Quote from: Elliot Wilen;229904I think it's more important to distinguish whether you have to add stuff or subtract stuff. Adding stuff is much less of a problem (though not completely straightforward, see below). In fact you could say that RPGs are inherently built on adding; otherwise you have a bare mechanical skeleton, a boardgame.

Subtracting means denying things that are explicitly promised by the rules.

The main problem with "additive" houseruling, or even "roleplaying it out", comes when it begins to circumvent or nullify the existing rules. The classic case is when a game has a negotiation skill, but the group consistently decides to play out social situations without really employing the mechanic implied by the existence of the skill (basically neither requiring nor allowing rolls to influence outcomes). In this sense "additive" houseruling can become "subtractive", with exactly the same problem. In the case of followers, it could become an issue if the use of followers basically ended up overshadowing the tactical mesh of the existing rules.

I think the way to go here is to have subtraction of sufficiently local scope. Like pruning a garden to make it grow.

For example, if a player is very good at being persuasive etc. but his character has a charisma of 8 or something, I'd be willing to temporarily suppress the need for a roll so long as he was roleplaying it out. On the other hand, I would allow such a roll for a player who wasn't that skilled even though his character was.

This is in contrast to say, a subtraction of global application, like "No elves in my game" or "No one can learn Wish as a spell no matter how high level they get".

Because this is a question of the application of rules ultimately, I'm not personally a great fan of simply introducing more rules to cover it. I think that handling these situations - judging correctly how much to subtract and when - is a matter of judgment that a DM and PCs must develop through the difficult process of working it out amongst themselves.

Where it might seem especially difficult is simply that we are used to sorting out mimetic issues like this ("I don't focus on historical sexism because I have female players in my game" is an obvious and semi-common example), not rules issues.

But, if we can learn to sort out rules issues like this, we'll begin to realise the variety of formalist playstyles that, as I said much earlier in this thread, we've previously ceded to the Forgistas.

Quote from: Engine;229937This ranks as one of our greatest frustrations with 3.x, believe it or not. Our first campaign included a druid and a ranger, who wanted to be able to do things like summon beavers and hang out with them for a few hours. [Or wolves, if "hanging out with beavers" seems a little esoteric...or suggestive.] Our animal companions were nice, but the characters were too emotionally-attached to them to make real use of them in any dangerous sense. I understand the power-limiting reasons for the durations - having a large group of beavers at your beck and call has been known to be seriously damaging to, say, large enemy encampments - but that doesn't make them any less frustrating when you want to do something in-character, and can't due to out-of-character metaconcerns.

And really, I think it would be cool as hell for the low level ranger to say "Oh, so the orcs think their little wooden river fortress can't be touched? I shall summon my brothers, the beavers, to make a hole for us!"

I mean, I would totally allow that as a one time use. It's not combat, it's just a funny/smart way for the Ranger/Beaver-friend guy to use his supposed powers to come up with a cool infiltration plan. But in 3.x, by the rules... totally disallowed.

I did something similar with the AD&D1e game with Settembrini's ranger character trying to tame a Dire Wolf by jumping on it's back riding it like a bronco until he subdued it.

Quote from: Engine;229937This ranks as one of our greatest frustrations with 3.x, believe it or not. Our first campaign included a druid and a ranger, who wanted to be able to do things like summon beavers and hang out with them for a few hours. [Or wolves, if "hanging out with beavers" seems a little esoteric...or suggestive.] Our animal companions were nice, but the characters were too emotionally-attached to them to make real use of them in any dangerous sense. I understand the power-limiting reasons for the durations - having a large group of beavers at your beck and call has been known to be seriously damaging to, say, large enemy encampments - but that doesn't make them any less frustrating when you want to do something in-character, and can't due to out-of-character metaconcerns.

The beavers were to flood out that kobold cavern encampment, right?

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;229928I LOVE summoning, but I hated the shortened duration of this spell in 3e. I loved the idea of having a companion or little dude you could pop out, and perhaps command to do little tasks. In practice though, you would get people either shooting celestial badgers out of their arms (that would last exactly 1-2 rounds and then pop) or DMs who would disallow it entirely, or cripple it (Which is what I experienced in a PBP game right here at the RPGsite).

