What mechanics or subsystems do you use regardless of the game you are running/playing?

Scott Christian · Saturday at 9:49 PM

Reynard said:
I am a proponent of playing a game as written at least initially. However,not all games have all the subsystems one wants. If I know I want to include domain management in my Shadowdark campaign, there is not a domain management system in that game. I have to bring in one I like. Or, as we see often, if I am going to run Shadowdark for kids, I am very likely to need to change the way carousing works for it to be appropriate for my players. These are not cases of "knowing better than the designer" -- these are cases of needing something the designer left out.

In any case, we should not exalt the designer. TTRPG design is as much art as science and is driven by preference as much or more than by math. Like I said, I generally believe it is a good idea to play games as written first, but I am also not going to fault someone who decides to use, say, popcorn initiative in Shadowdark because they know that works for their group.

One, they are knowing better than the designer for your playstyle and table. Two, you play the game first, so that means your testing the waters, then deciding. That is a big difference than not playing a game and deciding it needs this sub-mechanic. I hope you can see the difference, and instead of looking this as an attack, look at it as the question that it is.

I mean, the question could have just as been easily worded as: Do you think you improve a game's mechanics by adding your sub-system? If so, what game and sub-system are you combining?

VHawkwinter · Saturday at 10:34 PM

Scott Christian said:
(Maybe my premise is wrong. Maybe people try the system, decide it needs X or Y, and then it just so happens that is the same X or Y that was needed in a different system. That could be, but if it is, it isn't clear in the replies.)

I used to always do it this way.

Scott Christian said:
But it's just, well, there is a bit of an assumption that you are the one that knows how to make the game - even more so than the designer. I am curious, who uses these subsystems prior to actually trying out the game as written?

But after a couple decades and a few dozen systems, you can see a mechanic and either know you won't like it because you've seen almost the same thing five+ other times, or get a sense that the math is going to work out in a bad way and then go crunch the numbers to see. You see what's on the page, and you know how it'll play at the table, and you can see it will do some thing you hated in past games (unless the mechanic is truly novel, then sure you have to try it).

Reynard · Saturday at 11:16 PM

Scott Christian said:
I mean, the question could have just as been easily worded as: Do you think you improve a game's mechanics by adding your sub-system? If so, what game and sub-system are you combining?

As I said, sometimes a game is missing a mechanic. Other times, the group has a strong preference. In either case, once a game goes out into the world, it no longer belongs to the designer. It then belongs to the players.

Scott Christian · 2026-03-15T00:45:34+0000

Reynard said:
As I said, sometimes a game is missing a mechanic. Other times, the group has a strong preference. In either case, once a game goes out into the world, it no longer belongs to the designer. It then belongs to the players.

And that is fine. It is something I agree with. If I want to add coin flips to D&D to determine skill challenges, I can. But, if someone were to ask me: Did you play D&D with the skill system before using the coin flip method? I would not think that person is "scolding me." I would think they want to know if I tried it the way the designers intended. Because most people would probably assume the designers of the game had a plan in mind when building a system.

VHawkwinter · 2026-03-15T02:33:31+0000

Scott Christian said:
the designers of the game had a plan in mind when building a system.

They almost certainly do, but whether their plan matches the kind of game the GM wants to run / play is another thing.

Like: I played in one 5e campaign, /and then/ ran one. Friends tried to convince me that it fixed what bothered me about PF1, but after playing it for several months I knew I didn't enjoy its mechanics, for 5e specific problems.
I tried to make 5e palatable without introducing the problems of 3e before I ran it: I had ~100 pages of houserules and 1600 pages of curated DMs guild content; IIRC it surpassed the Hasbro content I was using in page count. It was still a bad fit though. One player ultimately wanted raw 5e though they had agreed to my houserules and different content pool before building a character, and I still wasn't particularly happy with the game even after that effort. And then lockdowns started and the game went on indefinitely hiatus - had I been enjoying running it, maybe I would have tried to move it online.

I suppose that technically means I did try playing it RAW before I houseruled it, but I had identified what some of the problems were like to be before I ever played it, and had some ideas of how I would change them, and playing it only confirmed to me those problems and revealed others.

Fenris-77 · 2026-03-15T02:43:23+0000

Y'know, if I had a nickel for every time I've heard people yammer on about how they 'fixed' a system that didn't need fixing in the first place I'd have like, maybe, a couple of bucks. People are of course free to house rule however they please, but I also find that the Dunning-Krueger effect is in full force when it comes to a lot of folks and their understanding of RPG system design.

Scott Christian · 2026-03-15T02:52:22+0000

VHawkwinter said:
They almost certainly do, but whether their plan matches the kind of game the GM wants to run / play is another thing.

Like: I played in one 5e campaign, /and then/ ran one. Friends tried to convince me that it fixed what bothered me about PF1, but after playing it for several months I knew I didn't enjoy its mechanics, for 5e specific problems.
I tried to make 5e palatable without introducing the problems of 3e before I ran it: I had ~100 pages of houserules and 1600 pages of curated DMs guild content; IIRC it surpassed the Hasbro content I was using in page count. It was still a bad fit though. One player ultimately wanted raw 5e though they had agreed to my houserules and different content pool before building a character, and I still wasn't particularly happy with the game even after that effort. And then lockdowns started and the game went on indefinitely hiatus - had I been enjoying running it, maybe I would have tried to move it online.

I suppose that technically means I did try playing it RAW before I houseruled it, but I had identified what some of the problems were like to be before I ever played it, and had some ideas of how I would change them, and playing it only confirmed to me those problems and revealed others.

And, as I said, I agree with that.

House rules are a thing. They are somewhat of a tradition. But to ask whether you implemented a house rule prior to trying the actual rule is not "scolding" as Reynard called it.

In the end, you do you. But if someone questions on you doing you, especially if you haven't tried what the writers intended, then don't be surprised if they act surprised.

Chef #1: Have you tried Jacques Pépin's omelet recipe?
Chef #2: No. I saw it and instantly added escargot because I knew it would be better.
Chef #1: How did you know? Don't you think you should have tried chef Pépin's recipe?

That is not scolding. That is asking a legitimate question.

VHawkwinter · 2026-03-15T02:53:48+0000

Fenris-77 said:
Y'know, if I had a nickel for every time I've heard people yammer on about how they 'fixed' a system that didn't need fixing in the first place I'd have like, maybe, a couple of bucks.

"Fixed" always requires context. What was wrong with it, according to the person who felt a need to fix it? What were the fixes? Etc.

I am inclined to agree with you that 5e "doesn't need fixing" ultimately it's just not a game I like, and I wasted a whole bunch of time trying to make it into one I could like playing and running and eventually concluded it was a waste of my time and effort.

Fenris-77 said:
I also find that the Dunning-Krueger effect is in full force when it comes to a lot of folks and their understanding of RPG system design.

Well, we don't know eachother well enough for you to have read and judged my game design. But feedback from other people has me thinking I'm not totally clueless in that regard, though I am definitely not the target audience for 5e. I do seek out actual criticism rather than yes men. Hopefully I'm not as incompetent as your comment implies I might be, I have put a ton of work into the game I've been building. It won't be great if it turns out my first fully playable alpha is hated - but if that happens, I will have to pivot and try to fix whatever is wrong with it. Guess I will have to wait and see.

Cheers

Fenris-77 · 2026-03-15T03:00:06+0000

VHawkwinter said:
"Fixed" always requires context. What was wrong with it, according to the person who felt a need to fix it? What were the fixes? Etc.

I am inclined to agree with you that 5e "doesn't need fixing" ultimately it's just not a game I like, and I wasted a whole bunch of time trying to make it into one I could like playing and running and eventually concluded it was a waste of my time and effort.

Well, we don't know eachother well enough for you to have read and judged my game design. But feedback from other people has me thinking I'm not totally clueless in that regard, though I am definitely not the target audience for 5e. I do seek out actual criticism rather than yes men. Hopefully I'm not as incompetent as your comment implies I might be, I have put a ton of work into the game I've been building. It won't be great if it turns out my first fully playable alpha is hated - but if that happens, I will have to pivot and try to fix whatever is wrong with it. Guess I will have to wait and see.

Cheers

I wasn't talking about you specifically at all, so sorry if it read like that. I speaking more generally about the constant flood of people who've 'fixed' system X or Y with nonsense mechanic Z and think they've reinvented the wheel.

FWIW, 5E has all kinds of problems that a specific GM might want to paper over for a specific game, so don't feel bad about that.

VHawkwinter · 2026-03-15T03:10:17+0000

Fenris-77 said:
I wasn't talking about you specifically at all, so sorry if it read like that.

Oh. Immediately after my comment about how I wasted a bunch of time trying to make 5e a system I liked it sounded like it was in response to that post. My mistake.

Fenris-77 said:
I speaking more generally about the constant flood of people who've 'fixed' system X or Y with nonsense mechanic Z and think they've reinvented the wheel.

Ah yes. And often they didn't even crunch the numbers, didn't get any criticism or feedback, and they're presenting it as though it's perfect, meanwhile they've often just (badly) reinvented some other game off a D&D chassis. I have encountered a bunch of those as well.

Fenris-77 said:
FWIW, 5E has all kinds of problems that a specific GM might want to paper over for a specific game, so don't feel bad about that.

In my case it was just a general mismatch. I'm sure there are lots of people for whom 5e works either 'well enough not to complain' or perfectly matches what they want from a TTRPG - including some I've met who really don't care about the system at all because they mostly ignore it anyway; but that's not me.