Something 3E and 4E lost (that 2E had)

[Ariosto]

One thing I would like to see in the future is a regular article in Dungeon that explores possible houserules in depth, but that's highly wishful thinking.

Well, you can see it in the past in The Dragon!

Here's a few of my favorite examples:

- "0-level" characters, eh? Well, I see your point in that 1st level in 4e might feel more like 6th or something in previous games; the hit point scheme is flattened out, for one thing. Where, though, do you really get a baseline against which to compare? A "human rabble level 2 minion"?

- The rest are just "house rule 'em if you wanna", aren't they? Well, except for the hairy balance issues with:

Rules that allow all characters to attempt combat tricks like disarm, trip, sunder, and advanced grappling. Page 42 doesn't seem to apply to these sort of manuevers.

See, already in 3e (or maybe by the end of 2e) the wargame is the dog and everything else is the tail. In 4e, you add the Powers system to the complex built on top of and around and under and into and through all that sliding and flanking and opportunity exception-citing and so on.

There isn't an index (or even compact list) of powers in the PHB, in case you want to find out where to look up Windmill of Doom or Hurdy Gurdy of Blood. Do they even exist, outside of dusty shelves in video rental stores? How would you even know which powers are or are not "devalued" by letting someone do something without citing a power?

In fairness, though, there are between the PHB and DMG quite a few combat rules without even turning to powers!

I would say just play it by ear until the "game of exceptions" and "game of builds" combine to present a clear violation of a present player's niche protection.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Ok, I don't normally follow most onine threads. This is one of the few that has caught my attention. (It has been educational as I am really not your average gamer nor tend to hang with the average gamer.)

Since the 4e seems to be the current trend to balance at the encounter level, why not try to promote more home brew world and similar non rule area. I have seen many a person drop out of campaigns by poor house rules so why not a fairly fixed rule set at that level, but add lots of world building/running tools for both the player and DM?

Would this fix your complaint or do you think the ability to modify the classes, feats and powers are necessary?

You missed the fact that I'm not actually COMPLAINING about any given edition. For all that I think WotC did not-so-well with 3rd Edition it didn't stop me from enjoying the hell out of it for several years without more than an utterly irrlevant alteration from me as the DM. My dissatisfaction with its structure and support took a while to manifest. As far as 4E goes, I bought the core books, looked them over, and then set them on a shelf to gather dust. I'd jump into a 4E game as a player quite willingly because I'd like to be able to make judgements based on how it actually PLAYS but I have no interest whatsoever in running it. I try quite hard to limit my comments and criticisms of 4E to the scope of my actual knowledge of it which is admittedly limited.

But once again, the topic of the thread is what was lost between 1E/2E and 3E/4E. These versions approach the game VERY differently. Everyone likes or dislikes these differences to a greater or lesser degree individually. Someone might comment that nothing WAS lost between the older and newer editions. I think there was indeed something "lost" and the loss, IMO, is traced to the change in approach to the game itself as much as specific changes in the rules.

There's another thread going on right now (http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/269031-ad-d1-designed-game-balance.html), quite fascinating, dealing with the differences in game balance between 1E and other editions. Discussion there only serves to reinforce my point. The way "balance" is dealth between editions is substantially different and even prompts questioning of what definition of "balance" is appropriate. The different rules were meant to be handled by DM's in quite different ways, prompting similarly alternative approaches to gameplay by the players. I even used to go so far as to decry 3E as prompting less use of imagination by the players. I think that was a little extreme - but only a little. It was nonetheless prompted by my perceptions of both the changes in rules and the change in how players were asked and expected to deal with those rules.

In 1E there were gaps and questionable constructions in the rules. The DM was openly asked and expected to use this as an opportunity to be creative in applying his solutions for these lapses. 3E showed marked contrast. While there was admirable effort to eliminate rules lapses in the first place and official solutions were predominantly available just for the asking the DM was never prompted to his own solutions. He was quite clearly expected to first and foremost seek OFFICIAL solutions. There IS something that is lost in such an approach in how the game gets played. Whether that is good/bad/made up for is beside the point that there IS a change.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

All in all, it seems rather conclusive, as far as I'm concerned.

Except that beyond those otherwise excellent points the game ended up not with too many home-designed feats, classes and prestige classes being a problem but being crushed under the weight of an avalanche of both WotC and 3PP feats, classes, and prestige classes all being treated as player-entitled tools by DM's who hadn't gotten the original message: that these were initially supposed to be outlets for THEIR creativity and campaign design, not players playing Beat-My-Build.

 

[Garmorn]

3rd) For some it is important and for others it isn't, but perhaps you should look at how you're approaching this discussion. You make the assumption that any time spent creating house rules is a waste. For some DMs improving the world, story, and adventures means creating houserules. Some worlds don't match up perfectly with the core rules, and in those situations if the DM wants to improve his world it means changing some of the assumptions in the ruleset.

