blargney the second
blargney the minute's son
Incidentally, I've actually played in games without AoOs before. It was done in the interest of simplifying the game (which it did seem to do).
The Knock On effect and Complexity Complaints
- Thread starter Hussar
- Start date
BSF
Explorer
Well really, this thread is not the appropriate place to delve into the answer. However, there have been multiple threads on removing AOO from D&D on the forums. There is no reason why you couldn't start another one. I, for one, could provide plenty of anecdotal evidence of games I have played in where miniatures were not used, movement was more cinematic, AOOs didn't exist and how I made use of the scout class in said environment. I could further eleborate on how these changes were more a process of the DM not being strongly versed in such aspects of the game and just chose not to use them. It isn't really playtested experience and I am not convinced that it needs to be.
In the end, we are just playing a game suited for our own groups. The current ruleset is pretty well documented and codified. Enough so that I feel much more confident as an amateur designer when I shift things around. I integrate rules from multiple third party sources. I design house rules with the input of my players. Sometimes we don't realize the full impact of a particular change until after we have found a particularly interesting interaction.
In my last campaign we changed the following in codified ways:
Death & Dying rules
Coming back from the dead
Metamagic
Item Creation
Earned Exp
Included Action Points
Integrated Bad Axe Games' Mythic Heroes archetypes
Because of my GMing style, my players are also generally aware that treasure awards are likely to be less than by the book expectations. They trust that I understand the impact to the CR system.
We also introduced the Psychic system from the Psychic's Handbook, the magic system from Elements of Magic - Revised, a tone of third party classes and spells, etc.
Obviously in my personal experience I don't see huge issues with changing the system. Though I would dare say these are all relatively minor adjustments. Taken in context though, it is a different game system.
I think one of the problems is that the ruleset is codified and documented to the degree that everyone is empowered to evaluate such changes. So when a DM decides to change something, a player is better able to contribute to that discussion. Even if the DM was not looking to have the discussion with the players, the players are able to point out possible flaws to a given change. This does feel like a change from previous editions. It presents challenges when a DM decides to no longer play with AOO and one of the PCs has combat reflexes. It presents challenges when the DM is running a low magic game and decides to throw high DR creatures at the party. It presents challenges to GM fiat. But that isn't necessarily a bad thing. It also encourages more discussion so the group can decide what style of game they want to play. Discussion and trust around the table are rarely a bad thing when it leads to more fun for everyone.
In the end, we are just playing a game suited for our own groups. The current ruleset is pretty well documented and codified. Enough so that I feel much more confident as an amateur designer when I shift things around. I integrate rules from multiple third party sources. I design house rules with the input of my players. Sometimes we don't realize the full impact of a particular change until after we have found a particularly interesting interaction.
In my last campaign we changed the following in codified ways:
Death & Dying rules
Coming back from the dead
Metamagic
Item Creation
Earned Exp
Included Action Points
Integrated Bad Axe Games' Mythic Heroes archetypes
Because of my GMing style, my players are also generally aware that treasure awards are likely to be less than by the book expectations. They trust that I understand the impact to the CR system.
We also introduced the Psychic system from the Psychic's Handbook, the magic system from Elements of Magic - Revised, a tone of third party classes and spells, etc.
Obviously in my personal experience I don't see huge issues with changing the system. Though I would dare say these are all relatively minor adjustments. Taken in context though, it is a different game system.
I think one of the problems is that the ruleset is codified and documented to the degree that everyone is empowered to evaluate such changes. So when a DM decides to change something, a player is better able to contribute to that discussion. Even if the DM was not looking to have the discussion with the players, the players are able to point out possible flaws to a given change. This does feel like a change from previous editions. It presents challenges when a DM decides to no longer play with AOO and one of the PCs has combat reflexes. It presents challenges when the DM is running a low magic game and decides to throw high DR creatures at the party. It presents challenges to GM fiat. But that isn't necessarily a bad thing. It also encourages more discussion so the group can decide what style of game they want to play. Discussion and trust around the table are rarely a bad thing when it leads to more fun for everyone.
Storyteller01 said:
Oh, certainly! As I said in another thread, D&D has always been an evolving game. In fact, some of the clunkiest bits of 3e come from earlier editions. A case in point would be the skills of Move Silently and Hide. They were separate in AD&D, and so they've been preserved here, along with Listen/Spot as their opposites.
However, as more recent designs have built on this, these skills evolve into "Sneak" (or "Stealth") and "Notice". The result is far more efficient.
(There are a few clangers in 1e as well, such as weapons vs armour types, especially as they didn't apply to monsters!)
However, the basic structure of the game - Resolution, Abilities, Races, Classes, Skills & Feats - is extremely solid. Even if you don't like the current feat system, it wouldn't be hard to have more basic feats (+1 to attack, +1 to skill, etc.) that would fulfill the same function, if not quite so entertainingly.
D&D is a game that, ever since its original release, has had option after option after option added to it. In 2e, the options overwhelmed the system utterly. (This started about the year after it was released, as the lack of any form of balance in the Complete series kicked in).
3e provides the basis, the benchmark and the framework to which options can be added. Feats and Skills, in particular, are in the system because they work extremely well, although they might not be to the taste of the minimalistic players out there.
Cheers!
Ridley's Cohort
First Post
Of the several RPGs I have played only D&D has AoOs as such, and they do not seem to suffer for the lack.
The proposition that it is in the least bit difficult to remove AoOs from 3e is the position desperately in need of supporting evidence, any supporting evidence. Not my hypothesis to the contrary.
The proposition that it is in the least bit difficult to remove AoOs from 3e is the position desperately in need of supporting evidence, any supporting evidence. Not my hypothesis to the contrary.
Storyteller01
First Post
MerricB said:
And I have no problem with evolution. Changes are good, although I'm not keen on converting Spot/Listen to Notice (too many professions that rely on one over the other). I'd like to see options that go beyond what the systems sees as balanced though, as opposed to rehashing the same feats in a different format (see Magic of Incarnum).
ThoughtBubble
First Post
To the original poster I have to say that, yes, there is a ripple effect that happens form some rules changes. It is a fair assement to say that it is difficult to make changes. There are also a lot of supplements. It is also a fair assement to say that it is easy to make changes.
It's called mastery.
How many people in the house are game designers?
How many are amateur game designers?
How many have designed a game?
How many people are taking into account the overall game structure, rewards systems and other options available when making changes?
How many have made alterations to D&D and then run people through it and seen how the rules changes take effect?
How many have alterations to D&D and ran with it as long as nothing blew up?
How many people just know that something doesn't feel right, so make a change that brings that part more into place?
It's different strata and ranges of the same skill. Like math, art or driving, some people have more talent and some people put more time into it. There is a bar to it, and I know and game with people on both sides of it. Once you're over the bar, it's not so bad, but until then, it's pretty different.
Additionally, some sub-systems are way more friendly to adjustments than others.
Also, some people care more that change X makes class Y less useful at point W. It's certianly easier to change if you don't care. I mean, seriously, who cares about the monk anyway, right? And so what if large creatures become less threatining now that there aren't AOOs? Oh, that guy on the left does. That's a judgement call.
Differing standards, differing capabilities, and differing games. You know it's true.
Because sometimes, you just look at something and go "Wow, someone thought that was a good idea, wrote it down, showed it to people, and then still thought it was a good idea."
It's called mastery.
How many people in the house are game designers?
How many are amateur game designers?
How many have designed a game?
How many people are taking into account the overall game structure, rewards systems and other options available when making changes?
How many have made alterations to D&D and then run people through it and seen how the rules changes take effect?
How many have alterations to D&D and ran with it as long as nothing blew up?
How many people just know that something doesn't feel right, so make a change that brings that part more into place?
