"Just House Rule It" and the New DM

[StarFyre]

oh

Oh I agree

I understand now with all my complaining, much of the stuff I dont like in 4E is due to the quite different dynamics I find in my players and myself, compared to the average group

Sanjay

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Not the point and not the subject of the thread. The subject of the thread is how house-ruling/"modding" experienced DMs and new DMs will interact with the game and with one another.

How do we do it now, in 3rd edition? How did we do it before?

Many posters on these boards seem to run their homebrews which their own cosmology and races. Some of it can certainly be considered house rules.

My group has modified a few minor things only (Stat buff durations increased), but I am usually running a homebrew (I am currently the only one not running published modules/adventures) setting.

Nothing of this seems to really inhibit discussing things on these boards. Sometimes, house rules are used to show off certain aspects of the rule and what changing them can mean.

I think Cadfan is not so far off in saying that a lot of the things we coin "house rules" do not really affect discussing the game that much.

The real problem only occurs if a player becomes the member of a new group with a different set of house rule then his own. I think this only works by stating the important house rules to the new player and run a game to see if it all works out. Just as we do it today.

If the Virtual Table Top of the DDI adjucates rules and you can't change them, this will off course lessen the usability considerably since a lot of groups invariable end up with house rules, even if it is just one custom feat.
I thought I read that the VTT wouldn't adjucate rules (or at least doesn't have to), but maybe I am mistaken on that?

 

[Reynard]

If the Virtual Table Top of the DDI adjucates rules and you can't change them, this will off course lessen the usability considerably since a lot of groups invariable end up with house rules, even if it is just one custom feat.
I thought I read that the VTT wouldn't adjucate rules (or at least doesn't have to), but maybe I am mistaken on that?

I don't think so. The intent, as I understand it, is to simply allow people to move their minis around in a virtual environment, not actually resolve actions.

But that in and of itself opens up the community. Clubs, game days and conventions have traditionally been the ways in which otherwise isolated players interact. The VTT, if it works right, will change that. there'll be a lot more interaction between isolated players and groups. I guess what I am wondering is does that imply a need for a greater deal of consistency -- or at least suggest that those games that hew closer to the GAW (game-as-written) will be more successful and therefore bolster the GAW? Or, will a greater exposure to more varied interpretations/house rules create a community that is in fact more open to variation -- not just in theory, but in actual play?

I know that most people don't take part in the overall "gaming community", due in large part I think to general physical isolation. But the intent with 4E is obviously to open up that community through the internet -- Gleemax, DDI -- so there'll be less isolation.

I think it is an interesting question and worth considering, as a member of a larger "gaming community" - not just on messageboards, but by DMing at conventions and game days and the like.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I don't think so. The intent, as I understand it, is to simply allow people to move their minis around in a virtual environment, not actually resolve actions.

But that in and of itself opens up the community. Clubs, game days and conventions have traditionally been the ways in which otherwise isolated players interact. The VTT, if it works right, will change that. there'll be a lot more interaction between isolated players and groups. I guess what I am wondering is does that imply a need for a greater deal of consistency -- or at least suggest that those games that hew closer to the GAW (game-as-written) will be more successful and therefore bolster the GAW? Or, will a greater exposure to more varied interpretations/house rules create a community that is in fact more open to variation -- not just in theory, but in actual play?

I know that most people don't take part in the overall "gaming community", due in large part I think to general physical isolation. But the intent with 4E is obviously to open up that community through the internet -- Gleemax, DDI -- so there'll be less isolation.

I think it is an interesting question and worth considering, as a member of a larger "gaming community" - not just on messageboards, but by DMing at conventions and game days and the like.

Nobody knows yet how will the VTT will actually be expected, and if it will really lead to "casual" role-playing with remote players.

If there is still a tendency for stable groups, then house rules will work just as they do today.

If the groups are less stable, and people casually meet to have a game with "strangers", I think the RAW will become a lot more standard, because it is a lot of hassle communicating all the house rules. I can see that there might be some "common house rules" among players that partake in this bigger gaming communities, which is basically an "emergent" errata to the game.

 

[Stogoe]

Adherence to the rules as written seems to be an emerging expectation in the player community, at least judging by the content of internet message boards...

I think you see 'adherence' to RAW on the boards because everyone has access to them. It's a shared baseline for constructive discussions. Nobody else has access to your thirty-page campaign setting/list of rules changes, so it's impossible to discuss D&D online with your specific homebrew as a baseline.

To put it another way, it's like running your forum in English and not Cherokee.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

"Just houserule/change it" means something to an experienced DM (exactly what depending on what the issue at hand is). What does it mean to a new DM looking for advice or to understand why things may be the way they are? In addition, there is the issue of these two groups of DMs interacting in direct play with one another as the VTT takes off (assuming it does).

I expect and hope that the 4e books will have more DMing help than before; certainly the designers have been saying that the rules will be more transparent, with explanations of why things work like they do. If so, the new DMs will likely have an easier time figuring out whether they want to actually houserule things, and if they do, how it will effect the game in whole.

 

[Lanefan]

Honestly, lets name some issues that a new player might want houseruled, and have a hard time houseruling. Here's the criteria.

1) If its a matter that no one would likely care about unless they had knowledge of previous editions, it doesn't count. New players don't have nostalgia for older editions, and therefore don't want to houserule the game to resemble older editions. As an example, the fact that the game hasn't got brass dragons would fail this test. No one is going to be demanding brass colored dragons unless they've become accustomed to older editions of D&D, and if they're accustomed to older editions of D&D, they're not new.

2) It has to be difficult for a new DM. "We're not using dragonborn" fails this test because any fool can say "we're not using dragonborn."

3) It has to be a real houserule. Certain matters are considered to be the DMs decision within the core rules of the game. Designing places, NPCs, plotlines, cosmologies, and so forth is not houseruling. It is being a DM.

OK, here's a few:

Speed of advancement/length of campaign (these are inextricably tied together). If a new DM wants to run a 1-30 campaign in 6 months or 6 years as opposed to the 1-2 year system expectation, that's going to take some houseruling. Easy to do, yes, but not so easy to think of for a new DM; and not so easy to see the long-term knock-on effects (for example, slower advancement puts the wealth-by-level way out of whack in the long run unless you also slash back on treasure given, and a new DM will miss this every time).

Injection of realism, justified or otherwise. For example, your shiny new DM is a 25-year SCA member and knows all about how armour vs. weapon types works in real life, and wants to import this knowledge into the mechanics of the game. Where would this DM even begin, and how would she know what the knock-on effects (if any) of these changes might be? A second example here might be a new DM who is a physicist in real life, and wants to houserule an explanation for how magic works in a physical universe using physics-based knowledge...and to suit this starts making mechanical changes to spells. How messy does *that* get?

Simply put, if the idea is to attract and keep new DMs, there needs to be a section in the DMG on how to houserule, rather than something saying "don't do it".

Lanefan

 

[Hussar]

Nobody knows yet how will the VTT will actually be expected, and if it will really lead to "casual" role-playing with remote players.

If there is still a tendency for stable groups, then house rules will work just as they do today.

If the groups are less stable, and people casually meet to have a game with "strangers", I think the RAW will become a lot more standard, because it is a lot of hassle communicating all the house rules. I can see that there might be some "common house rules" among players that partake in this bigger gaming communities, which is basically an "emergent" errata to the game.

On the Virtual Table Top (VTT)

As a very long time user of OpenRPG, I can say that casual gamers do use VTT's for pick up games of D&D. I think that the RPGA will drive this by a very large amount as well. Living games seem tailor made for this sort of thing.

So, yes, when you are playing with people that you have never met and will never meet, having baseline rules that work is VERY VERY important.

Houserules are for stable groups that have played together for a long time. If you are changing groups fairly often (say, every 6 months to 2 years) then, having to relearn the game each time is not a good thing. So, just like you see on rules forums on the internet, house ruling will become a bad thing FOR THOSE GROUPS. For groups that are stable, they will have an entirely different experience.

OK, here's a few:

Speed of advancement/length of campaign (these are inextricably tied together). If a new DM wants to run a 1-30 campaign in 6 months or 6 years as opposed to the 1-2 year system expectation, that's going to take some houseruling. Easy to do, yes, but not so easy to think of for a new DM; and not so easy to see the long-term knock-on effects (for example, slower advancement puts the wealth-by-level way out of whack in the long run unless you also slash back on treasure given, and a new DM will miss this every time).

Yes, but those assumptions assume a level of DM competence. A new DM isn't going to have any idea how long a campaign is going to or should last. He's just going to play the game. Faster or slower requires DM experience so that he can have a baseline to compare to. Someone who's never played 1e isn't going to pine for the days when it took five years to hit level 10.

Injection of realism, justified or otherwise. For example, your shiny new DM is a 25-year SCA member and knows all about how armour vs. weapon types works in real life, and wants to import this knowledge into the mechanics of the game. Where would this DM even begin, and how would she know what the knock-on effects (if any) of these changes might be? A second example here might be a new DM who is a physicist in real life, and wants to houserule an explanation for how magic works in a physical universe using physics-based knowledge...and to suit this starts making mechanical changes to spells. How messy does *that* get?

Simply put, if the idea is to attract and keep new DMs, there needs to be a section in the DMG on how to houserule, rather than something saying "don't do it".

Lanefan

But, D&D has never catered to those kinds of DM's. Ever. Even way back in the 1e DMG, Gygax admits to this. D&D as a reality simulator doesn't work. Never has. Why should the game try to pretend something it isn't. There are limitations on what you can design for. Designing for the very small minorty (be it the SCA sim guy or whatever) is a very, very bad idea. You wind up with all sorts of conflicting rules. Stick to what you're good at and let those who want something different either buy 3rd party books or go to a different game.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Is the individual group house-ruling something to meet their preferences irrelevent to the larger gaming community, including these new DMs?

Yes, it's irrelevant - except where house-ruling certain things becomes so common it serves as evidence that this particular part of the rules really is a general failure rather than an isolated concern for a particular DM.

Is consistency from one table to the next, whether in a basement or at a con, important in any way, or even viable?

A certain level of consistency IS important so that when strangers get together to play, or we discuss the workings of the game we don't have to first list tons of house rules to get people to understand what we're trying to accomplish in our particular games.

How does the idea of the VTT figure into it, which could potentially get a lot more people playing with a lot broader cross section of gamers?

The virtual table top is, as I understand it, largely rules-free. It provides - quite literally - a virtual table, minis, dice, and a few other things, but does not limit how or why you move things around on that tabletop.

And finally, what about the "advanced DM"? Do you think the intent is that more advanced Dming techniques will be the subject of things like the DMG II? Or will the DMG II simply be a book of new crunch/updated and converted old crunch?

I can barely speculate meaningfully on what their INTENT is for books not yet even begun. I would tend to suspect new crunch as I would think that "advanced techniques" for a whole new game system like this would take a lot longer to conceptualize.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

Most new DM's won't be doing a lot of house ruling, but most new DM's will hew pretty close to the rules - most of the house ruling discussions going on in the 4E forums is from experienced DM's who want to make 4E more like their current games... or people giving said advice to those kinds of DM's.