I think we're thinking of this from different perspectives I'm thinking of it as the work on the part of the GM and the players to learn the new rule, decide whups, it doesn't work, and then what?
Screwed up a game session for what payback? The game's ending really quick. Who knows how it might have gone if not for the change! Sure, it might not be completely out of hand to proceed, but then again, it might. At least if you're playing more often, you can benefit from the learning, and the effort of correcting it can at least not be wasted as you'll get to keep playing. But when playing once in a blue moon?
Not worth it. Especially not with the change given to the healing system, one that would require a healthy bit of examination to the system, not necessarily have any long-term impact, but could change a lot in the short-term. Imagine a player whose character died in an early combat session due to this rule, coming back to learn you decided "Hey that didn't work, let's drop it." well, I know I'd be pissed if I were them. Now if you want to come up with some other idea for a rule change, perhaps that might work better in the short term for testing, but it still doesn't change the fact that I would be upset if not only did you change the rules, you changed them again on me when they didn't work. I'd rather have just played the game as written, and leave you to experiment with folks you're more regularly playing with.
It's like going to a convention. I go to play a game, I don't want to have to see what new freaky mechanics the person running it wants to try. That person can experiment with friends who play more regularly together.
Believe it or not, I do understand the idea of testing changes in a sand-box, I just think the conditions here are ones where that won't work, given the upfront investment needed mixed with the return. I think it'd be a lot of work to change those rules just for 2 sessions and not play again for months.
But hey, YMMV. Just tell me before you get me involved in any of your games if you're changing the rules. Then I can decide whether or not to play.
Screwed up a game session for what payback? The game's ending really quick. Who knows how it might have gone if not for the change! Sure, it might not be completely out of hand to proceed, but then again, it might. At least if you're playing more often, you can benefit from the learning, and the effort of correcting it can at least not be wasted as you'll get to keep playing. But when playing once in a blue moon?
Not worth it. Especially not with the change given to the healing system, one that would require a healthy bit of examination to the system, not necessarily have any long-term impact, but could change a lot in the short-term. Imagine a player whose character died in an early combat session due to this rule, coming back to learn you decided "Hey that didn't work, let's drop it." well, I know I'd be pissed if I were them. Now if you want to come up with some other idea for a rule change, perhaps that might work better in the short term for testing, but it still doesn't change the fact that I would be upset if not only did you change the rules, you changed them again on me when they didn't work. I'd rather have just played the game as written, and leave you to experiment with folks you're more regularly playing with.
It's like going to a convention. I go to play a game, I don't want to have to see what new freaky mechanics the person running it wants to try. That person can experiment with friends who play more regularly together.
Believe it or not, I do understand the idea of testing changes in a sand-box, I just think the conditions here are ones where that won't work, given the upfront investment needed mixed with the return. I think it'd be a lot of work to change those rules just for 2 sessions and not play again for months.
But hey, YMMV. Just tell me before you get me involved in any of your games if you're changing the rules. Then I can decide whether or not to play.
Last edited:
