times they are a changen....

[Desdichado]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: well...

The games are run with a very different mentality. You can not run a CoC the way you run Star Wars. The rules are very similar, but if you are remaining true to theme, the methods will be too different to compare. This disscussion long ago left the realm of rules and went to play/DM style. Rule changes are appropriate for some themes and not for others. The rules presented in the core rules represent one theme by what they allow you to accomplish. If you don't like that theme, you change it. If I do like it, I keep it. Now we are making different choices, based on what we want to play. We each are going to interpret or change the rules as they fit our theme. Themes must match before the rules matter, or we will just have a question of campaign world again.

Actually, you could run the games the same way. They weren't intended to be run that way, but so what? If you're talking about themes and DM interpretation of the campaign setting, then you can't say it's not the same game unless you mean it in some weird sense that I can't follow. Of course, literally your game and my game aren't the same games, because your game is your game and my game is my game, but brushing with a slightly larger brush (say, a 0 instead of a 000, for all you painters out there) then absolutely we're playing the same game. In Forrester's case, you haven't even changed the rules much, you've only changed the theme. Since every game has a different theme, at least to a slight extent, making comments like this being a different game is extraneous and adds nothing. The beauty of the d20 system is that it's all the same game! You can plop a wizard smack dab into a Star Wars game, and there's no reason mechanically speaking why it can't work.

Strangely, I missed all the fireballs, and was the only character in the game that did not die. We are not playing the game because we are have sufficently different themes. I tend toward high level of power in my current game. How can we compare notes, we don't even want the same thing?

See above. I disagree fundamentally that changing the theme makes for a different game under the same mechanics to the point that you can no longer talk about them here. The similarities way outweigh the differences, and any discussion can still be productive across a very wide variety of themes and settings without claming up and saying "we're not playing the same game, I can't talk about that anymore."

 

[LokiDR]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: well...

Only because it wouldn't be appropriate for the genre, not because it literally wouldn't work well. I can see dropping the Star Wars setting from the Star Wars game and throwing on Great Old Ones and insanity and having a blast with a completely homebrewed sci-fi setting.

The reason you can do this is because it's all the same mechanic -- hence my calling it all the same game. According to your logic, Forgotten Realms isn't D&D because it introduces a number of rules that aren't in the core rulebooks. I think you'd agree that that's just plain silly, but what's the difference between that and calling Star Wars or CoC, or WoT or Spycraft -- or whatever other d20 product -- a different game when elements from each are completely interchangeable?

The Realms are in the same genre as the core books. Your Great Ones in Star Wars is not. This is not about rules, this is about style. You can move the rules fairly efficiently, but would that help me in Star Wars? As soon as you change what you want the game to be, your view of the rules changes.

If I wanted to run a realistic, "gritty" kind of D&D game, I would quickly take your advice. I am not running that kind of game, because that is not what was written in the D&D core books. D&D core has always been about fantasy. How are we playing the same thing, even if the rules look so much alike?

 

[Desdichado]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: well...

The Realms are in the same genre as the core books. Your Great Ones in Star Wars is not. This is not about rules, this is about style. You can move the rules fairly efficiently, but would that help me in Star Wars? As soon as you change what you want the game to be, your view of the rules changes.

If I wanted to run a realistic, "gritty" kind of D&D game, I would quickly take your advice. I am not running that kind of game, because that is not what was written in the D&D core books. D&D core has always been about fantasy. How are we playing the same thing, even if the rules look so much alike?

Just answered this. See above.

 

[LokiDR]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: well...

Actually, you could run the games the same way. They weren't intended to be run that way, but so what? If you're talking about themes and DM interpretation of the campaign setting, then you can't say it's not the same game unless you mean it in some weird sense that I can't follow. Of course, literally your game and my game aren't the same games, because your game is your game and my game is my game, but brushing with a slightly larger brush (say, a 0 instead of a 000, for all you painters out there) then absolutely we're playing the same game. In Forrester's case, you haven't even changed the rules much, you've only changed the theme. Since every game has a different theme, at least to a slight extent, making comments like this being a different game is extraneous and adds nothing. The beauty of the d20 system is that it's all the same game! You can plop a wizard smack dab into a Star Wars game, and there's no reason mechanically speaking why it can't work.


See above. I disagree fundamentally that changing the theme makes for a different game under the same mechanics to the point that you can no longer talk about them here. The similarities way outweigh the differences, and any discussion can still be productive across a very wide variety of themes and settings without claming up and saying "we're not playing the same game, I can't talk about that anymore."

I disagree with the mentioned changes to commune/scry ect. because of how I am running my game. If you said "commune is just not realistic, so if you want a realistic game you should clip them." I would have not argued. I agree with that.

Perhaps calling it a "different game" is what is bothering you. Let me try this. I see D&D as a fantasy game and quit unrealistic. I like that for an escape. You see see it as a "what would happen if...". I can't really comment on your style because I don't see it that way. We don't play the same way, so I can't comment on your changes. I originally thought we had the same view of the game. My bad. "we don't play the same game" is when I realized our views were that opposed.

