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

[Njall]

Are you honestly saying they don't have RPG games that require a battle map to play out combat in?

G.

Nope. As I wrote above, I'm not arguing the fact that there are different ways to encourage tactics in the context of a game. I'm saying that a visual representation is usually more intuitive, easier to grasp, often easier to manage for the DM (especially when you're dealing with large scale battles) and thus, in this context, simply better.

 

[FireLance]

So cause I have no DDI subsription and I have not read RT's article I am an epic fail? Well, I provided my poor thoughts on how something like SCs could work. Do not know if you did read it cause I edited it in that post you have been quoting me after a while I made it first place.
I wont buy a DDI subscription just to check a Mearl's article.

Fair enough, but the fact remains that skill challenges have been thought about, written about and explained substantially more since the time they were first introduced.

Making statements about what skill challenges are based on what they were (i.e. without acknowledging how they have evolved since then) is what makes your posts seem jarring and perhaps even provocative (IMO, anyway).

While you are of course not required to keep up with developments in skill challenges (or to believe what posters who say that they have kept up with these developments tell you about skill challenges), perhaps it would be better to qualify that your impressions of skill challenges and your comments on them are based only on their initial presentation.

 

[xechnao]

Fair enough, but the fact remains that skill challenges have been thought about, written about and explained substantially more since the time they were first introduced.

Making statements about what skill challenges are based on what they were (i.e. without acknowledging how they have evolved since then) is what makes your posts seem jarring and perhaps even provocative (IMO, anyway).

While you are of course not required to keep up with developments in skill challenges (or to believe what posters who say that they have kept up with these developments tell you about skill challenges), perhaps it would be better to qualify that your impressions of skill challenges and your comments on them are based only on their initial presentation.

I talked about some specific problems regarding SCs and their merit regarding the scarce value of SCs. Since no one tried to address this but spoke of changes instead you could rather address how they fixed these problems, if they did fix them or found a solution to their merits indeed. I know this is not perhaps the right thread to ask this but these sort of replies I am getting really begs the question.

 

[FireLance]

I talked about some specific problems regarding SCs and their merit regarding the scarce value of SCs. Since no one tried to address this but spoke of changes instead you could rather address how they fixed these problems, if they did fix them or found a solution to their merits indeed. I know this is not perhaps the right thread to ask this but these sort of replies I am getting really begs the question.

Give me some time (maybe a day or so) to go through your posts and the stuff in Mearls' columns, and I'll start a new thread in the 4E forum to avoid derailing this one any further. I'll even give the new "Mention" feature a try to see if it will automatically inform you about it!

EDIT: Thread is up.

 

[BryonD]

I think you'll be hard pressed to demonstrate that there's any such shift.

I think if you gave someone who had never played either game before a PH and DMG for both 2E and 3E, they would come away with a much stronger implication that minis and a game board are presumed for 3E than for 2E. This is not to say that they would not see the merits or some degree of presumption in 2E, nor to say that they would find it obligatory in 3E. But the "shift" would be seen in a comparison of core systems.

That said.....

Granted, I don't really know much about 4th edition, but 3rd edition was the most mutable, houserule friendly system in the history of systems. They even released the game with a specific license that allowed anyone to publish any houserule they wanted. And they published an entire book that was nothing but a gigantic collection of houserules (Unearthed Arcana.)

I agree with you completely here. There is a big difference between looking at just the core "D&D" and the wider and richer universe of OGL / D20 / 3X.

3X is most certainly a highly adaptable system that can be easily played as a minis intensive game or as a completely mini free game. I think the game experiences are very different with and without minis. But neither is superior and there is nothing but good in the variety.

 

[Rechan]

Don't just limit the discussion of SC to Mearls' columns. More has been written on SCs than any one topic of 4e.

Hell, Critical Hits made a huge compilation of articles, examples, etc. And there are tons of examples and discussion on ENWorld alone.

But this all seems moot. Why is it there are a lot of people who aren't familiar with 4e and haven't played/don't play 4e talking about what it can and can't do, and how is that topical?

 

[Desdichado]

I think as some other people pointed out upthread, this was a trend between 3.0 and 3.5.

That completely fails to address my points, though. Unearthed Arcana was a 3.5 book, not a 3e book.

You're trying to build a case that the game discouraged houserules while ignoring the elephant in the room of the biggest book of optional houserules suggestions ever published as actually an official product.

Headed up by the same designer who had the lead on the 3e to 3.5 transition, no less.

Again; elephant in the room. If you ignore that, it's a bit hard to take your assertions very seriously.

To you perhaps.

No, not really. That's not an example of me using some vague, nebulous "feeling" I have, and then basing my entire argument on that. It's based on the OGL and the 3.5 Unearthed Arcana which really didn't have peers in any other edition of the game. You can hardly make a claim that there was a significant shift to close the doors on houserules during the same era that more houserules were published--published! not just in some DM's binder--than at any time in history without looking like you really either don't know what you're talking about, or you've got some vested interest in spinning a story of the 3.5 era that isn't really true.

