Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ridley's Cohort" data-source="post: 1997206" data-attributes="member: 545">Well, you talk about these "repercussions" as some ominous result that will descend on the DM from peeved 3e gods.The opportunity you are mislabelling is the opportunity to rewrite a mechanic in one place and extend those changes into other places.  It is purely optional.  You keep speaking of extension as some kind of requirement and therefore automatically a bad thing.  It is like saying lakes are bad because I might get the urge to jump in and drown.Which is another way of saying "If you fail to mindlessly extend house rules everywhere logically possible, you are in danger of building up a horrible mess that might some day be as bad as 1e/2e."  And this is a problem with 3e?  How?You are also implicitly making a "One True Way To Houserule" argument.  Do you realize that?That is a fair point, but it is ultimately a subjective judgement which is more useful.  I find diversity built on a similar general theme more useful to me than an extremely broad array of unconnected options.  If I want radical ideas I have a shelf of other RPGs from which to draw inspiration.  YMMV.First of all, it is a little bizarre to me to consider a big rule change without a clearly stated purpose.  Unless you like swinging a sledgehammer blindfolded.Second of all, this is a bad example because 3e is still perfectly playable if I use your suggestions as is.  Losing AoOs from movement actually simplifies things in a way that some people prefer.  IMO, these changes would not be the best match for classic FRP campaigns, but it might make sense for a swashbuckling pirate game FREX.  3e is actually quite robust.Third of all, it is trivial to come up with similar sized changes that "break" 1e/2e if the DM does not think through the repurcussions.  The simplest example would be a low wealth campaign where the DM does not think through what happens to a party that fights a magical creature without any magical weapons.  I was unclear.1e/2e carves up mechanics and stuffs them into secure little pens.  The advantage, as you state it, is that the walls are built tall enough there is no point in considering what happens in other cells.  Nothing can leak out.  Anything that escapes will wither and die if it wanders into a foreign cell.  And the hard work done to renovate one location are of no value anywhere else.  This is the state of affairs where you feel the most free to make rules changes.3e also carves up mechanics into pens.  The big difference is that the walls between the cells is as low or high as the DM chooses.  If I come up with a Houserule in one place, I can let it escape and fraternize with the rest of the system if I choose to.  Or I can keep that can keep an impolite little houserule locked up in its cell -- I make the cell walls high by DM fiat.  Or I can let it have visiting hours with a handpicked number of other mechanics.  The key point is that the cell walls are as high or as low as I want them to be.The bottom line:  You seem to be arguing that the fell demons Repercussion and Consistency will not allow me to keep unruly 3e houserules in a cell or cells of my choosing.  And if I tempt their wrath, I will be horribly cursed with a game that might slightly resemble the hodgepdge that is 1e/2e.The peculiar thing is you seem to believe that this is a weakness of 3e, when it really is a backhanded compliment against 1e/2e.</blockquote>

Verification