Is 3rd edition too "quantitative"

[BryonD]

You see, AU (for example), takes my inspiration in a certain direction, it focuses it. WotC books, for the most part, don't. That's too much "freedom" for me (in quotation marks because I don't see it as freedom). Give me a direction and I'll go crazy. Tell me, "design a big port city", and I'll go for it. Tell me "design a settlement" and I'll wonder about size, whether or not it's got a port, etc.
Also, I want my game books to be good reads, not things I plow through before relaxing.

And I think I'm quite good at thinking up rules, so where are my fluff books?

Well, like I said, perspectives vary. AU (for example) takes my inspriation in a certain direction. I like to set my own course.

I don't see why you can dispute being free to do what you want as not being "freedom", but whatever.

I enjoy reading the general WotC books. I get stream of conciousness thoughts going where I see how the rules work with my existing ideas and where the rules spin new ideas off my brain. Reading AU kept pushing me away from those thoughts and into the AU way. I found the WotC stuff more relaxing.

I'm certain that I'm good at writing my own rules. But obviously the market does not support story product nearly somuch as it does rule product. Lucky me.

 

[BryonD]

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.

In your prior post that I was responding to you said it was "the rules themselves". I think it was pretty clear that that means WotC.

Anyway, if you don't mean that and you do mean the various DMs, then fine, I agree with you.

That does not in any way support a claim of D&D being to quantitative. Rules nazis are rules nazis and bully GMs are bully GMs. I've never seen a significant difference in how specific people play based on varying game sets.

 

[Umbran]

It depends on your definition of "they". Look at the boards and you'll see a number of people who say just that...

Well, I'm referring to the core rules here, so "They" would be the people who wrote the rules.

There's a small problem with using the opinion of the masses to tell you about what the game rules really hold - because a great many of the masses use the rulebooks without having ever really read them, cover to cover. Frequently, a player or GM will only skim the book, looking for the bits they need at the moment, and never really read the whole thing. And if you aren't going to specifically look for the information on customizing, you won't find it, and may end up with the inaccurate impression that the information isn't there.

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.

I have yet to see it done well anywhere (including GURPS). I would prefer a rule-set that is well done, but not modular, than a rules set ithat is modular, but stinks.

In addition, the game rules are written with at least some attention paid to the fact that you need to walk before you can run. RPGs are akin to poetry and literature - you need to know the rules and how they work before you can learn when and where to break and change the rules. The basics are covered in the core rules. How to play with things are covered in things like Unearthed Arcana and Savage Species and other non-core books.

Why the separation? Well, economics is one - aside from the fact that WotC exists to make money, putting all the interesting variations into the core rules would end up with them being hideously expensive. Another is conceptual - in a basic book on grammar, you won't find a whole lot of information on how to play wiht the laws of grammar to write good poetry, and for good reason.

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.

Two words for you - Unearthed Arcana. An entire book about ways to change the rules. How can you say that they intend that you never change the rules? The company that publishes the rules has given you options, and made it terribly easy for 3rd parties to give you options. How can you read this as an intention fo ryou to keep them static as written?

And any good homebrewer will tell you that these rules are difficult to customize.

Ah, I see. So I, who only use hombrew for my games, and have no problem at all customizing the rules, must be terribly, horribly bad at hombrewing. Thank you very much.

True, I only customize to a point. I don't try to make D&D into a hard science fiction game. But I believe in using the right tool for the right job. As an analogy - I may try to tweak things so that my phillips head screwdriver works like a straight headed one. But rather than trying to find a way to turn my screwdriver into a hammer, I'll actually go look for a hammer.

I don't believe you can make a game infinitely customizable without ruining it. So, I admit that there are limits to customizability. I think that is a good thing, as it encourages diversity in the gaming world.

By which I mean too resistant to change, too prone to spawn lawful (read: rigid) cultures of gamers.

I am unconvinced that this is because of the way the rules are formed or written. Gamers have been overcoming rigid rules for decades. I think think you should look elsewhere to find the causes for this effect, if it exists.

Why do I say "if"? Because internet forums are not a particularly valid statistical sample of the gaming community, as they select for gamers that are similar in too many ways. What you see here, on WotC boards, or RPG.net may not really reflect the gaming world as a whole.

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.

Really, no, that's not true at all. The OGL and d20 licenses are there specifically so that there are some books that WotC doesn't have to write if they don't think they can make enough profit. WotC wants you to buy their books, but they also intend that you buy and use other books on topics they don't produce themselves. That's part of the overall business plan, and so far it is working pretty well.

