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

[Steel_Wind]

Heh. No. Perhaps you don't quite get what a conflict of interest is.
WotC has an interest in selling product. Wotc has no interest that conflicts with this.
It is self-serving. And it *may* be self-defeating if they turn off enough fans. But it is not a conflict of interests.

I agree with you.

The problem is, the suggestion by WotC that the designation of "core" or a ruling as to what is and isn't "official" or is a "house rule" is somehow a pronouncement of what is objectively "best" for game balance? That's the part where the conflict of interest can arise when it comes to discussing splat books - as should be obvious to all. I'm not saying a game designer is out to sucker us. But at a certain point, economic realities can get in the way -- and motivate -- corporate pronouncements of what is "best".

Accordingly, that's the part where a gamer must exercise his or her own discretion and we can find ourselves back in the 1st edition soup, as it were, when it comes to house rules.

At least these days, hopefully, a gamer can make up his or her mind after having the benefit of reading the opinions of many others here on ENWorld. In most cases, a broad selection of opinion is a better overall judge of good design and acceptable game balance than is any other yardstick yet conceived by man.

 

[Galloglaich]

It's not, and 'balance' remains a bad boogieman. All "balance" does is remove one specific kind of frustration.

You may have other frustrations with 4e -- my group has been taking a break from D&D ever since we hit Paragon tier -- but I suspect 'balance' isn't the source of your frustration. I guess it's some kind of "geek chic" to hate balance, though? Whatever, I've never been one for fashion trends.

I guess we both come across as 'geeks' to each other. No big surprise we are probably both right.

The problem is beyond "balance" but I think balance was the driving design theme which created the game as it currently is (and I do not limit this to 4E). I just don't want to have to 'learn klingon' to play a role playing game, the more artificial the ruleset, the greater the requirement to know the rules in order to play the game, the more necessary it is to stick rigidly to one style of play, the more this is a problem.

Most of the people I've played RPG's with over the years didn't really know the rules very well. They had an idea of what their character was and what they could do, and they described their actions based on what they had seen. This way I can fairly easily get my girlfriend, co-workers, drinking buddies etc. to try out a game without having to think about things like 'move actions' and 'healing surges'.

I don't have a problem with structure existing, some people like it and it can be useful when you need it, but I don't want to be forced to play the game that way. If I feel like I have to play with miniatures and maps, counters and special chits, it's not really a role-playing game to me, it's a board game.

Mmm. There have been explicit options for playing without any magic items since day 1, if I recall correctly, and now those options are well documented in the DMG2 or 3, and supported by the character builder.

So I hear. I guess we have different perceptions of what magic means. To me automatic regeneration of wounds and 'healing surges' is magic.

4e even makes it trivially easy to run "e6" games, by dividing things into Tiers. If you want a low-fantasy game, simply limit the PC levels to Heroic Tier.

Again, different strokes, the Heroic Tier in 4E is not my idea of low-fantasy.

If you don't mind a crass political counter-argument -- and we ought to keep these minimal, site policy & all that -- it was the Marxian state which collapsed, rather than the one he railed against.

You missed my point. The quote was 'railing against' the Marxists.

"... the mechanic and the auto manufacturers like Maserati can quit worrying so much about auto mechanics and explore the limitless possibilities of making fun cars"

Cheers, -- N

Or you can be like the American Auto industry and keep tinkering with your Mustangs and Malibus until you end up making a Dodge Monaco.

G.

 

[Nifft]

I guess we both come across as 'geeks' to each other. No big surprise we are probably both right.

Oh, I am 110% fine with being called a 'geek'. My only claim was that I'm not particularly prone to fashion, specifically to the current 'geek chic' which seems to be hating "balance".

The problem is beyond "balance" but I think balance was the driving design theme which created the game as it currently is (and I do not limit this to 4E). I just don't want to have to 'learn klingon' to play a role playing game, the more artificial the ruleset, the greater the requirement to know the rules in order to play the game, the more necessary it is to stick rigidly to one style of play, the more this is a problem.

Eh, if you can handle "hit points" and "THAC0" (or "BAB") and "save vs. rod/staff/wand" (or "flat-footed incorporeal touch AC"), then you can handle 4e. All editions have had their jargon, this newest one is not exceptional.

So I hear. I guess we have different perceptions of what magic means. To me automatic regeneration of wounds and 'healing surges' is magic.

If you think lost HP = wounds, you're at odds with what the books have said about HP since 1e. Maybe since earlier, but 1e is when I started paying attention.

- - -

Anyway. It sounds to me like you don't like 4e, and that your dislike stems from something other than experience with the system. Am I wrong here? Have you played it much?

Cheers, -- N

 

[Fanaelialae]

The problem is, the suggestion by WotC that the designation of "core" or a ruling as to what is and isn't "official" or is a "house rule" is somehow a pronouncement of what is objectively "best" for game balance? That's the part where the conflict of interest can arise when it comes to discussing splat books - as should be obvious to all. I'm not saying a game designer is out to sucker us. But at a certain point, economic realities can get in the way -- and motivate -- corporate pronouncements of what is "best".

IMO, house rules have nothing to do with whether or not one uses an official product. As far as I'm concerned, house rules concern unofficial additions or modifications to a game.

