Is the Rules Forum Becoming the Variant Rules Forum?

[andargor]

You mean, a thread specifically requesting house rules? Haven't seen any I can recall, but maybe I just missed them...

Yes, there were a couple recently. I don't wish to point the finger at anyone in particular, however.

Perhaps just discussing this is a good thing, as it raises awareness on the issue. So that we may avoid creating more work for mods by extra policing or a sub-forum...

Andargor

 

[billd91]

In my opinion, as long as I get a RAW answer to a Rules question I am happy to also hear modifications and house rules suggestions. If a question is asking purely for house rules, then it does not belong in this forum. But if the question seeks and interpretation of the RAW and then the discussion flows into whether the RAW is the best way to handle the situation, and ways other have handled it, that is fine by me.

You've got my agreement. RPGs are games where the rules are meant to be looked at and then used or not used as appropriate to how the DM wants to run the game and how the players want to play. If there's a little tangential information from the RAW, as long as it pertains to the question, I'm all for it.

 

[dcollins]

• Do you see the same happening?
• Is this OK with what you expect of this forum?
• Should the variant discussions be relegated to the House Rules forum, or a should a Variant Sub-Forum be created under the Rules Forum?

I basically agree. Of course, I've been arguing that "new magic items = house rules" for a long time now, and I consider that to be the front-line of the evolution you're pointing out. The "price this magic item" threads really concern me, because they're completely subjective to each campaign, DM, etc. (just like new spells, monsters, classes, etc.)

If we could officially move the "price this magic item" threads back to another forum I think it would keep the Rules Forum much closer to its original spirit.

 

[Nail]

...and just for the record, I disagree with this particular "pet-peeve" of dcollin's. There are rules for pricing new magic items. The line is pretty clear between that and, say, "a variant bard class".

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

...and just for the record, I disagree with this particular "pet-peeve" of dcollin's. There are rules for pricing new magic items. The line is pretty clear between that and, say, "a variant bard class".

Ditto.

Which is why such discussions should stay here.

 

[Pickaxe]

Actually, variant rules seem perfectly appropriate-- at least those that are actually published in D&D sources, such as the spell roll. Since these are alternatives that are endorsed by the game designers, people should be able to ask about them and discuss them, and the Rules forum seems most appropriate for that. In this sense I'm distinguishing between official variant rules (e.g., spell roll) and true house rules (e.g., "my alt.ranger" or "my mana-based spell system").

I do get a little annoyed with the house rules creeping in for two reasons. One is that Andragor's Poster C often chimes in well before anyone takes up the role of Poster B, so Poster A gets no immediate answer, and the thread may suddenly become a debate about whether Poster C's house rule is any good. The second reason is that often Poster C enters the thread by declaring the rule in question to be stupid-dumb, hence the house rule, and thus an even greater risk of a debate that hijacks the thread to the detriment of its original intent. The worst is seeing a thread title on a question who's answer I'd like to know, and which has a promising 39 replies, only to discover that 35+ are off-topic, refer to house rules, or otherwise fail to address the question at hand. (I've since learned my lesson and now realize that threads with less than 10 responses are most likely to have actual answers in them. Or I just look to see if Hypersmurf was the last reply.)

--Axe

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

There has been some bleed over between forums... but part of that does make sense. Just check out the regular posters in both forums

I have been a Poster C who started a thread in the Wacky House Rules Forum based on a discussion here. Despite a heavy amount of posts in the original thread, it took pleading and begging to get anyone to cross over... even when provided a link.
With that in mind, I don't have any issues with a minor tweak being presented *after* the written rule has been decently clarified. I have gotten quite a few good ideas that way.
Major digressions belong in thier own thread.

I tend to stick only to threads that may impact my current game.. and competely ignore about 90% of the stuff that gets started here. Part of that is due to not having the time, the other is that I really have no desire to know how to do uber-character builds.

Anyway. Interesting discussion.

 

[RedShirtNo5]

In my opinion, as long as I get a RAW answer to a Rules question I am happy to also hear modifications and house rules suggestions. If a question is asking purely for house rules, then it does not belong in this forum. But if the question seeks and interpretation of the RAW and then the discussion flows into whether the RAW is the best way to handle the situation, and ways other have handled it, that is fine by me.

Word.

My view is the opposite of andragor. What I've seen over the past four years is an increasing frequency of attack on anyone who dares stray from the one true path of textual analysis.

This isn't the "RAW Forum". It's the Rules Forum. The forum heading says "This forum is for D&D Rules questions ..." That should include questions (and the resulting comments) of whether rules make sense, are balanced, are consistent with other rules, etc. In short, just about anything bearing on what the rule "should" be, including textual analysis, as well as designer intent, evolution of a rule from prior editions, balance considerations, and the like, should be fair for this forum. It should include views of those who are primarily textualists, as well as those who see the rules as merely modelling an underlying "reality" of a game world.

But what about the House Rules Forum? In my view, there are three main types motivations for a DM to make rules.
The first is genre/"realism" driven, and usually relates to the combat/hit point mechanism. For example, suppose I want to play in a "gritty" game where even high level characters are in danger from much less powerful opponents. So I adopt the "Grim and Gritty" rule set.
The second is campaign driven., and usually relates to the introduction or modification of classes, magic items, and spells. For example, in my campaign, elves are barbarian plains-wanderers. So I give favored class barbarian to the elf, and I introduce some prestige classes.
The third is game balance and interpretation driven. Usually these issues show up when there is an ambiguity in the rules, but not always.

In my view, the first and second belong fairly solidly in the House Rules forum. The third should be included in this forum if it evolves naturally from a question about the rules. For example, I'm worried that rogues can do to much damage while backstabbing. On the rules forum I ask "Are rogues broken?" It is completely legitimate for someone to say "I gave rogues one sneak attack per round, and it didn't hurt anything." On the other hand, a post that is basically "I think Rogues sneak attack is too powerful, please help me design a variant" does belong in House Rules.

Naturally, if someone asks a simple rule question, they deserve a RAW answer first. But that shouldn't foreclose further discussion or other types of questions.

A good discussion if it gets me to do the longest post I've made in a year.

-RedShirt

 

[andargor]

My view is the opposite of andragor. What I've seen over the past four years is an increasing frequency of attack on anyone who dares stray from the one true path of textual analysis.

This is another issue altogether, IMHO. Debating and making reference to the rules, and pointing them out, is one thing. Discriminating against a person because they don't follow them in their campaign is plain wrong, and not proper "posting etiquette". My motto is "give them the tools and the plans, but let them build their own house".

I mostly disagree with the rest of your post, but you already knew that.

Andargor

 

[Henry]

I personally don't see a problem, yet, because the majority of posts are still rules clarity discussions or balance discussions. If a thread is clearly house rules territory (developing an idea) then we move it. As long as the RAW answers are clearly noted as such, I'm fine with the occasional house rule suggestion being made in a thread.

As an aside, if you don't want such, it's perfectly fine to politely suggest that the person developing a house rule here may want to start a new post in house rules, but it's not a big issue if a suggestion or two is made. This forum is a big place, and can absorb a stray post or two.