And the metagame concern is (I guess) valid: that badger represents an abusable resource, so there's no way you can allow it to hang around too long. But I'd so much rather have a combatant to the point that I would (sometimes houserule) that a summoned creature could remain in combat as long as its controller gave up other attacks. This itself is abusable by the wrong player, who gleefully did things like summon the badger, then enlarge it, have his friend pop bulls strength on it, etc.

But to me it was very cool when we did a game where one character had a Mephit that he would summon every once in a while as an advisor/comedy relief NPC/sometimes combatant/sometimes trap-springer that I would just let that guy hang around for as long as he wanted it to.

I'd allow rituals that summoned creatures, even if those creatures stuck around in combat. I'd just count them as one PC and give them 1/whateverth of the XP. I think you'd find that cutting into the party's XP would quickly keep summons rare.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;229940And really, I think it would be cool as hell for the low level ranger to say "Oh, so the orcs think their little wooden river fortress can't be touched? I shall summon my brothers, the beavers, to make a hole for us!"

I mean, I would totally allow that as a one time use. It's not combat, it's just a funny/smart way for the Ranger/Beaver-friend guy to use his supposed powers to come up with a cool infiltration plan. But in 3.x, by the rules... totally disallowed.

I did something similar with the AD&D1e game with Settembrini's ranger character trying to tame a Dire Wolf by jumping on it's back riding it like a bronco until he subdued it.

And I think that's one of the greatest differences between a good GM and a great one: like Pseudoephedrine was recently saying, the GM and players have to work out between them how much they're going to pay attention to the rules. Paul's famous for waving his hand and saying, "You don't need to roll for that," when the statistics nearly guarantee success and the result isn't significant. And, of course, he famously allowed us to summon beavers for a long enough period to dam a stream that downstream formed the moat of an enemy encampment, knowing that the dam's destruction would produce a surge great enough to take out the wooden defensive walls.

So I guess what I'm saying is, I'm pro-fuck-the-rules when doing so makes sense and is pleasing to all.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;229940And really, I think it would be cool as hell for the low level ranger to say "Oh, so the orcs think their little wooden river fortress can't be touched? I shall summon my brothers, the beavers, to make a hole for us!"

I mean, I would totally allow that as a one time use. It's not combat, it's just a funny/smart way for the Ranger/Beaver-friend guy to use his supposed powers to come up with a cool infiltration plan. But in 3.x, by the rules... totally disallowed.

I did something similar with the AD&D1e game with Settembrini's ranger character trying to tame a Dire Wolf by jumping on it's back riding it like a bronco until he subdued it.

And here's the deal: the solution to both the 1E "Tame the wolf" and the 3E "My Brothers the Beavers" situations that had to improvised on the spot have *support* in 4th edition in the form of the skill challenge.

Quote from: Engine;229937This ranks as one of our greatest frustrations with 3.x, believe it or not. Our first campaign included a druid and a ranger, who wanted to be able to do things like summon beavers and hang out with them for a few hours. [Or wolves, if "hanging out with beavers" seems a little esoteric...or suggestive.] Our animal companions were nice, but the characters were too emotionally-attached to them to make real use of them in any dangerous sense. I understand the power-limiting reasons for the durations - having a large group of beavers at your beck and call has been known to be seriously damaging to, say, large enemy encampments - but that doesn't make them any less frustrating when you want to do something in-character, and can't due to out-of-character metaconcerns.

Yeah, 3e didn't really support the persistent-pet metaphor well (cf. hunter, warlock in WoW) which is a bummer.  You could get persistence at much higher levels - Planar Binding, Planar Ally.  But the low level persistent options (familiars, pets) are too fragile; all the groups I've been in end up swapping them for substitute class powers or just leaving them "outside the dungeon" or "in a magic familiar pouch" because their value is almost purely RP (once you're past level 1-2 where even a beaver is a welcome addition to your fightitude).  