 

[apoptosis]

Forrester,

Would it be easier to just develop low level spells that have long durations and can counteract high level transport/divination spells. This might have already been covered but this is one dang long thread.

For instance:

Protection from Scrying that last 24 hours and works on 1 person per level of the caster. (lvl 2??)

Ward vs. Teleport (lvl 2) etc..

Or are there other problems you forsee (i am not trying to make a simple solution to what is actually a complex problem).

I do agree that with the spells that are available to high level casters you cannot easily write a literary type adventure that will necessarily what these high level casters 'should' do. Conversely it is not that hard to come up with ways to make it more believable as to why they are not instantly destroying their low level opposition.

Apop

 

[Ristamar]

For those of the mind that scrying is far too easy and abusive, check out Andy Collins' alternate Scry rules. Perhaps you'll find it to be a viable alternative to nerfing the spell(s).

 

[Desdichado]

The Realms are in the same genre as the core books. Your Great Ones in Star Wars is not. This is not about rules, this is about style. You can move the rules fairly efficiently, but would that help me in Star Wars? As soon as you change what you want the game to be, your view of the rules changes.

If I wanted to run a realistic, "gritty" kind of D&D game, I would quickly take your advice. I am not running that kind of game, because that is not what was written in the D&D core books. D&D core has always been about fantasy. How are we playing the same thing, even if the rules look so much alike?

Alright, now you've tweaked your position to allow FR to belong to D&D (as well it should) but it seems to me that Planescape, Ravenloft, Dark Sun, Dragonlance or Spelljammer (for example) are not the same game because the feel and style are so different. Yet those are official D&D campaign settings that show more divergence from the "standard" game than anything I've seen described so far in Forrester's setting.

I hate to say it, but it seems to me like you just don't want to validate his modifications of the spells. You've mentioned already in another post that you don't want anyone telling you how to handle your campaign (which no one has) and then you turn around and say that the game isn't even D&D. I guess I can't see the purpose of even saying that as it is so patently not true. And, although I'm guilty enough of carrying on arguments for no good reason whatsoever, I can't see the point in arguing with anyone that they shouldn't make changes in spells because you have some fear that it will somehow affect your game. Why even post at all, if that's all you're going to do?

 

[LokiDR]

Alright, now you've tweaked your position to allow FR to belong to D&D (as well it should) but it seems to me that Planescape, Ravenloft, Dark Sun, Dragonlance or Spelljammer (for example) are not the same game because the feel and style are so different. Yet those are official D&D campaign settings that show more divergence from the "standard" game than anything I've seen described so far in Forrester's setting.

I hate to say it, but it seems to me like you just don't want to validate his modifications of the spells. You've mentioned already in another post that you don't want anyone telling you how to handle your campaign (which no one has) and then you turn around and say that the game isn't even D&D. I guess I can't see the purpose of even saying that as it is so patently not true. And, although I'm guilty enough of carrying on arguments for no good reason whatsoever, I can't see the point in arguing with anyone that they shouldn't make changes in spells because you have some fear that it will somehow affect your game. Why even post at all, if that's all you're going to do?

Forrester wants to run a realistic game, right? Well, is D&D writen as a realistic game, or a fantasy game? Forrester's intent seems be a different genre of game, using the D&D rules. It makes perfect sense for him to make the modification he did to the rules, based on the game HE wants.

Perhaps saying his game isn't D&D is a an overstatement. Show me there have been no other overstatements here, and I will not post on this thread again. The kind of changes that forrester proposes, to all DMs, would elimate the game I see writen in the core rules. He did not qualify it with "for realistic games". No one must listen to me, or you, or him, but I don't think those changes are warrented in a large number of games, and that is why I spoke up. As thread went on, I realized we had different concepts of the game, and that they were incompatable. "we aren't playing the same game".

As for diferent games, I am basing that statement in faith in the rules that you apparently don't have. I base it on the "offical" campaigns of Living Greyhawk and Living City. I base it on fact that lots of the D&D universe makes no sense, like the the short discussion of good and evil gods, the whole hit point mechanic, and several other rules. The high level divinations fit in that whole curve. If the divinations get so altered, limited wish, wish, and miricle definately need a once over, or will we have this whole discussion again when a "realistic" party reaches that level? If you leave wish alone, you make access to it very powerful, and from the examples given, the enemies in forrester's game would get it first. Then what? He chose to change the rules before, I would guess he would do it again. How much change untill you must know the campaign to understand the changes made?

Now to the other settings named. Does a house rule, which is what we really are talking about, from Ravenloft belong in Planescape? Forrester suggested several house rules for his game and made them all sound like they are good across the board. If you call the changes "house rules for our kind of campaign" I like them. If you say "change them because they are cheap and make no sense" you have made a blanket statement about all games that I must argue with. Which statement was originally made?

 

[Desdichado]

Forrester wants to run a realistic game, right? Well, is D&D writen as a realistic game, or a fantasy game? Forrester's intent seems be a different genre of game, using the D&D rules. It makes perfect sense for him to make the modification he did to the rules, based on the game HE wants.

