunch of idiots... (only joking, it took more than one look)

[Edit] I think, JackMann, that most of the spells were direct carry overs from previous editions with some rewording. The fact that they exist may actually indicate that they were never play tested.

Kizara
2007-06-30, 10:26 PM
I took one look at the Spell list and realised that WotC was made up of a bunch of idiots... (only joking, it took more than one look)

[Edit] I think, JackMann, that most of the spells were direct carry overs from previous editions with some rewording. The fact that they exist may actually indicate that they were never play tested.

I'm sorry, I have nothing really constructive to say here beyond that this is one of the FUNNIEST posts I've read in a long time.

I guess I'm a sucker for subtle sarcasim.

Vyker
2007-06-30, 11:34 PM
Kiero, a lot of other folks have said it, but I feel that perhaps a "me too!" is in order here simply because you're trying to nail down a vague sense of numbers.

As others have said, houserules hold no place in a rules discussion with strangers who don't play at your table. The RAW, wonky as it is, is a common ground, a common language if you will, which we can all speak equally well (though our interpretations of that common language can still lead to hair-raising discussions).

If you're looking for why folks are so opposed to a single proposed houserule... well, maybe they don't like it. And, remember, you've got a whole forum waiting to object. Somebody isn't gonna like it.

As for myself specifically, I am one of those grognards, li'l Nappy's "Old Guard." I'll take any system and shake it 'til it breaks and then put it back together, but better. But that doesn't mean I'll like all houserules. Take that E6 vibe. To me, it seems pointless on [x] levels:
- It "solves" a problem you encounter only if you force it upon yourself.
- It's very simplicity makes sweeping changes without taking the appropriate counters to make those changes integrate with the things that have not been changed.
- It does not, with only the most miniscule of exceptions (restoration being th big one), change any classes, skills, or abilities to reflect the fact that they all just lost three quarters of their potential growth. Your fourth-level cleric looks no different than a RAW fourth-level cleric.
- It offers nothing to enhance low-level hijinks any more than normal D&D, rendering it fairly moot.

Now, I bring that up not to start up the E6 debate over here, but because I want to illustrate a point: Folks who like houserules can, in fact, dislike houserules. Moreover, they can be very specific as to why, because they're so used to spinning the rules this way or that. I, for example, understand why I dislike E6, and it's not because "RAW is teh r0xorzZ!1!!one!" It's for very clear, definable reasons, made all the more so through my experience with houserules. I can recognize what is, for me at least, a houserule that "works" versus one that "doesn't."

I don't think age has anything to do with it. I've known folks who started waaaaaaay back in the day who refuse to learn anything else or try anything new. I've known newbies who immediately want to tinker with the nuts and bolts of a system. I think it just varies from person to person.

Jayabalard
2007-06-30, 11:44 PM
So WotC is made up of a bunch of idiots?Yes, though they do have some marketing people who are fairly intelligent as marketing people go.

Swordguy
2007-07-01, 12:26 AM
I wouldn't say WotC was made of idiots. I'd say that they aren't optimizers. When I explained CoDzilla, Jon seriously couldn't believe that it A) got through playtesting, and B) that people who wanted to hit things weren't playing Fighters.

Again, optimizers are playing D&D using a different perceptual paradigm than the playtesters were. To say in in a way that will tick a LOT of people off, optimizers really are (by the playtesters definition) "Playing D&D wrong".

Think about it - why would evokers lose 3 other schools while the rest only lose 2? Because the playtesters played almost exclusively blasters, and so weighted blasting magic more heavily in the game balance department. (There's SEVERAL examples of this - such as the animated shield problem. It's designed for casters, not fighters. MANY of the ways people put things together and interpret rules over the internet never occurred to the designers, again due to the "why would you want to supplant another classes party role?" mindset.)

THEY JUST AREN'T PLAYING THE GAME THE WAY YOU ARE.




And to put this post back semi-on-topic, there's the desire to tinker, and there's the desire to houserule. As other people have said, the only common frame of reference is the RAW. That doesn't excuse the level of vehemence some people show toward anything that doesn't fit their paradigm of playing the game. Look at the "Metagaming" thread. Everyone has perfectly valid opinions - but some people HAVE to attack competing opinions in order to validate to themselves that what they're doing for their own game is "right".

Zincorium
2007-07-01, 01:41 AM
Sword guy, I realize we're off topic here, but I do find the discussion on playtester expectations interesting.

Personally, it seems like many of the things that go badly wrong in D&D are simply because people do not account for unintended combinations or later improvements from a different direction to the idea they are working on. Pun-Pun would not have existed to begin with if the person writing Serpent Kingdoms had described the process of creating creatures as something more akin to the 'wizard did it' monsters like the owlbear rather than writing it out.

An important step in the process of creating new stuff, for me, is 'what am I intending this for?' and then making sure that the intended recipient is the only one in a position to use it. I really don't mind when a PrC is set up specifically for something like a bard or paladin. But it's when something like that is balanced against a specific use (full bard spellcasting progression) and don't restrict it, it then easily becomes broken when using the casting progression of a wizard or, worse yet, sublime chord.


To put it into usable terms, if they wanted blasting to be the primary focus for wizards, why not reduce the effects of the save-or-suck spells on the wizard's list to begin with? If a cleric's role was to be the healer and backup melee, shouldn't they have limited them to that? That the other options are so much better, and that their utility has been noticed by a lot of people despite the books not really advertising it, makes any nominal balancing pointless. We all realize WotC can't test every combination, but restricting the possible combinations wouldn't be out of line.

Curmudgeon
2007-07-01, 01:44 AM
House rules are actually required. Have you noticed that firing a missile weapon as a standard action provokes Attacks of Opportunity, but firing the same missile weapon as a full attack action doesn't? According to the rules, full attacks never provoke AoOs. It's pretty obviously not what was intended, and I've only played in one group that followed that rule for missile weapons.

How about the spell Shatter? The power of this spell is entirely dependent on which definition of "solid" you choose. If you pick "not flexibile" then Shatter works appropriately for its low level. If you pick "neither liquid nor gas" then Shatter becomes an über-spell. Because there is no guidance from WotC, a house rule must be used.

When there's no confusion in the RAW, though, we get into different territory. "All cantrips are cast spontaneously" is a common convention to save bookkeeping time, but it's clearly against the rules. Some people like little changes of this sort, and others find them abominations. De gustibus non disputandum est. (Matters of personal preference can't be rationally debated.) That's probably why you've found little discussion along these lines on this board.

horseboy
2007-07-01, 02:36 AM
House rules are manditory. They're manditory because d20 is broken. I'm not talking broken, but profanity broke profanity broken. My friends got me to play it three times. Of the two characters that I made it took more effort for me to not make something broken than it did to break the system. Without house rules (and in several cases even WITH them) it's not so much a challenge, but a walk through.

Since we've stopped playing d20 we have yet to shout "OH NO HOLY BUFFALO!!" in a gaming session.

Cyborg Pirate
2007-07-01, 03:42 AM
I wouldn't say WotC was made of idiots. I'd say that they aren't optimizers. When I explained CoDzilla, Jon seriously couldn't believe that it A) got through playtesting, and B) that people who wanted to hit things weren't playing Fighters.

The highlighted part makes me say that it has nothing to do with optimization, and all to do with rigid inflexibility of the thinking process. Which I tend to group with "Idiots".

Seriously. It's just not smart to not think people could use other classes to hit things. Nothing to do with optimization, all to do with basic thinking.

Were-Sandwich
2007-07-01, 04:16 AM
Is that why Quarterstaffs are sucky in 3.5, because only Wizards were supposed to use them? [pet peeve]

Skjaldbakka
2007-07-01, 04:30 AM
Personally, I tend to spend a large amount of time customizing D&D to suit the campaign world I am running next. I think of the RAW as the framework, and build the actual rules so that everything makes sense in my campaign world. The E6 thing, for example, might work for the campaign I am running next, in which I want advancement past 6th level, but I want for large numbers of low level people to always be a threat. I think combining the E6 thing with a dual-class gestalt system would be interesting for that. (I'm a level 6 fighter, I think I'll learn magic- now I'm a lvl 6 fighter with one gestalt wizard level- Old School dual class style.

Kiero
2007-07-01, 04:35 AM
If you're looking for why folks are so opposed to a single proposed houserule... well, maybe they don't like it. And, remember, you've got a whole forum waiting to object. Somebody isn't gonna like it.


My issue wasn't that some people wouldn't like it. It was the fairly resounding view from some quarters that "this won't work" based on nothing more than their own personal preferences. Never mind that the guy who came up with it has played it many times and it does.

Or worse still "this isn't D&D" as if they have a monopoly on defining what you can and can't do with a system.

Tack122
2007-07-01, 04:45 AM
The highlighted part makes me say that it has nothing to do with optimization, and all to do with rigid inflexibility of the thinking process. Which I tend to group with "Idiots".

Seriously. It's just not smart to not think people could use other classes to hit things. Nothing to do with optimization, all to do with basic thinking.

Well if we want to get on the psychology of thinking, mental rigidity is a very very very common thing.
So be careful what you attribute towards being an idiot.
I would be willing to bet that in at least one place of thought you have a highly ingrained preconceived notion that would be hard for you to break out of.

lord_khaine
2007-07-01, 04:51 AM
to throw in my voice, i have nothing against houserules as long as they are aplied proberly, i just think that E6 thing suck to a degree where i wouldnt play in a game with it.

but i think the playtester discussion is a bit more interesting, if clerics were only suposed to hang back and heal, then why the heck does he have so many powerfull buffs that he can outdo the fighter?

Aquillion
2007-07-01, 06:31 AM
I have to ask the question because I was quite surprised by the level of resistance and even outright hostility in the thread about Epic6/Ry20 (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49106).Where are you getting this? Could you actually quote someone from that thread that says what you're claiming they say?

I see, at most, one person in that thread criticizing the idea of extensive houseruling; and even then, they're only critizing, specifically, what they term 'radical' houserules intended to completely turn the D&D system into something else. And, again, that is one person. If you're angry at Tengu, you should discuss it in private messages... I do not see a single other person in that thread who said even one word that could be, even remotely, interpreted as criticizing houserules in general.

I don't mean to be rude. It's understandable; it hurts to have something you like criticized. But there isn't any two ways about it; you're either badly confused, or simply making stuff up. What you are asking about simply is not there, so it is pointless for all these people to try and discuss it like this.

A lot of people there didn't like the specific set of house rules you brought up. Like I said, I understand that it hurts to have something you like criticized, but to come here and to ask why they're being so unreasonable by not accepting any houserules at all is unfair. They didn't like what you suggested. That's fair enough; you asked for their opinion and they gave it to you. There's no call to turn around and start complaining just because it wasn't the opinion you wanted to hear.

Matthew
2007-07-01, 08:53 AM
Is that why Quarterstaffs are sucky in 3.5, because only Wizards were supposed to use them? [pet peeve]
Eh? What's wrong with the Staff?

Pronounceable
2007-07-01, 09:58 AM
I also find this "playtester expectations" to be a fascinating topic.

As has been stated above, RAW is bullpoop. However, if we accept that DnD rules is actually "world saving heroics simulation system" (according to the game's own flavoral roots) and "playtester expectations" seem to stem from said "world-savey" flavor; I now see that RAW isn't, in fact, complete bullpoop. It's bullpoop in a general roleplaying sense, but is actually a quite player friendly and appropriate for a very certain (if narrow) playstyle.


