Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
What makes us care about combat balance in D&D?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Diamondeye" data-source="post: 6660565" data-attributes="member: 60019"><p>Necessarily. That's the point of rule 0. To change things. That does not change the perception from the character perspective - they aren't aware of the out-of-game interactions. To them it's always been that way.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>All systems always have rule 0. Even if they have no DM. Rule 0 is called rule 0 because its unalterable. The people at the table can alter the system however they want; the RPG police will not show up to arrest them. It does not need to be stated because it's present in literally every game. Putting tax money under Free Parking in monopoly is rule 0. You can change the way pieces move in your home chess game if you want. Period. There is no room for argument on this.</p><p></p><p>Computer games actually even have it; we call them "patches", "mods" or "expansions".</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So what? As long as this is not done mid-campaign without good reason, who cares? This is not important; it's a complaint about a <em>specific use</em> of rule 0, not the concept.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Unfortunately, that house rule is a specific application of rule 0. You described no meaningful difference whatsoever beyond an imaginary line in your head between "uses I'm ok with" and "ones I'm not".</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So what? Games are designed for adaptation in that way. What's an issue of game design that needs fixing in one campaign is not such an issue in another.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The preferences of that group are not a reason why game companies should design a game in a certain way. Furthermore, other groups and their preferences are not at my table so I'm certainly not winnowing it down at all, nor causing any social problems. Social problems at game tables arises from different preferences within a particular group, or else people that simply don't play well with others.</p><p></p><p>Games as designed, however, do not need to stay within a strict set of mechanical limits to ensure all characters are equally useful in and out of combat, nor strictly avoid any need for adaptation to specific groups or campaigns. If a system is unplayable by a group that is not because it's "broken" it's because it doesn't suit that group and can't be made to suit it without excessive amounts of work compared to the amount that group is willing to do on altering it. A system is only truly "broken" when it is so unsuitable in general that it cannot succeed commercially. Some people's allergy to any DM-driven alterations to the rules, or need to rules-lawyer the system into being a total mess because they take issue with certain aspects of it are not system problems; they're rules-lawyer problems.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Except for the fact that it doesn't do that at all. You are assuming that Rule 0 uses are limited only to poor uses of rule 0. rule 0 is best used for rulings A) in advance of game start B) to resolve situations unclear or not addressed at all or C)</p><p></p><p>Furthermore, WotC's "types of players" is at best an informal analysis, not a rigorous psychological study. Players rarely fit firmly into just one of those categories, and are complex human beings, not merely a WotC player category. Players are compelx, and more often than not, intelligent people. If a midstream change is needed, the proper thing to do is discuss it with the affected player or the whole group as appropriate and solicit ideas for change.</p><p></p><p>It isn't a problem with Rule 0 when this isn't done; it's poor leadership by the DM in a peer leadership environment. This is not a system problem any more than a killer encounter or boring storyline is a system problem.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Diamondeye, post: 6660565, member: 60019"] Necessarily. That's the point of rule 0. To change things. That does not change the perception from the character perspective - they aren't aware of the out-of-game interactions. To them it's always been that way. All systems always have rule 0. Even if they have no DM. Rule 0 is called rule 0 because its unalterable. The people at the table can alter the system however they want; the RPG police will not show up to arrest them. It does not need to be stated because it's present in literally every game. Putting tax money under Free Parking in monopoly is rule 0. You can change the way pieces move in your home chess game if you want. Period. There is no room for argument on this. Computer games actually even have it; we call them "patches", "mods" or "expansions". So what? As long as this is not done mid-campaign without good reason, who cares? This is not important; it's a complaint about a [I]specific use[/I] of rule 0, not the concept. Unfortunately, that house rule is a specific application of rule 0. You described no meaningful difference whatsoever beyond an imaginary line in your head between "uses I'm ok with" and "ones I'm not". So what? Games are designed for adaptation in that way. What's an issue of game design that needs fixing in one campaign is not such an issue in another. The preferences of that group are not a reason why game companies should design a game in a certain way. Furthermore, other groups and their preferences are not at my table so I'm certainly not winnowing it down at all, nor causing any social problems. Social problems at game tables arises from different preferences within a particular group, or else people that simply don't play well with others. Games as designed, however, do not need to stay within a strict set of mechanical limits to ensure all characters are equally useful in and out of combat, nor strictly avoid any need for adaptation to specific groups or campaigns. If a system is unplayable by a group that is not because it's "broken" it's because it doesn't suit that group and can't be made to suit it without excessive amounts of work compared to the amount that group is willing to do on altering it. A system is only truly "broken" when it is so unsuitable in general that it cannot succeed commercially. Some people's allergy to any DM-driven alterations to the rules, or need to rules-lawyer the system into being a total mess because they take issue with certain aspects of it are not system problems; they're rules-lawyer problems. Except for the fact that it doesn't do that at all. You are assuming that Rule 0 uses are limited only to poor uses of rule 0. rule 0 is best used for rulings A) in advance of game start B) to resolve situations unclear or not addressed at all or C) Furthermore, WotC's "types of players" is at best an informal analysis, not a rigorous psychological study. Players rarely fit firmly into just one of those categories, and are complex human beings, not merely a WotC player category. Players are compelx, and more often than not, intelligent people. If a midstream change is needed, the proper thing to do is discuss it with the affected player or the whole group as appropriate and solicit ideas for change. It isn't a problem with Rule 0 when this isn't done; it's poor leadership by the DM in a peer leadership environment. This is not a system problem any more than a killer encounter or boring storyline is a system problem. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
What makes us care about combat balance in D&D?
Top