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

[Votan]

I think you'll be hard pressed to demonstrate that there's any such shift. 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 had thought that aspect of 3E was harking back to AD&D 1E where I remember a very vibrant house rules culture. The 1E DMG was filled with ideas about how to houserule things and no game I ever saw used all of it at once. It's not that 3E was unfriendly to houserules (it's very friendly) but I think that 1E was as well.

2E, which I remember well, seemed to be more structured and it was less obvious that it would be easy to houserule it. I never tried, at least, whereas I have tried with 3E.

I also think that our groups evolve over time so houserule friendliness may also be a function of who we happen to be playing with at the time.

 

[Primal]

Listen, by keep repeating that "4e does not need...etch" you insult my intelligence. SC are really irrelevant to 4e's design. They designed 4e encounter mechanics and rules and then they saw how they could fit something like SCs. 4e is really nothing without its encounter mechanics. While it is what it is even without SCs.

And SCs are a failure. Primarily, errata has nothing to do with it. They do not fail just at implementation: they fail at their design goal. SCs as designed could never provide a mechanical way to do what they wanted them to do. Which is to provide to the GM solid possibilities for creating interesting "problems" for the group to solve in a cooperative fashion where everyone needs to participate.
But even if you want to say that they were not meant for this -but rather just as mathematical guidelines, they still fail at their mathematical design premise which is the DM to be able to control with a D20 rng the difficulties and success rates of various possible SC efforts. Neither the DM nor the players can control the knowledge of the difficulties without assistance from some software where you have to input all the possible SC scenarios and let it spell out the probabilities for you. And this not for every SC but rather for every SC roll as with every roll things change. The latest thread I can remember about SC fundamental and core design is this one:
http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=17278&highlight=challenges+frank

EDIT: I am not contrary to SC design goal. In fact I think it is a valid one. Only that you cant achieve it by just using SCs the way they are designed.

I don't think the Skill Challenge system is irrelevant to 4E or its design. Yeah, they didn't implement it flawlessly. In fact, it seems the designers just threw it in there because the felt *obliged* to do the "social combat system" they had promised. It's not that it wouldn't work as written; it does, if the DM understands how conflict resolution works in indie games (as we know, the system is a "hybridization" of conflict resolution and complex skill checks in UA). Furthermore, if the DM is willing to relinquish at least *some* control over the story to the players -- and the players are creative team-players who share the same concept of what a "good story" is -- it works brilliantly. In fact, it makes the game *shine*.

However, as you wrote, 4E is a very "gamist" system. The mechanical nature of the game may prove to be problematic; both the DM and the players may feel limited by the game mechanics, and it doesn't help that the whole SC system is vaguely written. Even though 4E is very flexible, many DMs may feel restricted by the explicit skill challenge format -- regardless of those SC articles written by Mearls. Also, if the group has clashing goals or gaming styles, SCs may feel *very* artificial and awkward during play. It doesn't help that there are no "real" stakes there; the most common "penalty" for failing an SC seems to be an extra combat encounter. For many players that is, in fact, a *reward* in the form of additional XP. In this regard the SC system is limited by the very nature of D&D adventures; it's almost unthinkable that the players could suffer a serious setback in the story -- or even "lose" the adventure -- by failing a single SC. Ergo, there is usually no "real" penalty for failure; at worst it's either some extra XP, a healing surge or a minor obstacle (such as having to find an alternate solution to reach their goal). So there's usually very little at stake. From this perspective the SC system, as a whole, may indeed feel irrelevant. Nothing prevents the DM from "raising the stakes", however; it may require rewriting and improvising a bit, but it's possible.

Yet how is this different from "nar" games? Yes, there is usually at least *SOME* sort of impact on the story (and the fate of the protagonists) for failing a conflict. Occassionally the stakes may even involve the life of the protagonist(s), and often a dramatic failure may result in a better story. Still, even the most hallowed indie RPGs require the same things as SCs do to work; even a single player who doesn't get the game's theme and/or share the same concept of what is a "good story" may easily ruin the game for everyone. For example, I've played with people who thought it'd be cool to use narration rights to reveal that someone else's character is a sodomizing pervert (go figure). If the only official rule is that you need to enter a conflict to alter something another player just narrated (with the usual caveat "This game may not suit everyone"), it reminds me of the worst problems with SCs. Except that with SCs, the DM still has the final say over what happens.

So, my point is that even though people may scoff at SCs as a badly-written version of conflict resolution, I feel that it reflects narrow-minded thinking; there's nothing wrong with SCs as written. If the whole group consists of team-players and the DM understand how SCs should work, I think it's a flexible system that bring fresh elements and outside-the-box thinking into D&D. Whatever problems you would have with SCs are the same that would feel just as awkward in most indie RPGs, too.

YMMV, of course.

