Houserule Meta: Off With its Head!

[Necrosnoop110]

Was thinking about the high end of pre-Epic 1-20th level D&D 3.5 and was wondering what you guys think about kind of clipping things off at the head. What happens to standard 3.5 if you house rule the following three things:

1) Limiting bonuses to some maximum value cap. Not sure what the best value would be. But the idea would be to limit run away range games.

2) Remove 9th level spells, powers, and effects entirely. I realize that this only concerns the last few levels typically but I find that most of these change the games power level, change the style of the game into something else.

3) Limit the amount of spells and powers you can employ in a round. Again not sure what the best range limit for this would be. But something like each character can only ever cast two spells or powers per round (maybe even only one spell/power per round). One as a "regular" action and one as an free/swift/immediate/contingent/etc. action. You can have more mundane actions in a round but you are limited on casting/manifesting and the like. 

I'm not actually going to do this just was thinking about it and curious what you fine folks thought and looking for discussion.   

Peace,
Necro

[Unbeliever]

My general feeling is "meh."  Sorry. 

(1) hits some concepts -- such as the shapechanger who relies on buckets of numbers or some martial ones -- hard, but leaves others -- like the god wizard -- untouched.  Concepts in the latter category are by no means weaker than those in the former. 

That being said, I usually have some rough barometer of when I've got "enough" of a bonus to then go on to doing something else with my character resources.  But, that's more of a holistic gentleman's agreement thing.  Also, I'm not necessarily against a character who is extraordinarily good at something:  the guy who never fails a will save or has a titanic AC doesn't make the game impossible, especially given the fact that immunities are not unheard of in the system.

(2)  9th level spells are not the real offender.  A lot of them are actually kind of underwhelming.  It's the handful of awesome, possibly game breaking spells, at each level.  Solid Fog is a very powerful effect, especially for when it comes online, and is nowhere near 9th level.

(3) not sure how much this would get you.  You could probably cap it to 2 spells per round, but that wouldn't make much of a difference:  how often is a character going to do more than that?

[Necrosnoop110]

My general feeling is "meh."  Sorry. 

(1) hits some concepts -- such as the shapechanger who relies on buckets of numbers or some martial ones -- hard, but leaves others -- like the god wizard -- untouched.  Concepts in the latter category are by no means weaker than those in the former. 

That being said, I usually have some rough barometer of when I've got "enough" of a bonus to then go on to doing something else with my character resources.  But, that's more of a holistic gentleman's agreement thing.  Also, I'm not necessarily against a character who is extraordinarily good at something:  the guy who never fails a will save or has a titanic AC doesn't make the game impossible, especially given the fact that immunities are not unheard of in the system.

(2)  9th level spells are not the real offender.  A lot of them are actually kind of underwhelming.  It's the handful of awesome, possibly game breaking spells, at each level.  Solid Fog is a very powerful effect, especially for when it comes online, and is nowhere near 9th level.

(3) not sure how much this would get you.  You could probably cap it to 2 spells per round, but that wouldn't make much of a difference:  how often is a character going to do more than that?

No need to apologize. This all speculative talk anyways. I'm just chewing the fat here. 

I see your points. The domination of battlefield control effects, GOD-wizardry, etc. seem to be bigger offenses. I hear you. What you say makes sense.

I'm still not sure if I agree with your take of the 9th level spell/power thing though. Yes they thankfully come online late in the game. But Gate, Wish, Shapechange, Disjunction, these seem campaign level shaking as opposed to encounter level shaking of solid fog and the like.


So does this mean the only way to properly revise D&D 3.5 into better shape is to systematically edit all those "awesome, possibly game breaking spells, at each level"?

Peace,
Necro     

[Jackinthegreen]

Players got more creative than the designers figured they would, so we're left with piles of mechanics that don't end up playing out all that well.

However, a lot of it is put onto the DM.  There are a few pages where the DMG talks about how the DM would work with Divinations, for example.  Instead of murder mysteries where the goal is to figure out who did it, magic makes that task trivial but still doesn't quite lead directly to where the perp is or allow them to be easily captured.

But it's not just spells that can break a game.  RAW Diplomacy can certainly do that, though it's a little more limited in scope/timing than some people tend to believe.

Basically, the game would need a significant rewrite to weed out the mechanics that actually can break the whole game, and then also look at the ones that can trivialize encounters so badly that the players and DM no longer get any fun from actually playing.  This isn't just about spells;  it's also about monsters, mechanics, and expectations of the game itself.

[ketaro]

I'm still not sure if I agree with your take of the 9th level spell/power thing though. Yes they thankfully come online late in the game. But Gate, Wish, Shapechange, Disjunction, these seem campaign level shaking as opposed to encounter level shaking of solid fog and the like.

You're not countering his point, you're reinforcing it by listing the very reasons people think 9th level spells are the end-all-be-all. They're far from it but there are some damn powerful exceptions to that in those spells you mentioned; Gate, Wish, Shapechange, Disjunction. Compare those to something like, say, Meteor Swarm. 9th level spells are full of a lot more "Meteor Swarms" than they are "Wishes and Gates", if you get my drift.