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've noted elsewhere, I've not seen what you're asking for done well anywhere. You've yet to show that it can be done well at all. What you may be seeing is no the Evil WotC trying to lock you into something. It may simply be designers knowing their own limits, and producing something that is D&D, and is good, but that fails to be all things to all people.

Really, trying to be all things to all people is asking for trouble.

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.

Look around these boards for a while. There are people who talk all the time about games in which they're nto playing with the core rules as written, and having a great time doing it. I think your perception may not match reality as well as you think.

In addition, something you might consider - perhaps extreme customizability may not be a Holy Grail worth seeking.

Consider - you say that the inability to giveyou exactly what you want means the game is too lawful, and that this is a failing of the system. Have you considered turingin it around for amoment? Could we not say that the driving need of gamers to have mechanics exactly as they want indicates an inflexibility, a excess of lawfulness, in the gamers? Shouldn't gamers be open to the chaos of a world that doesn't pander to their every whim? Does not compromise with the system take more imagination than being handed exactly what you ask for?

 

[der_kluge]

I think what ARandomGod is trying to say with his eloquent, yet somewhat lengthy post is:

- What good are rules if everyone has to constantly change them to suit their needs? -

Oh sure, lots of folks play d20 as written, but lots of folks play with tons of house rules, too. And even more than that, lots of people play with just a few minor tweaks here and there to get it do what they want. Is that the hallmark of a good rules system? That's like saying that you really like the Porsche 911 because the frame comes off easily and you can put a new body on it with impunity. What's the point? Sure, you might be able to take the body off, and put a Dodge 4x4 body on it, but that doesn't mean you're going to be able to go mudding in the thing. It's still a Porsche 911 - designed to do one thing, period. D20 is like that, the rules work, and they work well for the very specific intended purpose of playing high fantasy, high magic Wuxia style role-playing games. Anything else, and you pretty much just have to scrap it and start over with something else entirely.

Two words for you - Unearthed Arcana. An entire book about ways to change the rules. How can you say that they intend that you never change the rules? The company that publishes the rules has given you options, and made it terribly easy for 3rd parties to give you options. How can you read this as an intention fo ryou to keep them static as written?

Yes, Unearthed Arcana has a lot of rule variants - little things. I didn't see any rules to alter the scale of magic, or anything to allow me to adjust the combat level, to make it grim-n-gritty, or to modify the way the CR system fundamentally works. Some of the rules are things that should be core - Paladin and Bard Prestige classes, for example.

 

[BryonD]

- What good are rules if everyone has to constantly change them to suit their needs?

Do you feel that accurately describes the situation?

Of course if you can get somebody to publish rules 100% customized to my personal preference and THEN you can force everyone else to abandon their preference to play my way, then I'll be content with that.

In the meantime I think D20 is quite nice.

I use tweaks and houserules. But I don't think it is difficult to get new players up to speed on my tweaks in minutes and I've never found it difficult to get up to speed on other people's house rules. The RAW allows that to happen very smoothly. Thats what these particular rules are good for.

 

[Umbran]

- What good are rules if everyone has to constantly change them to suit their needs? -

I'm not sure that's what's being asked at all. Because even with an infinitely adaptable ruleset, you have to adjust it to fit your needs. You have to pick and choose which options you are going to use. And the greater the flexibility of the system, the more work this will entail. More options means more choices.

D20 is like that, the rules work, and they work well for the very specific intended purpose of playing high fantasy, high magic Wuxia style role-playing games. Anything else, and you pretty much just have to scrap it and start over with something else entirely.

Well, the high fantasy, high magic thing is subjective. I dunno that Wuxia-style description is at all accurate. The Wuxia genre contains a great deal of action that is not reasonably possible under the rules as written. You need to get up into epic levels before you can approach such action, and most games never reach that level, and they are only marginally covered by current core rules.

Yes, Unearthed Arcana has a lot of rule variants - little things. I didn't see any rules to alter the scale of magic, or anything to allow me to adjust the combat level, to make it grim-n-gritty, or to modify the way the CR system fundamentally works.

Nothing? Let's look at that....

You don't make it at all clear what you mean by "adjust the combat level", so I cannot speak to that.

