a test for all ruleset tweakers, tinkerers, and houserule madmen

[GlassJaw]

I'm a variant ruleset addict. I love combining things, chopping them up, putting them back together, and then disecting them again just for fun.

I did such things when putting together my Grim Tales variant ruleset (see sig). Originally, I was slapping rules down and creating crazy mechanics left and right. I had the How answered (or so I thought). What I didn't have was the Why.

I've been checking out a lot of variant wound and hp systems, armor as DR, and VP/WP, etc threads in here and in the OGL board and I've noticed a trend in many of them. Most people have the How but they don't have the Why.

So that's the test. If you are designing something and you can answer Why, then you're good to go. Let me explain.

The Why is why are you doing what you are doing? Why are you altering the system. Why are you changing the rules.

During the process of putting together my variant ruleset, I was fortunate enough to be able to discuss some things with the Grim Tales man himself, Wulf/Ben. I threw a lot of mechanics at him and, in his kind and gentle way, told me what was crap. Actually, I think the exact term he used was turd. But I digress.

After he broke me down (and broke me down some more), he began to ask me Why. Why was I doing what I was doing. I had to step away from the mechanics themselves and describe what I wanted the mechanics to do and what feel I wanted them to capture in actual gameplay. Once I started to clarify and define my Whys, the Hows fall into place much easier.

A game's mechanics are merely a means to resolve actions. How the mechanics accomplish that sets the mood and style and feel of the gameplay. A game with a bunch of mechanics but no Why wouldn't be much fun IMO.

So that's the test. Ask yourself Why. Can you describe the style of play you want without resorting to mechanical descriptions? If you can, then I'll listen to your Hows.

 

[Spell]

i want a certain flexibility in character's creation.
i want a free form-ish rule set that allows me to concentrate on the storytelling, improvise rules when the players what to do something unusual (as opposed to memorise a rule for 99% of the likely situations and then wasting time with rule lawyers on fruitless debate of what is the spirit of the system).
i want something that is easy and quick to learn for newbies.
i want something that has an old school flavour, without forcing me to rule out more modern setting ideas (should the need arise).
i want to use my (big!) collection of AD&D and original D&D books without spending a lifetime working out every feat for every NPC.

for these reasons, i'm mixing together the rules cyclopedia, adding new racial classes (a human cleric will be a different class than a dwarven cleric), enforcing some stereotypes (dwarfs can't be wizards. elves are big in enchantment. hobbit are fat and lazy, and good thieves).
i ignored the D&D skill system and worked something out that resembles the chaosium system.
i am skimming through (very) old dragon magazine issues to find interesting rules and articles to port in the revised system.

i am still pondering whether throwing away saving throw (substituting them with ability checks), or not. i did throw feat away, as i think they are a useless complexity.

i think that the final rules will need surely some balance adjustment... not too big, though. the fact that the players will be well aware that what i (the DM) say is gospel, when it comes to rules, will make the process quite smooth.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

My point-buy system: I simply wanted a consistent system that spans the gulf between the low point-buy values expressed as a default in the Dungeon Master's Guide and the incredibly powerful NPCs listed in... every single campaign setting.

Gestalt: I want characters that are more well-rounded and more generally competent at low-levels. I wanted a clear rules distinction between knights and peasant fighters without resorting to multiclassing-- especially in ways that would weaken either's prowess in battle.

Later, I also discovered using Gestalt combinations in place of Favored Class to better portray racial archetypes, including giving a character of any race two different racial aspects to focus their attention on.

I also really missed 2e multiclassing.

My nearly endless tinkering with the Gestalt system: This is mostly motivated out of a desire to allow for the broadest-possible variety of characters, in a mechanical sense, and partially to maintain consistency-- some Gestalt combinations simply did not make sense to me within the context of any gameworld.

I also wanted to make pursuing your Favored Gestalt a bonus, as opposed to penalizing characters for straying from it-- especially since multiclassing is a less desirable option in the Gestalt rules.

My nearly endless tinkering with various races and classes: An effort to match game mechanics to flavor text and world assumptions. Also, on the racial end of it, an effort to make non-human races more mechanically distinctive from Humans, and to make half-Human races... well, suck less.

Elves are graceful, elegant, and stylish. They're beautiful and strong-willed. They live for hundreds of years, generally as carefree wanderers with a love for beauty and the arts. They're peerless archers and swordsmen with supposedly superior skill in the wilderness.

So... they don't have a Charisma bonus, they don't seem to pick up any real information in their travels, and their Favored Class is useless in combat and has a tendency to hole up in dusty towers, preferring books over people.

I think a Charisma bonus is entirely justified, though I balance it (perhaps a little too much) with a Strength penalty. I also think Ranger/Bard is a far better fit than anything involving Wizard.

I just couldn't leave that alone. I've got pretty good explanations for most of the changes I made-- either mechanical reasons or for flavor reasons.

Weapon Group Proficiencies and the restriction of Heavy Armor: Well, the former just makes more sense to me-- just because you've got combat training doesn't mean you can pick up any weapon and use it effectively. It also allows me to make weapon-specific feats more valuable by allowing them to apply across a whole group; if you're particularly deadly with the Bastard Sword, you ought to be better at using the Longsword and the Greatsword, too.

The restriction on Heavy Armor came for two reasons: one, I simply don't see that many people being trained in Heavy Armor, even Fighters, and two, because noone uses Medium Armor. Now, Heavy Armor is at least a one-feat investment for anyone.

