The Return of House Rules: A Fractured Community

[The Sigil]

Already done...

The funny thing about this post is that in my mind, the "fracturing" of 3e happened about the same time as the initial release of 3e.

Some people use SSS products in their game. Some don't. Some people use WotC splats. Some don't. Some use Bastion Press stuff. Some don't. Some use Green Ronin's stuff. Some don't. Some use Monte's stuff. Some don't. Some use {insert d20 publisher here}. Some don't.

My point is, because of the huge mass of d20 products out there, I don't think it's proper to think of the community as a "3e" or a "3.5e" community any more. I think you have to think of it as a d20 community.

There are millions of different combinations of "allowed books" - and pretty much the only source that everyone agrees is definitive for fantasy role-playing d20 games is the WotC SRD.

When d20 Modern was introduced - and it has considerable differences from d20 D&D - there was no schism. Merely an understanding that there were slightly different rulesets involved, but that the d20 system at the core was the same.

Now, the WotC SRD as it exists today contains some things that are counter-intuitive, awkward, or just plain silly (winner in "just plain silly" for me is the Craft rules as written, which lead to the conclusion that if you have two artisans of equal skill working on items with equal final costs, the one whose project is harder - as reflected in a higher DC to create - finishes FIRST - in other words, if it's twice as hard to hit the DC, it takes half as long to make). I'm sure the 3.5 SRD will contain some silly things. It will be a trivial matter - just as it is now - to excise the parts you as an individual find silly and replace them with something else - either rules published by another d20 company or house rules of your own design.

As an example, IMC, I allow first-level wizards to choose either the Scribe Scroll Feat or the "Craft Nexus" feat from Mongoose's Quintessential Wizard as the Feat granted by Wiz1 (instead of forcing them to take Scribe Scroll per the SRD). Does this "schism" me from 3e? Hardly.

Now, we will have two "definitive sources" that everyone agrees on - the 3.0 and 3.5 SRD. And I think the only "schism" that it might create is when someone asks:

"What do the rules say about X?"

And he'll get two answers:

"In 3e, the rules say Y."
"In 3.5e, the rules say Z."

And of course, just as he does now, he'll get...

"{Product A} by {Company B} says C, which is better than {Y and/or Z} because D."

*shrugs*

Just as it has been for the past three years, it will not be an exercise in schism, but will instead be an exercise in "looking around" (including asking others) for the (a) the rule as found in the SRD version you are nominally using and/or (b) the rule that best meets your expectation for resolving a particular situation, regardless of publishing source (which you then adopt to your campaign).

In other words, nothing changes. :b

--The Sigil

 

[rowport]

Wow, I am getting really sick of reading all this negative hype about a product not even available in the mass market yet.

First off, what "community" are you talking about? Is it gamers- who are largely the most internally divisive group of folks I have ever encountered, even viewed by myself as an active gamer? (Shall I track down the hundreds of posts debating the merits of d20 versus HERO, for example?) Is it D&D gamers- who, again, spend an inordinate amount of energy debating various editions, and yet seem to continue to have groups playing all versions? Is it the mass public, who do not know or care about RPG games, much less revisions, AFAIK?

No, I suspect you are talking about the on-line gamers who debate via posts with each other. Now, while I will concede that as a "community" of a sort, it is hardly the happy family you make it out to be. Guess what: sales figures of D&D books versus post lists will quickly demonstrate that the message board sub-set of gamers is NOT REPRESENTATIVE of most players. Several other posters (and yourself, to some exent) recognize this in your references to only GMs frequenting ENWorld.

So, here is my response to your post (and seeming quandry): the only "community" that matters to your home game is the one sitting around your game table tossing dice. If that group likes 3.5, great! If it wants to house rule some of it (which is actually what Monte Cook recommends, if you read his entire review), great! If you want to stick with 3.0, or 2.0, or 1.0, or Fantasy HERO, great! See what I mean?

It is wonderful that we all have a chance to share opinions and ideas here. I am not dismissing the on-line "community". But, suggesting an inherent conflict because off-line we play different versions of the same game is just plain silly- that happens now, and even with different games. And, remember, most of the world does not play ANY RPGs. So, the context is important here.

 

[Belen]

Sigil,

The difference is that now we have two underlying sets of the system. 3rd party is different. They have stuff designed more for flavor. Yet they used the core rules to build that flavor.

Now we have two sets of rules. That means that 3rd party publishers also have two sets of core materials etc.

You're really comparing apples and oranges with the 3rd party stuff.

Dave

 

[EricNoah]

This is a response to Black Moria's post in the other thread with the same topic... (ended with "The game that I love has changed.")