It's different strata and ranges of the same skill. Like math, art or driving, some people have more talent and some people put more time into it. There is a bar to it, and I know and game with people on both sides of it. Once you're over the bar, it's not so bad, but until then, it's pretty different.
Additionally, some sub-systems are way more friendly to adjustments than others.
Also, some people care more that change X makes class Y less useful at point W. It's certianly easier to change if you don't care. I mean, seriously, who cares about the monk anyway, right? And so what if large creatures become less threatining now that there aren't AOOs? Oh, that guy on the left does. That's a judgement call.
Differing standards, differing capabilities, and differing games. You know it's true.
Because sometimes, you just look at something and go "Wow, someone thought that was a good idea, wrote it down, showed it to people, and then still thought it was a good idea."
Crothian said:
In the risk of derailing this completely into an AoO discussion, I've never understood the "you need a battlemap for AoOs meme". I have never had any difficulty in answering the three questions which need to be answered to determine whether an AoO can be taken without a battlemap:
(1) Can character X hit character Y?
(2) Is character Y doing something that will provoke an AoO?
(3) Is character Y (a) moving from a position where X can hit them and (b) moving more than 5 feet?
Question #1 needs to be answered in order to resolve ANY combat, so if you need a battlemap to answer that question, then you need a battlemap to resolve ANY combat in essentially ANY mainstream RPG.
Question #2 has absolutely nothing to do with battlemap positioning
Question #3 just requires you to visualize the battlefield. Which, again, you'd need to be doing in order to resolve ANY combat.
Hussar
Legend
Wow, I actually started a thread that went into a second page. 
Honestly, I agree with most of the points made here. D&D has always seen new rules being added on. IMNSHO the problem was in earlier editions is that there was little if any play testing before the rules were shoved out the door. Dragon is full of "NPC Only" classes that even the writers knew were too powerful.
One of the largest shifts in 3e has been the transparency of the game. As Ridley's Cohort points out, because the rules are very explicit and integrated, guaging the effects of a rule change is fairly easy (although certianly not perfect). And, because the rules are very open and available to all players, not just the DM, there can be a sense that DM's power is being eroded. Whether that's a good thing or not is a matter of opinion.
But, my basic point still remains though. Even though there are huge numbers of subsystems in the game, the language used throughout is nearly the same. This means that integrating new systems, or removing existing systems becomes a much simpler matter.
Earlier someone mentioned that they want a more modular game. IMO, D&D is extremely modular. Look at the huge numbers of different styles of games the same system can cover - from extremely low magic to wahoo Piers Anthony style games. All by simply tweaking a few dials and systems.
Honestly, I agree with most of the points made here. D&D has always seen new rules being added on. IMNSHO the problem was in earlier editions is that there was little if any play testing before the rules were shoved out the door. Dragon is full of "NPC Only" classes that even the writers knew were too powerful.
One of the largest shifts in 3e has been the transparency of the game. As Ridley's Cohort points out, because the rules are very explicit and integrated, guaging the effects of a rule change is fairly easy (although certianly not perfect). And, because the rules are very open and available to all players, not just the DM, there can be a sense that DM's power is being eroded. Whether that's a good thing or not is a matter of opinion.
But, my basic point still remains though. Even though there are huge numbers of subsystems in the game, the language used throughout is nearly the same. This means that integrating new systems, or removing existing systems becomes a much simpler matter.
Earlier someone mentioned that they want a more modular game. IMO, D&D is extremely modular. Look at the huge numbers of different styles of games the same system can cover - from extremely low magic to wahoo Piers Anthony style games. All by simply tweaking a few dials and systems.
Ridley's Cohort
First Post
If the system survives entirely new magic system(s), and multiple distinct kinds of "magic-users" living side-by-side, and substituting all the core PC classes with different ones, how much more modular can you get?
What would be an example of a more modular game? GURPS? RIFTS? I am curious.
What would be an example of a more modular game? GURPS? RIFTS? I am curious.
Similar Threads