Similarly "alter the scale of magic" is pretty vague, and thus difficult to address. However, altering how much magic is available to spellcasters is pretty easy using UA - use spell points, and then adjust the points available. Adjusting the number of magic items doesn't require rules variation - it only require the DM to edit his treasures and thereafter keep an eye on what his characters can and cannot do (which the DM should be doing anyway, even using standarsd magic).

The WP/VP system has been lauded as a pretty darned good way to move the game into grim'n'gritty. Similarly, the information on massive damage rules is useful there. Modify the way the CR system fundamentally works? Sure! Just use the XP variants presented in UA.

Some of the rules are things that should be core - Paladin and Bard Prestige classes, for example.

Well, here we get into a real problem. You think paladin and bard prestige classes should be core. Others think that core should be the Generic Classes variant. Others like the core classes the way they are.

And this brings us back to the economics. The number of possible variations is large. Very large. You either have to make choices, and have some folks disagree, or you have to include everything that can be imagined as core. Take the current core books, and include all the UA, and the Complete Series, and Savage Species, and Psionics, and a few things not in any of those books, and make them one massive core...

...and nobody will have enough money to buy the resulting books. And they'd be physically nigh-impossible to use - like trying to game using an unabriged dictionary of the English Language as your reference. Just bloody impractical.

Especially since we'd have the same aguement all over again, as people imagine new things that weren't in that massive core. No matter how flexible you make your system, someone will htink of things you didn't include. That's the problem when the limiting factor is human imagination. You want a single system to all at once cover everything peole can imagine? That just isn't realistic.

 

[der_kluge]

And this brings us back to the economics. The number of possible variations is large. Very large. You either have to make choices, and have some folks disagree, or you have to include everything that can be imagined as core. Take the current core books, and include all the UA, and the Complete Series, and Savage Species, and Psionics, and a few things not in any of those books, and make them one massive core...

And I think that's the fundamental problem with the system. Which more or less gets me full-circle back to the topic at hand - that because d20 has so much fluff and "D&D specific" stuff in it (for lack of a better term) that it's not a simple, flexible ruleset that it needs to be. There are a lot of base assumptions built into the game that make it hard to be flexible. Like, fighters at high levels having 200+ hit points. Characters at high levels dealing out uber amounts of damage, raising of dead, healing of all hit points, teleporting, scrying, and all the other stuff that goes into the game, that make it what it is. No, it's not intended to be GURPS, and it clearly is not. But, as a ruleset which is supposed to be portable, I don't think it works very well for everything.

Yes, the number of possible variations is very large, but quite finite as compared with some like GURPS. In D&D, there are just so many ways I can build a cleric, as opposed to the number of ways I could build a "cleric-like" character in GURPS. Far more choices for variety. So, what you get in D&D is more variations on the same thing. "Look, here are more kinds of clerics". That's why there is so much crunch in all the expansion products, because the base choices are just so few. I can't count the number of times people post on here looking for a new Prestige class, or some specific class or race, or whatever, to suit their idea of what they want to create. It's the major flaw with the class-based system, I think, but that's a discussion for another day

Especially since we'd have the same aguement all over again, as people imagine new things that weren't in that massive core. No matter how flexible you make your system, someone will htink of things you didn't include. That's the problem when the limiting factor is human imagination. You want a single system to all at once cover everything peole can imagine? That just isn't realistic.

I think it's realistic to believe that you can create a flexible system that will be "good enough" or at least flexible enough and open-ended enough to allow the GM and his players to adjust as they see fit. If I wanted to play a Druid who turns undead because there are shadows that live in the woods, I can't do it at 1st level. That's a perfectly viable character concept that the rules just don't support, at least not the core rules. If wanted a thief who knew a few handy cantrips and spells at 1st level, again I can't do it, without making a bard, and then you get that whole stupid musical ability crap, which you may not want anything to do with.

D&D has tied the "fluff" in with the rules to create "classes". "This is a thief, this is what it does, any deviation from this is simply not possible aside from additions you make to this base class". "This is a sleep spell. I do not care if you are 20th level, it sucks today, just as much as it sucked 15 levels ago. There are no rules to make the spell any better, not matter how much you want to try."

 

[der_kluge]

Do you feel that accurately describes the situation?

Of course if you can get somebody to publish rules 100% customized to my personal preference and THEN you can force everyone else to abandon their preference to play my way, then I'll be content with that.

In the meantime I think D20 is quite nice.

I believe that if d20 works for you, then you should play d20. It doesn't work for me, so my next game won't use it. My current group uses it, but soon we'll be switching to Grim Tales, which is closer to where I want to be, game-wise.

