D&D - Needs to be more open

Remove all ads!

D&D is far from perfect. 3E is a much better system then 1st or 2nd. It is good at what it does. Allow for a fantasy setting. I have been playing and DMing D&D for over 20 years and still enjoy it very much.
I'm also a big fan of GURPS, which I think is a better 'overall' system but it is not as good at pure fantasy as D&D. It's a matter of focus. Do you want to do a tons of things really good or one thing great. That is the question.
As far as hounse rules go I don't think I ever played with a DM that didn't add or change some of the rules. This is about fun and making the system work better for you. If the house rules are applies evenly to both PCs and NPCs there is no problem. It's like the different between college and pro ball. The game is the same but they play it with slightly different rules.

 

Oaz:
Quote: By the way: the idea that "Elves are aloof and frivolous" isn't a rule - it's a description of what Elves might generally be like. Note that the Monster Manual states that Elves are usually Chaotic Good (under the Alignment entry).

*Might* be like? No! It is what elves *are* like - *generally*. This is meant to be a FACT. A ‘rule’ if you like. However, it’s a ‘rule’ that the rulebooks clearly state you don’t *have* to have your own elf follow. By this they mean that to have a campaign where the elves aren’t *generally* aloof and frivolous would not be true to the origins of D&D i.e. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings. Nevertheless, you can alter things if you want but beware: it is ‘important’ to understand that the ‘rules’ are a foundation *for the entire D&D milieu*, regardless of the campaign you play in. Without this solid foundation, you get all the horrible questions arising like ‘why can’t I have an elvish bard?’ [The answer to this question is: you *can* have an elvish bard if your DM allows it but know this: elves are generally aloof and frivolous and as such, an elven bard would be extremely rare since a) they take 75 years to become adults which implies they see time in a wholly different way to humans and thus don’t rush about learning several things at once (as the bard does); b) Elves see themselves *generally* as a superior race – the ‘one true race’ because of their ancient history and special powers e.g. immortality. Thus, it is rare indeed for one of them to spend years learning about the folklore that bards are a storehouse of. Remember, elves are aloof, are they not? Why would an elf spend *any* time learning human folklore when he has eons of his own to learn about? Why would an elf rush around like a human bard, when he is content to frolic in a wooded glade for 50 years at a stretch? It’s not a matter of ‘elves can sing, therefore elven bards should exist’!]

If you start playing around with the rules, you are liable to get yourself into a muddle. As has been said, AD&D was originally a very carefully conceived game that worked on the whole. As a game designer myself, I have an understanding of how difficult it is to interweave rules into a self-supporting, coherent system. Although the core rules have evolved, the evolution has generally been attempts to smooth the rough edges and increase its appeal by simplifying it. Within its core structure however, is the concept of *adaptation* - the understanding that since it’s a game – the objective of which is FUN – players and DMs alike will probably want to change things here and there. Thus, the ‘rules’ state that you can, if you wish, make changes. Personally I think this is ill-advised because I appreciate the way the rules mesh with one another and changing one can have huge implications elsewhere which the everyday gamer may not have thought about.

Aikanaro,

Quote: I personally would prefer a system that doesn't need changing. I did read somewhere about some guy who claimed to have 3 binders full of house rules after he'd finsihed going through his books - not my idea of a good system.

What you seem to want is a game with rules, none of which you disagree with! I can’t see how the D&D rules could be more accommodating to your wishes – they have given you rules *and* given you ‘permission’ to change them (including guidelines for how to do so).

Evil characters: the game clearly states that it runs contrary to the spirit of the concept of D&D to play evil characters! It’s a game of *heroes* taking on villains! Surely it’s obvious that the villains are the ones being ‘evil’? The rulebooks are written from this perspective and therefore (why am I explaining this?) the modules et al. are written from the same perspective! As it says, what is heroic about being a villain? *Yet* the players can still play evil characters, because the rules are so flexible. The DM however will have trouble running an evil campaign, since who will oppose the PCs? The DM is liable to end up playing a party of hero NPCs that are out to stop the players! And why would the evil PCs face the evil wizard in the twisted tower – they would logically applaud his existence and want to join him. –Sigh-