Again, optimizers are playing D&D using a different perceptual paradigm than the playtesters were. To say in in a way that will tick a LOT of people off, optimizers really are (by the playtesters definition) "Playing D&D wrong".

This one needs to be repeated. Most people (esp optimizers) are, actually, "playing DnD wrong" by the gamemakers' standards. Mainly because game's main intended playstyle so excrutiatingly narrow.

So actually trying to play a "gritty" or "realistic" or "non violent" game with DnD RAW is somehat futile. Such a game REQUIRES extensive tweaking of the system to the point it becomes "not DnD".

(Non violent game. Heh heh...)


Now I'll try to get on-topicer: My take on houserules (dun dun DUNH). Actually, this is my take on RPGing.

DM/GM/ST/Referee wants to run a particular game. It will have a certain flavor or atmosphere. If that's "kick in the door, kill some green skinned humanoids with fangs then take their stuff" kind of game DnD will be fine. If the game is "political intrigue, with a pinch of backstabbing going on" kind of game, <insert system name here> will be much better.

Basically my generic sentence is: "<insert game description> kind of game requires <insert system name> kind of mechanics". Which means DMs should use mechanics appropriate to their game. Anyone can see DnD style HP and plentiful healing will destroy a WW2 game's atmosphere.

In an ideal game run by an ideal referee, game will have its own unique mechanics tweaked specifically to accomodate the feeling of the game.


But there are few people that can actually create a unique ruleset for every single game they run, IN ADDITION to the game itself. Anyone with a real life simply can't spend enought time and effort for that. So we take the short route and use an existing system like DnD/WW/what have you. But no system can handle everything that comes up, or please the DM in every instance. So there are houserules.

I started with ADnD. Then 3.0 came, which I ran for some time (with houserules of course) . But it kept pissing me off so I tweaked it till it became something else. It evolved through the years, taking bits from other systems I encountered, and now I have my very own unique game mechanics. They reflect my DMing tastes. Any game I run with my rules, I get much more fun than I had when I used DnD (players also get much fun also, though they tend to get TPKed). Fun is the single important reason anyway, so it's a win-win situation for me.


After all this, finally my take on houserules:
Any rule enforced by the DM is actually a houserule, whether it's from a preexisting game system (like RAW) or made up by the DM. The game is played "on the house" if you will, and DM is the house.

Which shows that I love defining things differently.

Vyker
2007-07-01, 10:25 AM
My issue wasn't that some people wouldn't like it. It was the fairly resounding view from some quarters that "this won't work" based on nothing more than their own personal preferences. Never mind that the guy who came up with it has played it many times and it does.

Okay. That's a fair clarification, so I'll try and narrow down my reply in on that.

The guy who made that system probably likes his system. It probably works for him. And that's probably why he likes it -- it works for him.

However, as with any houserule, what goes on at your table doesn't necessarily work at another. All the folks who don't like E6 are saying is that it won't work at their table. Nevermind that it "works" for the guy who made it. Whether it works for him or not has no bearing on whether my table will see this as a suitable alternative.

As one tangent in this thread (a very interesting one, too!) has shown, even the main rules were made with certain expectations of play that a lot of folks here blatantly ignore in favor of alternaties. An excellent question to ask yourself might be, "What expectations are being made regarding E6 by its creators and supporters that are not being made by others?" If you think it works, and I think it doesn't, obviously, somewhere along the line we must have some divergence in our thought process which leads us to different conclusions.

And that's fine. Heck, that's part of what keeps other games afloat. If everyone just wanted same ol' D&D, we'd never have Shadowrun or Pendragon or Exalted or any of those other most excellent games. So a little divergence on the subject is a very good thing indeed.

Draz74
2007-07-01, 04:10 PM
So WotC is made up of a bunch of idiots? It took 1 glance at the spell list to realize that you don't play a blaster if you want to make an optimal wizard.

You either are a savant who calculates large amounts of numbers in your head subconsciously, or you're exaggerating, or you had some kind of unusual "extra information" or strategy tips already in your head when you looked over the spell list.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm definitely a convert to the "Batman is way stronger than a blaster" line of demonstrations. But to most of us, the blaster spells look pretty nice when you first look over them. Consider:

- A lot of campaigns involve a LOT of encounters with mooks. Many DMs aren't creative enough to come up with anything better than swarms of orcs or goblins for some of their fights. This makes blasting, at least, reasonable, even if Batman would still be better.

- Most of us looked mainly at the low-level spells when we looked at the lists for the first time.

- Most of the save-or-suck spells that Batman loves so much do NOTHING on a successful save, especially the lower-level spells. ("Fort partial" and "Will partial" start showing up a lot more at higher levels.) On the other hand, blasting spells generally do at least half damage even on a successful save.

- Does that last point mean that blasting spells are better? Of course not, but the reason it doesn't mean that is two little principles that most of us didn't realize when we first looked at the 3.x spell lists:
(1) Evasion ...
(2) Successful saves are actually quite rare* ... however, this has to be demonstrated through some math. I sure wasn't convinced, the first time I read the spell list, that spells weren't automatically useless if they could be negated by a spell.

So that's why I have trouble believing that "blasting spells suck" was immediately apparent to anyone without some kind of serious study.



*Note that this is partially also because Batman-type wizards and other cheesy modern spellcasters generally pump their primary casting stat up to absurd levels. I think save-or-suck effects would be nicely toned down, at least a little, if people didn't use point buy and throw everything into their main casting stat. Remember that the game was mainly playtested on the Elite Array. Even a Gray Elf Wizard had only 20 Int by 7th level, if he'd been lucky enough to find a Headband of Intellect. Though I guess that still means Save DCs of 19 even with no Spell Focus, while his opponents have Base Save Bonuses of maybe +5 ... so the problem is still there, it's just 10% less of a problem than if the wizard started with a base Int of 18.

Swordguy
2007-07-01, 04:21 PM
Do people want another thread where we can discuss playtester intent? I had no idea people would be this interested...

Yuki Akuma
2007-07-01, 04:29 PM
Do people want another thread where we can discuss playtester intent? I had no idea people would be this interested...

I do! It's interesting... and completely derailing this thread.

Omnipotent_One
2007-07-01, 04:43 PM
I don't think houserules are taboo here, but i think over extensive ones are.

A houserule such as "you don't die from a natural one on a massive damage save" is okay, a houserule that eliminates all dice rolls from the game probably isn't.

Swordguy
2007-07-01, 05:01 PM
I do! It's interesting... and completely derailing this thread.

K. I'll put one up after my D&D game tonight.

Matthew
2007-07-01, 05:14 PM
Cool. I agree with Yuki.

Damionte
2007-07-01, 08:41 PM
House rules are actually required. Have you noticed that firing a missile weapon as a standard action provokes Attacks of Opportunity, but firing the same missile weapon as a full attack action doesn't? According to the rules, full attacks never provoke AoOs. It's pretty obviously not what was intended, and I've only played in one group that followed that rule for missile weapons.




What the boop are you talking about?

As for the original topic, isn't that kinda dead? The first dozen responses pretty much answered that question. The short being that aroudn here we split the forums into two distinct camps. Over here we mostly concern ourselves with RAW discussions and game theory. While down below we have an entire section devoted to pure houserule suggestions and discussion. The E6 thread is just in the wrong place. had it only been in the Houserules section it woudl have been warmly recieved.

Folks over here though are goign to rip it apart.

The new "what where the designers smoking" topic is a bit more itneresting.

Tor the Fallen
2007-07-02, 01:00 AM
Where are you getting this? Could you actually quote someone from that thread that says what you're claiming they say?

I see, at most, one person in that thread criticizing the idea of extensive houseruling; and even then, they're only critizing, specifically, what they term 'radical' houserules intended to completely turn the D&D system into something else. And, again, that is one person. If you're angry at Tengu, you should discuss it in private messages... I do not see a single other person in that thread who said even one word that could be, even remotely, interpreted as criticizing houserules in general.

