Evolving editions?

[Wiseblood]

It's actually difficult for me to find the question that I want to ask. I am hoping that ENWorld can help. I sometimes wonder if the games should encourage houseruling so that the march of editions will be more organic. With popular houserules being integrated thoughtfully. 4e was crafted almost from scratch. A recipe of familiar elements, that should have been something to bring us all to the table. It did not quite work out like that. 5e seems to be following that same path and this concerns me. What would 5e look like if it had evolved? Is the forced creativity doing more harm than good to WotC to their credibility, fan base and intellectual property.

Perhaps someone here could ask the universe.

 

[Stormonu]

I think that a house-rule friendly system is a different issue than an evolving ruleset. In fact, I would say individual's ability to house rule a system tend to have very little to do with the evolution of a ruleset. A system can be designed so that it's very easy to tack systems onto it (such as GURPS) or that can be very difficult to modify without triggering chain reactions throughout the system (such as 3E).

However, I'd say that a new edition is nothing more than the designer's house rules that have been slapped with the stamp "official". And they're not necessarily the most popular. It would be kind of nice is there was some sort of community review edition changes had to go through before they were incorporated into the system. Right now, that only system is people's wallets.

I was surprised to find, for example, how much 3E was actually evolution from things that first appeared in the Skills and Powers system from 2E. And while 4E certainly had several new systems, there was also a lot that was an evolution. What was such a whammy was it wasn't just changes to the mechanics, but to the fiction.

 

[Desdichado]

I think that a house-rule friendly system is a different issue than an evolving ruleset. In fact, I would say individual's ability to house rule a system tend to have very little to do with the evolution of a ruleset. A system can be designed so that it's very easy to tack systems onto it (such as GURPS) or that can be very difficult to modify without triggering chain reactions throughout the system (such as 3E).

3e is incredibly easy to houserule. Not only is the game modular by design, but there are thousands of houserules in print due to the OGL. Many of them are even official, from Unearthed Arcana.

I hear people say that 3e is difficult to houserule, and it's just incredibly false. I have no idea what has caused that misinterpretation. It can't possibly be evidence, because almost every d20 product in print (with the exception of the modules) is a data point to the contrary.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

3e is incredibly easy to houserule. Not only is the game modular by design, but there are thousands of houserules in print due to the OGL. Many of them are even official, from Unearthed Arcana.

I hear people say that 3e is difficult to houserule, and it's just incredibly false. I have no idea what has caused that misinterpretation. It can't possibly be evidence, because almost every d20 product in print (with the exception of the modules) is a data point to the contrary.

Each piece builds upon the other, so modifying one thing can have unintended consequences.

I recall trying to build a swashbuckler class, giving flat AC bonuses (a fraction of the PC's level) as they gained levels. It was to make up for the PC's lighter armor and lack of shield. At the higher levels however, they ended up getting ACs skyrocketing, kind of like a monk but not quite as badly.

I've seen numerous attempts at low-item gaming fail (due to magic items being very strong - and needed - for AC and saving throws but being much less important for offense).

And let's talk about monsters... using nothing but core rules, I once drew up an unstoppable dire bear/frost giant barbarian. Actually, it wasn't unstoppable. It was a pretty balanced opponent (eg in terms of AC, hit points, saving throws, attack bonus, damage...), and the PCs killed it after a fierce battle, but its grapple check was so high you literally needed a natural 20 to escape. (The PC barbarian wasn't happy about being grappled like this.)

Any rules change, especially a big ones (like low item gaming or a new class) impinge on so many factors you can easily lose track of them or make a mistake.

I think coming up with something like a single feat is easy for 3e though. A single feat isn't likely to affect too many subsystems. (There's always exceptions to that rule though. Persistent Spell, Vow of Poverty, etc...)

 

[Spinachcat]

I don't think RPGs have evolved.

If that was so, we would have quantifiably better games now than in the past. But we don't. We just have people who like different editions for personal reasons.

Interesting enough though, we have seen actual evolution in boardgame and wargame development. There are measurable achievements in gameplay between the (absolutely wonderful) Rogue Trader 40k first edition and the current 40k game.

 

[Desdichado]

Each piece builds upon the other, so modifying one thing can have unintended consequences.

Only if you deliberately try to break it, or make a really egregious (and thus usually easily spotable in the theoretical) mistake.

I recall trying to build a swashbuckler class, giving flat AC bonuses (a fraction of the PC's level) as they gained levels. It was to make up for the PC's lighter armor and lack of shield. At the higher levels however, they ended up getting ACs skyrocketing, kind of like a monk but not quite as badly.

And yet, every other d20 game, as well as a houserule in UA, as well as several unofficial swashbuckler type classes have done it, and their ACs didn't skyrocket. Sure, if you do something badly it doesn't work, but that isn't a condemnation of the idea of houseruling the game.

