Disagree strongly.
Modern RPG's already have rules, they've been playtested the heck out of, and they work. Every player having the same books, using the same rules, and gaming in the same group will then know what they can and can't do.
Which you are entitled, if not encouraged, to do. That being said, if you don't like the RAW to the extent of rewriting a TON of it, don't play the game.
Why would anyone bother?
|
Because writing a game from scratch, and getting at least four other people to read, comprehend, and THEN play it is more work than most people will do?
As for rewriting a ton of rules, you obviously haven't heard of us.
Edit: And I think you missed my point. Which is that modern RPGs do NOT work RAW. Every game needs some explaination of what is and is not allowed.
Have you never had an argument at the table about what an alignment meant or how much illusions are capable of? What 'mindless' means or how much you can make an NPC do with Diplomacy/Charm/Dominate?
I think the thread title poses a false choice.Hmmm ...
RAW or DM's Authoritative Determination ... sounds pretty dead on, at least as far as the posts I've contributed here.
Now while you may or may not disagree with what I'm about to say, it's a conclusion I've come to after gaming for over 30 years ...
Most house rules are broken or are in place for the wrong reasons. If you're going to house rule the heck out of a game, make your own game.
Modern RPG's already have rules, they've been playtested the heck out of, and they work. Every player having the same books, using the same rules, and gaming in the same group will then know what they can and can't do. It just makes everyone's life so much easier.
The only exception to this should be minor errata by either the publishers or the DMs to clarify RAI, not entire rewrites of the RAW.
I look at the DM's job as I would look at someone creating a MOD for a game like Left 4 Dead 2. They can skin it, add encounters, traps, features, flavor, etc, etc, but the core rules stay the same.
I've learned so many times the hard way that DM's are far from infallible, and they can really kill off any enjoyment their players could have had by changing things, making things over-complicated, or killing an aspect of a player's character that made it fun for the player.
... Just sayin'
I also have been playing RPG's since 1980, houserules in and of themselves never destroyed a game. Bad Dm's have. Bad players have.
I have played houserules for cardgames even before that. Euchre, doublebid, poker...
Heck, even before I sit down and play Monopoly, I ask what about house rules.
People should know the rules. Or at least make an effort to know them. But, houserules are part of the package since D&D first started. Look at the developers and contributers themselves. THEY houserule.
And as for creating a game from scratch? I keep wanting to type some sort of metaphor here, but nothing is coming out right. So let me try this. Why should I create a game from scratch when with two or three pages of typed info (about as much as the errata downloads) I can adjust Pathfinder (or any game system) to be where I want it for running a certain type of game.
The only rule that should be strictly enforced is having fun.
That is why at every game session ran by every DM in my group, we ask everyone at the end..." How was that?" "Did everyone have fun?" " Were there any problems today?" And we listen to input.
Guys, this isn't DM vs Player. My players, and I as a player like houserules. Most of them are consensus.
Greg
Because writing a game from scratch, and getting at least four other people to read, comprehend, and THEN play it is more work than most people will do?
As for rewriting a ton of rules, you obviously haven't heard of us.
Oh, I've heard of you.
;)
There's a fine line between too many house rules and just making your own darn game. I write my own house rules, as well, but nowhere NEAR the amount of house rules it seems most around here do.
I also have been playing RPG's since 1980, houserules in and of themselves never destroyed a game. Bad Dm's have. Bad players have.
I have played houserules for cardgames even before that. Euchre, doublebid, poker...
Heck, even before I sit down and play Monopoly, I ask what about house rules.
People should know the rules. Or at least make an effort to know them. But, houserules are part of the package since D&D first started. Look at the developers and contributers themselves. THEY houserule.
And as for creating a game from scratch? I keep wanting to type some sort of metaphor here, but...
The KEY here is consensus. When a DM's house rule is just plain uneducated and horrific, there is no consensus. Hence my distaste for DM fiat or Authoritative Determination in my experiences.
Of course, I'm playing with a DM with a God complex. I'm sure I'd enjoy playing in either of your campaigns MUCH more than the one I'm in now.
I do, and I understand why it is there.
And if i am playing in a non Golarion setting i completely respect it, and happily follow it, my feeling is simply that if i am playing a character in Golarion i want what is available to all people of that world.
northbrb, are you changing your stance on this?
It is okay to houserule if one is playing a game other than Golarion setting, but not okay if playing Golarion setting.
Because,thent it would seem to be alright if I just called the setting "Greg's version of Golarion."
Greg
I do, and I understand why it is there.
And if i am playing in a non Golarion setting i completely respect it, and happily follow it, my feeling is simply that if i am playing a character in Golarion i want what is available to all people of that world.
northbrb, are you changing your stance on this?
