Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4010060" data-attributes="member: 42582">To an extent, but unfortunately I can't agree fully even with this reasonably innocuous remark, because part of what you mean here by "house ruling" is "adding to or deleting from lists of game elements" like monster lists, race lists, class lists, spell lists etc. And when a game is built so as to withstand this sort of addition or deletion, that already imposes design constraints which inhibit the flexibility of the system. And it can lead to problems, and potential incoherence.For example, D&D is one of the few fantasy RPGs I can think of where there is no mechanical limit on the number and range of spells that can be known by a given PC Wizard (compare RM, HARP, The Dying Earth, RQ, Fantasy Hero, HeroQuest/Wars, and I think Ars Magica also has rules about the number of disciplines/flavours/techniques/whatever that a given mage can have access to). Thus, no spell in D&D can be balanced on the basis that, by taking account of the fact that in learning it a Wizard is denied access to some other spell (and hence some other ability). Contrast Fighters and their Feats in this respect.Similarly, no adventure can safely be designed on the assumption that the party going through it have a certain suite of abilities available to them. (Although, in fact, the core rules are themselves balanced on certain very definite assumptions about clerical healing and magic item access: hence the problems with coherence that can emerge.)What I see in 4e is an attempt to revisit these aspects of the game from the ground up, and actually put forward a system (including character build and action resolution mechanics, a gameworld with both mechanical and non-mechanical but still highly system relevant aspects) which will coherently support what the designers take to be the most popular D&D playstyle.I personally don't see the latter combination as any less generic than "I'm a transmuter, I both open locks (but not being a diviner, I can't tell you what's behind them) and transform into an eagle" - but to a significant extent this is a matter of opinion.The vocabulary of the setting becomes less flexible, true - although in 3E it was still there to an extent: Dwarven Waraxe, combined with a race called Dwarves having a benefit in Dwarven Waraxe proficiency, does suggest a world in which Dwarves are proficieint with axes; and those same Dwarves having an AC buff againt Giants does suggest a world in which Dwarves and Giants don't get along.For me as a GM and player I regard this sought of vocabulary as very tolerable - the tradeoff here is between playability for the new (who benefit from having a gameworld vocabulary handed to them) and the experienced, I can understand why the new get prioritised.I said that:3E presupposes a world in which Elves, Dwarves, Gnomes, Halfllings and Orcs exist, in which meditative martial artists exist in monastic orders, in which nature worshippping shapechangers exist, in which magic-using musicians exist, in which holy warriors exist (and in greater numbers than their anti-paladin opponents), and in which priests tend also to be warriors.If I drop all the non-human races, and the Monk, Bard and Paladin classes, I have a rather variant 3e game. No more non-human humanoid opponents; as a result, no more Alter Self in its current form; a very different adventure style for 1st level PCs (no more Kobold or Goblin hunting), etc. This can be done, but at a certain point wouldn't I be better off playing the Conan RPG?But if you're prepared to make that level of change to a 3E game, why not just drop Dragonborn and Tieflings from 4e? The degree of required surgery looks from here to be no worse.</blockquote>

Verification