el-remmen
Moderator Emeritus
Forked from: Fudging the Numbers in 3ed - Forked from: Why do you keep playing 4e?
In the thread I forked this from the discussion was regarding the ease or lack thereof of "winging it" or taking short cuts in preping monsters/NPCs in 3.xE.
In that thread there were comments like:
I replied at one point:
And so that is what this thread discussion is meant to be about: Making mistakes.
I know for my own part I have made tons of mistakes as DM, both under and overestimating challenges, or forgetting some fidgety bit of ability a monster has that would have made a difference, etc. . . Where does this worry of completely derailing and unbalancing the game with one encounter come from? While I am not a die-fudger, if I noted an encounter going horribly wrong because of my mistake, then I would fix it on the fly - or if it did not threaten to kill all the PCs, then I would just make a note to be more careful next time.
As I said in my response, GMing mistakes are the key to becoming a better DM and DMs of all levels of experience make mistakes. It seems a shame to be so risk averse to let the short-comings of a ruleset box you in.
Since 3E came out in 2000 I never hesitated to start mucking around with the rules. Did I make some mistakes based on limited understanding of the ruleset? Sure! Did I make more changes as time went on? Of course! Heck, 3.5 can be seen as an attempt by WotC to correct some of their own "mistakes", as can Pathfinder and Monte's Books of Experimental Might.
There are still problematic houserules and creatures that I use, but if and when they threaten to derail things, well I'll fix them then and be a better GM for it, because I will have a new understanding of the ruleset. . .
So let's hear it for mistakes! Don't be afraid. Embrace your fallability!
It might also be that I am a flavor-first guy. . Flavor consistency is more important to me (MUCH MORE) than rule-consistency. . . Rules change and are never "complete" - on the other hand, I want to be able to feel like I am really playing in the Realms (for example) regardless of what edition of D&D I am playing.
In the thread I forked this from the discussion was regarding the ease or lack thereof of "winging it" or taking short cuts in preping monsters/NPCs in 3.xE.
In that thread there were comments like:
Still, with 3e, everytime I wanted to fudge the numbers, I was afraid of the "ripple" effect. For example, I want to change an NPCs Intelligence from 16 to 18. That +1 bonus "ripples" across skills, feats, certain powers, spells, etc. It takes time to adjust everything. Time I could be spent designing the adventure.
I basically feel like I don't understand the math enough to fudge in 3E.
I find this to be my problem with monster modification/creation in 3.5. I don't have a good idea what stats or powers a CR X monster should have. The monster building process as given in the MM in 3.5 proceeds with monster type/class -> HD/level -> feats -> skills -> spells/special abilities -> items etc. CR is only assigned at the end by comparing your creation with other monsters in the MM, and if the resulting CR is not what you want, then you have to go back and make more modifications. This seems really backwards to me.
I replied at one point:
el-remmen said:People are always too worried about making some mistake with broader consequences. . . So what? Mistakes are how we become better GMs. . .
And so that is what this thread discussion is meant to be about: Making mistakes.
I know for my own part I have made tons of mistakes as DM, both under and overestimating challenges, or forgetting some fidgety bit of ability a monster has that would have made a difference, etc. . . Where does this worry of completely derailing and unbalancing the game with one encounter come from? While I am not a die-fudger, if I noted an encounter going horribly wrong because of my mistake, then I would fix it on the fly - or if it did not threaten to kill all the PCs, then I would just make a note to be more careful next time.
As I said in my response, GMing mistakes are the key to becoming a better DM and DMs of all levels of experience make mistakes. It seems a shame to be so risk averse to let the short-comings of a ruleset box you in.
Since 3E came out in 2000 I never hesitated to start mucking around with the rules. Did I make some mistakes based on limited understanding of the ruleset? Sure! Did I make more changes as time went on? Of course! Heck, 3.5 can be seen as an attempt by WotC to correct some of their own "mistakes", as can Pathfinder and Monte's Books of Experimental Might.
There are still problematic houserules and creatures that I use, but if and when they threaten to derail things, well I'll fix them then and be a better GM for it, because I will have a new understanding of the ruleset. . .
So let's hear it for mistakes! Don't be afraid. Embrace your fallability!
It might also be that I am a flavor-first guy. . Flavor consistency is more important to me (MUCH MORE) than rule-consistency. . . Rules change and are never "complete" - on the other hand, I want to be able to feel like I am really playing in the Realms (for example) regardless of what edition of D&D I am playing.