I've seen numerous attempts at low-item gaming fail (due to magic items being very strong - and needed - for AC and saving throws but being much less important for offense).

I don't even know what you mean with this. Either you're saying that the system itself doesn't work without houserules, which would completely contradict your point, or you're saying that giving someone a gamebreaking magic item is a bad idea. Which is true, but has nothing whatsoever to do with the notion of houseruling the system, or how difficult or easy it is to do.

And let's talk about monsters... using nothing but core rules, I once drew up an unstoppable dire bear/frost giant barbarian. Actually, it wasn't unstoppable. It was a pretty balanced opponent (eg in terms of AC, hit points, saving throws, attack bonus, damage...), and the PCs killed it after a fierce battle, but its grapple check was so high you literally needed a natural 20 to escape. (The PC barbarian wasn't happy about being grappled like this.)

Again; we're talking about houserules here. How is this story even relevent? And yes, bad GMing causes problems. If you don't spot check your antagonists for problematic areas that need to be fixed before you run, then your game could suffer for it. Again; no idea how this relates to the topic.

Any rules change, especially a big ones (like low item gaming or a new class) impinge on so many factors you can easily lose track of them or make a mistake.

My game is routinely run with so many rules changes that it probably isn't even fair to call it D&D anymore. I've never had a problem. You're describing a situation theoretically, but your examples have nothing whatsoever to do with the problem we're talking about, and have much more to do with poor GMing in teneral.

I think coming up with something like a single feat is easy for 3e though. A single feat isn't likely to affect too many subsystems. (There's always exceptions to that rule though. Persistent Spell, Vow of Poverty, etc...)

So your contention is that all of the houserules in UA, all of the houserules in all of the supplements; both official and otherwise, can't possibly exist, or if they do, they're game breakers? Again; I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say, because your examples don't support your stated point at all.

 

[Wiseblood]

3e is incredibly easy to houserule. Not only is the game modular by design, but there are thousands of houserules in print due to the OGL. Many of them are even official, from Unearthed Arcana.

I hear people say that 3e is difficult to houserule, and it's just incredibly false. I have no idea what has caused that misinterpretation. It can't possibly be evidence, because almost every d20 product in print (with the exception of the modules) is a data point to the contrary.

I have had difficulty houseruling 3e. I think it may have more to do with what people want to houserule than you are hinting at. Some houserules would be easy to construct, balance and implement. Others rules aren't easy and are more like a Jenga move.

 

[Desdichado]

I have had difficulty houseruling 3e. I think it may have more to do with what people want to houserule than you are hinting at. Some houserules would be easy to construct, balance and implement. Others rules aren't easy and are more like a Jenga move.

My game has houseruled: 1) Most of the classes available, 2) Most of the races available, 3) a few basic details about how combat works, 4) I rarely use minis or any other graphical representation of combat, 5) How XP and CR is used, 6) I included modules such as sanity and action points, 7) How AC works, 8) How skill and save DCs are calculated. Etc. In other words, stuff that's easy to slot in and out, and fundamental changes, both.

I keep hearing about the Jenga move type problems, but I've never seen anyone actually identify one specifically. Since my own experience is that its the easiest system to houserule that I've ever played with (it has so much more structure to utilize, and it's so much more consistent than B/X or AD&D ever were) I really have a hard time understanding where this claim is coming from.

 

[Desdichado]

If that was so, we would have quantifiably better games now than in the past. But we don't. We just have people who like different editions for personal reasons.

We do. Not everyone likes them, of course, but there are games now that cater to folks who's demand for certain types of games was completely unmet by games in the past. We have games that play completely differently than anything that's come out before (Gumshow, Dread, etc.) That is all clearly evolution.

"Qualitatively better" is a fairly useless term to use, and the same is true in your example of tabletop minis gaming too.

 

[Wiseblood]

My game has houseruled: 1) Most of the classes available, 2) Most of the races available, 3) a few basic details about how combat works, 4) I rarely use minis or any other graphical representation of combat, 5) How XP and CR is used, 6) I included modules such as sanity and action points, 7) How AC works, 8) How skill and save DCs are calculated. Etc. In other words, stuff that's easy to slot in and out, and fundamental changes, both.

I keep hearing about the Jenga move type problems, but I've never seen anyone actually identify one specifically. Since my own experience is that its the easiest system to houserule that I've ever played with (it has so much more structure to utilize, and it's so much more consistent than B/X or AD&D ever were) I really have a hard time understanding where this claim is coming from.

That is a lot of houseruling. I suppose Jenga may have been a bad analogy.

I don't remember what rules I felt like changing. I do remember the ripple effect of changing the rules. If you change rule A you affect and therefore must change rules X, Y, and Z. It became more labor intensive than I wanted and it just became easier to run things RAW. Changing the rules in 3.x is like ability damage. When you adjust Constitution you must also adjust HP, Saves and Skills with the possibility of changing feats as well.