I don't mean to be rude. It's understandable; it hurts to have something you like criticized. But there isn't any two ways about it; you're either badly confused, or simply making stuff up. What you are asking about simply is not there, so it is pointless for all these people to try and discuss it like this.

A lot of people there didn't like the specific set of house rules you brought up. Like I said, I understand that it hurts to have something you like criticized, but to come here and to ask why they're being so unreasonable by not accepting any houserules at all is unfair. They didn't like what you suggested. That's fair enough; you asked for their opinion and they gave it to you. There's no call to turn around and start complaining just because it wasn't the opinion you wanted to hear.

Aqullion, you may not realize it, but this post is rather hostile and rude. You set an accusatory tone, and try to water it down with condescension.

I believe it was precisely this sort of tone that the OP was referring to in his thread, not necessarily what was said, but how it was said.

Of course, with the sorts of people, myself included, who frequent internet forums about D&D, a degree of passive aggressive hostility is practically guaranteed.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-07-02, 09:04 AM
Speaking personally, I actually *do* dislike houserules.

If a game claims to do something, and it doesn't, then that game is badly designed and I don't want to waste my time fixing it.

If a game doesn't claim to do something, then I won't try and make it do it.

My experience with houserules it that they lead to ever increasing layers of complexity, that bring the game iteratively closer to the experience I actually want, without ever actually giving it to me.

These days I find it much easier to just play the game as written or homebrew something from the ground up.

Matthew
2007-07-02, 09:13 AM
Heh, and that's a common feeling about RPGs these days. Possibly because there is now so much choice as to what 'bought game' you want to play. It's always going to be at odds with the design philosophy of (A)D&D, which essentially assumed people would use House Rules because everyone has different tastes.

It is the same thing with Campaign Settings. You can search for the 'perfect one', you can modify somebody elses or you can make your own. Three degrees of complexity and effort.

Personally, I like to do all three things, but seperately.

Curmudgeon
2007-07-02, 07:06 PM
According to the rules, full attacks never provoke AoOs.
What the boop are you talking about? I'm talking about something in the rules that pretty much everyone ignores. The proviso that ranged attacks provoke AoOs is only stated in the Combat chapter in the section detailing Standard Actions. Table 8-2: Actions in Combat lists the standard action of "Attack (ranged)" as provoking, but the full-round action "Full Attack" as not provoking. There's no mention at all in the text about full-round actions that ranged full attacks provoke Attacks of Opportunity.

By the RAW, if you're right in someone's face and attack them with a bowshot, once, you'd provoke an attack in response. But if you attack them three times with the same weapon there's no opportunistic attack possible.

Check for yourself (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#standardActions). It's almost certainly not what they intended, but it is what they wrote.

Matthew
2007-07-02, 07:32 PM
An interesting observation. It's not as clear as it could be, but a Full Round Attack takes place in two stages. First you make an Attack Action, followed by a conversion to a Full Round Attack. You could argue that you can make a Full attack without reference to the Attack Action, but I don't know how RAW either is.

Maybe you should bring it up in the Simple RAW Questions and Answers Thread.

Damionte
2007-07-02, 07:44 PM
I'm talking about something in the rules that pretty much everyone ignores. The proviso that ranged attacks provoke AoOs is only stated in the Combat chapter in the section detailing Standard Actions. Table 8-2: Actions in Combat lists the standard action of "Attack (ranged)" as provoking, but the full-round action "Full Attack" as not provoking. There's no mention at all in the text about full-round actions that ranged full attacks provoke Attacks of Opportunity.

By the RAW, if you're right in someone's face and attack them with a bowshot, once, you'd provoke an attack in response. But if you attack them three times with the same weapon there's no opportunistic attack possible.

Check for yourself (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#standardActions). It's almost certainly not what they intended, but it is what they wrote.


