The Advantage of MtG over D&D

[MerricB]

Heh - I understand exactly what you mean, Michael.

Of course, it's well worth remembering that with Magic: the Gathering there was a period of about three years when no-one, including the designers properly understood the game.

And they still don't understand the game fully. The last major block (Mirrodin) is fundamentally broken on many levels - so much so, that they're just having to wait until it rotates out rather than banning the multiple cards that are distorting the tournament environment.

Any game of this complexity is such that the understanding required for balance issues is beyond us until the game enters actual play with millions of people.

(We notice the things they missed for balance - we don't understand the things they rejected first).

Cheers!

 

[ptolemy18]

HA HAH HAH - But it was very funny. Inappropriate - but funny.

I was asking for it. I'll save it for a personal project where I can accidentally make RPGs look awful in a misguided attempt to try and promote 'em.

Jason

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I guess what I've trying to say, ranting aside, is that people would have more fun with the game if they'd learn it BEFORE trying to change it. At least play a house rule free game ONCE in your life. It isn't that bad.

Eh. I've played a wide variety of RPGs for 25+ years. I can get a pretty good idea of what I would want to change in most games I try just from reading the rules. Rules are made for a specific way of playing a game, and if that's not how I want to play, then out they go.

 

[velm]

I think another problem with MTG vs DND is that in MTG, there is rule for EVERYTHING. If 'x' happens THEN 'y' WILL happen. It is stated somewhere in some form. In a role playing game, there are a lot of times the rules do not cover everything. It is up to the DM to decide the best route. There are some rules the DM may introduce that are good and some that are not so good. I think that most people who play with a regular group have accepted that fact and enjoy it.
As far as a novice DM starting house rules, then, yes, they play the game first and get a feel for them. See what the designers were thinking.

 

[Sammael]

See what the designers were thinking.

True enough. "What were they thinking?!?" is one of the most common reactions to new material out of WotC these days.

 

[Darkness]

Yay - nothing like slamming groups of people with granny-unfriendly off-color comments. Don't do that. Also,
read the rules.

Post deleted. (Different author than the first deleted post in this thread, BTW.)

If you have any comments or questions, e-mail me.

 

[Andre]

...in my opinion until you sit down and work with the game within changing any of the rules as written i order to learn them you have no right to criticize and no competance to evaluate them.

While actually using the rules as written may increase a person's understanding, this position has the basic weakness of stressing the absolutes - No right, and no competence. Absolutes are likely to come 'round and bite you on the behind.

I agree. If Mr. Morris had worded his post as advice, I would support it wholeheartedly. Too many house rules are ill considered.

But since he posted it as a rant, I have to respectfully disagree. Whatever players and GM's should do, saying they (we?) have no right to do something is absurd. If WOTC (or Mr. Morris) were ever in a position to enforce strict adherence to the rules, I would stop playing - in my home it's my game, not theirs. If I make mistakes with my house rules, at least they're my mistakes, not WOTC's or Mr. Morris'.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I guess what I've trying to say, ranting aside, is that people would have more fun with the game if they'd learn it BEFORE trying to change it. At least play a house rule free game ONCE in your life. It isn't that bad.

Bear in mind that house rules aren't always the result of someone thinking a rule is bad or broken ... sometimes they're the result of simply not liking an area of the game. For instance, I didn't have to play in the standard game with its cheap and plentiful resurrections -- especially in 3.0 -- to know that I hate the whole paradigm. So I house-ruled it before I DMed my first session of The Sunless Citadel.

In any event, some people really are capable of looking at the rules and immediately understanding when one is broken without having to play it first. (I'm not one of them, BTW, but it took me all of three seconds of reading 3.0 haste before recognizing it as abuseable. On the other hand, many people here took one look at the Ur-Priest and went, "D'oh!" ... whereas it never blipped on my radar.)

Granted, sometimes they're wrong, too, which does go to your point; hopefully by now the only people who think the mystic theurge is broken are those who haven't played one.

 

[Darkness]

many people here took one look at the Ur-Priest and went, "D'oh!" ... whereas it never blipped on my radar.

I tried a couple Ur-Priest builds today and must say unless you object to 9th-level spells at 15th character level (14th if you have Wis 28+), I wouldn't call it broken.

 

[Campbell]

Honestly, I don't believe that faulty house rules are entirely a result of inexperience with using the rules as written. Rather I would argue that faulty house rules are generally a result of DMs who either lose sight of their design goals or do not make an attempt to deal with the repercussions that design elements might have across the board. While I have a great amount of respect for people that manage to arrive at a mastery of the rules as written, some individuals with incredible rules mastery still develope house rules that would have a horrendous impact on my game as rules mastery does not always equate to an understanding of design. I have also seen some great design from individuals who might not have a complete understanding of all elements of D&D 3.x, but who do have an intuitive grasp of the meta issues involved with game design, and who engage in solid playtesting. Additionally, most faulty rules elements that I have seen tend to lack a certain sense of focus, such as the epic spellcasting rules or the diety writeups in Dieties and Demigods.

In general, espicially when considering rules elements put up for feedback on the House Rules forums, I feel that a good number of people treat rules elements like they exist in a vaccuum, rather then designing them to meet the assumptions of the games they are running. Nominally, the intertwined nature of the rules system is why I do not post within the House Rules forum too often since the standard assumptions for D&D 3.x do not gel with the way that I run my 'd20 Fantasy' game. The changes that I would propose would seem incredibly out of whack to a number of people, generally due to the nature of the games that they run. I do believe that house rules can only ruin a game when a DM considers his house rules as immutable constructs, or doesn't take all of his target audience into consideration. While ideally, those of which wish to house rule in order to arrive at the sort of game we would prefer would get it right at first go, playtesting is the only way to determine what works and what doesn't for the types of games that we play.

Wow. I'll come back and reorganize my thoughts later on.