Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Zappo" data-source="post: 1937396" data-attributes="member: 633">Michael Morris, I agree with you. People should know the rules before they modify them. Lots of people I've gamed with created house rules that ranged from "useless" to "OMG-are-you-drunk-or-what?".  I'm not talking about the house rules that good DMs introduce to emphasize flavorful aspects of their world, or to fine-tune the game by emphasizing this or that aspect. And I'm not talking about the house rules which actually fix problems in the game - hell, I've played Harm the 3.5 way much before 3.5.  I'm talking about corrections to problems that only exist because the DM hasn't bothered to read the feat carefully. Or house rules that make one aspect of the game slightly better and screwed half of everything else. Or house rules that replicate stuff that can easily be made with standard rules. An example - a guy I gamed with made a whole mess with the Bluff skill because his players were abusing it by making NPCs believe any incredible lie. Turns out that he wasn't applying the penalties for unbelievable bluffs. I'm talking about DMs that think they are so good that they don't need to read the rulebooks.  Yep, people don't try that with tournament games, because in a tournament game you've got to know the rules.  Though of course there are other issues there... D&D and RPGs in general are inherently less adapt to a tournament environment, because so many things depend on the DM rather than on binary yes/no rules. Even the best ruleset can't do much about this. The fix isn't in making D&D a tournament game - it is in dropping some hubris.  D&D is a very, very complex system, much more than what it looks like. One should know it before tinkering.</blockquote>

Verification