Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 1965185" data-attributes="member: 5143">IMHO, there is a wrong way to play D&amp;D, it is to change anything in the books.&nbsp; Beyond that you are not playing D&amp;D.&nbsp; In the same way that if you play Axis and Allies but play with the rules changes suggested on a web site, you are not playing Axis and Allies but a variant.Any change from the core rules then becomes a D&amp;D variant.&nbsp; I guess my attitude about this comes from having played so many different RPGs.&nbsp; If I wanted to play D&amp;D with a bunch of rules changes, I'd call it Palladium Fantasy or GURPS Fantasy or Hero Fantasy or D&amp;D 2nd Edition, or D&amp;D 1st Edition or Rolemaster or &quot;That game my friend made up when he thought he was a game designer&quot;.In the same vein that 2nd Edition D&amp;D is NOT the same game as 3rd editiion D&amp;D, neither is a game with house rules the same game as D&amp;D 3.5 Edition.&nbsp; Now, you may like the game you've invented better, but it isn't D&amp;D (as it's currently understood).Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with disliking the D&amp;D rules so much that you want to change them.&nbsp; I, personally, think you are wrong as I love D&amp;D the way it is.But I've gotten really tired of joining games where this happens:Me: &quot;Ok, I've got nothing better to do, I am not allowed to cast spells in this world as it is illegal and there is an NPC in the party who will kill me for doing so.&nbsp; My sorcerer will attack with my bow, then I move backwards to make sure they don't hit me.&nbsp; I can't possibly hit, but maybe I'll roll a natural 20.&quot;DM: &quot;You are doing what?&nbsp; Umm, firing a bow takes the whole round.&quot;Me: &quot;No it doesn't, it's a standard action to fire one shot.&quot;DM: &quot;I'm in the SCA, trust me, I know how long it takes to fire a shot.&nbsp; If you want to draw the arrow and fire with aim, you won't have time left to move during that round.&quot;Me: *sigh* &quot;Ok then, I fire one shot at the enemy then.&quot;DM: &quot;Ok, since you are firing through 5 allies in order to get to the enemy, I will assume there is about a 90% chance that you hit a party member instead of the enemies.&quot;Me: &quot;Umm, actually, the enemy just gets +4 to his ac for cover.&nbsp; It doesn't matter how many people are between me and the enemy.&nbsp; And in 3.5 edition hitting cover has been removed as a standard rule.&quot;DM: &quot;Are you telling me how to run my game?&nbsp; There is NO way I'm giving the enemy only a +4 to his AC with that much cover.&nbsp; Roll to hit.&quot;Me: &quot;Well, I don't want to fire if it means I might hit my party, I only did it because I knew there was no chance of hitting my party members.&quot;DM: &quot;You said you were firing, so go ahead and roll.&quot;Me: &quot;A natural 1, whew.&nbsp; I won't be able to hit anything with that, nevermind a party member.&quot;DM: &quot;A natural 1, eh?&nbsp; That is a critical failure and raises the chance that you'll hit a party member to 100%.&nbsp; Roll your damage, and make it critical as you've managed to crit a party member.&nbsp; Let's see....Gorak the dwarf.&quot;Gorak: &quot;Hey!&nbsp; You hit me with an arrow!&nbsp; I say we attack and kill the traitor behind us!&quot;Yes, all of these things happened (or at least things very close to them).&nbsp; Is this D&amp;D anymore?&nbsp; The amount of DMs I've run into in which the rules of their game are whichever ones they remember at the session, so you never know which ones will apply.&nbsp; I've ran into at least 3 DMs who basically said &quot;no questioning my rulings, no looking up rules at the table, it slows down the game.&quot;&nbsp; So, each time you did something from the rules, it wasn't so much a house rule but a matter of &quot;do they remember this rule or will they make something up to replace it this session?&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Majoru Oakheart, post: 1965185, member: 5143"] IMHO, there is a wrong way to play D&D, it is to change anything in the books. Beyond that you are not playing D&D. In the same way that if you play Axis and Allies but play with the rules changes suggested on a web site, you are not playing Axis and Allies but a variant. Any change from the core rules then becomes a D&D variant. I guess my attitude about this comes from having played so many different RPGs. If I wanted to play D&D with a bunch of rules changes, I'd call it Palladium Fantasy or GURPS Fantasy or Hero Fantasy or D&D 2nd Edition, or D&D 1st Edition or Rolemaster or "That game my friend made up when he thought he was a game designer". In the same vein that 2nd Edition D&D is NOT the same game as 3rd editiion D&D, neither is a game with house rules the same game as D&D 3.5 Edition. Now, you may like the game you've invented better, but it isn't D&D (as it's currently understood). Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with disliking the D&D rules so much that you want to change them. I, personally, think you are wrong as I love D&D the way it is. But I've gotten really tired of joining games where this happens: Me: "Ok, I've got nothing better to do, I am not allowed to cast spells in this world as it is illegal and there is an NPC in the party who will kill me for doing so. My sorcerer will attack with my bow, then I move backwards to make sure they don't hit me. I can't possibly hit, but maybe I'll roll a natural 20." DM: "You are doing what? Umm, firing a bow takes the whole round." Me: "No it doesn't, it's a standard action to fire one shot." DM: "I'm in the SCA, trust me, I know how long it takes to fire a shot. If you want to draw the arrow and fire with aim, you won't have time left to move during that round." Me: *sigh* "Ok then, I fire one shot at the enemy then." DM: "Ok, since you are firing through 5 allies in order to get to the enemy, I will assume there is about a 90% chance that you hit a party member instead of the enemies." Me: "Umm, actually, the enemy just gets +4 to his ac for cover. It doesn't matter how many people are between me and the enemy. And in 3.5 edition hitting cover has been removed as a standard rule." DM: "Are you telling me how to run my game? There is NO way I'm giving the enemy only a +4 to his AC with that much cover. Roll to hit." Me: "Well, I don't want to fire if it means I might hit my party, I only did it because I knew there was no chance of hitting my party members." DM: "You said you were firing, so go ahead and roll." Me: "A natural 1, whew. I won't be able to hit anything with that, nevermind a party member." DM: "A natural 1, eh? That is a critical failure and raises the chance that you'll hit a party member to 100%. Roll your damage, and make it critical as you've managed to crit a party member. Let's see....Gorak the dwarf." Gorak: "Hey! You hit me with an arrow! I say we attack and kill the traitor behind us!" Yes, all of these things happened (or at least things very close to them). Is this D&D anymore? The amount of DMs I've run into in which the rules of their game are whichever ones they remember at the session, so you never know which ones will apply. I've ran into at least 3 DMs who basically said "no questioning my rulings, no looking up rules at the table, it slows down the game." So, each time you did something from the rules, it wasn't so much a house rule but a matter of "do they remember this rule or will they make something up to replace it this session?" [/QUOTE]

Verification