[Jackinthegreen]

I'm still not sure if I agree with your take of the 9th level spell/power thing though. Yes they thankfully come online late in the game. But Gate, Wish, Shapechange, Disjunction, these seem campaign level shaking as opposed to encounter level shaking of solid fog and the like.

You're not countering his point, you're reinforcing it by listing the very reasons people think 9th level spells are the end-all-be-all. They're far from it but there are some damn powerful exceptions to that in those spells you mentioned; Gate, Wish, Shapechange, Disjunction. Compare those to something like, say, Meteor Swarm. 9th level spells are full of a lot more "Meteor Swarms" than they are "Wishes and Gates", if you get my drift.

This sort of thing is exactly why the higher-level spells need to be addressed in more detail.  Bigger numbers a higher level spell don't necessarily make.  Whole new effects that fundamentally change the way the characters interact with the world?  Yeah, that's different and potentially very powerful depending on the effect.

[CaptRory]

You might wanna check the Gentleman's Agreement link in my signature.


Any set of rules can be gamed. That's why we have Game Masters. It is my opinion that the key to avoiding ridiculous cheese is communicating with the players and figuring out what everyone wants from the game. If everyone wants to have fun playing a game together, that is good. If the idea of fun for one or more people is wrecking the fun of everyone else, that is not good and they should be uninvited.

Any class, character, or concept can potentially break the game. The more complex the rules are the more chances there are to just break it open like a rotten pumpkin. Magic Users have an easier time of this because they have more options. A plain vanilla wizard has access to more special abilities through their spells than any three Martial Classes combined. That means if you try to shut down things individually by playing Whack-A-Mole it affects spell casters least, they can always shift to a new plan, the martial guys take it in the shorts. That's why I think one's best bet is to just be honest at the start with an agreement that if things get crazy the players will help correct the imbalance instead of  being a jerk and finding new and more creative ways of breaking the game.

If its a spell caster he might agree to put a particular spell or combination of spells in the closet for awhile. The martial guy might agree to tweak his build a bit. The best optimizer in the party might help out the under-performing characters so the gap between everyone isn't so wide.

The rules are too complicated for a quick and easy fix. It is better if everyone agrees that they're all playing in a minefield and agreeing to help fix things when someone inevitably steps on one. Problems will need to be addressed at some point. You can't fix thins beforehand. Cooperation in this matter from the start is better than plotting later

[Unbeliever]

So does this mean the only way to properly revise D&D 3.5 into better shape is to systematically edit all those "awesome, possibly game breaking spells, at each level"?

Kind of.  But, then I'd worry about sucking all the fun out of the game, too.  Jack mentioned player creativity above, and I'd worry about aggressively hammering down all the proud nails would suck the life, and frankly the D&Dness, out of the game. 

On the other hand, you don't want to see all the same old saws every time.  So, I could see knocking off some of the ones that seem to crop up all the time.  Although a lot of that is just a character choice.  I can make badass wizards that don't rely on Treantmonk's spell lists. 

The other question might be what the right scale here would be?  As in, what's the "ideal" or "balanced" character look like?  If it's Fighter 20 with Weapon Specialization, then you're going to be aiming for a different balance point than if it's a Warblade or a Druid. 

[Necrosnoop110]

Thanks everyone for the discussion. I hear what is being said. And I am familiar with the Gentlemen's Agreement and/or Arms Race, etc. I do see the distinction between effects that are potentially strong and effects that can potentially break either encounters and/or campaigns. And that 99% of the time it is not just more d6s of damage it is categorical changes in capacity to manipulate.   

One of the things I don't like about a meta-rules agreements from an aesthetic sense is that it starts to feel like a magic tea party to me. If you need meta-rules to constrain the rules, then the rules seem like they are not the "real" rules, lol. Now I'll concede a table of sophisticated intelligent gamers wisely employing a gentlemen's agreement is far more nuanced than "hey just make up whatever the hell you want whenever the hell you want." But something in me craves the idea of an RPG that has rock solid rules that are balanced without the need of meta.   

But then when I think about it again, maybe the meta-rules for gaming have always been there and been required, I just may not have been aware of it pre-internet optimization boards enlightening me. 

[CaptRory]

Those rules have always been there and in fact is one of the bedrock principles of society: If you act like a dick you may be punched in the face. All of the rules of society are there to keep us from punching each other in the face. The Gentleman's Agreement simply codifies something that happens naturally in a healthy group. Outlining the expectations at the start just keeps problems from forming later and provides justification for punching a dick in the face if he ignores you and wrecks your game for laughs.

[Necrosnoop110]

Those rules have always been there and in fact is one of the bedrock principles of society: If you act like a dick you may be punched in the face. All of the rules of society are there to keep us from punching each other in the face. The Gentleman's Agreement simply codifies something that happens naturally in a healthy group. Outlining the expectations at the start just keeps problems from forming later and provides justification for punching a dick in the face if he ignores you and wrecks your game for laughs.

+1

[Unbeliever]

One of the things I don't like about a meta-rules agreements from an aesthetic sense is that it starts to feel like a magic tea party to me. If you need meta-rules to constrain the rules, then the rules seem like they are not the "real" rules, lol. Now I'll concede a table of sophisticated intelligent gamers wisely employing a gentlemen's agreement is far more nuanced than "hey just make up whatever the hell you want whenever the hell you want." But something in me craves the idea of an RPG that has rock solid rules that are balanced without the need of meta.   

This is fair point and a fair desire.  It's a bit of a tradeoff, though.  A reasonable (I think) criticism of 4E was that it pulled the slider all the way to balance and you ended up without a lot of fun room to play mechanically.  Of course, you could argue that earlier editions of the game were just the opposite.

[Necrosnoop110]

So then my question becomes:

Do you need an "open-ended, unbalanced, and messy rule-set" for a creative and fun RPG? 

[CaptRory]

No, Fate RPG is pretty well balanced out of the box and codifies a lot of Roleplaying stuff right into the mechanics. It can be crazy depending on the sort of game the group sets up and with different splinter products but by and large is both creative and open ended and balanced.

I think the problem with 4e was that, D&D has always had certain characteristics and 4e stripped them out. It wasn't that the game was shoved too far towards balance it was shoved out of the Dungeons and Dragons box entirely. You go into a D&D game knowing there are going to be imbalances. Fourth Edition watered everything down to the point where class was largely irrelevant; everyone was on the surface equal in power (til people started figuring out how to break it). It all tasted like the same pablum.

At this point I prefer very open rules to build characters with. My one group uses BESM2e, it is CRAZY EASY to break that system, but we're all agreed (first by unconscious agreement then by spoken contract) that we're more interested in telling a good story than by power gaming. GMs really need to stay on top of characters in that system but when it works it works super well.

When I want a rules heavy game, I want D&D. There's something I really enjoy about the classic dungeon delving game with its quirks and flaws and stripping them out just isn't D&D anymore.



Boiling it down, the more rules a game has the less likely it is to be balanced. D&D has a specific rule for everything you pretty much want to do and each class and many spells have rules exceptions built into them. This gets very complicated which overall creates more and more instability. Games like Fate have relatively few rules, they are broadly applicable, and the experience is very open ended which creates a lot of freedom without memorizing a lot of extra books for new classes and feats and such.

None of that escapes the core issue however. If a player wants to be a dick and wreck everyone's fun he can do that regardless of the rules. A more unstable game creates more opportunities especially for someone who accidentally builds something over powered. This goes waaaay back to my original point: If everyone can agree to get along for the sake of having a good time together and to help by communicating and agreeing to help fix problems instead of getting butt-hurt it doesn't really matter what rules you are using.


"Why am I being punished for being awesome!?" "You're not. But to challenge you I need to meat-grinder the rest of the party. First we're going to tweak how your character works. Second you're going to help the other guys become more effective. Third quit grumbling because you agreed to this at the start of the campaign. And if you can't you will Four get out of my freaking house. You asshole."

[Unbeliever]

CaptRory kind of hit on a version of the point I was going for.  Part of it depends how D&D-ish you want your game to be.  BESM (or M&M or Wild Talents, etc., they all share the same DNA, which I suppose is Champions and the precursor to that whose name escapes me) are really open-ended in a lot of ways.  But, that means they kind of chucked game balance out the window, to greater and lesser degrees. 

D&D is characterized with more of a ... I don't know, menu approach.  I'm sure there's a more sophisticated term for it.  You are picking combinations of abilities.  And, to keep that interesting, there are a great many abilities to combine and they should, ideally, do a great many things.  Otherwise it's just monotony and you just pick the best one, viz. the orgy of guns in Rifts. 

Once you're in that universe, though, the probability of something being imbalanced is very high.  Which, credit where it is due, is exactly what CaptRory says above.  On the other hand, looking for kickass combos is, to some extent, the game.  At least mechanically-speaking.

[CaptRory]

The problem comes in when everyone has different expectations. Tom wants to build the best Fighter-type he can. Jeff has a great concept about a ranger using dual wield and a quarterstaff. Mark and Lisa just want to play spellcasters and Marly wants to play an Elf Rogue. No one is on the same page and is likely assuming everyone has more or less the same goal that they have. If Tom is assuming everyone is going to min/max whatever their role is, and Jeff is assuming everyone is going to be picking primarily for roleplaying reasons and not raw power/effectiveness, and everyone else is hitting different parts along the continuum its going to be more luck than skill that determines how compatible everything is.

If we get Tom to help out Jeff he can still have his overall concept but have it not suck so he feels like he's contributing. That'll set the sort of level of effectiveness you need. Then they can get the rogue up to speed and the casters will probably sort themselves out with a little advice from the group's Min/Maxer.

Few people will mind someone helping them be more awesome so long as their own opinions are acknowledged.

You're right, D&D is like a huge buffet that you can take from as you go along. Some games like Fate are more like a Build Your Own Burger restaurant. Everyone is getting a burger, but you get to decide how it all goes together.