You are taking insults, and bandying them back, where none were intended. The emotional investment in game rules is bizarre to me.

Umm... wha? I'm not insulted. I'm just pointing out that your comment is another in the long litany of meaningless and insulting phrases that have been used to describe the game by a horde of folks who are emotionally invested in something else, can't quite put their fingers on what they don't like, so they make up vague aspersions like "video-gamey", "anime", "dungeonpunk" or, in your case, "too comic book."

You don't even make a cursory effort to describe how D&D is like a comic book, it's just a dismissive and derogatory claim that you make. And from my point of view, its a bizarre claim anyway; comic books are clearly the successors of the "pulp aesthetic" in our society, and D&D was more built on the pulps than anything else. A D&D that resembled a comic book would seem to be a feature not a bug.

And seriously; my emotional investment is bizarre to you? Oddly enough, I feel the same way about you and your argument. I have no emotional investment in the game. Your emotionally driven and meaningfully vacuous slurs just get a virtual raised eyebrow. There's no need to attempt further dismissiveness by falsely trying to link me to some kind of emotionalism. All I'm asking for you to do is demonstrate an example or two of where your claims are coming from.

I did that once, it didn't go over well. I'll stick to abstractions, comfortable that some people will understand what I'm getting at, some people won't, and some people may even get angry. If I go any further into concrete detail I'm likely to have more of all three types of reactions but the third type is problematic for me since I am an industry writer.

Please. That's a pretty sad back-pedal, really. Nobody's getting angry. I just want to see how in the world these claims could possibly be backed up. I want to see how in the world houserules have been "closed off" by WotC when they've actually bent over backwards to facilitate them in ways that were completely unprecedented. I want to know what in the world you mean by calling the game "comic bookish". Especially while saying that what you want the game to be like is Conan, who very famously was a long-running comic book character.

I wonder, too, what you mean by being an "industry writer" and how much your career as such has been facilitated by the OGL.

Which, in case that was too subtle, would make your complaints in this regard particularly ironic.

Well, rather than try to explain that myself, I'll refer you to the blog linked in the OP.

We all read the blog in the OP. That offers absolutely no explanation for anything that you've said, really. It certainly doesn't address any of the specific clarifications I've asked for from you.

Rather, it appears as if you've done a drive by snark post or two and when asked (rather politely, so I don't know where your "angry" posts are coming from--just because I disagree with you and think that you're way off base doesn't mean that I'm in the least angry with what you're saying) to explain exactly what you mean by that, you fall back and say you can't or won't. It certainly does give the impression that your initial assertions were... at best... poorly formulated to be so unable to withstand even a cursory bit of scrutiny.

 

[Galloglaich]

You're trying to build a case that the game discouraged houserules while ignoring the elephant in the room of the biggest book of optional houserules suggestions ever published as actually an official product.

The OGL opened the door wife open of course, and yes of course they published lots of optional rules and splat books (though I didn't even know unearthed arcana were actually houserules... I never bought it since I wasn't interested in it) but as per the blog linked in the OP, even while the D20 explosion was happening, the balance obsession was tightening things up dramatically, making it more and more of a nuisance to make houserules for D20 let alone publish any. The formula for what was acceptable had become much tighter partly because any change in the system had a huge cascading effect on all kinds of other parts of the game.

The fact that so many came out anyway is testament to the energy released by the OGL license (which is now closed for 4E), but the constraint was also there. Basically in my opinion you were limited to a certain very specific type of rules which encouraged a very specific type of gameplay (for example using miniatures). You had to accommodate player empowerment (can't make a magic item without a way for players to create it, cant have an encounter that is above their EL/CR) balance to the point that every class has to be 100% equal (which was an illusion since they never were, especially prestige classes).

(This wasn't a problem for me because I didn't play 3.X by the RAW, but it was a problem for a lot of people and a problem if you wanted to publish anything for D20)

In other words it's not that houserules were impossible, nor third party products since everyone knows that D20 created a huge overwhelming flood of material for the game (too much, it could be argued). It's that the creative open-ended type of modifications had become more difficult, all the variation was inside a sort of cone from which 4E emerged. And yes I'm aware this is a subjective opinion and I'm sure you will mathematically prove me wrong to the ninth decimal point. You won't convince me any more than I can convince you.

Again; elephant in the room. If you ignore that, it's a bit hard to take your assertions very seriously.

I'm not getting the vibe you are really interested in my assertions, as opposed to just winning an argument. Once one of these discussions reaches this level of vitriol online, I've yet to see anyone suddenly "see the light" or even actually seriously consider anything the other person is saying. What you call 'vague and snarky insinuations' somebody else might just see as the inevitable subjective part of an argument.

I don't want to go into huge detail because I know from experience that does spark even more crazy arguments, flame wars and edition wars, all of which I find incredibly tedious. This conversation was pushing into edition wars territory first with 4E, now it's back to 3.5. You really can't make any criticism of DnD in this forum without being assigned a whole slew of labels and annoying some fanatic fans of this or that edition. They all have big problems in my opinion, so you can all hate me.

you really either don't know what you're talking about, or you've got some vested interest in spinning a story of the 3.5 era that isn't really true.

Right, it's a conspiracy. I work for Steve Jackson Games and I'm trying to convince everybody to hate DnD in this lone thread, and then move them all to GURPS. If it wasn't for you meddling kids I would have gotten away with it too!

Umm... wha? I'm not insulted. I'm just pointing out that your comment is another in the long litany of meaningless and insulting phrases

This seems rather contradictory.

(snip) a horde of folks who are emotionally invested in something else, can't quite put their fingers on what they don't like, so they make up vague aspersions like "video-gamey", "anime", "dungeonpunk" or, in your case, "too comic book."

This sounds like you are trying to assign my arguments to somebody elses pattern, which since we are slinging around accusations of intellectual dishonesty here is a facile (if lazy) way of trying to dismiss them.

You don't even make a cursory effort to describe how D&D is like a comic book, (snip) A D&D that resembled a comic book would seem to be a feature not a bug.

I suspect this is the reason for your ire, you like comic books, and you detected an insult toward comics in my posts. It's true, you busted me, I don't like comic books, and I really don't like superhero powers in fantasy RPGs. And I'm certain you like a totally different type of game than I do. That's fine with me. I just think people should be able to play other ways, and sorry I don't think you can do that in a certain version which will not be named.

Please. That's a pretty sad back-pedal, really. Nobody's getting angry. I just want to see how in the world these claims could possibly be backed up.

Really? Honestly? You are seeking knowledge here? You are out to learn something?

... explain exactly what you mean by that, you fall back and say you can't or won't. It certainly does give the impression that your initial assertions were... at best... poorly formulated to be so unable to withstand even a cursory bit of scrutiny.

No, it's just that the discussion is tedious enough already, and once the posts get this long with this many quoted backs and forths most people reading the thread have tuned out already, and I've got zero chances of convincing you of anything, so it's all kind of pointless. Don't you think? We both have utter contempt for each others point of view, and we've made that clear. I've said my piece, either some people will recognize what I'm saying or they won't. I know you and I will never see eye to eye on anything and I'm ok with that.

G.

 

[Galloglaich]

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.

Seriously? How about Duke Nukem. Or Doom. Or a gazillion other games.

Your definition that it has to have all the specific features of the 4E healing surge may limit the scope, but what I (and many others) recognize is a quick way to suddenly gain your health points back so you can keep killing mooks even though you have gotten shot a hundred times yourself.

This has a 'video gamey' feel to me yes there I said it. I see a link.

G.

 

[Galloglaich]

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?"

See if i had to rely on a map to answer any of those questions I would A) feel like I was too tired to DM, B) get bored and distracted and eat too many chips and cookies, C) get bogged down moving around things on a board and checking lines of sight and setting out little cones and disks and things to where I completely lost track that it was supposed to be a fight going on.

To me combat should be really fast, immersive, and kind of scary. I don't want my players pouring over a map for ten minutes before deciding when they are going to throw their fireball or from what angle they will shoot their bow. I like games like that too, but that is what squad leader is for in my opinion. Or car wars or something.

For a role playing game, I like to describe the scene, and I as the DM may very well be looking at a map, a small map, but the players will be relying on my description (and often, I'll be riffing off of their questions) and together we make a scene that feels real and surprisingly often triggers real emotional / adrenaline responses similar to the way watching a horror movie does (or playing a real good first person shooter with some spooky or suspenseful elements to it, like say one of the old Alien Versus Predator games which I liked a lot) Combat should be at least a little bit confusing. If you have ever been in a fight or even played paintball or something you probably know what I mean. And you should be able to make judgement calls and sometimes just guesses and still make the game work.

I would answer all of the questions listed above based on common sense, and the rapport that I've built with my players which they have learned to trust that I'm not out to get them, and riff off of their ideas. We aren't in an adversarial relationship, and they don't feel like they have to see behind the curtain of the great and powerful oz in order to trust that the game is going fairly (nor do I when I'm playing as a player in their game). Hell I even still roll dice behind a DM screen sometimes.

I played Riddle of Steel with Jake Norwood the other day and we had a variety of some of the most exciting combat I ever played through in an RPG, and there wasn't a single miniature or map on the table. I know some people like it better the other way with the maps and minis and everything, I have a good buddy who plays like that, but it aint the only way to do it mate.



G.