Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ridley's Cohort" data-source="post: 3101114" data-attributes="member: 545">IMNSHO the "Knock On Effect Problem" is a complete myth.I have challenged many posters to cough up explicit arguments and evidence to support this opinion over the years following the release of 3.0 and all I have ever gotten is gibberish in response.  (For example, here <a href="http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3099263&postcount=51" target="_blank">http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3099263&postcount=51</a>)Certainly there are some kinds of rules changes that have bigger effects than others.  But that is true of every game system.  The claim that this is a greater problem in 3e than previous editions of D&D has never been supported with an iota of evidence or logic in the dozens of discussions I have visited on the topic.  In fact, IMO the knock on effects are more predictable in 3e than in most games, so they are much less of a problem than in other systems simply because it is easier to the DM to make appropriate corrections & adjustments.The underlying basis of the Knock On sentiment is the startling success 3e.  3e has raised the bar of expectations, and some have responded by creating a double-standard.Because 3e rules are so shocking well written compared with what came before them, all houserules get judged by this implicit new standard.  Fine.Where the double standard comes in is when the filtered memory of writing crappy house rules that seemed adequate for the already hopelessly confused system they spent ~15-20 years customizing, reworking, relearning gets compared to writing new houserules in the new system.  So on one had they are comparing the experience of writing a houserule where their standard of quality is low or non-existent with the other hand where they cannot do random brain surgery with a rusty hacksaw without the quality of their effort being obvious.At this point, another illogical argument is usually trotted out:  It has to be that way because 3e is an integrated system, so it is impossible to add non-integrated elements without every particle of the entire multiverse exploding at the speed of light.Then I point out that there is no logical reason that a houserule is harder to put in a silo in an integrated system than a non-integrated system.  Furthermore, your brain surgery with a rusty hacksaw is easier to handle in an integrated system because the knock on effects are predictable, and therefore easier to correct for on the part of the DM.As you have pointed out Hussar, the mountains of d20 products are extremely strong evidence that doing a competent job creating new rules for 3e is not particularly hard.  Perhaps even easy.As for the "too complex" argument, that is just another double-standard.  Once upon a time, it was difficult to find a supplement with significant houserules that most DMs would even consider touching with a 10' pole, IME.  Now there is an excessive number of options.  So an amazingly successful system is being relabelled as a  failure because it is so successful.A DM must exercise some degree of editorial control.  No RPG I have ever played can survive the failure to do so.  While I sympathize with DMs who are biting off more than they can chew and I recognize that sometimes pushy players contribute to that problem (is this a new thing?), that is not a failing of the game system.</blockquote>

Verification