I just find the whole thing regarding the RAW as some "Holy Grail" interesting, because if you go to web sites of designers such as Sean Reynolds and Monte Cook you will find that, looking back, they disagree with some of the rules they wrote and suggest changes to the RAW. Furthermore, if you go to Andy Collins site, you will find house rules that he uses or has used for his own campaigns. Are those of you advocating the RAW going to tell these designers, whose products you are holding to some sacred level, that they are not playing the game right should they make changes for their own game.
3e, DMs, and Inferred Player Power
- Thread starter Belen
- Start date
jmucchiello
Hero
Arguably, many people learn to hate board games because of the Free Parking rule. Monopoly is supposed to be a short game (under 1 hour) but with Free Parking, it can last many hours. But back on topic, the point is, people apply house rules to other games. In fact, kids do it all the time. If you ever play a game with a child, game a tactical advantage and they will immediately want a rule change that prevents the play you just made so you don't gain that advantage. It is quite instinctual in kids. Perhaps everyone is born a munchkin.ThirdWizard said:
Up until my sister was around 10-11, you could not play chess with her unless you used the "can't take queens" rule. Now, that might be a case of my father being overly indulgent, but I've seen similar actions made by other children in other games as well.
Ankh-Morpork Guard
First Post
jmucchiello said:Perhaps everyone is born a munchkin.
Puns like that should add negative levels to the poster or something...
Majoru Oakheart
Adventurer
Too many responses to reply individually...let's make this one message, shall we and a bit more general.
1) The core assumptions allow you to have a lot of wiggle room
2) Some game designers have spent a lot of time and effort to put out books of rules to change the core assumption to a new one to fit different settings. This is possible, and I have no problem with it, but it really becomes a new game at that point. Although I haven't played Midnight, it sounds like it has enough rules changes to be called Midnight the RPG rather than a campaign setting for D&D. Once again, nothing wrong with this. But there is a difference between D20 and D&D. Babylon 5 is a D20 game, it isn't D&D.
3) D&D has always been a somewhat competative game. Gary Gygax has been quoted more than once talking about how to smack down players and how to control people who get too powerful by taking away their stuff. Players have always been trying to get more gold and more XP than their fellow group members. People compete for XP rewards and steal gold out of the party treasury.
4) Yes, Monopoly has house rules, but mainly because no one knows they are houserules and have "always played that way". Similar to the fact that I played with a weird mix of 1st Ed, 2nd Ed and house rules for a couple of years while I thought I was playing 2nd Ed. The group that taught me to play was running 10 different games of D&D at once. All with the same house rules. All the players in my game came from the original group. I had never actually read the rules as I was taught by them. It wasn't until a year or 2 later that I realized I had been using house rules without even knowing it. So, I made it my goal to actually know what I was doing.
5) I choose not to worry about where gold comes from, gods can create it or there can be an elemental plane of gold, or there is just a LOT of it on the planet. Either way, it is inconcequential to the game. Also, I assume that most NPC don't get much of any XP at all. Guards who actually get into fights might get to level 10 in their entire lifetimes. Commoners rarely, if ever get to above 5th level. Adventurers get high level quickly due to their profession, that's it.
6) Probably more stuff....I'm off work now, I'm going home.
1) The core assumptions allow you to have a lot of wiggle room
2) Some game designers have spent a lot of time and effort to put out books of rules to change the core assumption to a new one to fit different settings. This is possible, and I have no problem with it, but it really becomes a new game at that point. Although I haven't played Midnight, it sounds like it has enough rules changes to be called Midnight the RPG rather than a campaign setting for D&D. Once again, nothing wrong with this. But there is a difference between D20 and D&D. Babylon 5 is a D20 game, it isn't D&D.
3) D&D has always been a somewhat competative game. Gary Gygax has been quoted more than once talking about how to smack down players and how to control people who get too powerful by taking away their stuff. Players have always been trying to get more gold and more XP than their fellow group members. People compete for XP rewards and steal gold out of the party treasury.
4) Yes, Monopoly has house rules, but mainly because no one knows they are houserules and have "always played that way". Similar to the fact that I played with a weird mix of 1st Ed, 2nd Ed and house rules for a couple of years while I thought I was playing 2nd Ed. The group that taught me to play was running 10 different games of D&D at once. All with the same house rules. All the players in my game came from the original group. I had never actually read the rules as I was taught by them. It wasn't until a year or 2 later that I realized I had been using house rules without even knowing it. So, I made it my goal to actually know what I was doing.
