Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 5318095" data-attributes="member: 996">Most undead (perhaps all published so far) are immune to poison and disease, but it's not a characteristic of all undead.&nbsp; You wouldn't be breaking any rule by creating an undead that wasn't.&nbsp; Even if it were a characteristic of all undead, 4e runs on exception based design, your unique undead wouldn't be breaking a rule, it would simply be an exception.&nbsp; (And, no, I'm not crazy about exception-based design, either, but that's another topic entirely.)How to handle houserules is an issue, too, of course.&nbsp; I think it's generally better to handle them formally, to communicate them upfront.&nbsp; Of course, some house rules aren't even intentional, they're a misinterpretation or mistake that the whole table's made and decided they like, it only becomes a 'house rule' when an outsider points it out.&nbsp; But, like an official rule, a house rule should be reasonably consistent.Common sense isn't.&nbsp; You may think something makes sense 'fictionally' and is within the bounds of common sense, someone else may not.&nbsp; The DM gets to be the final arbiter, but that standard - which is not standard at all - is just asking for frequent arguments.&nbsp; And, it does leave the DM making essentially arbitrary judgements.&nbsp; If a DM wants to change the rules and say swarms can't be grabbed, but they can subjected to involuntary movement, that's a house rule, it might influence some players choices or it might not, but it's up front, the players know what it means.&nbsp; If a DM says, &quot;I'll decide whether any or all of your powers work on a case-by-case basis, and how well you describe your characters use of a power will factor into that,&quot; that's not a house rule, that's freestyle role-playing.&nbsp; Which is a legitimate form of the hobby, to be sure, but might come as a bit of a shock when aplied to something as gamist as D&amp;D (and every ed of D&amp;D is more gamist than freestyle).Now, I know you're not doing that, most of the time you play by the rules, it's just, sometimes, when it seems apropriate to you, you'll step in and do what he freestyle GM I just described did.&nbsp; That just makes what you're doing that much more arbitrary.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 5318095, member: 996"] Most undead (perhaps all published so far) are immune to poison and disease, but it's not a characteristic of all undead. You wouldn't be breaking any rule by creating an undead that wasn't. Even if it were a characteristic of all undead, 4e runs on exception based design, your unique undead wouldn't be breaking a rule, it would simply be an exception. (And, no, I'm not crazy about exception-based design, either, but that's another topic entirely.) How to handle houserules is an issue, too, of course. I think it's generally better to handle them formally, to communicate them upfront. Of course, some house rules aren't even intentional, they're a misinterpretation or mistake that the whole table's made and decided they like, it only becomes a 'house rule' when an outsider points it out. But, like an official rule, a house rule should be reasonably consistent. Common sense isn't. You may think something makes sense 'fictionally' and is within the bounds of common sense, someone else may not. The DM gets to be the final arbiter, but that standard - which is not standard at all - is just asking for frequent arguments. And, it does leave the DM making essentially arbitrary judgements. If a DM wants to change the rules and say swarms can't be grabbed, but they can subjected to involuntary movement, that's a house rule, it might influence some players choices or it might not, but it's up front, the players know what it means. If a DM says, "I'll decide whether any or all of your powers work on a case-by-case basis, and how well you describe your characters use of a power will factor into that," that's not a house rule, that's freestyle role-playing. Which is a legitimate form of the hobby, to be sure, but might come as a bit of a shock when aplied to something as gamist as D&D (and every ed of D&D is more gamist than freestyle). Now, I know you're not doing that, most of the time you play by the rules, it's just, sometimes, when it seems apropriate to you, you'll step in and do what he freestyle GM I just described did. That just makes what you're doing that much more arbitrary. [/QUOTE]

Verification