[Ari Marmell's blog] To House Rule or Not to House Rule

[Nifft]

Those concepts were in the game, but you didn't have to live in the midst of them unless you wanted to. In my game it was just "you stumbled into a hole, roll the dice to see if you fall in" and you can look at the chart or not look at the chart. You don't need to have a stack of poker chips or cards or miniatures to keep track of your buff or your healing surges or whatever, and you don't have to play on a battlemap etc.

Having a battlemap for 3.x allowed you to answer a lot of questions:
- "Am I flanking?"
- "Who is in the area of this Fireball spell?"
- "Can I use the bonus from my Point Blank Shot feat?"
- "Do I have cover from this attack?"

Using a battlemap in 4e is just about as useful as it was in 3e. I'm sure you can get by without one, but the mechanics used to really encourage using one, and they still do.

I dunno what you're talking about with respect to falling in a hole: in my experience, the battlemap was always for tactical combat, nothing more.

Yes and there has been a disconnect on that (cure light wounds anyone) since the first edition of the game. The concept is still all kinds of broken... if it is just a "fatigue surge" maybe they should call it that Personally I think it comes from computer games.

Actually I think you'll find that video games stole the whole idea of HP from D&D, starting with Gauntlet. But that's a topic for another thread.

IMHO healing surges make no less sense than HP did originally, and that's all I'll ever claim about them. I'll make the same claim for SWSE's abstract condition track, too.

I'm NOT claiming that HP make perfect sense -- I'm always of at least two minds about how to interpret HP damage -- but I can't deny that HP make for a good game, and the exact same arguments that have always been used to justify HP work for healing surges.

I had issues with 3.5 power creep thing they are talking about in the other part of the thread as well. And I like history, literature, mythology, martial arts, and I like to put these elements into my game. I really honestly can't see any way to do that in 4E. To do it in 3.X i had to make my own game, but it was at least possible. When they started making it so hard-wired to a specific play style (and got rid of OGL) I got annoyed.

Basically I want DnD to be a more flexible game so you can play it lot of different ways... like a horror movie or like a Jack Vance novel or like an Icelandic Saga or a Lovecraft story.

Well, coming from a fully mature, well-explored system like 3e, it's true that 4e looked rather barren. But IMHO that's just because we had 10 years to explore and augment 3e.

But I strongly disagree that it's impossible or even difficult to run a wide variety of games in 4e. My group generally runs 4e as a nasty, gritty S&S setting just by mostly ignoring Rituals.

- - -

Now, we can have a discussion about the ways in which it's harder to augment 4e than it was to augment 3e -- and vice-versa -- but I'm not going to accept that either is rigid, inflexible, or impossible to house-rule.

Cheers, -- N

 

[xechnao]

Not worth carrying...

You are obviously referring to my post. If you did want to quote my message, I believe it pretty much stands by its own over here so you are welcome to elaborate on what you are thinking about it. I posted in this thread, over here, because I wanted people over here to see my opinion on the matter, not to direct traffic at that other thread. In fact, if you have to say something about my message indeed, you should do so, since claiming willingness to comment but restrain to do it due to some unsubstantial external reason is not something I can accept. Otherwise I have it that you more or less agree with what I am saying and you are referring to something that got your attention on that other thread which has nothing to do with my own message?
Please clarify this.
Thanks

 

[The Little Raven]

Personally I think it comes from computer games.

Then you should be able to easily name a video game that has a healing surge mechanic (a separate pool of "health" that directly limits how much healing you can take before having to take a break from action).

I can't recall anyone ever making this claim actually coming up with an example to back it up.

 

[Primal]

Jason & Paris were demigods? That's a new one for me. The fact that they are in literature and that I can have a swords & sorcery game that emulates that literature was my point.

Something that was claimed as impossible.

Close but no cigar...

If you ask me, NO edition of D&D models or emulates literature very well. There are other games better suited for that purpose.

 

[xechnao]

Having a battlemap for 3.x allowed you to answer a lot of questions:
- "Am I flanking?"
- "Who is in the area of this Fireball spell?"
- "Can I use the bonus from my Point Blank Shot feat?"
- "Do I have cover from this attack?"

Using a battlemap in 4e is just about as useful as it was in 3e. I'm sure you can get by without one, but the mechanics used to really encourage using one, and they still do.

I dunno what you're talking about with respect to falling in a hole: in my experience, the battlemap was always for tactical combat, nothing more.

The fact is that in the end there can be faster, more useful and more functional ways to implement and encourage tactics than with a battlemap. 3.x may have used battlemaps -even in a fundamental way to its gameplay- but this does not mean that people cannot criticize 4e for entirely focusing its whole gameplay aspect on a battlemap trying to achieve the things that you can do perhaps better without a battlemap. I am talking about "things" like optimizing "D&D adventuring-team member" focused gameplay rather than the generic but solidly D&Dish ruleset that 3.x tried to invoke.

 

[Nifft]

The fact is that in the end there can be faster, more useful and more functional ways to implement and encourage tactics than with a battlemap. 3.x may have used battlemaps -even in a fundamental way to its gameplay- but this does not mean that people cannot criticize 4e for entirely focusing its whole gameplay aspect on a battlemap trying to achieve the things that you can do perhaps better without a battlemap. Things like optimizing "D&D adventuring-team member" focused gameplay rather than the generic but solidly D&Dish ruleset that 3.x tried to invoke.

What does 4e need the battlemap for other than combat?

We've played lots of scenes without one -- do tell me what we were doing wrong.

Cheers, -- N

 

[xechnao]

What does 4e need the battlemap for other than combat?

We've played lots of scenes without one -- do tell me what we were doing wrong.

Cheers, -- N

What? What do 4e mechanics cover besides 4e battlemap encounters -aka what you mean by combat-? For 4e's mechanics and the goal to optimize them, "D&D adventuring-team member" focused gameplay is obviously something around the 4e battlemap encounters. I touched this on the post I quoted from that other board. Unless you were trying to make a point I did not get.

 

[Rechan]

D&D has always stolen from current pop culture sources around it. Gary nabbed the Monk from the show Kung Fu and Psionics from Firestarter. Gary even made up monsters (umber hulk, rust monster) based on cheap toys he found in stores. There was no apology about it.

Possibly the weirdest thing about D&D is the level track. At low levels, PCs die very easily, in fact far more frequently than any fictional protagonist. At high levels, D&D is a crazy monster-beset magic carpet ride of resurrection and teleportation. Both extremes are very rare in fiction and folklore. The progression itself is unique, as far as I am aware.

Not to mention the speed of that track.

That a farmboy who picks up his father's sword can be fighting gods in the span of a few months if he adventures nonstop, which many groups do.

... What does any of this have to do with Houserules again? Why are we arguing editions again?

 

[Nifft]

What? What do 4e mechanics cover besides 4e battlemap encounters -aka what you mean by combat-? For 4e's mechanics and the goal to optimize them, "D&D adventuring-team member" focused gameplay is obviously something around the 4e battlemap encounters. I touched this on the post I quoted from that other board. Unless you were trying to make a point I did not get.

I have no idea what you're trying to say with a vague term like '"D&D adventuring-team member" focused gameplay', and I guess we weren't on the same page regarding what you meant in your first post either.

Start a new thread, maybe. This stuff sounds far more like an edition rant than anything to do with the topic of house rules.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Mouseferatu]

You are obviously referring to my post.

No, I was referring to other stuff in that thread, not to your post specifically.

I also deleted the comment; please respect that.