"Just House Rule It" and the New DM

[Reynard]

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?

 

[Professor Phobos]

Part of the problem is that "house rule" has a completely different definition here on ENWorld than in any other region of gaming I've encountered.

Customizing a monster is not house ruling. Creating new monsters- not house ruling. These things are expected, but here modifying an "official" monster to suit a campaign world is tantamount to GM abuse.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Yeah, saying house rule it seems common here, but even more common are stories about how the DM changed things and messed up the game.

And in some of the 4E threads, I find the amount of people calling for house rules (when the rules are not even out yet) to be quite amusing.

 

[Rallek]

In my opinion 4e is being designed with more implied setting than any previous edition, and with a rule set designed to foster a specific style of play. This will, I believe, create a degree of consistency from table to table that hasn't really been seen before. Even the PoL setting feeds into this. No nations, no great cities, really... just an endless variety of scattered villages with the local dungeon/lair/loot hole nearby, it seems to lend itself to almost episodic play, doesn't it? Interestingly, I think that this consistency will not be found at the table of DMs who are comfortable with house-ruling and world-building, but rather at the tables of relative newcomers. I think this is exactly the intention.


Experienced DMs tend to have a regular group. This means that they tend to play face-to-face at a table. I know that there are exceptions, but in the general case I believe that we can all say that this is true. In order to really sell the DDI, you have to sell the VTT, and in order to really sell the VTT you have to ensure a commonality of play experience that allows for "pick-up" games. Users need to be able to hop online, see an opening for a lvl 8 rogue, and have a fair idea of what to expect when they join that game. Otherwise they won't use the VTT, and may have less interest in the DDI, and that means less subscription dollars for WoTC.


Is this some kind of conspiracy or sinister plot? Not really, it's just where they feel they can make the most money at present. Good or bad, I think that it is the shape of things to come for D&D.

 

[Rechan]

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.

 

[Irda Ranger]

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.

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.

And the same applies to Knowledge (The Planes) or Profession (Dark Overlord). You don't need stats for that. He knows whatever you need him to know; he rules over his Dominion in Hell "because you say so." You don't need to reflect this kind of stuff in a stat block.

And that's cool with new DM's too, because most new DM's will just wing that stuff anyway using either common sense or .. well, whatever it is teenagers have. Just picture a couple 14-year olds on the back patio: One of them says "Dude! He's a frakking Pit Fiend, he can juggle 30 elven baby skulls all day if he wants to." And he's right. It's his Pit Fiend.

As for combat stats, such as how much fire damage per round you suffer for being within 5 squares of him, I would not recommend changing that until rules mastery is achieved. That kind of change will influence what his effective level is. Other combat changes may have further ripple effects.

What i am wondering is how you think they interact and what they mean for the game.

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.

====================

Now, some Q&A

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

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.

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

Important? No. Fun is important. Consistency is not.

Viable? I hope not. Are you suggesting that someone (anyone) be empowered to prevent me from making house rules?

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?

As a side note, it took me a while to figure out what 'VTT' was referring to. Is that what the Virtual Table Top is referred to any WotC's boards?

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.

But yes, the VTT will enforce consistency. The environment simply won't be as easy to modify as a table-top game. Which is one of the reasons I think it will never really take off.

EDIT: Thanks, Fieari. I figured it out.

And finally, what about the "advanced DM"? Do you think the intent is that more advanced DM-ing 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'm not sure what your criteria for "Advanced DM" is, but if it means what I think it means, I believe that "advanced DMs" will be supported by DMG I. The 4E devs have stated a goal of rules transparency; of being clear and up front about what assumptions are under the hood of the game, and what ripple effects can be expected by changing certain elements.

The role of DMG II will probably be to have that same discussion all over again with respect to the new classes and rules introduced in PHB II. Think of each DMG as being the "Owners Manual" to each companion PHB. There'll be more to it than that, of course, but that's one of its purposes.

 

[Fieari]

I think he means Virtual Table Top, part of DDI...

 

[Professor Phobos]

The other thing is the philosophical dispute over game style. The hard simulationists view anything not represented mechanically as something that can not, by definition, occur in game, and anything introducing it counts as a "house rule."

Some of us, however, think that not everything- or even the majority of things- that happen in a game are mechanically represented, or even when things are mechanically represented, things are not necessarily fixed to that system, particularly off-screen. To some, this is "house ruling." To others, this is "normal gaming."

 

[Nymrohd]

Most of what I have read by now suggests a lot of ease of play for the new DM. Easier to create encounters, a small town fully fleshed out from the get-go, a more pro-adventure edition that will give DMs published material to use. 4E is certainly more DM friendly for the new DM as well as the older DM who simply doesn't have that much time.
Only an advanced DM should ever house rule combat mechanics, period. In a complicated system, you can never predict how a house rule can be exploited, unless you have mastered the rules and can handle the math. Also house rules should be there for DMs who know their players won't cry foul if they are forced to take back the rule because it is simply broken. Rampantly houseruling anything but the most transparent combat effects should be discouraged.
There is no such thing as house ruling fluff imo. Fluff is fluff, it is never a rule, only a concept.

 

[Vegepygmy]

To some, this is "house ruling." To others, this is "normal gaming."

I think you're creating a false dichotomy. "Normal gaming" includes "house ruling." Very few (if any) gamers play by the official rules only.