BryonD said:
WotC points out the merit in adapting and changing materials to fit a given game.
Of course a given standard PClass has fixed prereqs. But if a player decides along the way that their character is evolving into a particular class type, but doesn't meet the prereqs, there is nothing at all wrong in adapting the existing class into a modified version that fits the character concept.
I agree with you there, there is definitely nothing wrong with that.
BryonD said:
WotC is not punishing players by given examples. But a DM may punish players by confining them to those exact examples.
I'm not talking about WoTC so much here. Sure, they put in token statements that you should customize things. I'm talking about the way the rules are generally perceived and the culture that has grown up around them. WoTC may not be at fault, there's no real way to determine one way or another, but I am of the opinion that the way it's written seems to encourage people to be less imaginative and inclusive.
Or so say, in my experience GM's do exactly that. They "punish" players by confining them to those exact rules. They don't want to think about it, and since there are already so many rules they don't feel the need to. Sure, one could argue that this is just what I've seen. But, I'll point out that, in general, a large portion of what I've seen of the game and game culture comes from this board. By which I mean I'm not limiting my opinion to just what I've seen in person, but I'm also including my perceptions of the culture what I've seen of people on EnWorld.
Umbran said:
Like MerricB, I am unconvinced. I see a number of places in the core rules where they discuss changing things. I cannot think of any particular instance of the rules saying "Don't change these, Or Else!". Would you care to produce a quote or two that support your position?
It depends on your definition of "they". Look at the boards and you'll see a number of people who say just that... Let's face it. It's a lawful book. And laws, by definition, resist change. It *could* be a chaotic set of laws, but instead it's a restrictive set of laws. They *could* have modular rules for situation sets, rules that are by their nature meant to be taken in and out, applied where wanted or needed, but it's simply not done here. Instead they list some very firm rules, and give a token nod to the fact that people can change them if they want. Of course people can change them! But, in general for your examples of what they say are firm rules, I suggest you look in the section labeled "feats", or perhaps "skills", or even "equipment". Do you realize that at the moment, a halfling cannot take up a dagger and use it as a shortsword? No indeed, said halfling MUST use a halfling sized shortsword... which is identical in every way to a human's dagger, with the exception that a human, for some reason, can't use it as a dagger... Hrmm.
Oh, and don't forget to look at spells. I mean, if any place could use a modular set of abilities that could be put together in one way or another for a particular effect, it would be spells. But no, instead, this spell does X. And there is NO fifth level fireball spell. Sure, there's a metamagic third level fireball spell, but no rules to really make a fifth level one. I've seen endless debate on that very topic. How powerful is scorching ray compared to fireball. How powerful is that "custom" spell compared to a metamagiced fireball, or metamagiced scorching ray.
Sure they tell you that the rules can be customized. And they can. My point is simply that the rules are not designed FOR customization. They're designed to be LAW. Unchanging, immutable, static. Supportive too, certainly. There's a lot to be said for law. But I feel that this incarnation of the game is overly lawful, and it needs more creativity (chaos) injected into it. A lawful culture by default produces lawful followers. And I also admit that it takes less imagination/intelligence/thought/effort to be lawful.
Umbran said:
Also, like the physician who needs to heal himself, I think perhaps you should take a look at the cultural context. Homebrewing has been part of D&D (and overall RPG) culture for three decades now.
Yes, It has. And any good homebrewer will tell you that these rules are difficult to customize. They're not hard to add onto, there's it's strength. And yes, I notice people attempting to customize the rules all the time. You can ADD a toughness feat. You can even say "the old one was horrible, so we'll just ignore it". And Poof! An instant Improved Toughness feat that gives +1 HP per level instead of +3 HP total. But that's not really changing the rules in my opinion. That's working inside the rules that they gave. And they have given this way to make changes, there is at least that.
Umbran said:
D&D started as a homebrew of miniature battle rules. 2e, 3e, and 3.5e all contain instances where common house rules have been absorbed by the core rules. I don't think the writers felt the need to encourage folks to use their imaginations to change the rules as written, because history has shown that such action is inevitable. It'd be like printing "We suggest you use a spoon" on every pint of Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream.
I agree with you there too. It's not really a part of my point, but you mentioned it so I felt the need to as well. The writers don't, IMO, even really need to say as much as they have. The token nod to the fact that these rules should be changed to add to the games enjoyment by the group is all that's needed.
But that wasn't my point, nor the intended feel of my responses. My thoughts on the subject are that the game, as written, is too lawful. By which I mean too resistant to change, too prone to spawn lawful (read: rigid) cultures of gamers.
Umbran said:
Every single book produced by WotC or 3rd party publishers is, in effect, intended for you to use to change the rules. How then, do you get ot the idea that the game tells you not to change rules?
Because, in general, I disagree. What they've attempted to do IMO (and what they've been pretty successful at doing, as far as I can see), it to create a set of immutable rules. WotC really wants you to only use their books. And WotC attempts to make their rules absolute instead of mutable. If they had indeed wanted a mutable set of rules, it would have been written with ways to interchange parts. As many people have discovered, if you attempt to change out one part of the WotC RAW, you're likely to screw up other parts.
As I said, it's easy to ADD TO the rules that are given. But not really simple to change them. And I personally submit my thought that a system where you can easily ADD law but cannot easily change law is a Law based system, with all that implies. Not a mutable one. Not a changeable one.
Sure, you can (and should! IMO) attempt to add some chaos to such a system. But then, that's my point. And undirected chaos rarely leads anywhere good. That's the path to destruction and dissolution. The system as written is not designed to allow much influx of chaos before it flies apart. Change too many things and it dissolves. So I can understand WHY people in general prefer RAW. It's stable.
So, I suppose, where I get the idea that you're "not allowed" to change the rules is from my perception that the rules aren't written to allow for change, and not from any perception that they've made some rule that it can't be done. More it's that I think they've booby-trapped the game so that if you attempt any significant changes at less than epic levels of game designer, you will fail your fort save. It's just often too painful.
But, all that said... for what it is it's a good game. They are very thourough rules, and I like thorough rules. I simply side, for the above reasons, with the factor that thinks the game is "too quantitavive". Which I've interpreted to mean: Not malliable enough. It's an aweome adamantium system. But, in spite of what the rules may say, adamantium does not easily adjust itself to other players, the wearer must adjust himself to it.
