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

[Desdichado]

3E gave the impression (whether true or false) of being a precisely orchestrated whole where you could only tinker with a few of the black boxes if you didn't want to risk system collapse.

I never got that impression, and I've got nearly ten years now of experience to say that it's absolutely not true. I have seen this sentiment occasionally expressed by people on the internet, but it's a bizarre sentiment to me, completely disconnected from the reality that I know.

You do recall the book Unearthed Arcana, right? The 3e version I mean?

I have no idea where anyone got the impression that it was "discouraged" or difficult to mess with any and all of the "black boxes" of 3e. Which really bore no resemblance to black boxes at all; they were rather easily reversed engineered, when the design principles behind them weren't specifically called out anyway so they didn't even need to be reverse engineered (monster building guildelines were in Dragon within a month or two release of 3e IIRC, and were officially included in the 3.5 MM. To use one example of the exact opposite of a black box.)

 

[Desdichado]

And frankly, they were well within their rights to do so. The 1E rules were NOT open content. It was IP that was owned and thus deserved and NEEDED to be protected from unauthorized republication. Did they go too far? Maybe. But that was nonetheless a different situation.

Of course they were, but that's irrelevent to the discussion at hand. The discussion at hand was which ruleset invited customization. You can't say that 1e invited more customization than 3e, and then when confronted with the OGL, say, "well, they were totally within their rights to not open up the content of 1e!" and then go about your business as if you haven't contradicted your own argument.

 

[Desdichado]

3e may not have explicitly encouraged customization and houseruling, but it was widely acknowledged that if some part of the rules wasn't working for you or if your game needed different/additional rules that you should feel free to make changes.

But 3e did explicitly encourage that.

As evidence, I offer the DMG Witch character class which was offered as merely an example of what a GM could/should do to create custom classes.

 

[Jhaelen]

Anyone who thinks WotC would be selling fewer books after providing a two-page spread of guidelines for power creation is extremely naive, imnsho.

Nobody who would have bought a new PHB would suddenly no longer buy it.

Think about it: Who is interested in player-created powers?
I can think of about one target group: DMs creating a custom setting.

Anyone else will never, ever use them. They're not official! They'll never show up in the CharBuilder. RPGA will not allow them.
And even those groups who don't use the CharBuilder and don't care about the RPGA will think twice before using them. Since guidelines cannot guarantee the powers will be balanced DMs will be inclined not to allow them.

And I have a feeling anyone interested in creating powers is already doing so - without guidelines, using the existing powers as a guide.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Of course they were, but that's irrelevent to the discussion at hand. The discussion at hand was which ruleset invited customization. You can't say that 1e invited more customization than 3e, and then when confronted with the OGL, say, "well, they were totally within their rights to not open up the content of 1e!" and then go about your business as if you haven't contradicted your own argument.

And again the OGL is about what PUBLISHERS are encouraged or enabled to do and has no direct bearing on running an individual game at home. The point I was trying to make is that it is in the DMG where the individual DM should first be clearly and openly permitted if not outright encouraged to alter/add/delete rules to suit HIS game - and as came to be the case of 3E to strictly limit 3PP materials. This initial indication should be regularly reiterated with open admission that the rules did not cover all eventualities - including how all details of the written rules can interact in every way. Every official rules-advice source that offers a new official rule that is not already defined in the core rules should mention again that the DM is free to make up his own.

It's a very slight change but very significant nonetheless. I firmly hold that WotC has created a very different and not entirely desireable tone to the game and approach to gameplay by participants, and that this is both due to their own approach to game design and their approach to supporting it afterward which ALWAYS emphasizes official rules and NEVER supports instead the idea that a DM exercise his own creativity.

 

[Garmorn]

And again the OGL is about what PUBLISHERS are encouraged or enabled to do and has no direct bearing on running an individual game at home. The point I was trying to make is that it is in the DMG where the individual DM should first be clearly and openly permitted if not outright encouraged to alter/add/delete rules to suit HIS game - and as came to be the case of 3E to strictly limit 3PP materials. This initial indication should be regularly reiterated with open admission that the rules did not cover all eventualities - including how all details of the written rules can interact in every way. Every official rules-advice source that offers a new official rule that is not already defined in the core rules should mention again that the DM is free to make up his own.

It's a very slight change but very significant nonetheless. I firmly hold that WotC has created a very different and not entirely desireable tone to the game and approach to gameplay by participants, and that this is both due to their own approach to game design and their approach to supporting it afterward which ALWAYS emphasizes official rules and NEVER supports instead the idea that a DM exercise his own creativity.

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?

2nd) Customization is in the Character Builder, sure it not great but it is there. It will cause a few to think out of the box.

3rd) Why is rule customization so important? I would prefer a DM that creates his own world not to have to waste precious time on house rules that are designed to make his world unique, and use the rest of the time to improve his world and adventures.

 

[Oni]

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?

I'd say that there is a goodly segment of the gamer population that is. Well not so much indoctrinated, it's just their nature.

 

[Garmorn]

I'd say that there is a goodly segment of the gamer population that is. Well not so much indoctrinated, it's just their nature.

First I will admit that indoctrinated was a bad word choice. I just could not think of a better one.

On the other and why is it important?

I am really trying to understand why all of this is so important. I have DM'ed for almost 30 years, but unlike alot of the long term players here I did not start until I was in my early 20's. For some reason this has given me a different out look and I am trying to understand the OP's concern about something I think we are better off with out.

 

[malraux]

NEVER supports instead the idea that a DM exercise his own creativity.

The custom rules sections in the 3e and 4e dmgs beg to differ. In addition, page 42 and the custom monster rules also give a huge amount of space for creativity. And given the idea of exception based design, creating monsters and traps is effectively custom rules.

 

[N0Man]

You know... the Hybrid Class rules (already previewed in Dragon Magazine), while not a complete construction set for classes, do give a good example of breaking elements from classes in order to create a customized character.

With a good 22 full player classes released so far, and 272 possible Hybrids (though most wouldn't be viable) there are many example classes available to tweak into a custom classes.

However, I guess the part I don't get is why anyone needs 2 pages of rules (that the consensus weren't really that great) in order to be explicitly given permission to tinker around with that specific part of the game system.

On the other hand, DMG for 4.0 does explicitly address Creating House Rules, and give some very general design advice and warnings.

All in all, I felt 4E had more encouragement to take the game and settings and make them your own more than any edition before it, even if they didn't give instructions on how to customize everything. It also demonstrates on many occasions that sometimes some re-flavoring or a strategic swap of powers/traits can go a long way in changing the feel to things.

In the end though, D&D has always been a game for those with a DIY attitude, and hopefully always will be.