Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
Forked From:
Why I think you should try 4e (renamed)
In another thread it was brought up that games are sometimes - maybe even often - played differently from how they might have been expected, designed or intended to be played.
The designers of a game make assumptions on play styles and on the way their rules are used, add elements they find crucial for the enjoyment (balance, fun, story, whatever). But then players come around and notice the rules don't work that well or that they can "abuse" the rules for different ends, and so on.
An example might be people that handwave detailed monster creation guidelines, or people that institute house rules to make a game more or less lethal, people hand out tons of magic items when they were "supposed" to be rare, people allow casters to select their spells known instead of rolling for it or whatever else you can come up, or maybe seeing Thief skills as the only way to do whatever they do instead of a unique special abilities. A lot of these house rules, misunderstandings and diversions from intentions or expectations are common among many groups. A game is supposed to be horror and research, but due to the way combats and adventures work most of the time, heavy weaponry is typically found on even the most unlikely character. Nobody actually casts spells because it's far too dangerous and pistols and lockpicks work a lot more reliable, despite the game assuming everyone is a kind of spellcaster.
Maybe it is a little early for 4E to figure those out, but hey, one can try.
What do you think is not working as intended by the designers? What are you ignoring in practice despite the rules or guidelines suggesting otherwise.
For example - do you notice that the roles are meaningless in actual play?
Do you find yourself ignoring the monster creation guidelines and make your own stat blocks? Do you never use official stat blocks for monsters and rather make your own? Do you work with XP "budgets" for encounters - and does this achieve the results you expected?
Do you not use skill challenges at all, pre- or after errata or replaced them with a house rule system? Do you find you ignore skills or class skills? Have you removed certain restrictions? Did you change healing surges? Do you find yourself ignoring build or ability score suggestions? Do you ever use the infamous p.42 in the DMG, or have you heavily house ruled it? Do you use different point buy values (or a different dice roll method?).
Do you find any rule particularly frustrating and costing you a lot of effort to "use", more than it is worth to you?
Or do you only house rule very selectively, like changing a specific power?
I am not asking for the details of house rules, but more of where you notice that you quickly diverged from the game assumptions or rules and which direction you did take. What rules did you notice have no actual impact on the game? What rules do not work as intended?
Why I think you should try 4e (renamed)
Mallus said:
In another thread it was brought up that games are sometimes - maybe even often - played differently from how they might have been expected, designed or intended to be played.
The designers of a game make assumptions on play styles and on the way their rules are used, add elements they find crucial for the enjoyment (balance, fun, story, whatever). But then players come around and notice the rules don't work that well or that they can "abuse" the rules for different ends, and so on.
An example might be people that handwave detailed monster creation guidelines, or people that institute house rules to make a game more or less lethal, people hand out tons of magic items when they were "supposed" to be rare, people allow casters to select their spells known instead of rolling for it or whatever else you can come up, or maybe seeing Thief skills as the only way to do whatever they do instead of a unique special abilities. A lot of these house rules, misunderstandings and diversions from intentions or expectations are common among many groups. A game is supposed to be horror and research, but due to the way combats and adventures work most of the time, heavy weaponry is typically found on even the most unlikely character. Nobody actually casts spells because it's far too dangerous and pistols and lockpicks work a lot more reliable, despite the game assuming everyone is a kind of spellcaster.
Maybe it is a little early for 4E to figure those out, but hey, one can try.
What do you think is not working as intended by the designers? What are you ignoring in practice despite the rules or guidelines suggesting otherwise.
For example - do you notice that the roles are meaningless in actual play?
Do you find yourself ignoring the monster creation guidelines and make your own stat blocks? Do you never use official stat blocks for monsters and rather make your own? Do you work with XP "budgets" for encounters - and does this achieve the results you expected?
Do you not use skill challenges at all, pre- or after errata or replaced them with a house rule system? Do you find you ignore skills or class skills? Have you removed certain restrictions? Did you change healing surges? Do you find yourself ignoring build or ability score suggestions? Do you ever use the infamous p.42 in the DMG, or have you heavily house ruled it? Do you use different point buy values (or a different dice roll method?).
Do you find any rule particularly frustrating and costing you a lot of effort to "use", more than it is worth to you?
Or do you only house rule very selectively, like changing a specific power?
I am not asking for the details of house rules, but more of where you notice that you quickly diverged from the game assumptions or rules and which direction you did take. What rules did you notice have no actual impact on the game? What rules do not work as intended?
Last edited:
