"Just House Rule It" and the New DM

[ruleslawyer]

I disagree. I can't speak for anyone else, but when I saw "Just change it" I'm referring to all of the non-combat fluffy stuff that doesn't effect combat or game balance. My specific example in another thread (which I remember you objecting to there too ) was with reference to how many ranks in Profession (Juggler) the Pit Fiend has. Who cares? Give him as many as your plot requires. In fact, unless he's in a juggling contest with the PC's, don't even write down a rank. Just have him juggle as well as the story requires.
...
I think it means that each campaign will have well-tested combat rules but unique and free-form plot elements and stories. It should be needless to say (but just in case), I consider this a good thing.

Exactly.

I think there are two discussions going on here, actually.

One is about the hard-core simulationist view that Professor Phobos mentioned. In that context, there are apparently a bunch of people who are concerned that if something isn't expressly spelled out in the rules, then it effectively doesn't exist for purposes of the game. For those people, making stuff up (like, say, assigning that pit fiend ranks in Profession [juggler] or, going further, giving the hobgoblin priest a few 1/encounter spells to reflect his mystical nature) is considered "house ruling"; I'd imagine that to be the source of the majority of "Just house rule it" comments you're encountering on these boards.

The second is about actually changing the 4e RAW to make them work for you, and once more, I think others have already teased out what I'm getting from reading these boards: Namely, that the suggestions of "well, just house rule it to [x]" are largely being made in response to DMs who are unhappy with the changes *because they prefer certain specific things about 3e.* Personally, I think that's the best possible response to someone who doesn't like x or y particular thing about the edition change simply because they're wedded to an artifact of the existing edition. The other responses are to sympathize and agree (which is only possible if... well, you actually sympathize and agree) or to dismiss them as being needlessly "traditionalist" (which seems to get the goat of a lot of players of former editions around here).

Yes. How could someone else's house rules matter to me? The heavily house-ruled Iron Heroes campaign I play in certainly has no effect on you or anyone else.

Right. But, if I could introduce some of the house rules from our campaign into Iron Heroes, repackage it, and sell it as Iron Heroes 2, I would... and that's part of the essence of being a developer, especially one working on a new edition of an existing game. You tinker with rules, jettison some subsystems, develop new ones, and write some flavor text... all with an eye to improving playability, enjoyability, and consistency. One's own house rules don't have to meet these criteria because all they really have to do is be acceptable to one's gaming group.

In many cases, at least from what I've seen on these boards, house rules are intended to maintain a particular playing style... often one at odds with the developers' goals. So it's quite likely that if someone is beating the drum about an issue with the rules that's simply philosophically at odds with what the developers are doing ("I want slower level advancement!" "I want detailed per-day resource management!" "I want 1st-level characters to dread facing individual goblin footsoldiers!") that other folk will suggest a house rule as the solution.

 

[Professor Phobos]

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.

Funny, the new game I joined just last week (incidentally the first time I've ever played D&D outside of Baldur's Gate/Torment/Icewind Dale) had a metric truckload of house rules.

All which I agreed with immediately! The SRD is a bloated abomination and the DM had trimmed a lot of the cruft, though not enough by my standards, naturally.

 

[FadedC]

I've personally found that inexperienced DMs are often the most likely to make lots of house rules, often without considering the consequences of them. They might think one rule they don't fully understand the reason for to be stupid or they might have another idea for a rule they think would be really cool. Or maybe they think certain classes or abilities or too weak or too powerful (remember how many people used to think monks were overpowered in 3e before actually playing them, or the number of people on these very boards who think power attack needs to be buffed because they haven't seen how powerful it can be).

So I just assume everyone will always be making house rules, it's just a question of if they consider the consequences of them. The only time a consistant rules set from game to game is really important is in living campaigns, and even then there will always be DMS will allow or disallow certain things.

 

[Scribble]

Anywho, to answer your question ... I'm not sure how many people the VTT will get into RPG's. I think it will mostly picks up former groups and friends who have scattered a bit. I don't know how many people will buy the PHB at Barnes & Noble and start gaming immediately online using DDI exclusively. DDI and the VTT are kind of a weird hybrid to me that don't seem to have the same fun potential as either table-top play or a purely online game, such as WoW or Halo. It's just a stand-in for table-top play for friends who or geographically separated. IMO, of course.

Not sure if I fully agree with this. People seperated by distances, and old game groups have options already if they really want them. True, the WOTC game table might make it a bit easier (with integration and stuff) but what I think is most important is that this is the first time it's being embraced right from the start of the rules. It's part of the game now. My guess, is in the rule books, they'll mention the VTT and DDI.

This is incredibly important because it means that Joe Newbie, after buying the rules and reading through them, can jump online, and enter a "newbie game..." Instant gratification.

I agree they might not have the same experience as an at home with your friends game, it's still instant (well almost) and allows the new gamer to get right into the game. Lets the new gamer actually experience the game instead of he long process of finding other dorks convincing them to play, teaching them the rules (that he/she barely knows) etc... This is something that D&D has always lacked. Now Joe Newbie can play for a bit, realize how much fun the game is, then worry about getting his real group together. (And they can even get together on weeknights too instead of just the weekend...)

VTT gives it a way to compete with the various other games (like video and computer games) that let you start playing after a minimal amount of setup, without loosing it's tabletop core.

 

[hamishspence]

the word Houserule

I have seen some people insist that whenever you choose one absolute over another in the fluff, its a houserule. Like "killing a fiend is always a good act" (Vile darkness) overruled for Blood War purposes, fiends whose alignment does not match their subtype (succubus paladin in Miniatures) and "violence must have just cause" (exalted deeds)

IMO, when a DM has to make interpretations, this is not houseruling, this is interpreting. Sometimes, rules clash.

What is more irritating is when some people insist they can ignore every book that is not the core 3, saying that they do not have to accept the fluff in them cos they are not core.

Like, for example, FCII rules for corruption, that make it much harder to mix good and evil deeds and call yourself neutral.

 

[Reynard]

What is more irritating is when some people insist they can ignore every book that is not the core 3, saying that they do not have to accept the fluff in them cos they are not core.

They can. It is a supplement. It is by definition optional.

 

[Professor Phobos]

What is more irritating is when some people insist they can ignore every book that is not the core 3, saying that they do not have to accept the fluff in them cos they are not core.

Of course they can ignore them! Supplements are optional!

 

[Vayden]

I thought that the whole issue of "Houserule it if you don't like it" was for those old DMs who don't like the way 4e does x or y.

THus, the New DM won't houserule it because he has less reason to dislike it for not being the way things used to be.

QFT. 4E seems pretty awesome, and the response of a pro-4E person to a small tiny objection causing hissy fits is "change it if you don't like it". It's not a problem for New DMs because the system will be fine for them at first. Once they learn it, they'll develop their own personal tastes ("OMG I hate Tieflings/Dwarves/Feat X") like all us old DMs have, and then they too will learn the magic of house-ruling. That's what makes pen-and-paper so great - the game belongs to your group, it can be what you want it to be (and if you really don't like it, you can play GURPS or any of the other 50 systems out there).

 

[takasi]

I think I'm hearing two simple breakdowns:

Changes: If you want to 'wrestle' in 4E, you just do an opposed strength check? I am houseruling that it provokes an 'Opportunity Attack'.

Additions: How much does it cost to buy a wagon? It doesn't say, so I'll make something up. Or better yet, I'll use another sourcebook.

I like that 4th edition needs a lot of additions and keeps its focus on combat only. Hopefully this will make 3rd edition non-combat material compatible.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

A lot of responses to issues folks have with changes in 4E, from mechanics to flavour, are some form or another of "just change it."

4E is ostensibly designed in such a way that it will make Dming easier and more intuitive for new DMs, so there's more DMs, so there's more players.

These two things are at odds. What i am wondering is how you think they interact and what they mean for the game. Is the individual group house-ruling something to meet their preferences irrelevent to the larger gaming community, including these new DMs? Is consistency from one table to the next, whether in a basement or at a con, important in any way, or even viable? 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? 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?

Whilst I intellectually agree with you, I am constantly reminded of the fact that the very first adventure I created was full of monsters I made up entirely (I didn't have an MC), and that very many of the adjudications I made were completely not covered by the rules.

When I got AD&D, I really didn't know anything that wasn't in 2E DMG. Which I am informed is the worst DMG, and least useful. Yet I was able to make stuff up that made sense, made people happy and so on, and via Dragon, I was rapidly introduced more formally to concepts like "house rules" and that the game could be modified more formally, and so on.

So I'm not sure this "house rule it" deal will impact new DMs a whole lot, if at all, esp. as house-ruling/adjudicating is likely to take place mostly out of combat. As to how it will affect the VTT, well, it'll cause absolute havoc if people are actually modifying rules, but I daresay the VTT doesn't LET you modify rules, indeed, I'll be faintly surprised if it even lets you bring in non-standard monsters.