[Ari Marmell's blog] To House Rule or Not to House Rule

[pemerton]

More and more, my solution to mechanical issues in the rules is to take advantage of 4E's exception-based design to make the problem moot. For instance, I hate the magic item daily power system; I think it's clunky and way too complicated. My first impulse was to work out a house rule that simplifies the way those powers work. For my next campaign, though, I'm going to address the problem simply by throwing out the existing magic item list, using inherent bonuses, and handing out only homebrewed items which don't have daily powers.

Nice point. My players have different levels of tolerance for tracking daily item use, and I make sure that their PCs find useful items that reflect these differences. Is that another house rule?

 

[pemerton]

I found it very hard to eliminate prestige classes in 3.0/3.5 even if I wanted to. Player's focused on them and it seemed to annoy people all out of proportion when you removed a beloved prestige class.

I haven't had this problem. I am very upfront. I am running the game in a setting. Here are the races and their culture(s). In the description of each culture is a list of known prcs. If a prc is not listed, it either does not exist or it is a secret organization that must be discovered in play.

I don't think that Votan (and Raven Crowking in his comment upthread) were suggesting that removing prestige classes is hard at the conceptual level. Rather, I think they're saying that, from the player's point of view, prestige classes are a big part of the 3E play experience, so that if you try the sorts of things you suggest (roleplaying restrictions, setting restrictions etc) the upshot will tend to be disgruntled players.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I think this is a very good point. I want to respond to it in two ways.

First, I think in general that 4e is a game that rewards pre-prep of encounters. At least for me, it's easier to map out combat locations with interesting terrain in advance rather than on the spot. Similarly, it's easier for me to prepare an interesting skill challenge in advance rather than on the spot.

I don't dictate to my players what encounters they will have and what their nature will be - rather, I rely on my intuition as to these things. Sometimes I'm wrong, and have to work stuff out on the fly.

I think the DMG2 discussion of secondary skills for skill challenges has helped me a bit with this, because it gives a better range of ideas about what secondary skills can do, and so has helped me make on-the-fly judgements about how I should mechanically interpret a player's description of their PC's actions in a non-combat encounter (eg are they trying to undo a previous PC's mistake? if so, then it's a secondary check to try and negate a failure).

I don't think that 4e is any worse in this respect than any fairly crunchy RPG, but I could be wrong. Anyway, this is the first time I've really seen someone point to an aspect of 4e that has the potential to push in a railroady direction.

Second, I think it is possible to place pre-prepped encounters in such a way that the prep makes it easier to run the encounter, but the prep is useful regardless of the goal at which the players aim. So a list of likely avenues of social interaction with an NPC, together with DCs, can be useful prep even if it's not clear whether the players will want to treat that enemy as an ally or an enemy. I admit that if they decide to start a fight then all that work is wasted (this is a consequence of 4e having two such different resolution systems), but maybe some of it can be recycled the same way you might recycle a location if the PCs end up having a picnic with the orcs rather than fighting them.

What I usually do (using any system) for regular campaign play is organize prep into categories:

Locations
NPC's/Monsters
Events

I try and work on these independent of each other. If there is a location that is a likely spot for combat then I will note the relevant details about the area.

NPC's have statblocks which contain combat and non-combat
information (skills, motivations, personal details). The amount of detail depends on the importance and influence of the NPC. A shopkeeper might just have line about personality, skills, and share a combat block identical
to dozens of other NPC's of this type (listing it just once to save space). A major player in the area would get a full statblock and more notes about goals/motivations.

Events are either triggered by PC activity or set in motion by an outside force ( an NPC, nature, a deity, etc). Some of these will happen at particular times, some might happen without intervention, and others will only happen if the players take specific actions.
Each element has obvious influence on the others and they combine in various ways but I try and avoid stringing too many together combined with the presence of the PC's. I like to let the players decide what is
important to focus on. Whatever they decide becomes the center of the action. This is why it is difficult to design meaningful skill challenges.