--------

Get used to it -- the history of D&D is all about change. You either jump on board, or you don't. The best part is -- you don't have to decide right now. You can wait to read more reviews. You can actually read the rules before buying via the SRD. You can "test the waters" of 3.5 by adopting a few house rules. You can "hearken back" to 3.0 by running a 3.5 game with a few house rules going back to 3.0. And your "decision" doesn't have to be binding. You can try some stuff out, change your mind, try something else out, change your mind again. You are at no one's mercy. You're the captain of your own ship. This isn't something that's "happening to you" -- it is happening, and you can decide how to react.

Now, there's no question that fully accepting 3.5 is the most convenient route to go -- because future support products from here on out will use those rules. But there will be a time when 3.5 is left in the dust. And again, those who have followed the game for a while will face the same situation.

 

[Estlor]

Again we're thinking of EnWorld.

I'm sorry, I don't follow. (Well, that and I don't really see your point)

Is your concern about fracturing the people that use ENWorld, or the people that don't? Frankly, when it comes to people that don't use ENWorld, I don't see how fracturing the gaming community even comes into play. Aside from maybe a montly issue of Dragon and Dungeon, the only community they'll have is their players, and the DM will make the call what kind of a rules makeup the game has.

As for the ENWorld community, yeah, there will be some fracturing and disagreements, confusion, and whatnot over the next few months to a year or so, but this won't be any different than when 3E came out and people refused to switch to it. Like any community, as we pick the rules apart, suggestions will be made, ideas will be bounced around, and the kind of house rules and hybrid games we play will homogonize. That's the nature of societies in close contact. In the end, we'll all be playing hybrids, just with a lot of the same hybridizations.

Anyway, it's all the same language. Just different accents and pronunciations.

 

[bolen]

with all the d20 stuff out there I doubt anyones (who does not only use the wizard's stuff) game is the same so we are in effect already fractured. I don't see your point.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Sigil, you nailed it.

If you define fracturing the community as the number/amount of house rules use, then the D&D community has been fractured into a thousand parts the entirety of its existence.

3.5 doesn't threaten the community. Most of that talk IMO is just pre-release jitters. Give it a couple of months after the release - -I think things will settle back down to be more or less normal.

Sure, there will be talk of 3.5 vs 3.0 -- it's not like 3.0 ended the edition wars, BTW. But 3.5 and 3.0 have so much in common that once things settle down the "d20" community will be one happy family.

 

[Belen]

Rowport,

Some of us are tired about all the positive hype about a rules update that no one has played. IMO, the opposite opinion has been flamed relentlessly because people are so excited about the tidbits we've received rather than looking at the whole.

The gung-ho 3.5 crowd far outweighs the more cautious type. I prefer to be cautious. 3e worked, so the massive changes are troublesome.

A lot of people use the online community as a base. I see that base fragmenting now because they have decided to bring out a revision that has so many changes.

A simple revision would not have caused such trouble. They have almost a new edition, yet were too chicken to go all the way.

Dave

 

[Aaron2]

Re: Already done...

Originally posted by The Sigil Some people use SSS products in their game. Some don't. Some people use WotC splats. Some don't. Some use Bastion Press stuff. Some don't. Some use Green Ronin's stuff. Some don't. Some use Monte's stuff. Some don't. Some use {insert d20 publisher here}. Some don't.

This is a very good point. I don't use any of the splatbook so, it seems, 90% of the rules discussion or sample characters contain feats, classes, or spells that I don't use. Yet I don't feel "fractured".

My house rules, although long, aren't even close to the amount of rules that are contained in the splats. If you start adding non-WotC d20 books, my houserules seem insignificant by comparison.


Aaron

 

[Umbran]

My experience is that 3e just does not have the variety or need for a lot of house rules. The rules are good enough that most house rules come from DM/ group style rather than a real need for a rules fix.

No offense, but one person's experience does not a community crisis make. Beware anecdotal evidence!

For one thing, you are looking at house rules only from the standpoint of "fixing" things that don't work. That's only half the story - the other half is house rules for flavor. Virtually every published campaign setting comes with it's own set of house rules. Similarly for every homebrew world. Given that, only groups playing the same edition on the same world are generally fully using the exact same rules-set, and that's been the case for every edition of the game, and it hasn't caused major "fracturing".

If we are a house divided now, it's nothing new. We have never been a united house. There are many different RPG rules sets. And house rules for each game. This has not caused major problems for the RPG community as a whole. History shows that having multiple rules-sets out there doesn't really hurt anything.