Text Trumps table dude. I'm not going to derail the topic by reading it all out for you. Go back and re-read the PHB. The attacks that replace a standard melee attack action, examples (Ranged Attacks, Special Attacks like grapple, or trip, or bull rush.) have thier own modifiers penalties and attack of opportunity rules. You default to those rules when substituting them for standard melee attacks even during a full round attack action.

It's in the text. Go back and re-read it again.

Now I do understand the point your were initially trying to make.... you just used a bad example is all.

LotharBot
2007-07-02, 07:49 PM
As to the question of houserules being taboo:

It's most certainly OK to discuss houserules here, and for the most part, if you're up front about the fact that you are suggesting houserules, you'll get positive responses. There are even certain common houserules that are generally assumed -- monks being proficient with unarmed strikes, ranged full attacks provoking AoO's, etc. But since not everyone agrees on all houserules, it's good to point out when you're talking about them.

Trouble tends to start when someone brings up a houserule without specifically saying "this is a houserule I like" or otherwise marking it as a houserule, and then someone else points out that it's not RAW, and seeing this, someone else insists on imposing RAW-as-common-ground on the discussion. Then we get 3 pages of arguing about whether RAW-as-common-ground is good, bad, or indifferent, and whether it's valid to discuss houserules, and the original question gets completely lost.

All that is to say: houserules are OK, but make sure to say "houserules" somewhere in the discussion.

Matthew
2007-07-02, 07:51 PM
I don't think that's in the SRD, though, is it Damionte? At least, I cannot find it. Could you point me in the direction if it's there? Otherwise, i assume it says so more explicitly in the 3.5 PHB (mine is 3.0).

Curmudgeon
2007-07-02, 08:07 PM
Text Trumps table dude. I'm not going to derail the topic by reading it all out for you.
...
It's in the text. Go back and re-read it again. You'll have to spell it out for me, because your argument about special attacks has nada to do with full attacks using ranged weapons. I've read both the PH and the SRD, and can't find any text that contradicts the table.

A bare statement that "it's in the text" with no reference implies that you don't have anything to refer to but your memory, and may therefore be mistaken.

Damionte
2007-07-02, 08:11 PM
Yeah Matt I'm going off 3.5 books. if you're relying on the SRD and the 3.0 PHB it's understandable that some... well that "more" things may not seem right.

for the original topic here's one of our house rules. though we don't actually consider it a house rule per se. In our games SRD & 3.0 books are not viable sources for anything. anything taken from either of those two sources must be approved first. So if a write up can be interpreted a different way betqween the PHB and the SRD, the PHB trumps SRD.

Some would consider that a house rule.

Gralamin
2007-07-02, 08:15 PM
Yeah Matt I'm going off 3.5 books. if you're relying on the SRD and the 3.0 PHB it's understandable that some... well that "more" things may not seem right.

for the original topic here's one of our house rules. though we don't actually consider it a house rule per se. In our games SRD & 3.0 books are not viable sources for anything. anything taken from either of those two sources must be approved first. So if a write up can be interpreted a different way betqween the PHB and the SRD, the PHB trumps SRD.

Some would consider that a house rule.

Do you have all Errata? Because if you don't your system is very flawed.

Curmudgeon
2007-07-02, 08:50 PM
In our games SRD & 3.0 books are not viable sources for anything.

Some would consider that a house rule. That's definitely true, as page 4 of the DMG explicitly states that 3.0 material is compatible "with only minor adjustments".

Diggorian
2007-07-02, 09:01 PM
Just added the Ranged full attack provoking houserule to my set. Good catch, Curmudgeon. Not even the FAQ mentioned it. :smallannoyed:

On topic, as mentioned, talking houserules here in this particular forum isnt helpful -- that's what the other forum is for.

I've houseruled every single game I've ever run. A decent set of RAW to me are guidelines, with conservative tweaking they can be tailored to the game I need for the story I wana tell.