I believe that you should use a rules system that is closest to where you want to go, versus starting with what's popular and modifying it to the nth degree. D20 is obviously a good choice, since there are is simply so much published stuff. I only know of a handful of people that allow just about all this stuff. I can't imagine what those homebrew worlds look like, unless they're all playing in Oathbound.

 

[ARandomGod]

In your prior post that I was responding to you said it was "the rules themselves". I think it was pretty clear that that means WotC.

Anyway, if you don't mean that and you do mean the various DMs, then fine, I agree with you.

I do mean the rules themselves about some things, and about others I'm referring to people's views of the rules, the way the rules are implimented. Communication is a two way street, these rules (and this discussion, for that matter) are attempts at communication, and as such *in general* both parties are responsible for miscommunication to some degree... Here I'm stating that the way these rules are written tends to have, on average... from what I've seen, the effect of a more static system than I personally like. It's not very customizable. With the exception of the easy ability to ADD rules. A nice ability, it allows for growth, but not really fundamental change.

That does not in any way support a claim of D&D being to quantitative. Rules nazis are rules nazis and bully GMs are bully GMs. I've never seen a significant difference in how specific people play based on varying game sets.

And so, actually, people's perceptions of the game, the culture around the rules is actually the only support (in my opinion, and by the discussion that I'm projecting) for the rules being "to quantitative" or not. (By which I mean that's the measure that I'm using to make the determination) I have seen several examples of different rules sets. And I conciede the point that certain types of people will gravitate towards certain systems. On the other hand it's quite possible (and I argue probably) that some if not most of those people have "learned" this type of thought from the system/rules set WotC has published. And I've seen SOME people playing in multiple rulessets, they have an easier time being flexible in the ones that are made flexibly, logically. They tend to not want to mess with the 3.X system because attempting to do so tends to cause them so many problems.

There's a small problem with using the opinion of the masses to tell you about what the game rules really hold - because a great many of the masses use the rulebooks without having ever really read them, cover to cover. Frequently, a player or GM will only skim the book, looking for the bits they need at the moment, and never really read the whole thing. And if you aren't going to specifically look for the information on customizing, you won't find it, and may end up with the inaccurate impression that the information isn't there.

I've read it. We may be talking about different types of customization, I suppose.

Two words for you - Unearthed Arcana. An entire book about ways to change the rules. How can you say that they intend that you never change the rules? The company that publishes the rules has given you options, and made it terribly easy for 3rd parties to give you options. How can you read this as an intention fo ryou to keep them static as written?

They can't possibly intend for you to never change the rules. They just made it more difficult than I'd like. I've read UA too. It's a collection of houserules. Some of them are interesting, and I found it enjoyable that they made money off people's houserules by publishing them in a non-"core" book about them. It appears to me, from your reaction to my post, that you've misunderstood my point.

Ah, I see. So I, who only use hombrew for my games, and have no problem at all customizing the rules, must be terribly, horribly bad at hombrewing. Thank you very much.

True, I only customize to a point. I don't try to make D&D into a hard science fiction game. But I believe in using the right tool for the right job. As an analogy - I may try to tweak things so that my phillips head screwdriver works like a straight headed one. But rather than trying to find a way to turn my screwdriver into a hammer, I'll actually go look for a hammer.

I don't believe you can make a game infinitely customizable without ruining it. So, I admit that there are limits to customizability. I think that is a good thing, as it encourages diversity in the gaming world.

Quite the opposite, in fact. If you only use homebrew games and you're defining homebrew in the same way I am... and you significantly change the rules while still using the rules set in 3.X and you do it all the time without significant effort? I believe I referred to you as an epic level gamesmith instead. A high epic level one, at that. All I said was that your general one will have difficulties making changes to the system without it drastically effecting the entire thing. Perhaps you manage to automatically know and compensate for every detail of every change you make. In which case even in a well modulated game I'm pretty impressed with your abilities.

I am unconvinced that this is because of the way the rules are formed or written. Gamers have been overcoming rigid rules for decades. I think think you should look elsewhere to find the causes for this effect, if it exists.

Why do I say "if"? Because internet forums are not a particularly valid statistical sample of the gaming community, as they select for gamers that are similar in too many ways. What you see here, on WotC boards, or RPG.net may not really reflect the gaming world as a whole.

I think you didn't do that part of your arguement very well. In one sentence you seem to be stating that the rules aren't written rigidly, while you seem to be supporting it by stating that gamers have been overcoming rigid rules such as these. I admit that I'm reading into what you've typed, but that's the point of my restating here, so you can see what I've "heard" or understood...

