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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 3767077" data-attributes="member: 3192">I've been told: if I don't like how something is written in the rules, play differently.  The Game Police won't come to my door and make sure I play by the rules as written.  The rules are all guidelines anyways, right?  I think so.But this makes me wonder.  Why would anyone be so determined to ensure certain rules remain in the game?  Heck, even strictly setting elements like specific monsters, classes, and races are called for to be cut out or kept in the initial rulebooks.  Is this because folks don't want to bothered with creating the rules themselves?Or can they simply not stand rules that they already ignore or change for their games?I don't think so. I think the real consequence of what happens with a new edition is past editions are forgotten.  The ways previous games were played under other rulesets, with corresponding player expectations, are forgotten by most gamers. But what's the harm in this? The books are readily available secondhand.  And in the new Edition rules, you and I can both keep creating our own personally loved rules like playing that core class Assassin.  Personally, I believe the real harm comes with the buy-in to the new ruleset by the community-at-large.  Your and my house rules, that were once core rules, become forgotten ways of playing.  For example, if the Bard class were removed and never officially added,  (I doubt this will happen), then finding a game with a DM who will let you play your homebrewed version of the class is a challenge.  It's not that DMs are too restrictive.  It's that the class no longer is universally accepted.  Professionally designed rules, and moreover, communally understood rules are widely accepted currency.  Your and my niche rules we had to recreate ourselves have to work to be accepted.This applies to any rule, not just what I've called setting options (i.e. monsters, races, classes, etc.).Rules are designed following certain theories.  3rd edition was and the 4th edition designers have stated they have their own as well.  Theories that, if you believe in them, really mean "better".  The difficulty with non-setting rules elements arises with personal styles of play.  IMO, I felt too many 3rd edition games followed a more uniform style of play.  And for myself, it was nearly impossible to play the game as I enjoy it.  Now I'm a bit apprehensive about being able to play 4E, in my own style, at all.All of which points out how important the new rules and books will be.  Finding new players who will play the way you enjoy the game has always been a big challenge.  The most current version of D&D has always suffered from this challenge least.  You and I can remain in our successful, personal groups and play our own way with our own rules, but sooner or later it becomes alien to everyone else out there.  There is no where to go, if you leave the island.[/]Okay, that's my rant.  My hope is RPGs will be designed with multiple options for putting together rulesets rather than a strongly embedded one.  Many optional combat and magic systems, level disparity, monster CRs, spell lists, feats, etc. etc. I don't think it will happen this go around.</blockquote>

Verification