Using my prep method, if a pursuit begins then the relevant info is at hand. I have info about the environment, the NPC(s) involved, and any events taking place in that area at that time. Detailing an elaborate chase challenge that may or may not happen in that particular place or time seems like wasted work.

The structured scene based design that 4E is designed around is (IMHO) more suited for convention/organized play than open ended home campaigning.

 

[Scribble]

I don't think that Votan (and Raven Crowking in his comment upthread) were suggesting that removing prestige classes is hard at the conceptual level. Rather, I think they're saying that, from the player's point of view, prestige classes are a big part of the 3E play experience, so that if you try the sorts of things you suggest (roleplaying restrictions, setting restrictions etc) the upshot will tend to be disgruntled players.

I think things like this are the reason 4e lacks any "overpowered but at the discretion of the DM" elements. They just end up being DM traps.

The DM has to decide if he wants to accept throwing the math off, or look like a jerk.

 

[Imaro]

I think things like this are the reason 4e lacks any "overpowered but at the discretion of the DM" elements. They just end up being DM traps.

The DM has to decide if he wants to accept throwing the math off, or look like a jerk.

Hmmm, not for DM's who have players that trust them... which has always made me wonder, why play under a DM you don't trust?

 

[Rechan]

which has always made me wonder, why play under a DM you don't trust?

Because some of us don't play with the same group all the time.

I can count on my hand the number of times I've had the same group for more than one campaign.

And if you've never played with this DM, or even know him, then you're not going to just instantly trust him.

 

[Scribble]

Hmmm, not for DM's who have players that trust them... which has always made me wonder, why play under a DM you don't trust?

Sure- my apologies if I didn't make it clear that my statement didn't apply to everyone in all situations. (I kind of figured it was assumed.)

The point is though that WoTC seems to have learned that it can't release rules just for groups where the players always "trust" the DM is always correct. (Especially when it means giving up something cool.)

And it's not always a trust thing. It's just the nature of people wanting something cool and being upset because it's not available.

Why make the DM have to weigh the cost vrs benefit with various rules elements?

It seems they decided to always keep things balanced, and appropriate for all campaigns then let individual DMs who can do so, choose to add in their own crazy elements dependent upon the nature of their own games.

 

[Imaro]

Because some of us don't play with the same group all the time.

I can count on my hand the number of times I've had the same group for more than one campaign.

And if you've never played with this DM, or even know him, then you're not going to just instantly trust him.

To run the game? Why not? I figure, if you're taking the time to run the game and have invited me to play with you... then I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt. I mean what's the worse that can happen... I realize this DM isn't right for me?

 

[Imaro]

Sure- my apologies if I didn't make it clear that my statement didn't apply to everyone in all situations. (I kind of figured it was assumed.)

The point is though that WoTC seems to have learned that it can't release rules just for groups where the players always "trust" the DM is always correct. (Especially when it means giving up something cool.)

And it's not always a trust thing. It's just the nature of people wanting something cool and being upset because it's not available.

Why make the DM have to weigh the cost vrs benefit with various rules elements?

It seems they decided to always keep things balanced, and appropriate for all campaigns then let individual DMs who can do so, choose to add in their own crazy elements dependent upon the nature of their own games.

Emphasis Mine: I guess my question would be... Why take that option away from DM's who want it? It doesn't have to be core, but a book like Unearthed Arcana of clearly labeled optional rules and variants for the game with sidebars about effects would be a great supplement for 4e...IMO of course.

 

[Rechan]

To run the game? Why not? I figure, if you're taking the time to run the game and have invited me to play with you... then I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt. I mean what's the worse that can happen... I realize this DM isn't right for me?

But that's not trust. Trust is the belief that the DM has your best interests at heart. That he's not going to screw you over or abuse his power. Trust is built.

I once sat under a DM that made you justify every single one of your class abilities, and was going to weedle them away for various reasons (for instance giving the druid a hard time over the fact he gets an animal companion). However, this Dm was a "friend".

There's more than just "This Dm isn't right for me". There's frustration and wasting time. People take offense to stuff like this.