|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
After reading up on 3rd edition, Frank and K's Tomes, Conan d20, playing 3.5, Pathfinder, Kirthfinder, and many other houseruled games, I've come to realize something.
The rules you use don't actually contribute a lot to the actual play.
It's been pointed out that large-scale houseruling ends up mostly unused. And I've seen that with Kirthfinder. (I promise I'm starting to remember to count my battle fatigue penalties Kirth!)
But even minor houseruling doesn't change the balance all that much. And I certainly don't see Pathfinder as any more balanced than 3.5. The pivot point just moved a little.
I even see the skeleton of 3E when I do a deep look at 4E, past the flesh and makeup. (Maybe not in that order.)
Really, the group you play with has the greatest impact. How high your point-buy is has a far greater effect on the game than swapping PF CMB/D in place of 3.5 maneuvers.
Your group will find the balance that works for them with a little settling. What rules you use are really more like the pink handlebar tassels on your bike.
Toz this just sums up exacly how i feel about this. After having several small groups go in and out around my main group i can honestly say that the Who matters so much more than the what or the how.
After reading up on 3rd edition, Frank and K's Tomes, Conan d20, playing 3.5, Pathfinder, Kirthfinder, and many other houseruled games, I've come to realize something.
The rules you use don't actually contribute a lot to the actual play.
I can't argue with your experience, of course. And I agree that 3.5E games aren't particularly different from PFRPG games, in my experience. But the 4E campaign I'm in feels quite a bit different from the 3.5E campaign that I had with the same GM. YMMV, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now this is something I am proud to sign!
I can somewhat agree with this. Granted, I've house ruled my PF campaign pretty heavily, but the only big balance change is in the races, and it's a good balance change (every race gets a bonus feat and chooses which ability scores to add modifiers to, which makes race a background choice, not a mechanical choice, as the racial modifiers are minor). Other than that, things look like they should play the same.
Most of my house rules are little flavor things. Alignment is gone, Paladins fall by slowly switching out abilities with the Anti-Paladin instead of in one quick tumble, raising dead people can cause insanity, some classes got new names so that I wouldn't have to call the "Native American" warrior a Barbarian, the gods are poorly understood, all the core races crossbreed, not just humans, players can't plane shift, time stop, commune with deities, or use wish/miracle, sneak attack is a bit rebalanced so it's more accurate, armor choice is largely aesthetic, and a bunch of other little things like that which don't have heavy balance effects.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've never understood the RAW guys -- the system & mechanics guys; I must admit.
I remember about 5 or 6 years ago, before WotC cancelled the mags and came out with their new game, we were having a Thread like this and I said emphatically that the system -- the rules -- are completely meaningless. It's all about the game -- the Fluff.
I was surprised to find others, namely Sebastion, say that the game style -- the Fluff -- are completely meaningless to them. That it's wholly the mechanics and the system.
I thought about it and posted later that perhaps the reason it's ALL and ONLY about the Fluff for me is that, unlike pretty much every other gamer out there, this is the ONLY game I've ever played. I played D&D from '81 to the present. Exclusively. I never played more than a couple sessions of Vampire in the 90s. I played, I think, two sessions of Rifts in the 90s. I never played Traveller in the early 80s even though we had the little books. I never played Mazes and Monsters or Warhammer or GURPS or Magic or,... um, any of the others. I've never played Call of Cthulhu or even d20 Modern or D20 Future. And obviously I've never played the WotC game they crapped out after they cancelled the mags.
D&D, high fantasy swords & sorcery -- the Fluff; the style -- that's all I know.
And the specific rules or mechanics, whether published in a different edition or Houseruled, are meaningless to me.
It's all D&D to me.
And the specific rules or mechanics, whether published in a different edition or Houseruled, are meaningless to me.
It's all D&D to me.
I can certainly agree with the sentiment that the spirit of D&D remains the same in all editions. But saying that the set of rules is "meaningless" makes me think of Stephen Colbert's claim that he doesn't see race and that he hasn't noticed that there's a black president. :-)
I'm highly skeptical that you could go through a whole non-houseruled D&D session (as a player) without having the particular edition affect your choice of PC or the actions your PC attempts.
It's been pointed out that large-scale houseruling ends up mostly unused. And I've seen that with Kirthfinder. (I promise I'm starting to remember to count my battle fatigue penalties Kirth!)
But even minor houseruling doesn't change the balance all that much.
I guess the only meaningful difference is, for me, that I could easily build the kinds of characters I want to play using "Kirthfinder" -- and have them contribute meaningfully to a party -- without them having to be 18th level in order to stack enough prestige classes and so on (which is what generally had to happen in 3.5).
Stuff like whether Will saves get split into two different categories doesn't really change game play a whole lot, which one reason I left that decision to you guys. It made houstonderek very happy without inconveniencing me all that much, so it was worth it to me just for that.
I think who is DMing for me has a greater impact on my choices than anything else.
There are people I will play 3.5 Monks with [..]
So do you think that your monk would feel the same in a 4E game with that GM?