5) I choose not to worry about where gold comes from, gods can create it or there can be an elemental plane of gold, or there is just a LOT of it on the planet. Either way, it is inconcequential to the game. Also, I assume that most NPC don't get much of any XP at all. Guards who actually get into fights might get to level 10 in their entire lifetimes. Commoners rarely, if ever get to above 5th level. Adventurers get high level quickly due to their profession, that's it.
6) Probably more stuff....I'm off work now, I'm going home.
ThirdWizard
First Post
Greg K said:
First: Holding the RAW as immutable is different than holding the designers as immutable.
Second: People arn't saying the RAW is perfect and shouldn't be changed. People are saying it should only be changed outside of a gaming session, not while the session is going on. Decisions made in game are likely to be determined more by emotional feelings toward that particular encounter instead of as an objective look as the rules as they apply to the overall campaign. In my experience, of course.
jmucchiello said:
Oh, I know. You just happened to bring up one of my pet peeves. To the contrary, I play Risk 2210 with House Rules when I play with my group of friends. It all depends on the game.
If you ever play a game with a child, game a tactical advantage and they will immediately want a rule change that prevents the play you just made so you don't gain that advantage. It is quite instinctual in kids. Perhaps everyone is born a munchkin.
I think we all have preconceved notions of how things will play out in game before they actually happen, both the DM and the Players. Sometimes we overlook a rule and don't notice that it will adversely affect our plans. Both players and DMs need to be able to look at this objectively and just accept when this happens.
Primitive Screwhead
First Post
Greg K said:
Okay.. jsut a bit confused. I know 8 pages is alot of posts, but did anyone else see a poster slightly suggest that the RAW is immutable and no deviation from it shall be tolerated lest ye have the wrath of Rules Laywers upon thine head?
Not me. I have seen posters suggest that the RAW is a good framework and basis from which to present your version {some may say variant} to your players with a strong sense of coherency.
Me, I currently run an Eberron game.. with house rules for Healing, Language, and use the Elements of Magic spell system. Not to mention a variation of the Entangle spell and altered versions of the Monk and Ranger classes. All of which have been presented to my players prior to them having to make an in character decision based on those rules. All of which add to a distinctly different feel to the game.
I had more.. but conversations on these boards resulted in them being nixed in favor of the RAW.
I regularly add a point or two to a bad guys HP total in an effort to have him die dramatically in a following action. I often fudge thier to hits, some for misses, some for hits. Never more than a +/- 2 points.
I have a pile of House Rules for Axis and Allies...{most of which are official in AnA:Europe}
Does this make me a bad DM? My players don't mind.. of course they don't know either.
So.. yes. Run your game with the style and flair you want. But in order to provide a better gaming environment, you should examine potential house rules and present them to your players {preferably get your players input on them} prior to using them in play.
You should understand the 'core assumptions' and how your variation tilts the scale.
You should ignore economics.. at least until one of your players retires to sell sunrods
I have found this approach cuts down on the rules-lawyering.. meaning more in character conversations and faster resolution of any sticky points that come up in play.
YMMV, of course. {as is evident by this thread}
Three Cheers for Third Wizard! A hearty 'Me to' on that one!ThirdWizard said:
Raven Crowking said:
IIRC, Gary has gone on record as saying that he meant that to only apply to tournament and organized (i.e., RPGA) play (the latter which he was trying to get started at the time he made the comment). It is somewhere in one of the Gary Gygax interview threads.
With regards to house rules, I go into new gaming groups expecting houserules. As for when I GM, I try to have a list of house rules for the player including acceptable and banned material from non-core sources (in the case of banned material it appears to be the majority of WOTC supplements in their entirety). I also make it clear upfront that I reserve the right to update the house rules as I deem appropriate, but not in the middle of a session.
Hussar
Legend
Quoted for truth.
I think Greg K brings up a good point though. Every campaign will have house rules. That's simply the nature of the game. The second you deviate in the slightest from the RAW, you are creating house rules. And, for the most part, that's perfectly acceptable. Each campaign will always have a different feel and a need for some adjustments to suit the game to the players. In a game as large as DnD, there's more than enough room for this.
I don't think anyone disagrees with this.
What does need to be examined though, particularly in light of 3e rules, is that house rules have consequences. 3e rules tend to be very interconnected and changes in core assumptions can have far reaching consequences. Take S'mon's money post from a while back. XP awards in the game are based on the challenge rating of the creature. The CR is calculated based on the assumption of a certain level of wealth in the party. A party that lacks particular items, such as magic weapons, has a much more difficult time defeating creatures than a party which has them. Therefore, the poorer party should receive more xp for each encounter.
Now, you don't have to do this, but this is one example of how changing rules can have larger implications.
Similar Threads
