3e players=consumers not creators

[Bendris Noulg]

Actually, read the section in the PH about multiclassing. It states clearly that the Player simply picks another class, although the DM might have certain restrictions, conditions, etc. On top, WotC has an entire board, one of their busiest, dedicated to Players getting exactly what they want when they want without hampering or restriction, while threads about restricting multiclassing often degenerate into unmoderated flame wars.

So, no, I'm not stretching an argument. I'm a firm believer that the rules make the world, and as the object of the game is to RP an individual within that world, then the rules are extremely important and do in fact have an impact on Role-Play, despite WotC's claim to the opposite.

So, no, I'm not stretching for an argument; If anything, I've found most of your examples inadequate in validating your statement, and to a point, do the exact opposite.

Now, yes, I agree that reworking the magic system isn't necessary, unless you're simply disatisfied with it on a whole. But when you say that casting the spell causes a faint blue nimbus that only the caster can see, then the question is asked: What's the point? Description? Kewl. But does it have any bearing at all on the manner in which magic presents itself in the game world? No. Thus, I fail to see how this achieves the stated goal of changing the nature or flavor of magic without adding or changing any rules, since it hasn't done anything but add an otherwise trivial effect.

 

[Henry]

For a better example of what Col Hardisson is speaking of, check out the Middle Earth d20 Forums here on these very boards. There is a hosted d20 site that attempts conversion of Middle Earth to d20 basics.

Many people would say that in order to portray Middle Earth appropriately, you need to throw out many fundamental systems of d20, such as use of hit points and the spell slot magic system. However, the fan conversion here has gone a long way to dispel that impression. Minor rules tweaks and changes can go a long way to customize an RPG setting, without needing to change major portions of the system.

-----------------

Dovetailing this, in my earlier supposition, I was pointing out a tremendous resistance among some gamers to change rules products to suit their games, rather than insisting that EVERYTHING in a product be used to the letter. Following the axiom "you can't please everybody," you as a gamer WILL have disagreements with the way official material is presented. But it shouldn't stop you as a DM from changing this material to suit your campaign, or (as a player) working with your DM to alter said material better fit a character concept that you enjoy.

The DMG gives gamers everywhere carte blanche to change any and all rules for their personal use. But just looking at the WotC Message Boards and the ENWorld Forums tells me that there are gamers who refuse to change published material as if it violates something important.

Diametrically opposed to this are gamers who will change anything and everything in a game, without ever considering the ramifications of their changes. Many times on these boards, in the rules forum, we see gamers who are frustrated with a given rule that they want to change, and upon further discussion with them, what they are REALLY frustrated with is how a certain established rule is interacting with one of their house rules. They blame the published rules, not thinking about the fact that it is their house rule that is causing the conflict.

Both extremes are in my opinion to be avoided. The real balancing act is to determine what needs to be changed to make your game better, and just as importantly analyzing how that change will alter the OTHER rules of the game.