Post/Author/DateTime	Post
was_fired 07-19-07, 08:24 PM	Something that has always irked me for a while about this board has been when the "changing the rules makes the game worse" attitude shows up. This is because I've always been a rules mechanic. If I don't like a rule I start playing with it until it works out better. Now when I was younger this resulted in a lot of problems, but with age and experience it turned me into a skilled rules lawyer who is able to understand how parts of a game work together to produce a final product. In the end in my case this eventually pulled me away from D&D as I eventually concluded that given my set of likes and dislikes I needed to completely overhaul the system, but I'm curious how your efforts to change the rules to improve your gaming experience helped you grow as gamers. Post your stories. While I'm on this topic I have the system I made linked to in my signature. It's based on the open gaming license so a decent amount of the mechanics carry over, but at least for me it results in a better gaming experience. If you're interested in taking a look at it follow the link. It has some mechanics that can be ported into D&D without too much trouble if the appeal to you. I always love hearing feedback. One of my former college players is even running a TOCC game for his friends at home. Very proud moment for a system builder. :D
Artifact 07-19-07, 10:04 PM	My thoughts run along an opposite track than yours. A few years ago, I thought I had what it took to be a game designer. Oh, I knew nothing would ever come of it, but in my mind, I could design better than Gygax any day. Since the release of 3rd edition however, I've had to step back and be realistic. I'm very intelligent and creative, but I just don't think like a game designer. Sure, there's plenty of ideas in my head, but I've come to realize that I don't really have the requisite talent to translate those into good game design. For example: I've had the image (more or less) of a "living construct" soldier in my head for years. I can say with absolute honesty however, that I could never have designed the warforged. I'm glad somebody did though ;). So, I find myself turning to the pros for help in bringing my ideas to life. No, I can't claim much in the way of the credit, but the bottom line for me is to game and have fun. I see myself now as a gamer, not a designer. I'm completely comfortable leting someone who gets paid be the game designer. My internet connections slow tonight (rain does it, I think-- funky phone lines), so I'll have to check the link in your sig and pop back in later.
was_fired 07-19-07, 11:38 PM	It doesn't look like you've completely given up on it. You just dropped some aspects of designing in favor of others. When DMing don't you still make the world your players travel through? The adventures and scenarios that vex them? The NPCs they interact with? And of course the villains they do battle with? Those are all important parts of game design, as much so as the sheer mechanics that drive it. I hate to say it but these are things that I've always been worse at than number crunching so I decided that while working on these most vital of skills I would also make a game that helped me seamlessly craft them. No mechanical system can help with personalities and politics, but the way I saw it I could have it help me with cinematics and descriptions. So that way when I say that the orc has a TAC hit for 20 points of damage with his greataxe everyone at the table has a better idea of what that means. It means that the orc managed to hit the players armor absorbed a bit over half the damage and that they either failed to parry the attack or chose not to. It means that they took a lethal wound or two and might end up stunned for a round depending on their will save and that some of that damage is long-term instead of short-term. When running it for newbies (who I'm not trying to teach all of the mechanics to) I've learned not to mention that much and instead simply say what that would like. If I was good enough to do that with a completely abstract hitpoint system I suppose I wouldn't need all of that, but I'm not. :P Point is everyone who runs a game works on some elements of game design. Otherwise the game really wouldn't be being run by them, it would be run by a computer. Given the amount of work it seems you put into your campaign setting I have a feeling you know what I mean. :)
Dreamstryder 07-20-07, 04:21 AM	Game systems are game styles. Do you use one stat for magic, or does each school of magic depend on a different ability score? An ability that requires a Combat check to use and that's it has a different feel than picking among 3 different scores depending on the type of maneuver you're attempting. This can also be applied to dice use; contrast d20, The Legend of the Five Rings RPG's roll system, and OVA RPG's ricochet system (which doesn't involve bouncing dice off your players' heads). I find d20 to be a good system for board-based, tactical battles, intricate stat-strategy effects (elemental strengths & weaknesses, upping one stat and lowering another), and detailed systems particularly devised as to make the player feel they are physically involved. (Tome of Magic & Tome of Battle show this at work in magic and combat systems, but you could also look at how items are crafted thru a series of checks in the PHB, or see how d20 Future uses slots in their mecha building system.) The multitude of stats and room for side systems allow this, but it can also be the reason players feel frustrated trying to make all the stats do what they want. I ventured outside d20 looking for something thaty was more easily tweaked to fit my world setting, which (1) definitely had magic and monsters in it, but (2) was a hi-tech setting & (3) wasn't particularly European. While homebrewing the heck out of it, I found that the more it didn't mesh with the classes, monsters, and spells already in the books I had, the more work it was. Compare what I said about d20 with the OVA RPG, which is setting-generic, and has no classes or levels, just descriptors like Strong +3, Wanted-1, or Magic +5. This kind of system didn't have a system for miniature combat or lots of stats an elaborately tactile magic system could tinker with, but it had simplicity and setting/character flexibility. So upon finding this I decided that different systems have their different uses and used the d20 system for what it was, and OVA for what it was. What do I do with d20? I run worlds of varying technology and culture, but I make use of the Tome series, which had rule subsystems I especially liked, and besm d20's point-buy system for creating mecha and characters that don't exist in traditional D&D. One thing I did was homebrew a new spell system that uses spell writeups directly out of the PHB minus the class specifications (just used the lowest level) so I didn't have to change a lot. I'm also working on a subsystem that, because I've ditched alignment, makes use of premade alignment spells & DR while replacing the moral-colored alignments with something like horoscopes or curses/blessings of different spiritual forces. Basically, I homebrew around with subsystems within the overall d20 framework, and use a different framework (that is, a different RPG) if I want a different framework.
was_fired 07-20-07, 09:04 AM	That's a good approach to it. Every system of base mechanics has its own benefits and flaws, but that doesn't mean that tweaking is impossible. Even when you don't touch the pure mechanics of the system as a GM you still end up remaking the world to suite your image. In your case it sounds like your first step is finding out what sort of world you want, finding a frame work that fits it, and tweeking it until you get the fit right. In the end you have a product that is uniquely your own and that your players will remember as being your world. So how do other people make their game worlds their own? What aspects of it make it unique to you as a DM that no other DM has?
Leilond 07-20-07, 09:11 AM	There's nothing wrong with "changing the rules" What usually happens is that someone change A SINGLE RULE, making it "work better" without thinking to a bounch of consequences on some other rules Another things that usually happens is that someone come out with a very complicated rule that do not add very much to the game These happen so much times, that the forum users usually start with "not much trust" in the rule change. It is true that every now and then someone come out with a nice "house rule", but statistically it happen not so much
was_fired 07-20-07, 09:20 AM	It's definitely true that most of the house rules that come out on these boards (and likely in general) are bad ones, but that's part of the process of growing up as a DM and developing a unique style. As dreamstryder pointed out the inherent framework of the game has limitations that simply house rules cannot get around. So by poking and prodding the rules new DMs learn what these limits are. Then from there they learn to create unique and enjoyable games. So, how do you make your game your own?
Leilond 07-20-07, 09:37 AM	So, how do you make your game your own? I make the game "my own" creating my word, my maps, my NPC, my political intrigue, my plots, wars... and so on for more than a page I think you don't need to change the rules to make the game "yours". I think that "concentrating on rules change" keep you away from what make your game REALLY unique: the role playing part The rules are only mechanics to make the things work... This doesn't mean that "changing the rules" is wrong. I've go my two or three house rule too. But I've learned in this 20 years of DMing that the energy you spend in "changing the rules" is better spent in "make your world"
was_fired 07-20-07, 10:53 AM	I'm sorry if I offended you. I have the utmost respect for skilled world builders. To be honest I'm a bit jealous since I'm not one. A skilled world builder can make a great game in any system, and in a good system they can produce a work of art. Even if I improve a system or develop my own in the end a world builder could take those improvements and carry it further than I ever could.
RobbyPants 07-20-07, 02:36 PM	I've tried messing with the rules about since I started playing back in 2E. I own Unearthed Arcana and have tried a few things from it. Often, after a bit of experimentation, I decide to go back to the way things were. I liked the idea behind the spellpoint system, but I didn't like its implementation. I decided to work on my own system (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=850433) for this. The idea was to use spell points, but to make them closer to a per-encounter basis, and to limit the number of points available. This was to help casters out at lower levels, and to pull them back at mid and high levels. I just started a new campaign and am currently testing the system. I'll have to see how it works. I've decided to use a bit of a shift in thinking as of late. I used to change rules to make them more "realistic" and soon realized the folly with that. Now, I try to change them more for balance. Particularly I try to balance the classes a bit, and to some extent, the races. I'll probably pull a casting level out of most of the full caster PrCs out there too. This is quite an extensive project, of course...
was_fired 07-20-07, 04:23 PM	Personally I love spell points, power points, and the like. If you check out my system for powers in TOCC it uses something based on the power point mechanic. The problem about applying this to D&D in my opinion is if point costs are done properly then spell level is obsolete. Unfortunately the power level of certain D&D spells is extremely off level making this task virtually impossible. Psionics balanced this by using an entirely new list of spells, which is also what I had to do for TOCC. As a system builder I've always been a fan of powers with short durations or upkeep costs that drain away at power point pools, but that isn't done in D&D.
