Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="D'karr" data-source="post: 6514332" data-attributes="member: 336">No apologies needed.  I understand busy schedules.Every game I run I look at the rules as a draft baseline.  If the rule works well in play, I keep it.  If the rule doesn't work that well then I'm already looking for ways to modify it, or remove it.  It's in my nature and has been that way since before I discovered D&D in late 1979.  D&D Basic (Moldvay) was explicit about the rules being guidelines, and that has stuck with me throughout D&D's editions.  However, AD&D made a concerted effort to make the rules as written more solid and "official".  3.x went full bore and attempted to make rules for a lot of things, that IMO where not necessarily needed.  I've aproached every edition with the same zest for tinkering.  4e just made it a lot easier (tinkering) than other editions save Moldvay.  You are correct that 4e has different versions of the rules in different places.  This is because the game kept evolving as people were playing it.  Skill challenges in particular needed a lot of work from the first printing/presentation in the DMG, to the last presentation in the Rules Compendium.  The Rules Compendium version is better, but it's still not perfect.  For me Skill Challenges are one of those things that have kept evolving and I'm perfectly comfortable with tinkering with them.My suggestion to you is look at the rules as the starting point.  If a rule makes no sense in the context of what you, as the DM, are trying to accomplish that day, then either remove it or change it.  I normally don't do that on the spot, I think through the problem and come up with possible solutions.  I've found 4e extremely robust.  What you as a DM need to think about are the knock-on effects of your rule change.  4e is so transparent in what it is trying to do, that figuring out the knock-on effects (other things that will be affected) becomes fun and easy.  For example I wanted to create long term and short term injuries in the game.  Looking at the Healing Surge, Dying Save, and Disease Track mechanics gave me a way to do so.  However, the knock-on effects can be varied (shorter adventuring days, characters that lose abilities, etc. ) So I had to use the mechanics sparingly, with the consent of the players, and provide for ways of mitigating them.  Nobody wants to have their ranger character (two weapon) lose an arm and not be able to do his "shtick".  However, when you mitigate the penalty (modify twin strike, etc.) and make finding a "mechagical" (part mech, part magic) arm replacement a quest then the campaign gets better.  The players get more invested in their characters, in the campaign, and everyone has more fun.I ran 3.x for almost 8 years in organized play, and for my home group.  I stopped running it for the reason you mentioned, prep time.  So I can see where you are coming from.  With 3.x my main problem was being able to keep the game challenging for the characters as they leveled (up to 8th level the game was OK).  The most prep time was creating any NPC, modifying monsters to keep the challenge up (character levels), or having to research (during prep) or look up spell like abilities (during play).  Eventually I just got tired of it.  I had already started to run 4e and it was an eye opener.  I remember running the last BBEG encounter of the campaign and I ran it as a 4e monster instead of a 3.x creature, it was way more satisfying for me, and it worked beautifully.  From that moment I was hooked on 4e because it had brought back the desire to run the game again.Now I spend my prep time in things I enjoy.  Coming up with scenarios, making unique magic items, and making unique or modified monsters.So tinker, the game can take it.  And if you break something you'll do it better the next time.Good luck with it.  I'm sure you'll have more fun when you start seeing how the game can bend.</blockquote>

Verification