Like I said earlier, I was playing a 3E sorcerer with a certain GM and now I'm playing the same sorcerer in his rebooted 4E game. Every other factor is about the same, but the character is just plain different now.
|
|
I'm highly skeptical that you could go through a whole non-houseruled D&D session (as a player) without having the particular edition affect your choice of PC or the actions your PC attempts.
But I don't think that's what we're talking about here. (Or maybe Sebastion was right all along, who knows...)
Hmmm....And it's tougher for me because since about '89 I've been almost exclusively a DM. Of course I've played tons and tons of PCs -- but not remotely close to the number of adventures I've run.
I'd have to think about my PC choices.
-In the 80s I LOVED Rangers. Almost every PC was some kinda thematic ranger, if not specifically Tanis half Elven. (And I'm certain, though, that had I played any Rangers in the 90s they'd have all been similar characters even if their stats or whatever were radically different.)
-In the 90s I played a bit of everything -- that was probably the only era of D&D for me where I wanted to try all the different options. Oddly enough, the mid 90s was also the only time I really got into RAW. Man, from about 96-98 we played RAW and we friggin knew everything -- totally not what I am now. I wish I could comment on how I saw my characters back then but, honestly, unlike the 80s, I remember the games and not really my PCs. I mean, I could name them -- but that's pretty much it except for the plots and settings of their adventures.
In the 00s came my obsession with Wizards though I've played (or at least dipped) every Class except Bard cuz Bard doesn't really count as a Class. But again, I believe that if I made a Wizard today using THAC0 and NWPs and varying XP progressions -- whether I make Aqualung Tull a wizard in 2E or 3E -- it's still gonna be Aqualung Tull. Cuz it's Aqualung Tull whether or not he's sitting on a park bench eyeing goblin ears with bad intent with an 18 INT and a scroll or a 16 INT, 16 DEX and has to hide.
I dunno.
So do you think that your monk would feel the same in a 4E game with that GM?Yes.
Fair enough. The problem must be with the 4E sorcerer, then!
The rules you use don't actually contribute a lot to the actual play.
I have to admit that even if the final Kirthfinder rules were amended tomorrow so as to be identical to Pathfinder, the experience still would have been valuable for me, personally, even if you see no difference. It's made me look more closely at what aspects of the game I personally find most interesting, and why. It has, more importantly, made me to look hard at the fact that other people have idiosyncratic rules preferences as well -- ones that, while largely irrelevant to everyone else, make a big difference to them.
I would like to think that a lot of houserules projects are similar -- the learning experience is more valuable than the specific play differences.
In the case of Kirthfinder, let me assure you that, even if you see no difference whatsoever in playing the game, I see a lot of difference in running the game.
I didn't say they contribute nothing. I said they don't contribute a lot.
Understood -- but I guess the question really is, "is the little they contribute enough to make up for the annoyance in having variant rules in the first place?" That's a question that'll no doubt have a different answer for each player -- I'd be very interested in everyone's feedback in that regard, good, bad, or indifferent.
Understood -- but I guess the question really is, "is the little they contribute enough to make up for the annoyance in having variant rules in the first place?"
What's clear to me is that it's certainly possible to have variant rules that make the game worse (for me). Believe me, I know.
What's clear to me is that it's certainly possible to have variant rules that make the game worse (for me). Believe me, I know.
Absolutely -- I've been in games like that, and it's not pretty. That's where player feedback really needs to come in. As a player, I'll point out (politely, and out of session) things that aren't working the way they were maybe intended. As DM, I try to solicit player input (as above), and also encourage players to vote on potentially contentious rules variations.
|
|
I've got a few Houserules I like to employ but will disregard them for a Campaign if a PC concept relies on something my Houserule interferes with.
(If you don't know from my posts, I play in several groups, almost all with interchangeable and often new Players, at least for the last 4 years.)
For example, one thing I HATE is Threat Ranges. A 20 is a Crit. Period.
And I hate weapons that have Threats. Hate. So I Houserule that NO weapon can ever be better than Threat 18-19 (20 auto-Crits). And all weapons that SAY Threat 18-20 really only Threat 19-20. A Feat or Magic Item can make it 18-20. ...But remember, 20 is always a crit, no conformation needed (unlike the handful of 19-20 Threats where a 19 (or 18) must still be Confirmed.
But a guy joined one of my games about 3 years ago with a Swashbuckler built on Luck Feats and a 16-20 Threat rapier -- he built the PC before we had a chance to talk about the Campaign. So I allowed him that PC build and, unlike the other PCs, he HAD to confirm 20s. I don't mind bending Houserules (or Core rules) to let the Player play what he wants -- ALL I care about is that the PCs are equal to each other
(Incidentally, you may know this guy -- if you have or have seen Paizo's Character Recorder (not sure exactly what they called it), the Pathfinder folder with a character sheet and a whole bunch of other PC-records sheets that you can buy to keep track of your PC in a campaign -- anyway, my Player is the cowriter (along with my old LGS owner).