Massive Damage Threshold: d20 Modern just does this a whole lot better. Besides, it doesn't matter what level you are, jumping off a cliff is stupid-- and this rule reinforces that common sense notion.

Action Points: Gives players a little more control over their fates and generally helps prevent major campaign climaxes from becoming... anticlimactic. Also generally makes resource management a little more flexible.

I think that about covers every ill-advised mechanical endeavor I've applied to the D&D rules, though some of the specific changes that I'm particularly proud of weren't mentioned by name. (Ask me about my Sorceror and my Favored Soul. Please.)

 

[melon-neko]

Why: I don't get to roleplay anymore, so i write rules instead, thats a one player game ^.^ Why i am making what i am currently making: I wanted something that allows as much customization of characters as possible, something that allowed a character to be good at what you want him to be good at within the first few levels, instead of waiting until the teens >.> And i wanted first lvl characters to throw fireballs. Also i hate hitpoints, magic items and spell lists.

 

[evolved]

Fall of Earth Campeign

Rules

Gestalt : The world is in chaos old systems are breaking down people have had to become stronger and more versatille simply to survive.

Class defense : The campeign is modern, with a hint of the futuristic armor just isn't apropriate most of the time

Action Points : Every person with any exceptional qualities has a limited ability to push probability in their favor regardless of class this is what seperates them from the common folk

Humans only : It is based on Earth after all

Sculpt self : Nanites and grafts can do amazing things to someone with enough money

Class limitations : Sorcerers, Wizards,Clerics banned - Druids, Bards limited - Paladins rangers Spell less varients. The magic of the Realm has faded special people can still use some of the old lore, but modern humans are primarily psionicists



I'm trying to build a world on the verge of collapse with people on edge, governments seeking frantically for one stop gap solution to whichever catastrophe is looming, after another, powerful psychics roam the world hindered only by others of their kind and the occasional government psy-hunter. people are givin a choice either fade into obscurity and helplessness or fight back by what ever means they can in a hostile realm bent on its own downfall. While the old powers that be watch on waiting for a chance to take it all back

 

[mirivor]

Good golly... what haven't I stuck my mitts in?

Weapons: I wanted characters wielding swords that weren't as tall as they were... completely ridiculous to imagine. I also don't see a need for all of the variety...

VP/WP: Even heroes risk serious injury

Magic: "The wizard steps up, mumbles, and you die... sorry."

Skills: All opposed, when able. Tell me that Harry the semi-experienced rogue has the same odds of tumbling around Joeshmoe warrior as he does Attila the Hun?

Economy: The part of the game that I feel designers truly ignore. Simply unfathomable as presented in the core books.

So much more...

 

[sfedi]

GlassJaw, you are completely on track.

That's something that's commonly overlooked.

The Why is fundamental to any rules tweaking.

 

[genshou]

Massive Damage Threshold: d20 Modern just does this a whole lot better. Besides, it doesn't matter what level you are, jumping off a cliff is stupid-- and this rule reinforces that common sense notion.

What a hoot! I cracked up when I read that. I've actually done this with a high-level PC, because as we all know from popular video games and action movies, falling from a great height is a guarantee you'll be seeing that character again soon, alive and well, no matter what condition they were in when they fell. Especially if they're a villain.

Why is Pledge of Tyranny so fuggin' altered? You got me. I just started writing one day, and haven't stopped since. I wanted a flexible character creation system that allowed for more progression and more freedom to pursue the paths a character really wants. I wanted some of the particularly screwed up archetypes to be fixed up (such as ranger combat styles; remember PoT is 3rd Ed.). I wanted combat to be a lot more of a swashbuckling style, with many more intricate foci on parrying and weapon choice (beyond damage dice and critical multipliers).

I've actually always been a secret fan of hit locations and called shots, and the system I use for calculating damage allows for it to be done in a fair and balanced manner. It also allows for more cinematic damage-dealing in those crucial duels.

Many skills are altered, and some of those which feature subskills (specifically Craft, Knowledge, and Perform), are much kinder to those who invest in learning them, yielding increasing return within the subskills for effort invested in the main skill itself. Even a Fighter can easily pick up a smattering of knowledge about magic and the planes after having traveled across them for some time, and while he's at it he might also pick up on a few obscure historical and religious references as well.

I changed magic systems because the D&D salt has lost its savour for me both in mechanics and flavor considerations. I've always been more fond of magic which I think is best portrayed in the TV miniseries Legend of Earthsea.

Some other changes that have popped up over time all occured because it fit the campaign setting-for example, in a play-by-post game I once ran, there was a very strong focus on elemental magic, and a great deal of extra mechanics had to be created for some anime-like powers the PCs developed over time (you will see an Elements of Magic adaptation of these templates in my story hour eventually). I've created rules for massive weapons because-quite frankly-it doesn't bother me to have a half-orc barbarian wielding an ogre's greataxe. Or, even better, a zanbatou, an old Japanese weapon design which is around twice as long as its wielder. Very difficult to use such large weapons, but the damage output can make up for it if you play your bonuses and penalties just right.

 

[the Jester]

I'm currently running a game with a considerable amount of rules tweaking. Why? Well, for this game:

I want a more dangerous system, with less dependence on magic items for character power. I want a system where the archetypes are stronger- where wizards are blasters, where not everyone is a lesser spellcaster, where you have to learn your new tricks from someone else, where each character is strongly tied to the setting.

So far it's working great! My variant ruleset that I'm using is over in House Rules; the story hour is linked in my sig. So far it doesn't play a whole lot different than standard dnd, but the party is still in the 2nd-3rd level stages.