• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

The Problem with 21st century D&D (and a solution! Sort of)

I don't buy it. I houseruled the crud out of my 3e game and didn't spend hours (or even minutes) agonizing over how each rules tweak was going to affect the balance of the game. Our games never exploded or left a wake of dead bodies in the FLGS. :)

I certainly houseruled a bit too, but I think there is a true point that's being made and Plane Sailing's description of it is catching on to it. Whether everyone agrees or not, 3e is widely perceived as a more tightly knit rules structure across its subsystems that a lot of people on these very boards have said is a lot harder to houserule than previous editions where you were more often houseruling isolated subsystems. I didn't entirely agree with them but I can easily see where the perception comes from.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I certainly houseruled a bit too, but I think there is a true point that's being made and Plane Sailing's description of it is catching on to it. Whether everyone agrees or not, 3e is widely perceived as a more tightly knit rules structure across its subsystems that a lot of people on these very boards have said is a lot harder to houserule than previous editions where you were more often houseruling isolated subsystems. I didn't entirely agree with them but I can easily see where the perception comes from.

We had some house rules in 3.5E, but not a ton of them (i.e., death at -10, plus or minus your CON modifier)

however, in 2E, my old DM had an entire 3 ring binder dedicated to house rules. Despite that, 1E/2E generally ran faster.
 

Cohesion and coupling are still used in software design. But I'll disagree with Plane Sailing that early D&D comes out looking quite that good in comparison to later D&D, on those terms.

Take 1E, for example. It is lightly-coupled in one respect. You can drop and add spells, pull out some of the optional rules, etc. The whole thing will more or less hang together. On the other hand, you do have effects that have serious consequences. Take away appropriate magic items, and watch the party run away from more and more monsters. We don't typically think of that as a coupling issue, because we see the effect so easily. One might easily respond to that argument, "Well, if you unplug the toaster, it won't work, either." That's true, but also doesn't change the fact that if your power goes out, you won't be toasting bread. (And things like generators that get around this are their own complications, and only made possible because the power supply in a house is a lot more cohesive than any roleplaying system.)

Or in software terms, early D&D is lightly coupled, but it is not robust. Or rather, is is robust in select (and very useful) ways, but not in others that people have nevertheless tried. later D&D is more ambitious, and thus the modules and coupling between them involves tradeoffs in order to stay robust over a wider scope of activity.

It's like a folder with paper versus a word processing program. Those of you as old as me probably remember how long it took MS Word, Word Perfect, etc. to become as reliable as a typewriter, never mind a notebook and pencil. (Net reliable, over the scope of work.) Like 1E, paper in a spiral notebook is modular and loosely coupled (literally), and robust in its own way. You can take it on the bus, and it doesn't matter if you you lose your internet connection, for example. All the parts are readily understandable to everyone. If you take the sixth page out and move it to the back, the consequences, if any, will probably be obvious to you. But backups are difficult, search is tedius, and so on. It doesn't easily scale to handle many issues.

Later D&D, in contrast, is more limited in one respect, like a MS Word 2007. If you don't use styles the way it expects, it will actively fight you as documents get more complex. You are dependent on outside things that most people don't understand fully, such as having a working computer on which to run it. The program, not D&D. But note already how being able to use a program with 4E is curbing the ability to use 4E without it, even though 4E is perfectly playable without any software whatsoever. And let's not even get into how spell check programs turn people into worse editors than they otherwise would be. Yet note how much more easily it was to turn base 4E into Dark Sun 4E, than earlier. The system was robust in the face expected changes within its more ambitious scope.

Pencils are simple, but very complex (in the OP's terms). There is not a single person on the planet that can make a #2 pencil, from start to finish. Yet the "user interface" on a pencil is perfected. Part of the problem with 21st century D&D is that the user interface has not caught up with the ambitious scope. The coupling and design of D&D is way ahead of the presentation. And really, it always has been. It is merely that with earlier versions, the scope was narrow enough that one could encompass the design, warts and all, relatively easily.
 


The problem with 21st century D&D is that so many players still have a 20th centurty mindset. Guess what? It will never be the same again. It never is.

You must spread some Experience Points around before giving it to pawsplay again.

I think that is the gist of a lot of it.
 

Funny, I've seen people pick up 4e who haven't roleplayed before, and this was back at 4e's launch. Sure, they may not have been playing it 100% "correct," but they were having fun.

