Rule Changes That Affect Your Plot (or, 3.5 and the Simulacrum War)

[the Jester]

Have you ever had a plot that depended heavily on some aspect of the rules- perhaps even just a quirk of the rules- and had those rules change (i.e. a new edition comes out and you're still playing that campaign) to make said plot impossible?

What did you do? Did you do something in-game to mark the revision, just handwave it away or something else entirely?

Here's my story:

In 3.0, the spell simulacrum had a variable effect (something like 41-60% of the caster's power or something like that). In 3.0 you could apply multiple uses of the same metamagic feat to a spell. This combined means that in 3.0, someone with the Empower Spell feat and a metamagic rod: empower (or someone with a 10th level spell slot) could double empower a simulacrum spell... which meant in theory that he could make a simulacrum more powerful than himself.

Of course, this led to super-powered free-willed epic living simulacra of powerful wizards... hmm, not always the best thing for everyone. But what can ya do!

So anyway, in 3.5 simulacrum is different (it's straight up half as powerful as the caster) and you can't multi-metamagic stuff. Before the revision came out I got word that you wouldn't be able to multi-metamagic anymore, so I actually had to rush this plot into production (so to speak). We had an in-game event to justify the revision- but if it wasn't for the so-called Simulacrum Wars, I probably wouldn't have. Maybe, but I really don't think so.

Anyway, how about you?

 

[Glyfair]

Have you ever had a plot that depended heavily on some aspect of the rules- perhaps even just a quirk of the rules- and had those rules change (i.e. a new edition comes out and you're still playing that campaign) to make said plot impossible?

No, but I've had unused plots that could have happened to. The change in Reincarnation could have made some background to some plots seem to make less sense.

What did you do? Did you do something in-game to mark the revision, just handwave it away or something else entirely?

Well, it didn't happen. However, if it did I would take one of three approaches. One option would be to ditch the plot (the least likely choice for me). Another option would be to no adapt the rules change.

The last option, and the one most likely for me to use, would be to make the change, but create an alternate reason for the spell. In my case, reincarnation would work as in 3.5. However, I'd have a variation on reincarnation that works more like previous versions of the spell.

 

[Ed_Laprade]

If it were me, I'd simply not change to the new rules until the campaign was finished. (If everyone insisted on using the new rules, the campaign would end and we'd start over again with something new.)

 

[el-remmen]

The rules should serve the game, not vice-versa.

 

[Shemeska]

The rules should serve the game, not vice-versa.

Quoted for truth.


I don't alter rules mid-campaign. When a new campaign is started I'll find out what sort of consensus there is among my players regarding any large rules changes. For instance, when 3.5 came out, I continued with 3e till the end of my then current campaign. When it was over I let my players decide if they wanted to run the next campaign in 3.5 or stick with 3e. They uniformly said they'd rather stick with 3.0, and so that's what I went with.

But honestly, when rules get in the way of a campaign, the rules bend, buckle, and fold, so long as I'm consistent with what rules I'm applying.

 

[Agent Oracle]

In the course of my games, the only rules change that has ever directly impacted anyone was one player who started a scout the day the Complete Adventurer came out. She rolled up a character good for the party, ad assigned all skill points.

a session or two in, she realized, she could DETECT draps, but not DO anything about 'em. So, we checked, and, sure enough, wizards had just eratta'd it. She had a skill with 0 points in it.

I let her redistribute her skill points. No biggie.

 

[Psion]

The rules should serve the game, not vice-versa.

Where have I heard that before?


To answer the OP, I have a thing about unique high level NPC wizards in my main world game. Almost all of them were goofed up by the 3.5 change to school specializations.

What did I do? Stuck with the old rules.

 

[genshou]

I would never switch rules mid-campaign. Too jarring.

 

[Tonguez]

In the first scenario I would have continued with the original rule to the end of the adventure/campaign and then made it the reason the 'Powers that Be' intervened to change the rule

- Simulcrum War okay the PCs defeat the BBEGs and an Epic Divine Spell is unleashed which ensures that any future Simulcrum will only be half as powerful as the creator. Plus all such constructs are mistrusted and fall out of favour etc etc etc


As to the rest of the question I've never tied a plot to a mechanic so it hasn't happened (and since I always ignore rules when creating plots probabaly never will happen.)

 

[Buttercup]

Well, I'm still using 3.0. So I guess that tells you how I would deal with it.

I agree w/ el-remmen and Psion here. The rules are the servant, not the master.