Community

Oct 17, 2009 -- 4:22PM, wrecan wrote:

You mean the section that is titled "Three Basic Rules" but which begins "In addition to the core mechanic, three principles are at the heart of the Dungeons & Dragons game.  Many other rules are based on these assumptions."  (I ask, because you've never actually quoted this page, so perhaps you're referring to some other irrelevant part of the page.)

Although you are correct in that I had not quoted the text, I did post the reference repeatedly, a number of which you had quoted (board function).  This was all due to the fact that at that point you had asserted (or misspoke, as per your later comment) that the customization RULES (not the results thereof) were house rules.  Reverting to your earlier stance, as stated, has made this irrelevant, as we now have consensus on this point.

Nowhere does this section define the term "basic rules".  It lists three basic rules, but never says these are all the basic rules.  Nothing in that section defines the term "basic rules" or even limits the term.  It only identifies three of the basic rules "at the heart" of the game.  How on Earth do you think this subsection is relevant?!  Are you simply taking your .pdfs of the books, searching for the term "basic rules" and then referencing it, hoping something will stick?

Come now, wrecan, how many times must I state that that entire line was an attempt to determine how you were defining which rules were basic, and which were house rules?  Which, of course, stemmed from the misstated assertion, which has since been resolved.  Of course, this leads to the question as to why you feel the need to bring it up again. Is it only to try, yet again, to disparage me, personally? (I ask because the argument itself has been settled - to the point I was trying to prove, no less).  I will ask again, that we keep this argument polite.  If your argument will hold, there is no need of such base tactics.

My argument is pretty straightforward.  Page 189 defines "house rules" as "House rules are variants on the basic rules designed specifically for a particular DM's campaign."  Since none of the words used in this sentence are otherwise defined in any of the rulebooks, we use colloquial English definitions for the meaning of those words.

Agreed, and that of course requires a definition of basic rules.  With the above (your misstatement) settled, we can now proceed (hopefully).

A customized or created monster or NPC is a "variant on the basic rules" and is "designed specifically for a particular DM's campaign".  Ergo, customized or created monsters and NPCs are house rules.

So - if this is the extent of your argument, let us examine it in detail, and compare it to my argument - that the action taken against a paladin in response to his breaking the commandments of his god is a question of STORY, not one of rules.

Your counterarguments have been as follows:

1. Irrelevant as it was given to the misstatement
2. Irrelevant as it was given to the misstatement
3. Because page 11 of the PHB has a subsection called "Three Basic Rules", the term "basic rules" is defined differently than in colloquial English.  However, that section is not defining the term "basic rules".  It is merely listing three of the basic rules (three of the mot important ones).  It in no way attempts to define a term.
4. A new or customized monster is not a "rule".  However, you have never supplied a definition of a rule that would exclude new or customized monsters.  I shall now supply such a definition.  A "rule", in the context of games (there are many other definitions of rule, none of which pertain to games) is "a principle or regulation governing conduct, action, procedure, arrangement."  A stat block for a monster is a regulation governing the conduct of the NPC.  It says what actions it can take, procedures it uses to resolve conflict, etc.  A new monster is a rule, and it is a variant of the basic rules if that monster is not found in any written supplement.  That, again is definitional.  A bundle of mechanics is itself a new mechanic, because they interact with one another in a new (i.e., varied) way.  Here is an example.  Rules for Orcus exist.  Rules for boons exist.  However, neither of those allow Orcus to impose boons.  When you customize a monster, you are inserting the monster into the "subject" of the action of the power you grant it.  Now, you have created a new rules that Orcus can grant boons.  That is a house rule as it is a variant on the basic rules (which don't otherwise allow Orcus to grant boons).

And here we get to the meat of it.  According to your claim above, my purple ooze (from below), a new monster, is a rule, and it is a variant of the basic rules that it is not found in any written supplement.  Further, as it is a variant of the basic rules, it would therefore be a house rule.

You have tried to concede this point several times and I have no idea why.  I have never asked you to concede such a point.  Nor do I care whether you concede this point.  This seems to be some sort of flashback you are having to the reflavoring thread, in which I did not participate.

Not at all, and I would ask why the repeated attempt to insert that it may be.  I am (yet again) trying to determine the precise definition of house rule that you are using.  As my argument states that the consequences that a paladin face do not need to be house rules, they are mereley plot devices, it is upon me that I prove two things: a) they are not house rules, b) they are plot devices.  The latter has not been challenged, so I haven't felt a need to defend it.  The former requires a working definition of house rules.  Earlier Dewi supplied me with his definition.  Using that definition, I was able to show as much.  Your definition, has remained elusive (to me) until this point.  However, I strongly suspect that since I have introduced a counter to your definition that you feel should not be included as a house rule, you will modify your definition.  Once you have a definition settled, I can state an approach that will be an acceptable counter.

I misspoke.  I really didn't think you were confused about the difference between the process and result of customizing.  I was referring to the result, not the process.  As soon as I realized you were confused on this issue I became more careful about distinguishing between the two.

This ties into the quote above this, and your apparent need to disparage me, rather than my argument.  I was never confused between the two.  I stated that the created result was a form of customization (a term from the books, themselves), and went on to describe that that result happens whenever the game hits the table, so to speak (in any but published adventures).  In fact, I have repeatedly attempted to use the terms given in the books to bolster my argument. 

"creations are not RAW - a point I had conceded.  Again - this does NOT make such a creature a house rule."
Yes, it does, under the definition of house rules already quoted.  A monster is a collection of rules.  A monster that does not appear in any written book is thus a variant of the basic rules.  It is thus a house rule.

Given the definition above, yes it does.  For that specific definition, I have already countered that standard monsters can be used in place.  However, as stated, I suspect you will be modifying the definition that you provided, as it also places using the purple ooze in the realm of houes rules.

What is "it"?  I have no idea that this sentence means or how it is relevant to what we discuss.  My involvement in this thread was simply to correct the notion that giving a god the power to alter an adherent's abilty to use Divine powers would not be a house rule.  Definitionally, it is a house rule.  It might be a RAW-compatible house rule, but it's a house rule all the same.

The "it", in this case, is having a god penalize a Paladin who breaks his/her god's commandments.  The singular portion that has been relevant to this thread.  I have bolded the part above, for if such is the case, I would assume we can (finally) drop this argument., as I have offered any number of alternatives to granting the deity the power directly.  Further, I will reiterate - it is STORY, very much within the purview of the DM to enact.