There are the new reserve feats like Summon Elemental that basically let you keep a lil' elemental around all the time, but IIRC that takes a L4 spell in reserve so it's not super low level either.

In my group's current campaign (Rise of the Runelords AP) I wanted to see if I could make a summoner "work" in 3e.  And it took some pretty vigorous rules work, but I have a L13 Malconvoker who can really lay down some critters!  His build progression's here if anyone's interested - using the full gamut of 3.5e books there's a solution to about every problem.  Summon lengths doubled, summons automatically buffed, more summoned critters per spell, more summoning spells, et cetera.  

I usually don't like having to min-max that hard, but yeah, a stock mage that just casts Summon Monster isn't highly useful.  With some tweaks it gets good though.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;229934Ok, first, let me repeat: Rituals don't actually summon monsters. I think there is one for a hallucinatory creature, but it isn't much use in combat at all (it can basically be used to suck up attacks and create distractions, but otherwise doesn't do damage).

You have to look at the specific nature of rituals. They aren't reallythere to give any combat advantage to players at all. They give things like magical movement (teleports that occur outside the context of an encounter, phantom steed, etc), or certain special effects like Comprehend Languages. They take time to cast, they cost money to cast, they are restricted by level.

AM, I have a copy of the 4E books. I know what rituals are. I know the rules. I also know what the book says. There is no rule in the book that says rituals do not preclude combat effects. Using the Binding category of rituals alone, I can duplicate Summon Monster. Hell, I can nuke Waterdeep by summoning the Faerunian equivalent of Wormwood to come crashing down on it. Again, this is no rule saying that I cannot do that. Heck, I can even add new categories for Buffing and Destruction if that's required.

Anyway, remember, I only went down this path because Psuedo said you easily could add summonable creatures to 4E through the ritual subsystem. Also, when I say summonable creatures, I mean creatures that you can use in combat AND in other ways. I don't care for ghost ponies. Ghost ponies alone do not cover the entirety of effects that you can do with the creature summoning that existed in previous editions of D&D.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;229738No matter how many games you played in, if you played them all in this style, I think your experience with what the system what capable of is less than comprehensive.

Sorry Ceaser Salad, you are a couple of croutons shy of a full package if you really believe that D&D was the Royal Shakespeare Company slatered in Grey Poupon and lullabyed by Mozart until MC Mearls and his ghetto rappers took over and shit all over the preciousness.

Quote from: Settembrini;229758Wataminute! Spinachcat was being sarcastic, no?

Fuck no.   Mustangs don't float, don't fly and don't brew designer micro-beer, but they are still awesome cars.

Quote from: Settembrini;229758I presume technically you could act samrt in 4e too, but that would ruin the overdesigned encounter...no? Again, you might be able to re-classic 4e by your DM-skills you learned from...real D&D!

No acting smart in 4e!  Never!  Only dumb play 4e!  

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;229873I would agree that 4e does not easily support PCs gaining followers. I don't think it stops a PC from doing so, but it doesn't really give you any idea how you're supposed to sort the issue out at all.

I have given the PCs followers by simply letting them buy up various mercs or be given various help and then adding XP equal to their help to the encounters.   I let them pick up hirelings (I used human rabble for stats), each hireling is worth 31 XP for me to add to my encounter budgets.

Quote from: Engine;229914I just had to stand by to defend Shadowrun's status as a fine tool for any type of game you'd choose to run [so long as it doesn't take place too far in the future, I suppose].

Engine, you examples sounds like you use Shadowrun like I use Traveller. Mea culpa!  

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;229948And here's the deal: the solution to both the 1E "Tame the wolf" and the 3E "My Brothers the Beavers" situations that had to improvised on the spot have *support* in 4th edition in the form of the skill challenge.

Amen.  Used with imagination and active, engaged roleplaying, the skill challenges *can* be adapted easily to allow amazing creativity to be brought into the game.

It is such a shame that WotC did not put numerous examples of play into the DMG about how to use and abuse skill challenges.

Quote from: Settembrini;229821BTW, is there a consensus on the question of informing the players beforehand which minis represent Minions and which do not?