Another of my Houserules is that I don't use, like MANY gamers, a battlemat. But I don't mind breaking one out occassionally -- especially for a big fight against a BBEG. And you know what -- when I do use a mat I prefer each square be 2 feet instead of 5 (you Reach only adjacent squares, though) -- it makes the rooms much bigger but there's so much more movement potential -- not to mention more squares for monsters.
But again, either way I can do it. My Houserules -- like RAW -- are not in stone.
Another of my Houserules is that I don't use, like MANY gamers, a battlemat. But I don't mind breaking one out occassionally -- especially for a big fight against a BBEG.
I use them only for fights involving crazy terrain and/or a lot of combatants; otherwise we just hand-wave exact distances/locations based on relative ranges and movement speeds.
|
I've never understood the RAW guys -- the system & mechanics guys; I must admit.
I remember about 5 or 6 years ago, before WotC cancelled the mags and came out with their new game, we were having a Thread like this and I said emphatically that the system -- the rules -- are completely meaningless. It's all about the game -- the Fluff.
I was surprised to find others, namely Sebastion, say that the game style -- the Fluff -- are completely meaningless to them. That it's wholly the mechanics and the system.
....D&D, high fantasy swords & sorcery -- the Fluff; the style -- that's all I know.
And the specific rules or mechanics, whether published in a different edition or Houseruled, are meaningless to me.
It's all D&D to me.
I salute the premise of the post, and I wish it was something I could 100% agree with.
However with changes in the rules, often has come BUTCHERY OF THE FLUFF.
I invite you to look at the inconsistencies between 2nd-->3rd and 3rd---->4th. Let alone the frankensteinian nightmare that was the OD&D----> 1st Edition Advanced--->2nd shoe-horning the D&D "Known World" into the Mystara campaign setting.
Daughters Got Rewritten as Lovers (See the Elahdrin->Queen Morwel) and Entire swaths of racial fluff (the Dwarves especially) got entirely rewritten or abandoned. These were not small changes nor minute in number. Some times there were attempts to explain them in retcon
(Vecna reordering the Cosmos in Die Vecna Die!) or sometimes it was just arbitrary, based on design or corporate decisions. (I happened to work for WotC during the 3rd launch and while I was not part of R&D by any means, being retail, as with any company there is chatter and in-house speculation).
In short, the very thing that makes it "ALL D&D" for you, to me they butchered like a Tarantino Slasher-film's victims. Messy, and with extremely poor taste.
I salute your love of the fluff, and am well aware my feelings on the matter put me "outside the majority" who are largely indifferent to these things. But as one who can appreciate this, like a fellow wine connoisseur, surely you can taste the creep of bitterness in the vintage?
"The Ravenloft 3.5 is exquisite, and respectful of and if anything ENHANCED from those older than it, but say, the Forgotten Realms 4.0 is a far, far cry from a bastard child of its predecessors"
|
|
@ Vedic,
I thought about the examples you used and I'd ultimately have to agree -- at least, that it happens in several but not all instances.
But I dunno, it feels to me more like the evolution of the Fluff than a butchery of.
And the things that I just don't at all like -- Paizo's making the Drow a spontaneously-transformed evil elf for example, or 3.5's turning Madame Eva of Ravenloft into a stupid, opposite-of-subtle hag -- I just ignore as if they don't exist.
That's maybe what really separates the playability of Houserule Fluff with Houserule Crunch: I can say Numeria and the Mana Wastes don't exist and Molthune has, Nazi Blitzkrieg style, taken over Lastwall, Nirmathas & Druma and is at war with Kyonin, and it's not so big a deal as altering how Threat Ranges work or redoing Ability Scores or something mechanical.
After reading up on 3rd edition, Frank and K's Tomes, Conan d20, playing 3.5, Pathfinder, Kirthfinder, and many other houseruled games, I've come to realize something.
The rules you use don't actually contribute a lot to the actual play.
(...) and I said emphatically that the system -- the rules -- are completely meaningless. It's all about the game -- the Fluff.
I'll join you guys halfway.
For me, a RPG (not necessarily D&D) is 99% about the mood, the ambiance and the style of the game. I don't want to use the word 'fluff' because I find that a game mechanics' has, ultimately, a fair influence on this mood, ambiance and style of that game.
There is something fundamentally different between playing D&D, Ars Magica, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay and Vampire: the Masquerade. None have more or less 'roleplay' potential, all can be equally supported by a strong setting (fluff) and all can be equally enjoyable IMO. But all feel different and that is, in part, because their game mechanics are significantly different. You can take Ars Magica's system and play it high fantasy like you would run a D&D game, but it will not yield the same experience (and I don't mean in terms of quality).
For example, knowing that you can get killed in one shot - or having a hefty buffer of hit points - does influence the experience of the game. You can roleplay your character the same way (most likely as someone who doesn't want to get killed) but different systems focus on different realities and will have an impact of the mood, ambiance and style of the game.
As a tinkerer of system and admitted houseruler, the modifications I bring to a system usually aim to tune the system for my style of play (or else to simplify an element of the game that deem too complicated). I like to believe that I'm successful at it; only on a more subtle level than going from D&D to Ars Magica.
All that to say that I'm all for the fluff, given that ironically, the rules do affect the fluff.
'findel