It is okay to houserule if one is playing a game other than Golarion setting, but not okay if playing Golarion setting.
Because,thent it would seem to be alright if I just called the setting "Greg's version of Golarion."
Greg
basically that is my stance, if im playing in a home run game than i cant complain. but i feel strongly about playing in Golarion as written
let me put it another way, if i write up a character i should be able to take that character to any gaming group without having to explain housruled elements of the character.
let me put it another way, if i write up a character i should be able to take that character to any gaming group without having to explain housruled elements of the character.
And you're entitled to your opinion. However, if you wanted a seat at my table, playing in Golarion, you'd have to accept the house rules I've set for my game. I love Pathfinder, but there are still things I prefer to do my way, for a variety of reasons. Those that are cool with that can pull up a chair and get their dice out. The rest can go find a DM that's more...orthodox, I suppose. Good luck with that.
The KEY here is consensus. When a DM's house rule is just plain uneducated and horrific, there is no consensus. Hence my distaste for DM fiat or Authoritative Determination in my experiences.
Of course, I'm playing with a DM with a God complex. I'm sure I'd enjoy playing in either of your campaigns MUCH more than the one I'm in now.
Well, Heck Noah, we seem to be on the same page based on this post. I haven't felt that way until now. Yes, there are bad DM's. But, creating houserules doesn't make a DM bad. And truthfully, sometimes in my games it is a majority vote that determines things. Currently, one person does not like the feat for rapid reload being able to used on slings in my current game ( very very very few houserules in this). Not certain why, he never could explain it. Truthfully, he doesn't use a sling nor is a primary ranged character. We voted, one against, one abstain, three for it. The motion carried.
Anyway, if you are near Orange Park, FL, Email me. We play Saturday mornings for a little under four hours. We are almost done with RotRL's. I cannot speak for the DM's for the Kingmaker or Carrion Crown games. But if interested, email me about them and I can put in a good word.
:)
But really, seems more like an issue of Bad DM than play by the rules as written.
I just want consistancy from my DM's. Even if I disagree with something, I can handle it as long as it doesn't change from session to session. ( unless that is an integral part of the game)
Greg
let me put it another way, if i write up a character i should be able to take that character to any gaming group without having to explain housruled elements of the character.
Yep, that will never happen at my gaming groups. Characters are created for those specific campaigns. There are no "walk on" roles available.
You need to be playing PFS. The rules stay the same. One can take their character from game group to game group and not worry. Sounds perfect. ERP, nevermind, they have officially sanctioned houserules.
Golarion is a fantasy setting, but if you think you will ever be able to take your character from multiple groups without ever encountering houserules, you are in a bigger fantasy world.
Greg
Well, Heck Noah, we seem to be on the same page based on this post. I haven't felt that way until now. Yes, there are bad DM's. But, creating houserules doesn't make a DM bad. And truthfully, sometimes in my games it is a majority vote that determines things. Currently, one person does not like the feat for rapid reload being able to used on slings in my current game ( very very very few houserules in this). Not certain why, he never could explain it. Truthfully, he doesn't use a sling nor is a primary ranged character. We voted, one against, one abstain, three for it. The motion carried.
Anyway, if you are near Orange Park, FL, Email me. We play Saturday mornings for a little under four hours. We are almost done with RotRL's. I cannot speak for the DM's for the Kingmaker or Carrion Crown games. But if interested, email me about them and I can put in a good word.
:)
But really, seems more like an issue of Bad DM than play by the rules as written.
I just want consistancy from my DM's. Even if I disagree with something, I can handle it as long as it doesn't change from session to session. ( unless that is an integral part of the game)
Greg
Yeah. My main concern is newer DM's and players house ruling before they are even familiar with the game, not guys like TOZ, you, and others that actually have a SOLID grasp on the system and can modify it both appropriately and effectively. I did state that in my early posts.
I'd LOVE to join a new group, and if I was still in Florida (God, I wish, this winter was brutal!), I'd be happy to check it out. Sadly, I'm in Michigan at the moment (Ann Arbor area).
So, I guess what I've been trying to convey, whilst allowing my personal angst to create some hasty posts is ...
If you aren't familiar enough to run the game by RAW, learn it first, before trying to create a lot of house rules.
If you have a solid grasp, and feel some things can be better, then errata them.
If you're going to tweak the crap out of a class, feat, skill, or whatever, just write one anew and offer up a handout for each player to learn the changes.
I hope that clarifies things.
let me put it another way, if i write up a character i should be able to take that character to any gaming group without having to explain housruled elements of the character.I guess my characters don't qualify then. :,(
TriOmegaZero, I try to read your houserules stuff, but dang, so much. I would never adjust a game ~that~ much, but I am lazy :P I played in a Gamma World first edition like that though. The guy had three three ring binders filled with typed up charts and notes of rules changes. I swear there was more adjustments than the actual box set had rules. Best Gamma World game I ever played. Wish I knew what happened to that guy.
Greg
Yeah. My main concern is newer DM's and players house ruling before they are even familiar with the game, not guys like TOZ, you, and others that actually have a SOLID grasp on the system and can modify it both appropriately and effectively. I did state that in my early posts.
I'd LOVE to join a new group, and if I was still in Florida (God, I wish, this winter was brutal!), I'd be happy to check it out. Sadly, I'm in Michigan at the moment (Ann Arbor area).
So, I guess what I've been trying to convey, whilst allowing my personal angst to create some hasty posts is ...
If you aren't familiar enough to run the game by RAW, learn it first, before create a lot of house rules.
If you have a solid grasp, and feel some things can be better, then errata them.
If you're going to tweak the crap out of a class, feat, skill, or whatever, just write one anew and offer up a handout for each player to learn the changes.
I hope that clarifies things.
Crystal clear.
Okay, I am down wit dat. We're shiny.
Greg
ps: one of my players spends about three months a year near Ann Arbor. He doesn't usualy RP during that time, but focuses on his WH40k painting and battling. He tried a couple of RPG groups there at the FLGS a few years ago, but didn't care for the DM style.
|
|
TriOmegaZero, I try to read your houserules stuff, but dang, so much. I would never adjust a game ~that~ much, but I am lazy :P
That's actually Kirth's stuff, I'm merely a playtester for it. My own houserules are much more circumspect at the moment, save for the minor tweaking of Kirth's class rewrites to fit 3.5. My houserules can be found here, at least until Google disables the Pages and Files sections like they said they would.
That's actually Kirth's stuff, I'm merely a playtester for it. My own houserules are much more circumspect at the moment, save for the minor tweaking of Kirth's class rewrites to fit 3.5. My houserules can be found here, at least until Google disables the Pages and Files sections like they said they would.
TriOmegaZero, I try to read your houserules stuff, but dang, so much. I would never adjust a game ~that~ much, but I am lazy :P
Kirth and I share a love of Jack Vance, and was one of the first posters I interacted with during the end of beta. But, we disagree on so many other things :(
Such is the spice of li...err interwebs.
Greg
EDIT: and the name Kirth Gerson comes from one of my fave of JV's series. The bestest bravest melancholiest assassin of em all!
ps: one of my players spends about three months a year near Ann Arbor. He doesn't usualy RP during that time, but focuses on his WH40k painting and battling. He tried a couple of RPG groups there at the FLGS a few years ago, but didn't care for the DM style.
I can be contacted through my website ... VPForums.org
Have him hit me up!
Disagree strongly.
Modern RPG's already have rules, they've been playtested the heck out of, and they work. Every player having the same books, using the same rules, and gaming in the same group will then know what they can and can't do.
I am with TOZ on this one.
I look at the DM's job as I would look at someone creating a MOD for a game like Left 4 Dead 2. They can skin it, add encounters, traps, features, flavor, etc, etc, but the core rules stay the same.
Then don't play in games where the GM changes the rules. Simple.
Honestly, since you seem to have so little respect for the role of the GM in the game, you should stick to running your own games.
I look at the DM's job as I would look at someone creating a MOD for a game like Left 4 Dead 2. They can skin it, add encounters, traps, features, flavor, etc, etc, but the core rules stay the same.Then don't play in games where the GM changes the rules. Simple.
Honestly, since you seem to have so little respect for the role of the GM in the game, you should stick to running your own games.
I think you're reading into my posts more than is really there.
See THIS POST
Honestly, since you seem to have so little respect for the role of the GM in the game, you should stick to running your own games.
I don't think that's necessarily implied from what he says.
There are lots of different skills that can make for a good GM. One of the rarest is "has a really excellent handle on the balance of the game", and frankly many of the best GM's I've ever had were beyond terrible at it. You literally would be better off implementing the exact opposite of any of their houserules if you wanted a better mechanically balanced game.
But for that, they were great in many other ways that make a GM, what I'd argue are more important ways. Those guys? Those guys should stick as close to RAW as they can stand, not because RAW is perfect or Jason Bulmahn didn't make any mistakes, but because his design instincts are a crap ton better than theirs.
Honestly, that guy's saying the equivalent of: "These people on American Idol shouldn't try to dance on stage. They should just concentrate on singing." and you're coming back with: "Why don't you get up there and dance instead, buddy?"