First thanks for the explanations. I am getting the education that I want.

Second time spent on house rules that support the story/world are not what I had in mind. I mean more along the lines like we want a more flexible wizard so ever spell is going cost spell level in points and every slot is going to give spell level points. Major changes to the rules that are not related to what the world is suppose to feel like.

Here's a few of my favorite examples:
- One of the basic assumptions of 4e is that player characters begin the game as experienced and capable adventurers. I'd love to have rules that represent less advanced characters like the apprentice wizard, or the farm boy who found Grandfather's sword in the attic, or the street urchin trying to prove her worth to the Thieve's Guild.

Yes that would be nice but out of the 20+ DM's I have ever ran into I would only trust 2 to create a system the works. (I sure can't)

I wanted to point this post out as the exact attitude toward houserules that bothers me. It basically makes the statement "I had a bad experience with houserules once so people shouldn't use them." If I told you I had a bad experience with jelly donuts once and people shouldn't eat them would you respect that opinion?
I'm having a hard time understanding what a world building tool is that doesn't include rule customization. Aside from maps, culture description, and custom player material (by which I mean powers, classes, PPs, EDs, equipment, ect.) what makes a world unique if the rules are exactly the same as every other world? I feel it's important to modify any part of the ruleset necessary in order to make my campaigns memorable beyond just the default D&D experience.

First my experience is not with just a few DM's. Now to your point about difference between campaign worlds. For most DM's the story, the background ect is what does it. A good DM makes the rules fade mostly into the background (No one can make the go away)

The drift that I got is that the OP wanted a system that encourges the DM's to make up rules on the fly, not worry about the long term affects on the game, ect. What you are talking about to me is completely different.

One more point. Lots of what I post will need several run througs before I can figure out alot of what you mean. It is a generational gap thing I think. All of you are just Kids.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Except that beyond those otherwise excellent points the game ended up not with too many home-designed feats, classes and prestige classes being a problem but being crushed under the weight of an avalanche of both WotC and 3PP feats, classes, and prestige classes all being treated as player-entitled tools by DM's who hadn't gotten the original message: that these were initially supposed to be outlets for THEIR creativity and campaign design, not players playing Beat-My-Build.

You might be right. *shrug* I honestly don't know.

I'd ask for (conclusive) evidence or suchlike, but that would be unfair at best, considering that such a thing in all likelihood doesn't exist.

For the record anyway, in my own experience of 3e/d20/OGL - past and present - that phenomenon you just described hasn't taken place. Of course, we could be in the minority there. Or the majority. Or teetering right on the balance, for all I know. . .

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

You might be right. *shrug* I honestly don't know.

I'd ask for (conclusive) evidence or suchlike, but that would be unfair at best, considering that such a thing in all likelihood doesn't exist.

For the record anyway, in my own experience of 3e/d20/OGL - past and present - that phenomenon you just described hasn't taken place. Of course, we could be in the minority there. Or the majority. Or teetering right on the balance, for all I know. . .

Thankfully such was not MY personal experience either. But it's quite clear to me from reading boards that it IS the phenomenon that is widely occurring.

 

[Desdichado]

1st) Why would very creative and intelligent people need to be told this? Are we so indoctrinated that we have to be told something is allowed before we will even think of it?

Why do you assume gamers overall are "very creative and intelligent people"? I'm sure some are. Probably in about the same proportions as the population overall.

 

[Desdichado]

Except that beyond those otherwise excellent points the game ended up not with too many home-designed feats, classes and prestige classes being a problem but being crushed under the weight of an avalanche of both WotC and 3PP feats, classes, and prestige classes all being treated as player-entitled tools by DM's who hadn't gotten the original message: that these were initially supposed to be outlets for THEIR creativity and campaign design, not players playing Beat-My-Build.

Well, the obvious answer to that is: no it didn't.

I presume you're talking about some kind of personal anecdote about the game and your group. I could counter that with mine, which I assure you, comes in completely on the other side of this discussion.

 

[Garmorn]

Why do you assume gamers overall are "very creative and intelligent people"? I'm sure some are. Probably in about the same proportions as the population overall.

Because over all, they do two things the the majority of the population does not do.

One they read for pleasure or create their own stories. It some imagination and creative to place your self into a story.

Two the create/imagine themselves or a created character in non normal situations.

Some do this better, some worst, but they still do it.

Being creative is to some degree work. I won't say most people can't be, just that they aren't.

 

[jeffh]

Because over all, they do two things the the majority of the population does not do.

One they read for pleasure or create their own stories. It some imagination and creative to place your self into a story.

Two the create/imagine themselves or a created character in non normal situations.

Some do this better, some worst, but they still do it.

Being creative is to some degree work. I won't say most people can't be, just that they aren't.

I'll give you "creative", but not necessarily "intelligent".