Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 2781805" data-attributes="member: 18280">Arguments as I understand themOkay, the way that I see this, this thread has opened up some meta-topics.  The first of these is based upon rules interpretations, and is specifically Storm Raven's contention that one cannot make an extrapolation as to what a rule means except by the text of said rule.  The second is, given a ruleset and story content, which takes precedence?  In other words, should you modify the ruleset to aid storytelling, or should your storytelling be limited to what the RAW allow?  The third is, given than one does not accept Storm Raven's contention, what makes a good house rule?The core contention of the first of these meta-topics, IMHO, would reduce a role-playing game to something like chess.  Obviously, in order to have story, we extrapolate from the rules and give those rules meaning.  Even in the course of subsequent argument, Storm Raven consistently extrapolated from the rules (i.e., determined what he believed the rules to represent).  Moreover, an inability to extrapolate from the rules would tend to deny any changes (tweaking, house rules) to the RAW.  This would be an ironic conclusion to draw in a House Rules forum.  Finally, most people accept that the rules do not have to be explicit about core assumptions that almost every person would accept.  For instance, there is no rule that states explicitly that a dropped object lands on the ground.  I think, therefore, that we can safely conclude that most people would agree that one can make an extrapolation as to what a rule is means by making educated guesses as to what the rules seems to represent, through the interaction of rules, and by extrapolation from similar rulesets.The second question arises from the contention that any modification to the flanking rules that allows a character to effectively prevent one character from providing a flanking bonus to another "nerfs" the rogue's sneak attack ability (or steps upon the toes of characters with class abilities that negate flanking).  This seems to follow the edge of "gamist" and "simulationist" philosophies.  The general "gamist" idea behind this seems to be that the designers have carefully balanced 3.X, and that any changes could negatively affect that balance.The counters to this are threefold:(1)  To some, a nearer simulation (to fiction, movies, or whereever that person draws inspiration) is preferable to balance.  This includes the idea that some types of balance are undesirable, either (a) elminating the value of choices or (b) creating a super-symmetry that defies suspension of disbelief.  The classic examples of (b) is the "If we create a spell/class/race of Energy Type X, we must also create the same for Energy Types Y, Z, and K" and "If there is a Lawful (or Good) form of X, there must be a Chaotic (or Evil) form also".(2)  The game designers did not necessarily create the perfect balance.  Just as 3.5 was intended to resolve design problems from 3.0, it is fair to assume that there is a 4.0 lurking somewhere in D&D's future.  As many are fond of pointing out, there is no such thing as a perfect ruleset.  Complicating this, as WotC puts out additional (non-Core) books, many players and DMs alike have reported balance issues with integrating parts of the new material.(3)  House rules are not necessarily unbalanced.  The fear that "If you change rule X, you will unbalance the game" is not necessarily well founded.  Certainly, if you change a rule, you will change the balance of the game.  However, that it the point of many house rules -- to change a balance from the game designers' personal preference to the DM's or the group's personal preference.  Considering that Unearthed Arcana includes discussions of the designers' house rules, and that Monte Cook has put out at least two alternatives to the Player's Handbook already, I would argue that this counter-assertion is well supported.Finally, what makes a good house rule?This is a pretty difficult question, because within this contest the term "good" is fairly subjective.  However, if one is willing to accept the subjectivity, then I would claim that a good rule is a good rule.  House rules are the rules used by a particular house (in this case, DM or gaming group).  If you use only the core rulebooks, for example, that is a house rule.  Determining what is a good "house" rule therefore requires only that a rule meet the needs and style of whoever is using it.A "good rule" is probably a little less subjective, though.  If it were not, all gaming suppliments would sell based on price rather than content.  I would argue that a "good" rule is one which satisfies both the gamist and the simulationist.  An "okay" rule satisfies one or the other (and is likely to be tweaked by whichever side it does not satisfy), and a "bad" rule satisfies neither (and is therefore almost certainly either tweaked or ignored by the vast majority of players).Dealing with (or at least being aware of) these meta-topics might make it easier to deal with individual rules & house rules questions, such as the flanking question that this thread is related to.</blockquote>

Verification