Roll a D20. Add modifier. Ask the DM if whatever you were trying to do succeeded. That's the jist of 21st century D&D (plus Pathfinder). Everything else is modular. Sure, 4e gets tricky when keeping track of conditions from round-to-round, and 3.5's Turn Undead mechanic doesn't make any sense. But alternate Magic systems are plentiful in 3.5 if you know where to look (Tome of Magic, Book of 9 Swords, Unearthed Arcana - and that's just WotC). 4e modular nature is one of the biggest complaints about it.
 

I certainly houseruled a bit too, but I think there is a true point that's being made and Plane Sailing's description of it is catching on to it. Whether everyone agrees or not, 3e is widely perceived as a more tightly knit rules structure across its subsystems that a lot of people on these very boards have said is a lot harder to houserule than previous editions where you were more often houseruling isolated subsystems. I didn't entirely agree with them but I can easily see where the perception comes from.
No set of game rules has ever been MORE widely houseruled than the 3e D&D ones. There was a whole cottage industry of third party publishers doing exactly that after the OGL/SRD was released. We got versions of the base rules with huge, sweeping changes (Conan RPG, Mutants & Masterminds, Castles & Crusades, D20 Call of Cthulhu, etc. etc. etc.) most of which worked very well or at least reasonably well. And most of the problems with D20-based game design were less the fault of the base system being too complex than they were the fault of the game designers just making poor game choices.

I think 3e was "widely perceived" as being difficult to houserule by exactly two, fairly small, groups of people; the first being people who didn't like the game and wanted something to complain about, the other being people who are uncomfortable with the concept of houseruling in the first place. In other words, not so "widely" at all.
 

All versions of D&D have elements that are extremely easy to house rules and other elements that are much more difficult. The easy lists and difficult lists are not the same across all editions, however. And I'm not even saying that the lists are the same lengths across editions. But if a random DM planning to house rule D&D wants to know how hard or easy it will be, my first question is, "What do you want to change, and which edition is your base?"
 

I think 3e was "widely perceived" as being difficult to houserule by exactly two, fairly small, groups of people; the first being people who didn't like the game and wanted something to complain about, the other being people who are uncomfortable with the concept of houseruling in the first place. In other words, not so "widely" at all.


I don't know how much weight you are putting on your 'widely perceived', but I certainly don't fit into either of those categories. I'd had years of houseruling D&D and pretty much every other RPG under the sun in the 70's and 80's; loved it and always haved.

Also loved 3e.

However, the integrated nature of 3e made some kinds of houseruling more difficult than in earlier editions. Not impossible, but more difficult because there were more mechanical knock-on effects. Ironically, there were some implicit design factors in original 3.0e which were not spelt out as such and so got overlooked by some splatbook designers, opening the say to some of the, uh, less balanced additions to the 3e canon. But I digress.

I would point out two other things though - third party products produced under the OGL are not 'house rules', they are third party products.

The other thing is that it is better not to denigrate people who have a different opinion about things to do (which you are doing by characterising those who have made statements about 3e houseruling as belonging to a couple of weird minorities).

Thanks
 

No set of game rules has ever been MORE widely houseruled than the 3e D&D ones. There was a whole cottage industry of third party publishers doing exactly that after the OGL/SRD was released. We got versions of the base rules with huge, sweeping changes (Conan RPG, Mutants & Masterminds, Castles & Crusades, D20 Call of Cthulhu, etc. etc. etc.) most of which worked very well or at least reasonably well. And most of the problems with D20-based game design were less the fault of the base system being too complex than they were the fault of the game designers just making poor game choices.

I think 3e was "widely perceived" as being difficult to houserule by exactly two, fairly small, groups of people; the first being people who didn't like the game and wanted something to complain about, the other being people who are uncomfortable with the concept of houseruling in the first place. In other words, not so "widely" at all.
I call BS - I fit in neither category and 3e was not a game that was house-ruled WELL easily.

I understand your point about 3rd party as house rules, and while an interesting concept (and one that in some respects is dead on) all 3rd party add-on were not house rules. Not even close, if that is your theory, then Judge's Guild put out far more house rules for 1eAD&D than any single 3rd party ever did for 3.X. And of course there were several "unauthorized" additions that were direct ports "compatible with the world's most popular fantasy role playing game" was the catch-phrase, I believe.

TSR even included house rules in other editions of their games so you could marry the two (or more systems) together - I believe Gamma World even had armor charts that gave D&D conversions and vice-versa.

I'm sorry, I ran a very successful 3.Xe campaign for 5 years and had only a handful of house rules, because they weren't needed. I ran 1/2e AD&D and had two notebooks of house rules, one for PCs and one for the DM. Nope, I just don't see it.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top