NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5985396" data-attributes="member: 27160">Actually, a lot less than you might think if you have always assumed a "real world process" system basis. A lot of that "physics" is actually not relevant at all to the system; it's part of the "colour", or the way the players sat around the table visualise the game. The system really only cuts in when an actual resolution of a contested action must be made - i.e. when something the system defines as "a thing that doesn't happen automatically" is attempted by either a player (and yes, I do mean "player", not "character" - even though they will likely be attempting to have their character do something) or the GM.All the rest is "fluff" - which is not to say it's not important; fluff is very important. But it doesn't need "system" to make it work.You may very well "write" the fluff to resemble real world "physics" (though I might call them "tropes", rather than "physics" at this point, since the cause need not and usually is not either specified or fixed).For the rest, I find that the pitfalls are manifold. Take "fire doesn't burn without oxygen", for example. Does this mean that a fireball doesn't work underwater? If yes, then I would throw back that "fire doesn't burn without fuel", either, but the fireball still works just fine without the caster carting around cans of gasoline. Does this mean that the fireball spell doesn't work out of water, either? Or does it mean that the "laws of physics" just don't apply to fireballs? If the second, then I would argue that you have just proven that "fire doesn't burn without oxygen" is not a "rule" that need apply in the game world at all, so, if you insist on it, it's purely arbitrary.Sure, but how will they know that up front? And "more fun" for whom?My experience is that on-the-fly "rule-zeroing" hardly ever achieves this - certainly not in the longer term. Carefully considered houseruling might - which is just one reason why I'm a lot more accepting of houserules that are published by the GM in advance than making up rules on the run.Sure - good job there isn't just one single game system!To clarify, my position is this:- Considered houseruling of a system is OK where needed; on the fly rulings and deliberate rules ambiguity are not because they gimp players of understanding they should have of how the (game) world works and frequently cause unintended consequences.- Every group, for every game they play, should ideally pick a ruleset closest to (or most easily houseruled to) what they want out of the system for the game they want to play. If houserules reach a book-full, you might want to consider other start points.- D&D, specifically, is one just possible ruleset that might be chosen. As such, it would do best to aim at those features of play that are best fitted to its "core assumptions or features"; I see these latter as character classes, hit points, armour class, experience points, levels, magic by "spells" as things rather than processes and doubtless other stuff I've overlooked right now. A real-physics-based, real-life-process based system really is not what I think fits with these things. That is not to say that a game based on these things is "wrong" or even "not great fun" - just that a game focussed on such considerations would be much better off starting with a different system than what D&D has ever been.This, again, seems to be talking about "houserules" set up beforehand rather than making up rules in media res because the rules themselves are deliberately ambiguous.I agree that Rule 0 is often used for enabling railroad plots and GMPC "neat tricks", but I think there's a thin, thin line between this and building situations and NPC abilities based on how the GM imagines the "real physics" of the system will work. If I build an NPC with a spell that is loosely and ambiguously defined, of course I design them using my interpretation of the spell as a basis. If I set up an in-game situation involving ambiguously defined elements, of course I set the situation up assuming my interpretation of those elements - how could I do otherwise? But, if the players don't share my understanding/interpretation of those rules, it will naturally seem to them that the NPC is advantaged, or that the situation is contrived - even if that was far from my intent.This seems to be very close to my position. Houserules notified in advance and consistently applied are fine (with a caveat you phrase so well I'll quote it below); on the fly changes or rules that demand interpretation on the fly aren't.So good it bears repeating just for truth. I agree completely; if you must change the rules:- Consider it carefully beforehand, including figuring out why you want the change and checking that you are fixing the bit that actually needs fixing (for you).- Notify all involved about the change in advance and entertain objections and reservations (maybe allowing some character changes or tweaks to address those).- Review the changes as time goes by and be ready to rethink if the change has adverse consequences that are worse than the original issue.I think it's also worth being clear about different types of addition/change. I don't for example, consider creating new "monsters" to be a system change - any more than creating NPCs or locations is. If the world has orcs with one hit die, I don't consider adding in orcs with two hit dice to be a "system change", but changing weapon damage so that it reduces CON instead of hit points would be a different kettle of fish!For "creating new elements" - be they monsters, traps, social tasks or even spells - I think guidelines and design tools are what is needed. Something similar to 4e's monster charts (though perhaps explained differently, since some seemed to think they were "rules", as such).For system changes, however, I don't think there's all that much the designers can do, except explain why the systems are designed as they are designed and thus what might break if you start to fiddle with them.I would be a little careful, there. If magic items are supposed to be only "found in treasure" or "hideously expensive to buy", a bunch of monsters having just what they can usefully use can look a lot like some sort of "GM's creatures are all in the conspiracy" set up. Are we considering that the monsters - but not the characters - can exchange items freely in a worldwide "magic mart" network? Or that the world-spanning conclave of black-hat mages cooperate to supply all the world's monsters with what they need?I've seen this become a slippery slope. I once saw a player suggest interrogating a random goblin (or was it a kobold?), on the basis that "all the monsters seem to know what every other monster knows about us - let's assume they do likelwise about the boss guy's plans!"...The players I run for handle it pretty simply (in D&D 4e); each item goes to whoever can best use it. After the run, the monetary values are totalled out (using a spreadsheet), but the values are used merely as a guideline for who gets to make choices about spending fungible wealth.I use the original 4e item rules, mind you, and I find they have several features that support this approach. For one thing, rituals allow for items to be made, remade, modified and unmade by the characters. Basically, magic items become a character building resource that is shared by the party as a whole, rather than received by each character exclusively for their own use. This seems to lead to some interesting "team optimisation" going on, which helps enhance teamwork generally. It's certainly a lot more interesting than the "how do we split this fairly" sums I remember from 3.X, but then maybe we could handle 3.X treasure distribution based on this "teamwork" experience? Maybe, but I doubt I'll ever find out for sure.</blockquote>

Verification