Realistic? I don't know. One that was strategically more interesting, perhaps, but I don't know that changing the way scry/teleport work is somehow more realistic as neither ability/spell is realistic in the first place.

Perhaps saying his game isn't D&D is a an overstatement. Show me there have been no other overstatements here, and I will not post on this thread again. The kind of changes that forrester proposes, to all DMs, would elimate the game I see writen in the core rules. He did not qualify it with "for realistic games". No one must listen to me, or you, or him, but I don't think those changes are warrented in a large number of games, and that is why I spoke up. As thread went on, I realized we had different concepts of the game, and that they were incompatable. "we aren't playing the same game".

I'm not trying to argue who said what, as I don't want to devolve into being a petty bickerer (if I haven't already) in that regard. Whether or not the changes are warranted in a large number or games or not is not really the point, though. I think they are warranted, but the call was not to change the official rules, they were to present a mechanics desire and one potential solution for comment. If you don't have that mechanics desire, then obviously the solution has no interest to you, so why even argue against it? Some of us are very glad to see it: I think you'd be surprised how many people are interested in lower magic-type games, especially as character increase in level.

As for diferent games, I am basing that statement in faith in the rules that you apparently don't have. I base it on the "offical" campaigns of Living Greyhawk and Living City. I base it on fact that lots of the D&D universe makes no sense, like the the short discussion of good and evil gods, the whole hit point mechanic, and several other rules. The high level divinations fit in that whole curve. If the divinations get so altered, limited wish, wish, and miricle definately need a once over, or will we have this whole discussion again when a "realistic" party reaches that level? If you leave wish alone, you make access to it very powerful, and from the examples given, the enemies in forrester's game would get it first. Then what? He chose to change the rules before, I would guess he would do it again. How much change untill you must know the campaign to understand the changes made?

I don't know about you, but I've never, ever played a campaign of any game system in any state or group that I've been with that didn't have house rules. So, the answer to your question is, you always have to know the campaign to understand changes made, unless you're playing "tournament" or con games or something like that where the rules are standardized on purpose.

Now to the other settings named. Does a house rule, which is what we really are talking about, from Ravenloft belong in Planescape? Forrester suggested several house rules for his game and made them all sound like they are good across the board. If you call the changes "house rules for our kind of campaign" I like them. If you say "change them because they are cheap and make no sense" you have made a blanket statement about all games that I must argue with. Which statement was originally made?

I understand what you're saying here, now. I still think it's obvious that if you don't have a problem with the spells then the message here doesn't apply to you, but I can see how it comes across as a bit of a "slam" on those who don't.

 

[LokiDR]

Realistic? I don't know. One that was strategically more interesting, perhaps, but I don't know that changing the way scry/teleport work is somehow more realistic as neither ability/spell is realistic in the first place.

I offer the following quotes from Forrester to explain why I said "I think he is going for a more "realistic" game.

Once again, after a small "nerfing", it makes logical sense that the party can survive

I don't have to make odd excuses or create weird and false-sounding scenarios or use suspension of disbelief....

Which leaves me a helluva lot more time working on aspects of the campaign . . . time that I'd otherwise be spending wracking my brain trying to come up with a logical reason why the party should still be alive!

You know . . . Law of Correspondence stuff

I'm not trying to argue who said what, as I don't want to devolve into being a petty bickerer (if I haven't already) in that regard. Whether or not the changes are warranted in a large number or games or not is not really the point, though. I think they are warranted, but the call was not to change the official rules, they were to present a mechanics desire and one potential solution for comment. If you don't have that mechanics desire, then obviously the solution has no interest to you, so why even argue against it? Some of us are very glad to see it: I think you'd be surprised how many people are interested in lower magic-type games, especially as character increase in level.

If you qualify it as a house rule for lower magic, I said I like it. Unfortunately, that was never said. House rules are used to give the game a different "effect". That effect was never mentioned, only that scry/teleport was "Sooooooo easy". Several other propositions have been raised to deal with this. Forrester disagreed with all of them as "too much work". I disagreed with his solution in the general case.

I argued against this because I don't want the next new DM I play under to assume that Forrester was right for all games of D&D.

I don't know about you, but I've never, ever played a campaign of any game system in any state or group that I've been with that didn't have house rules. So, the answer to your question is, you always have to know the campaign to understand changes made, unless you're playing "tournament" or con games or something like that where the rules are standardized on purpose.

If it is house rule, explain what kind of game it is for. I realized a while ago that Forrester and I were not talking about the same kind of game. The modifications to scry and commune were talked about in the same tone as polymorph other as being broken and open to abuse. It was not clear then that the house rules were to suit a campaign style.

I understand what you're saying here, now. I still think it's obvious that if you don't have a problem with the spells then the message here doesn't apply to you, but I can see how it comes across as a bit of a "slam" on those who don't.

I only object to blanket statements about games. It was not clear he meant his game more specifically than any other. The messages do apply to me if my next DM reads this thread and no one challenged the assertition that scry/teleport and commune are too cheap to be used left alone in a game.