And I completely admit that nothing short of the entire world is the entire world. My inclusion of the internet forums was, on the other hand, my statement that I was not only using my experiences in real life, but also those I've read about. If, on the other hand, you're arguing that you personally are basing your opinion on the ENTIRE world, I would like a more personalized example of why you feel my circles are atypical of the community as a whole.

As I've noted elsewhere, I've not seen what you're asking for done well anywhere. You've yet to show that it can be done well at all. What you may be seeing is no the Evil WotC trying to lock you into something. It may simply be designers knowing their own limits, and producing something that is D&D, and is good, but that fails to be all things to all people.

Shoot, I wasn't "asking" for anything really, so much as making the statement that 3.X is more of the rigid side lawful and less of the creative side of chaotic than I like. For some references I'll say I particularly liked the original TORG, and I like the mutability of the current RPG rulesset HeroQuest. But really, I'll agree... an infinitely mutable system is a lot to ask for. If I thought they would be granting requests I'd just ask for a good set of rules for making custom spells, so that they could have a more official standing. And, my POINT there, of course, is the very idea that I'd want an official leg to stand on. In a game like the HQ that I meantioned, almost everything is custom, and if you want something 'new' there's definitely already a rule for the mechanic of it. Not everything's perfect, of course, and that one has it's own set of drawbacks.

Look around these boards for a while. There are people who talk all the time about games in which they're nto playing with the core rules as written, and having a great time doing it. I think your perception may not match reality as well as you think.

Hell, I play with core rules as written all the time. And I have a great time doing it. Once again I'm going to state that I think you may have gotten the wrong impression of my writings here. I was answering the question "Is third edition too 'quantitative'." Which I interpreted to mean "Is it more quantitative than you would optimally prefer". I answered "yes", and I gave some of my reasons why.

Consider - you say that the inability to giveyou exactly what you want means the game is too lawful, and that this is a failing of the system.

I don't say that it's a failing of the system so much as I say it's a quality of the system. The system is heavy on the Lawful side, and light on the customizible side.

Have you considered turingin it around for amoment? Could we not say that the driving need of gamers to have mechanics exactly as they want indicates an inflexibility, a excess of lawfulness, in the gamers?

One indeed COULD. In fact, I could even use that as an example of why 3.X is giving in to that excess of lawful desire. Fortunately for me, I don't have such a driving need, I just noted that this system is, in my opinion, "too quantitative". I put that in quotes because that's the definition of quantitative isn't really the one I'm working with in giving my statements, I'm instead interpreting it to mean "too rules heavy" or perhaps "not very malleable". In fact, earlier I meantioned that I really liked TORG, and I'll further state that it does not have this qualitiy of "too quantitative" that I'm against in the 3.X system. But, if you actually look at the book, you'll find a LOT of numbers. It's very quantivative in the actual definition of the term. But then again, I felt and responded as if the author of the question was using a different contexutal meaning.

Shouldn't gamers be open to the chaos of a world that doesn't pander to their every whim?

Certainly. ALL law is a subset of chaos. I fully recognize that, and would never argue to the contrary. (Well, I might, but I'd know it was counter to reality!)

Does not compromise with the system take more imagination than being handed exactly what you ask for?

YES!!! And there we have my point in a nutshell. Compromise with THIS system takes a lot of imagination and resources. It's very difficult! It's resistant to change! I feel that the system is "too quantitative" in the way that it is, in my opinion, too difficult to adapt.

Of course, I take your actual meaning, and if someone were to do the incredible and manage to write a system that actually did what in my wildest dreams would be the perfect system, it would be in no way exactly what anyone was asking for. It would instead be a set of ways to make what you want... but it could not, by definition, BE what you want.

 

[ARandomGod]

I think it's realistic to believe that you can create a flexible system that will be "good enough" or at least flexible enough and open-ended enough to allow the GM and his players to adjust as they see fit. If I wanted to play a Druid who turns undead because there are shadows that live in the woods, I can't do it at 1st level. That's a perfectly viable character concept that the rules just don't support, at least not the core rules. If wanted a thief who knew a few handy cantrips and spells at 1st level, again I can't do it, without making a bard, and then you get that whole stupid musical ability crap, which you may not want anything to do with.

I also think that it's realistic. Or to say, I've seen systems that have done this well enough for me to be quite satisfied with.