Shiftkitty 07-20-07, 06:01 PM	I tweaked with the spellcaster's spell limitations, like # per day, having to memorize them first, etc. As DM, I was asked to make the wizards more like the wizards of legend. After a couple of failed ideas that would have tipped the balance too far in one direction, we came on a plan that worked for our game. That was the only major change we did. Anything else has been minor tweaks.
blade_runner 07-20-07, 11:01 PM	Me, I'm a rules splicer/synthesizer. I can combine pretty much any number of rule sets into a unified whole that's fun to play. I'm also pretty good at "Living World" things, but I'm not an expert by any means. Example: I once had a d20 modern game going with a Wounds/Vitality system, overhauled psionics, critical hit effects, the Heroes of Battle system (combined into a Modern Military book), and a wide variety of remixed classes I pulled. My weakness is that I can not make new stuff. I can do class abilities, but anything beyond that is pretty much lost on me.
was_fired 07-20-07, 11:37 PM	Minor tweeks and splices are great in my opinion. It helps keep the mind open to new possibility and new permutations. I'm kind of curious shift what was the balance you ended up reaching in the end?
Linkrulesx10 07-21-07, 12:07 AM	Most things in DnD work fine and require little or no tweaking at all. Those things that are off slightly, (Like the ToM Truenamer) We just tweak, give a slight power boost, let them summon fiends and be done with it. The general idea among my group as far as I have worked out, let's not nerf any thing, just bring things up to the level of everything else. However we do avoid using things like Divine metamagic cheese and so on.
was_fired 07-21-07, 03:17 AM	Don't get me wrong. I'm not knocking D&D. It's a fine system in general, but every person has a unique style of play and every DM brings a unique set of skills to the table. To make the game fit a persons play style perfectly they have to tweek elements of it at least a little. It might not be the rules that they tweek. Instead they might play around with default assumptions, change what races are available, shift the time frame, or alter technology. In my case, my skill set is one of a system mechanic. To make worlds I look at the minutia that dictates behavior. So when I want a certain political or military structure in a game I look at how the rules can be changed (or if they need to be) in order to make it viable. A skilled world builder can work around this, but I can't. My mind just doesn't function that way. :P
was_fired 07-21-07, 10:44 PM	Hmm I'm surprised that there hasn't been more of a response given all of the house rule threads on the boards and the number of monster makers here. Oh well guess I'm just bad at making threads that turn popular. :P
Sarella Starshine 07-22-07, 09:17 AM	Let's see. I am not a game builder, but a world maker. I currently use the D&D rules because its relatively simple. I have played in other systems, but I never liked how complex they were (character creating in GURPS for example). In my current world, I have several lands (continents really). Each land has its own flavor based on past and present real world cultures. I am in the process of going through my books and other material (namely Dragon mag and stuff pulled from the website) and figuring out what goes where. I have basicly created this world for the express purpose of letting me use my huge collection of books. By breaking it up into smaller chunks has let me have the ability to focus in on one aspect or another. I don't mind playing in games with some homebrew mechanics (I was in one that had sanity rules in it). However, I am leary of some of the peoples' games around here. Every now and then, you see people post about adding called shots or critical fumbles on these boards.
Shiftkitty 07-22-07, 11:07 AM	I used to use a critical fumble chart from an off-beat supplement called The Book Of Charts. It was tongue-in-cheek for about half of it, like a list of responses from a deity that's gotten tired of being bugged for spells, but it had a good quick one-on-one combat game on the back. Now, I handle a fumble based on what would most likely happen on a natural 1. If the PC has been using that bow a lot, I throw a d10. On a 1, the string breaks, 1 full turn to restring it. Anything else is a misfire (string slipped from fingers early, etc.). A sword could break (my players usually carry one spare), slip out of the hand, or a PC could wrench his wrist with an awkward swing. A wizard sneezing the middle of a spell could have interesting effects, although one my players cut a big, juicy beefer that cleared out the basement for awhile while he took his turn to summon a monster. After it was safe to go back in, we decided that little incident got him a pair of Dark Creepers, which were described as not smelling very nice. The lands in my gameworld came about before they produced planetary maps regarding Faerun and the Flanaess. We did our own planetary map and made them separate land masses on one big planet (which left me the opportunity to develop further geography). As more info came out that made our map confusing, we pulled in the old dual-dimension trick. Two worlds occupying one space in time (finding out what happened is one of the quests in my game), a built-in barrier to accurate mapping of the world as a whole leaving endless possibilities to be explored, and I've thrown in hints that other worlds might be caught in this same, strange situation. That way, if another game world comes out that I like, my players can keep using their old characters, contacts, etc.
was_fired 07-22-07, 09:51 PM	Critical fumbles are always a sore topic on these boards. Personally I dislike them as well, but some gamers seem to really enjoy them. In TOCC I have something vaguely similar to them for attack rolls. If you miss the square (meaning you fail to hit an AC 0) then you hit within 1 - Attack Roll / 5 squares of your target. If it would be out of the weapon's reach nothing happens, but if it is within reach and someone is in the square then there is a 50% chance of it hitting them (as per invisibility). If it gets past that 50% chance then an unmodified attack roll is made, and if that hits the attack hits (precision damage does not apply). It's only come up once or twice in one-and-half years of play testing for mundane weapons (it comes up more with explosive weapons). I have to agree that screwing with planar structure and parallel worlds is wonderful shift. It lends itself to so many new weird possibilities while at the same time giving "experienced" players who enjoy metagaming something to trip themselves up on.