 

[AllisterH]

And again, he did not simply equate them. You are still trying to turn this into a straw man.

I am honestly trying to understand where we are disagreeing so please bear with me..

How am I turning this into a straw man? His post mentions that he believes Healing surges were inspired/taken from videogames and he gave examples of Doom and Duke Nuke'm.

But those videogames use the health/stim pack method of healing which came STRAIGHT from D&D....that makes no sense then to argue that 4e's healing is wrong since you're basically saying that 4e is NOT D&D because it is using healing that was stolen FROM D&D

I don't know that I'd concede this claim. But regardless, there is plenty of examples of the other side, not to mention by your own admission plenty of historic precedent, that the basis of the term is reasonable.

Basis of what term? That 4e uses the more modern regeneration method best exemplified by HALO? Yea..I see no reason to disagree with that.

I just disagree with using Doom and Duke Nukem as the examples to use.

Not to mention that you ignored the main part of my post: The distinction between sci-fi / technology simulation and sword and sorcery simulation

This I did ignore since frankly, I tend to see healing surges NOT along the fantasy vs sci-fi axis but the "action movie" vs "non action movie" staple.

Both sci fi and fantasy games make extensive use of the health pack method of healing....

 

[mxyzplk]

Back on topic... I also used to house rule a lot in 1e and especially 2e. In 2e I had a pretty big set of standard loadout house rules.

When 3e came out, I didn't houserule initially because the game itself fixed some of the things I had been houseruling (Perception stat, multiclassing). But as time went on it was more because the game was too complex and intricate to houserule well.

The new paradigm in 3e quickly became different than that in the older days. In 1e/2e, anything outside the core book was understood to be purely at the DM's discretion, and the ruleset in general as well. In 3e, though initially things like prestige classes gave lip service to that, as the splatbooks poured out the paradigm quickly became "players can pick whatever they want out of them and DMs really shouldn't say much about that." Houseruling became too much about DM empowerment in an age of player empowerment, and also the ruleset had become complex enough that a single houserule could totally unbalance some new option in Complete Whatnot - and the culture against the DM limiting player options made that hard to fix. Also, there were so many third party addons you could use one of those without it really counting as house ruling in most peoples' minds.

Then 4e made militant balance a baked-in design goal, enhancing all of these tendencies, and houseruling was basically killed (heck, even generating third party content tapered off). Some of this is inevitable in the more 'connected' world - with organized play and Insider, it encourages a standard ruleset and discourages DMs from making any group specific rulings.

Essentially, more of the choice has been removed from the DM and placed into the rules, which somewhat grants that choice to the players instead. I'm not going to opine on whether that's good or bad, but I think it's clearly what's happened. So less houseruling in later versions of D&D is a natural result.

 

[Fifth Element]

Then 4e made militant balance a baked-in design goal, enhancing all of these tendencies, and houseruling was basically killed (heck, even generating third party content tapered off).

The GSL has much more to do with this that the rules, I suspect.

 

[Desdichado]

Back on topic, please!

Just to be clear; which topic is "off topic?" The hit point discussion, I presume?

 

[ExploderWizard]

SC's are an integral part to 4E and they do not need a battlemat.

I would disagree with this assessment. My 4E campaign has been running semi-regularly since last September and the PC's are almost 5th level.

Number of skill challenges run: 0

What makes them integral to a 4E game, the fact that there are rules for them?

There has been much discussion on the SC topic and the associated mechanics issues. At first I thought that they sounded like a neat idea with lackluster implementation. Some of the nuts and bolts have been tinkered with adjusting the DCs and such in an attempt to make them run smoother.

Here's the thing. These superficial design flaws were just masking the fundamental design flaws. At it's most stripped down basic level, a skill challenge is simply a series of attacks against situations using dice.

Success DC= Defense
# Successes = Monster hit points
# Failures = PC hit points

PC's thus attack situations in an organized turn taking fashion until the situation is defeated or it "kills" them and they have to face the dreaded consequences.

If we wanted to just sit around rolling dice at each other then finding something to beat up isn't too difficult. I have never subscribed to the "unless a dice fest is in progress nothing meaningful is happening" style of play. Skills use happens when needed and we have skills for that. Play kind of flows as it happens so the whole "OMG are we in an encounter?" isn't a big deal.

I don't see how skill challenges actually work without dictating them to the players. I would never bothing planning out such a series of skill checks in advance. After all how do I know the PC's will be in a position at a particular place and time to be in such a challenge?

I guess that is one of my biggest house rules.

