Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 2576220" data-attributes="member: 18280">Majoru,One of these two is me.  I have certainly decided to change rules in the game, and am currently compiling a book of new rules so that the players & I will all be on the same page.  I'm sure you'll be happy to know that the new rules are not in effect until the book is done and in everyone's hand....despite the fact that the players really, really like what they've seen of the new rules and are eager to incorporate them.I've opened EnWorld threads on some of the new rules to solicit input prior to release.  It's awlays good to have a second opinion, and to try to spot the problem areas ahead of time.  Some of the input I've received here has caused me to go back and rewrite sections of the material I've produced.Some of the material is taken from other supliments (WotC or third party), some nearly wholesale.  Some I have tested through the time-honored method of NPC encounters.  For example, prior to opening up the Arcana Unearthed classes for PC use, I tested the ones I was considering as NPCs to see if they overpowered the standard PC classes.  In my class rewrites, I find myself mostly adding things to the various classes in order to make them more distinct.  Because I am using reduced XP, I have no problem with giving more per level, so most classes are beefed up somewhat.  Because I am running a game where social interaction is more important than in the core assumptions, some classes gain specific social benefits (i.e., priests can use their level as a bonus on certain skill checks to influence members of their religion).I wanted to require characters to interact with other people in the world, so I introduced rules to promote this.  Which means, yes, that I added class abilities that require you to have help in order to use them.  Which means, yes, that low- to mid-level characters have to seek out higher-level characters to aid them.  It also means that, as characters grow to mid- and high-levels, they gain influence over lower-level characters of the same class.Since I want to make combat more risky, I decided to adopt the vitality/wound point system from Unearthed Arcana (and Star Wars D20).  Because I wanted to avoid the "golf bag of weapons" that the core assumptions lead to, I decided to make weapon skills, allowing the player to alter his chance to hit and/or damage on a round-by-round basis.  Thus, you could use your 10 ranks of Axe Fighting to add +10 to your attack roll, +10 to your damage, or any combination thereof (announced prior to rolling).  Base (unannounced) assumption is a 50/50 split, with any remainder favoring the attack roll.  There are also some pre-set uses of the skills you can declare and precalculate, including an option to use your weapon ranks to defend.I have changed races to better reflect the campaign cosmology.  Dwarves become giants.  Elves and gnomes become fey.  Half-orcs and half-elves use templates.  There are several new races generally available, including humanoid animals, awakened animals, giants (from AU, modified for my world), and human sub-types.  Every race and/or subrace can take up to three racial levels (again, per AU).The Profession and Craft skills are somewhat nerfed, so that you cannot be a master craftsman at 1st level (there is a "best you can do" limitation based on skill ranks).  On the other hand, a really good craftsman can produce better than masterwork items (ala Advanced Gamemaster's and the Medieval Player's Handbook).I could go on, but I feel certain that you get the point.  Lots of changes.  Each one is a change that I feel is necessary, and the players are pretty keen on the stuff they've seen so far.  The players all get a copy of the changes and a chance to study them before they go into effect.  We are, in fact, devoting an entire play session, one week after the players get the new rules, to going over the rules and how they will affect characters in the game.  Beyond a doubt, some problems will arise due to the rules transition, and holes that require plugging because we failed to see them ahead of time.  But also, beyond a doubt, we'll have a ruleset that strongly matches the campaign world.  Now, my questions to you are these:1)  What exactly is "bare minimum"?  Does this qualify?  If so, why?  If not, why not?2)  When you say you spend time at games "pointing out that all the problems they've created [are] due to changing the rules until they get angry enough," do you mean you offer constructive advice, or that you nitpick the rules?  Are these problems that the DM is experiencing, or are these problems created due to the way the rules interact with what you want?  What is "angry enough"?  What is your motive in your finger-pointing?Like I said at the beginning of the post, I'm either (3) or (4) of your choices.  I imagine that the difference is largely subjective.I can tell you this, though:If you were trying to offer constructive advice that would tighten rules problems while maintaining the campaign feel and structure, your advice would be welcome.  If you were nattering and nitpicking to the detriment of the game, you wouldn't have to worry about me getting "angry enough" for you to "never open [your] mouth while at the table again".  Long, long before things got to that point, you'd be looking for a new DM.  I'd be letting in one of the people who keep asking me to let them know if a spot opens up.  Then we'd both be happy.RC</blockquote>

Verification