That isn't to say that splat books are or aren't balanced, but rather that they're (largely, with the exception of something like Unearthed Arcana) official by merit of being published by the game's owner. House rules (balanced or not), by contrast, are unofficial and usually fan-made rules.

One can hope that official products will be well balanced, and one might feel the need to make house ruled modifications to a products if it wasn't up to snuff, but I don't consider the use or prohibition of PHB2 material to constitute a house rule. It's just a subset of the official material that either is or isn't allowed in a particular campaign. That's my two cents...

 

[Desdichado]

Really. Well - I got some news. I've been down this road already and the vaunted "balance" in 3.5 was utterly wrecked by WotC's own designers as power creep destroyed the 3.5 game system.

Whacoo talkin' 'bout, Willis? 3.5 isn't "destroyed." Many, many people are still happily playing it. And as an evolution of 3.5, Pathfinder seems to be doing remarkably well. Ironically by embracing that "creeped" power level.

Still - the problem remains in defining what is and isn't a House Rule when it comes to dealing with multi-volume system material.

I don't see how that's a problem in any realistic way.

If being "against" House Rules means that I have to permit every single official WotC accessory into my game...(according to WotC, you say). Well - at least the ones they call "core". Even if they aren't really... "core".

This concern about labels: core, official, whatnot... another thing I've never gotten.

 

[BryonD]

I agree with you.

The problem is, the suggestion by WotC that the designation of "core" or a ruling as to what is and isn't "official" or is a "house rule" is somehow a pronouncement of what is objectively "best" for game balance?

I'll still be petty about the term "conflict of interest".

But I agree with the principle you are describing.

 

[Steel_Wind]

Whacoo talkin' 'bout, Willis? 3.5 isn't "destroyed." Many, many people are still happily playing it. And as an evolution of 3.5, Pathfinder seems to be doing remarkably well. Ironically by embracing that "creeped" power level.

Funny. We are playing and running Pathfinder to escape the power creep in 3.5.

No Orb of Force or Downdraft spells in my Pathfinder Core Rules. Mystic Theurge? Can't seem to find it.

More to the point, the game balance in 3.5 is incompatible with adventure material written that does not incorporate said dozens of splat books.

You can like the game as you like. I have two shelves of it so it's not that I didn't buy it or play it. If DM and players alike are all using the same splat books and are each familiar with the late 3.5 system - yeah it will work. More power to you (not that you need much more!!)

But the problem of power creep in 3.5 with respect to published adventure material is objectively true. That's what I'm talkin 'bout Willis.

So - is that a House Rule that allows those books in -- or is it my House Rule that doesn't? If I want to allow some of the Spell Compendium, but not all of it (Orb spells, goodbye), is that a House Rule or not?

That's my point: once you get to that stage when it comes to accessories, you are setting sail for the Land of House Rules, like it or not...

 

[mach1.9pants]

You are missing my point. I never said that everything an official publisher put out was core. I said that everything they say is core is core. It is their decision, in 3E it was the 3 books only, everything else was optional. In 4E it is pretty much every book, everything in the CB anyway. So if one decides to not include things that are in the core rules you are house ruling.

The scale sure is different: If a 4E DM says 'no PHB2 classes' that is a house rule, it is not if a 3E DM said the same thing. the creators/writers of the rules hold the definition of official, not the fans, cos they are official.

 

[Galloglaich]

Eh, if you can handle "hit points" and "THAC0" (or "BAB") and "save vs. rod/staff/wand" (or "flat-footed incorporeal touch AC"), then you can handle 4e. All editions have had their jargon, this newest one is not exceptional.

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.

If you think lost HP = wounds, you're at odds with what the books have said about HP since 1e. Maybe since earlier, but 1e is when I started paying attention.

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.

Anyway. It sounds to me like you don't like 4e, and that your dislike stems from something other than experience with the system. Am I wrong here? Have you played it much?

Cheers, -- N

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. I think DnD is the gateway RPG and should have room for people who like to play the way I do and people who like to play the way you do at the same time. I suspect there is quite a gap there.

On the other hand I'm a big fan of Nifft the Lean, and all of Michael Sheas other Vance-spinoff novels though. So if that is where your name here comes from we must have something in common .

G.

 

[Steel_Wind]

You are missing my point. I never said that everything an official publisher put out was core. I said that everything they say is core is core. It is their decision, in 3E it was the 3 books only, everything else was optional. In 4E it is pretty much every book, everything in the CB anyway. So if one decides to not include things that are in the core rules you are house ruling.

The scale sure is different: If a 4E DM says 'no PHB2 classes' that is a house rule, it is not if a 3E DM said the same thing. the creators/writers of the rules hold the definition of official, not the fans, cos they are official.

With the greatest of respect, I didn't miss your point. I got it completely and entirely.

So now, to PRESERVE balance in 4E (which was the point of NOT "house ruling" in Ari's original article) we need to "House Rule" to NOT allow an accessory product?

As I said, once you throw accessories into the mix - we're setitng sail to the Land of House Rules, like it or not.

Unless of course, your idea of maintaining balance by NOT "House Ruling" is to indiscriminately let every splat book into your game "just because WotC put it in the CB". In that respect, NOT House Ruling then destroys the game.

And voila, we've come full circle.