 

[Galloglaich]

The new paradigm in 3e quickly became different than that in the older days. In 1e/2e, anything outside the core book was understood to be purely at the DM's discretion, and the ruleset in general as well. In 3e, though initially things like prestige classes gave lip service to that, as the splatbooks poured out the paradigm quickly became "players can pick whatever they want out of them and DMs really shouldn't say much about that." Houseruling became too much about DM empowerment in an age of player empowerment, and also the ruleset had become complex enough that a single houserule could totally unbalance some new option in Complete Whatnot - and the culture against the DM limiting player options made that hard to fix. Also, there were so many third party addons you could use one of those without it really counting as house ruling in most peoples' minds.

Thanks... this is what i was trying to say. This was also crippling to writers trying to do stuff for D20 as well. I had to consciously leave out a lot of good ideas because they were encroaching on this paradigm, and decided against even doing a couple of projects because it was too much of a hassle to try to work around this.

Then 4e made militant balance a baked-in design goal, enhancing all of these tendencies, and houseruling was basically killed (heck, even generating third party content tapered off). Some of this is inevitable in the more 'connected' world - with organized play and Insider, it encourages a standard ruleset and discourages DMs from making any group specific rulings.

Word.

Essentially, more of the choice has been removed from the DM and placed into the rules, which somewhat grants that choice to the players instead. I'm not going to opine on whether that's good or bad, but I think it's clearly what's happened. So less houseruling in later versions of D&D is a natural result.

Very well put. +1

G.

 

[pemerton]

At it's most stripped down basic level, a skill challenge is simply a series of attacks against situations using dice.

But at it's most basic, this is true for any dice-based RPG, including indie games like HeroQuest, or D&D combat, etc.

I think a lot of the criticisms of skill challenges simply disregard the rules text that I quoted upthread: the die cannot be rolled until after the GM has framed the situation and the player has explained what s/he is doing to respond to that situation. It is implicit, although perhaps not fully explicit, that the situation may change in respond to any given skill check, thus opening up new opportunities for subsequent skill chekcs. (One way in which this is implicit: that certain skill checks may open up new skills.)

Primal's post upthread is much more on target: WotC, in giving examples of skill challenges, has had trouble getting the stakes right, in part because they seem not to have noticed how success or failure in skill challenges can be linked in to the Quest XP system and other aspects of the game that contribute to dynamic story-focused play.

 

[pemerton]

4e made militant balance a baked-in design goal, enhancing all of these tendencies, and houseruling was basically killed

House rules I use in my game (summarised from post upthread, plus a few others I've remembered):

*I give out total treasures in my game equal to the level-appropriate treasure parcels, but mix and match in various ways, and give out a lot of the cash parcels as magic items, rituals and ritual reagents instead;

*I give out a mixture of GM-chosen items, player "wish list" items and existing item upgrades;

*I give out minor Quest XP based on the players making decisions for their PCs that are expressive of their thematic goals for their PCs (in effect, spontaneous quests rather than pre-planned quests);

*I allow each PC to choose two "background feats" which may be triggered once as an immediate reaction, last for a short period, and then may not be used again until they are restored by the GM calling a -2 penalty to a d20 roll by that player;

*I ban a few feats or powers that are obviously broken or otherwise problematic (eg like a lot of people, I don't allow the Expertise feats);

*I had houseruled Careful Shot to be the same as the now-errata-ed version from the beginning of the discussions about its mathematical inadequacy compared to Twin Strike;

*I have created a few new feats (albeitwith pretty simple bonuses);

*I have created a few new monsters;

*during a skill challenge, a player may spend an action point to make a secondary skill check in response to another player's failed check, as an immediate interrupt;

*from time-to-time in combat, I make calls for issues that the rules don't cover (eg the effects of some terrain that is not discussed in the DMG);

*from time-to-time both in and out of combat, I adjudicate the effects of player actions using page 42 (eg the paladin dealing damage to a recently-animated wight by using his Religion skill to call down the curse of the Raven Queen).​

There are also some house rules that I think would be pretty easy to introduce for anyone who wanted to:

*I could imagine taking what the DMG2 says about the pass/fail cycle and trying to work it up into a more robust set of guidelines to interact with page 42;

*I could imagine someone who was more interested in the continuity of resoruce expenditure over encounters working out long term rest and recovery mechanics, probably triggered by taking an extended rest and then based on the disease track;

*Although I haven't done so, I could imagine designing new powers and new complex conditional feats without too much trouble.​

So, given my own experience, I simply deny that house rules have been killed or are impossible. It may be that not many people want them (eg because changes to feats and powers make it harder to use the Character Builder) but that seems to me to be a different matter.

And frankly, I'm glad that 4e delivers the play experience I am looking for without the need to do much more than tweak a few elements of the character build system, make a few decisions about how I am going to implement the reward system, tweak the skill challenge system, and make a few other calls from time to time in relation to the action resolution sytem. It makes a big change from Rolemaster (my previous system of choice) which requires pretty significant house ruling just to get it off the ground.