Just like D&D except....not.

[Aberzanzorax]

While I was reminded of this phenomenon by a recent thread, it has been something that has been on my mind for some time.

I'm talking about clever and innovative ideas on ways to change D&D...to make it quite different, to play it in an entirely different way. "What would D&D be like if everyone was a werewolf? Or if you never rolled a die? Or if it was player versus player?" Those are some theoretical/ hypothetical examples.


What I see in reply to these interesting ideas are a split in responses. There are those who try to help the poster make the idea work in D&D and there are others who try to suggest other games that already do the job better. (Play Werewolf by White Wolf. Play Amber. Play Warhammer.)


The reason I bring this up is because I feel that both are valid responses, but depending on the audience/person you are replying to, some are more or less helpful.


I think most of us here started playing roleplaying games with D&D and likely that (ignoring edition/variants) is the clear game of choice here. So the inclination is to consider "how could we take this great game and make it even more 'mine'?"

On the other hand, I think there are a variety of both breadth and depth experts. Some know D&D really, really well, but have never played another game. To them it makes more sense to tinker with a machine they are familiar with. Others have a broad view of games and select which games meet certain needs, recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of each, including those of D&D.


I guess that those are my musings, and I was wondering: How do you decide whether to tweak a game of choice versus branching out to another game? Similarly, when someone asks about how to accomplish something drastically different than the "common or accepted" way of playing a game, what pushes you to advise "do this thing" versus "play this game"?

 

[Troll Slayer]

I'm of the mindset that if my house rules take up more than a page then this probably isn't the game for me. This does not include bits of the system that are optional or have different ways they can be implemented. I'm only talking about wholesale changes to the core game itself.

I'm one of those guys who suggests trying new games in threads like the ones you describe. I do this because I love variety in my game systems and I like to share that love for lots of different games.

 

[Janx]

I'm of the mindset that I already bought D&D, and so did my players.

Therefore, why should I change systems if I don't have to, especially if it means trying to get all my players to do so as well.

Furthermore, some people just make things too bloody complicated.

Wanna be vampires, there's rules for that. Go.

Wanna be pirates. Go.

It doesn't take a crap-ton of house rules to get the job done.

 

[Diamond Cross]

The way I see it is if you feel you have to change a lot of the rules then you might as well create your own game and try to have it published.

There really is no need to change a lot of the rules.

An occasional rule, sure.

But if you have to change so many rules then youe really aren't playing the game and should either try a new game or do like I said earlier, make up your own game.

There really should be no reason to change so many rules.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I guess that those are my musings, and I was wondering: How do you decide whether to tweak a game of choice versus branching out to another game? Similarly, when someone asks about how to accomplish something drastically different than the "common or accepted" way of playing a game, what pushes you to advise "do this thing" versus "play this game"?

It depends on a variety of factors, primarily my set of gamers.

Personally, I've played in about 100 different systems: AD&D was first, but what is currently known as HERO is my favorite. So I'm well aware that some systems handle "gamestyle 1" or "genre z" better than others.

But if you have players uncomfortable with or (IME) more commonly unwilling to learn a particular system, you have to adapt.

 

[SoulsFury]

Honestly, me and my friends, I don't say group because it isn't consistent enough except me and one other, don't really go by the hardcore rules. We just do what works for us. We create our characters and go by the standard modifiers, etc. But there are somethings we really don't go by. For instance, a second wind is a minor action. I don't even know the rules for what happens if a character drops below 0 hp. My world is based off what the characters do, so if the characters die, I have no world. My player(s) are so traumatized by not being in the combat that that is enough torture for them, much less having to take the time to create characters. What fun is that? I use D&D as a basis for how I want to play a fantasy game. Me and my players use the rules we think fit. Honestly though, we use more 4th edition rules than we have any other edition and I've played with some of the guys since 2nd ed AD&D.

The game is about having fun, who cares what rules you stick by.

Disclaimer: I have been a long time PBP DM/Player and strictly go by the rules of the non-errata based PHB unless otherwise posted in a conspicuous location in my online games.

 

[pawsplay]

I'm always up for learning a new game that is the right tool for the job. Learning a new system actually is going to enhance my appreciation for systems I already know, too. For instance, I became a much better DM after running GURPS for years, because I had to learn how to make interactions with NPCs interesting, how to keep combat infrequent but exciting, and how to deal with PCs with vastly different skill sets... all abilities that would be great to have when running any flavor of D&D. Also, from a mechanical perspective, learning Ye Old Bell Curve disillusioned me towards its magic powers once I saw the consequences of floor and ceiling effects on resolution checks.

 

[Jhaelen]

I'm always up for learning a new game that is the right tool for the job. Learning a new system actually is going to enhance my appreciation for systems I already know, too.

Ah, this is one of those rare cases I'm in total agreement with pawsplay

There a so many great systems available that I feel it's a waste of time to invent elaborate house-rules to turn a system into something it wasn't meant to be.

Similarly it's usually a waste of precious resources to create a 'new' system that isn't actually noticably different from existing systems.

I enjoy analyzing and collecting 'exotic' systems, since you can can always learn something new from them.

People who 'get stuck' playing D&D because they don't know and don't want to learn a new system don't know what they're missing, especially if they aren't happy about a large part of the rules.

What I am fine with is 'tweaking the numbers', i.e. not replacing (sub)systems, but tuning them to fit your preferences. But it's something you should only do after carefully contemplating it's effect and after having tested the game as written.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

"What would D&D be like if everyone was a werewolf? Or if you never rolled a die? Or if it was player versus player?" Those are some theoretical/ hypothetical examples.

I think this thread could be of interest in regard to this. Maybe.

 

[Chrono22]

I prefer bending a system I like until it's as close to my ideal game as possible. I have found that all the games I've played have been lacking in one regard or another, and all would require some level of tweaking to satisfy me.
I have no problem hashing systems together, borrowing subsystems, inventing my own, and heavily houseruling. I don't see the effort as wasted either. My intensive studying of rules has vastly improved my abilities as a GM.