We don't, but it can quickly become apparent if you pay attention. Minions never do exceptionally well or exceptionally poorly (they don't roll damage dice). They don't have their own funding, so they all wear and carry the same stuff. Plus, if 20 guys run at you and you drop two instantly, it's a good bet there's more minions in the bunch. They're probably not all minions, but that's what the wizard is there to find out.

Could someone PM me if Spinachcat is really being serious? I read it as a truly gifted parody!

Quote from: Spinachcat;229976Sorry Ceaser Salad, you are a couple of croutons shy of a full package if you really believe that D&D was the Royal Shakespeare Company slatered in Grey Poupon and lullabyed by Mozart until MC Mearls and his ghetto rappers took over and shit all over the preciousness.

So, am I to take it by resorting to insults and mischaracterizations, you have no real insight to offer here?

Thought not.

Quote from: Settembrini;230018Could someone PM me if Spinachcat is really being serious? I read it as a truly gifted parody!

Does it really matter? Either way, there's no real value to his posts.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;229955AM, I have a copy of the 4E books. I know what rituals are. I know the rules. I also know what the book says. There is no rule in the book that says rituals do not preclude combat effects. Using the Binding category of rituals alone, I can duplicate Summon Monster. Hell, I can nuke Waterdeep by summoning the Faerunian equivalent of Wormwood to come crashing down on it. Again, this is no rule saying that I cannot do that. Heck, I can even add new categories for Buffing and Destruction if that's required.

Anyway, remember, I only went down this path because Psuedo said you easily could add summonable creatures to 4E through the ritual subsystem. Also, when I say summonable creatures, I mean creatures that you can use in combat AND in other ways. I don't care for ghost ponies. Ghost ponies alone do not cover the entirety of effects that you can do with the creature summoning that existed in previous editions of D&D.

I'll have to reread this. My sense of rituals was basicaly that cost and level would preclude any of these things from happening. I haven't yet seen a summon monster ritual in any case (there isn't one in the core books). In fact, here's my major annoyance with 4E that I haven't heard anyone talk about yet:

Wizards no longer get familiars.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;230040I'll have to reread this. My sense of rituals was basicaly that cost and level would preclude any of these things from happening. I haven't yet seen a summon monster ritual in any case (there isn't one in the core books). In fact, here's my major annoyance with 4E that I haven't heard anyone talk about yet:

Wizards no longer get familiars.

Yeah. On one hand, it sucks because familiars were very flavorful and useful in gathering intelligence. On the other hand, if the familiar died, it resulted in a direct kick to the nuts for the wizard. :|

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;229938...
OD&D was a fairly simple framework, and talking to people who did and continue to use it, anything that they want to do, they do ad hoc.

1e added more things to this baseline, but it did so inconsistently. Not by design, but because they base they built from wasn't built to accommodate the extras. I'll assert that the thrust of these additions WAS simulationist in nature. Surely things such as weapon-vs-ac mods and a flurry of polearms in the edition can't be regarded as anything but simulationist.

(Not to miss BECMI/RC, I think that's mainly an evolution of OD&D by folks who weren't ready to dive off the simulationist deep end with Gygax; the result was a more smooth evolution and slow broadening.)

... lumping in everything pre-3e into one big mass misses a lot of differences.

This seems entirely correct to me.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;229938... 3e added consistency and structure, and a bit of gamism to the mix  ...

4e uses underlying structures too. But those structures are far more gamist-centric.  
...
I think it's fair to draw a line between 3e and 4e and acknowledge the change in philosophy...

I'm sceptical that a real 'change in philosophy' distinguishes 3e and 4e.  IMO 3e was already quite 'gamist' in nature.  Perhaps 4e is even more 'gamist' (I wouldn't argue with that), but that's a change in degree, not kind.

I'm inclined to agree with Pseudo that dislike of 4e by 3e fans has more to do with specific rules changes (perhaps amounting to an overall nudge in a 'gamist' direction) than 4e reflecting a radical shift in 'play style' or 'game philosophy'.