The Knock On effect and Complexity Complaints

[Bardsandsages]

I think ultimately it depends on WHY you are changing the rules in the first place. If you have a legitimate reason based on your vision of your game, then you'll be able to tweek rules to suit your campaign without throwing things out of kilter. If you are changing rules just because you think something would be "kewl", then you will quickly find out why it is not so kewl and why the original rule existed in the first place.

I think it also depends on how you run a game. If your game is a cooperative endevour between the DM and the players in an effort to have fun and tell a good story, then you are less likely to have problems than if it is a competitive effort between the DM and the players.

Besides, as DM, I can ignore any rule as I see fit. And if some player pulls out the PHB and says "but on page X it says..." when I am running a game, I simply ask "When did your character aquire a magical tome that explained the effects of every spell known to wizards?" or "And how does your wizard know that a fighter CAN'T do that?"

 

[Arashi Ravenblade]

I dont know why everyone thinks its so complicated. I have over 500+gaming books. I,m only 23, and have only been in this stuff full time since my senior year in high school. I have a severe learning disabilities and my younger brother who was 9 at the time (when i got in to D&D full time) and could not read (he has learning disabilities that far outstrips mine) and he was within a year able to read the books on his own and make a near flawless character.

I just dont buy that with my experiences and my brothers and my sisters fiancee who also has alearning disability (so bad they thought he was retarded at the age of 5) that the game is all that complicated. I picked up 3e in a week! A Week!

I really wish i could sit in one some of other peoples games or watch them prepare and see what it is they are doing.

Of course maybe im an expection to the rule. Maybe im special. i dont know. I just dont get it.

 

[Zog]

It is not a question of breaking or falling down, so much as creating ripple affects. As long as the GM and players are aware of the ripples, and take them into account, there should not be a problem.

For example: Re-rolling init. Improved Init as a feat suddenly because super powerful. Does delaying/holding actions still work the same? 1st round, delay until enemy closes, then full-attack. 2nd round, win init, full-attack. You've gotten 2 sets of full attacks to the enemy's single attack. A change in tactics. It doesn't *break anything* but it is a change. Or, the other scenario: You roll well, then poorly. You act, the bad guys act Twice, you act. Two consecutive actions are very powerful, and without this rules change, not possible (except via Action points or a 4th level spell from PHB2).
Now mind you, this is just me imagining possible changes. I haven't played the game this way. But to me, it does seem like a definate change with some interesting ripple affects.

Another example, that I did experience, was lowering magic/treasure. This has a ripple affect of Increasing the CR of large numbers of critters. The party has fewer resources, does less damage, hits less often, has fewer spells, potions, scrolls, etc. In addition to the problem with DR critters if you don't have magic weapons! Having played a level 6 fighter trying to fight shadows with torches and alchemist fire, let me tell you - it ain't pretty.

But, again, the game doesn't neccessarily break - IF the DM understands the ripple affects of their change. If they do not understand the changes or ignore them, then problems will appear. They may be subtle, like the character with Improved init being more effective than the others, or major like a party facing a TPK for something that is several CR lower than them.

Making rules changes does not, IMO, knock over other rules, but it does cause shifts and ripples. Understanding those changes is key to successfully using house rules.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Another example, that I did experience, was lowering magic/treasure. This has a ripple affect of Increasing the CR of large numbers of critters. The party has fewer resources, does less damage, hits less often, has fewer spells, potions, scrolls, etc. In addition to the problem with DR critters if you don't have magic weapons! Having played a level 6 fighter trying to fight shadows with torches and alchemist fire, let me tell you - it ain't pretty.

How is this different from 1st edition, where you had guys who played by the "suggested" method of making treasure rare, and guys who played the way modules and treasure tables were written, and handed out magic items like crazy? At least in 3rd edition, the suggested method of play, and the way the rules and tables work actually match up.

 

[Plane Sailing]

This thread has the potential for early closure, so be warned!

I'm not speaking to any particular individual at the moment, but please make sure that when you post you don't demean others who might prefer a different style to you or have come to a different conclusion from you.

Thanks.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

(In deference to Plane Sailing's warning, I have deleted my post to reconsider my comments before posting.)

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Yes, Raven Crowking, I have exagerated somewhat and been slightly dismissive. To some degree I am throwing down a gauntlet to see if anyone will back up certain claims.

IME experts in the 3e system are quick to point out "If you change X, have you considered the consequences to Y?"

One may choose to interpret this as a challenge to the authority of the DM to change X at all.

Or one may choose to interpret this as helpful advice on how to make X fulfill the original intentions of the DM.

As having this kind of rule discussion is easy to have with 3e relative to some other game systems, some have chosen to perceive such discussions themselves as inherent flaws of 3e.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yes, Raven Crowking, I have exagerated somewhat and been slightly dismissive. To some degree I am throwing down a gauntlet to see if anyone will back up certain claims.

IME experts in the 3e system are quick to point out "If you change X, have you considered the consequences to Y?"

I agree. When I first began to modify the system to my liking, I received a lot of those sorts of responses. Some have been helpful, some not so much. The sheer number of them, and by people whose opinions I respect, had initially led me to rethink whether or not I should do any changing at all.

As you say, though, the idea that there is a real problem just isn't so. 3e isn't a tripod that falls when the first leg is kicked out of it. I listed earlier some of the changes I have made without the slightest problem. So, overall, I agree with you. Even though (conversely) I think 1e was easier to modify, the differences in difficulty are not as large as one might believe at first glance, and the flexability of the 3e system is such that you can actually have a better output in terms of game world effects for your input in terms of changes.

I hope that makes sense.

One may choose to interpret this as a challenge to the authority of the DM to change X at all.

Or one may choose to interpret this as helpful advice on how to make X fulfill the original intentions of the DM.

I think that depends very much on the poster, and the post in question.

As I said earlier,

Something that is well balanced, when its balance is disturbed, easily comes back into balance. Something that is poorly balanced, when its balance is disturbed, falls over. IME (and I doubt there are many who modify rules much more than I do), 3.x doesn't fall down.

Not when you lower treasure. Not when you lower XP. Not when you lower magic. Not when you re-roll initiative. Not when you change the classes. Not when you add AE stuff. Not when you add a weapon skill system. Not when you alter flanking and AoO rules. Not when you change the races. Not when you alter the rules for weapons and armor. Not when you alter starting money. Not when you add social standing. Not when you do all of those things at once.

The system falls into a different balance, but hopefully the reason you changed the rules was because you wanted a different balance.

(I'm not sure what was in that post you altered, or if it was something from some other post -- including possibly mine -- but I'm not at all sure what caused the mod alert. This seems to be the most calm discussion of this type of issue that I've ever been involved in or lurked on.)

RC

 

[blargney the second]

Anyone with a different opinion going to take up the gauntlet?

In the interest of full communication, you haven't convinced me of the legitimacy of your opinion. There would be a long tail of consequences to removing AoOs from the game. The only response I got from you was a Nike-like exhortation to just do it. While I appreciate the enthusiasm, it gives me no better understanding to what the actual ramifications would be.

Have you determined all the aspects of the game would be impacted most strongly? Have you playtested with multiple groups specifically with the goal of finding out where balance gets shifted? Can you use that information to tell me concisely and accurately what the overall effect would be on the way the game works? What I'm talking about is a metagame explanation that's backed up by purposeful development and tested, like what Wizards did with Unearthed Arcana. (like this)

Understanding is much different than doing.
-blarg

 

[Crothian]

In the interest of full communication, you haven't convinced me of the legitimacy of your opinion. There would be a long tail of consequences to removing AoOs from the game. The only response I got from you was a Nike-like exhortation to just do it. While I appreciate the enthusiasm, it gives me no better understanding to what the actual ramifications would be.

It makes it easier and safer to move around the combat areas

It weakens reach greatly

It makes grapple, tripping, and other options that usually provoke AoO easier to do

It makes casting and using missile weapons while in melee easier to do

It makes some feats like combat reflexes and mobility pointless

Those are some of what I remember when I played without AoO for a bit. My main reason for getting rid of AoO was we didn't want to use a battle map and it was simplier to just get rid of AoO along with that.