Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="RedShirtNo5" data-source="post: 2534399" data-attributes="member: 173">Word.My view is the opposite of andragor.&nbsp; 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 &quot;RAW Forum&quot;.&nbsp; It's the Rules Forum.&nbsp; The forum heading says &quot;This forum is for D&amp;D Rules questions ...&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; That should include questions (and the resulting comments) of whether rules make sense, are balanced, are consistent with other rules, etc.&nbsp; In short, just about anything bearing on what the rule &quot;should&quot; 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.&nbsp; It should include views of those who are primarily textualists, as well as those who see the rules as merely modelling an underlying &quot;reality&quot; of a game world.&nbsp; But what about the House Rules Forum?&nbsp; In my view, there are three main types motivations for a DM to make rules.&nbsp; The first is genre/&quot;realism&quot; driven, and usually relates to the combat/hit point mechanism.&nbsp; For example, suppose I want to play in a &quot;gritty&quot; game where even high level characters are in danger from much less powerful opponents.&nbsp; So I adopt the &quot;Grim and Gritty&quot; rule set.&nbsp; The second is campaign driven., and usually relates to the introduction or modification of classes, magic items, and spells.&nbsp; For example, in my campaign, elves are barbarian plains-wanderers.&nbsp; So I give favored class barbarian to the elf, and I introduce some prestige classes.The third is game balance and interpretation driven.&nbsp; Usually these issues show up when there is an ambiguity in the rules, but not always.&nbsp; In my view, the first and second belong fairly solidly in the House Rules forum.&nbsp; The third should be included in this forum if it evolves naturally from a question about the rules.&nbsp; For example, I'm worried that rogues can do to much damage while backstabbing.&nbsp; On the rules forum I ask &quot;Are rogues broken?&quot;&nbsp; It is completely legitimate for someone to say &quot;I gave rogues one sneak attack per round, and it didn't hurt anything.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; On the other hand, a post that is basically &quot;I think Rogues sneak attack is too powerful, please help me design a variant&quot; does belong in House Rules.Naturally, if someone asks a simple rule question, they deserve a RAW answer first.&nbsp; 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</blockquote>

[QUOTE="RedShirtNo5, post: 2534399, member: 173"] 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 [/QUOTE]

Verification