How Long Do You Wait Before You Houserule a New TTRPG?

[aiouh]

That's a lot of "avoid feel bad" tweaks for a game intended to be tough.

I disagree that the tweaks are a lot or make the game less tough.

The percentage of hitting a spell is plenty high, as only spellcasters get spellcasting. Letting one spell go off is a negligible bonus.

The average HP of a lvl 1 character is 3-5hp and the average damage die for a lvl 1 monster is 1d6.

So no, the game is still plenty tough, the houserules just avoid situations where a brick wall is shoved into your face and I deliberately designed them to encourage creative and tactical play where they feel like they need every edge to succeed.

 

[Theory of Games]

Backstab

A Backstab deals half the damage die (w/o mods or bonuses) if the attack check misses
Backstabbing is cool and requires effort to pull off and I choose to reward it as thief gets the short end of the stick of the 4 classes anyway. Player tried very hard to find out of the box ways to fight dirty like a thief and it felt wrong and bad to not reward it and a Luck Token felt too powerful to hand out.

Plus, flipping a coin (Dagger 1d4 -> 1d2) feels very rogue-like.

I'm a fan of the AD&D 1e Assassin's Backstab, which had a 50% chance of outright slaying the target regardless of its Hit Points Should be revisited with the Rogue subclass IMO.

 

[Argyle King]

Usually after 1 campaign.

"After a few adventures," I will likely take note of things that work differently at the table than I thought they would from reading the game.

If there is something that drastically conflicts with the expected experience of the gaming group, I may discuss (with the group) making small changes and then revisit the issue later.

I think 1 full campaign is necessary before making lasting changes because that allows seeing the game function in a variety of situations and at a variety of power levels. Sometimes, it may not be obvious that a small change in one area of the rules impacts other systems found within the game.

 

[overgeeked]

Chesterton’s Fence. I want to get a good handle on the system as it’s meant to be played before changing things. A few sessioms or adventures at least.

 

[Kannik]

I can't say I've never houseruled early -- mostly in my youth -- but generally even if I scrunch my nose reading something in a book I will give it a whirl for at least a few sessions to see how it runs at the table and to see if my initial takes/concerns hold and whether the thing does indeed need houseruling.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

While I listed "after a few adventures" - I will often take ambiguities and note my decisions in my notes-file during the reading process. And check them against errata if I can.

I try to avoid houseruling when I can.

Basically same here.

I have (rarely) changed rules out of the gate, but only where there were obvious issues, or where, on one notable occasion, I'd actually talked to the designer about the rules online and why they were they were they were, and he'd essentially "okay'd" my changes (not that I needed his approval but it was good to understand).

Overall I strongly tend to run rules-as-written or at least rules-as-intended though.

Can you give an example of something you have houseruled before even playing because you knew your group would not like the rule as designed?

Obviously not the person you asked but as an example I toned down the lethality of Spire to more Heart-like levels before we started playing (Heart had just come out) because I knew the players wouldn't be into losing the kind of PCs they'd constructed, and didn't want to run a high-churn kind of campaign.

Some games, especially one-shots/short games we like high lethality (CoC, Mothership, for example), but others... not so much. Especially if the setting is unusual/weird and it requires some effort to get into the headspace of the PCs (which I would say is the case with Spire).

The one thing I carefully avoid when houseruling is replicating existing rules or making redundant versions of them, because I saw so many lists of 2E and 3E/PF1 "house rules" which were 20% to 70% just that - "house rules" which were merely there because the group in question didn't actually have a good handle on the rules of the game.

 

[Reynard]

Obviously not the person you asked but as an example I toned down the lethality of Spire to more Heart-like levels before we started playing (Heart had just come out) because I knew the players wouldn't be into losing the kind of PCs they'd constructed, and didn't want to run a high-churn kind of campaign.

Some games, especially one-shots/short games we like high lethality (CoC, Mothership, for example), but others... not so much. Especially if the setting is unusual/weird and it requires some effort to get into the headspace of the PCs (which I would say is the case with Spire).

The one thing I carefully avoid when houseruling is replicating existing rules or making redundant versions of them, because I saw so many lists of 2E and 3E/PF1 "house rules" which were 20% to 70% just that - "house rules" which were merely there because the group in question didn't actually have a good handle on the rules of the game.

As an example of the kind of thing I discovered I did not need to houserule after a number of sessions, that many folks houserule off the cuff: Shadowdark lethality.

Shadowdark is not particularly lethal, assuming your players aren't acting like they are playing 5E. First level is fragile, of course, but I would argue first level is fragile even in 5E. It supposed to be. It is "first level" for a reason. But after running a bunch of mid level Shadowdark at cons (so with people not especially inclined to want their character to survive) I discovered that because of the way the game is built, 4th and 5th level SD characters are pretty tough relative to the opposition.

People can and should do what they want. But I do think a lot of times people make big assumptions and start turning dials and tweaking settings prematurely.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

As an example of the kind of thing I discovered I did not need to houserule after a number of sessions, that many folks houserule off the cuff: Shadowdark lethality.

Shadowdark is not particularly lethal, assuming your players aren't acting like they are playing 5E. First level is fragile, of course, but I would argue first level is fragile even in 5E. It supposed to be. It is "first level" for a reason. But after running a bunch of mid level Shadowdark at cons (so with people not especially inclined to want their character to survive) I discovered that because of the way the game is built, 4th and 5th level SD characters are pretty tough relative to the opposition.

People can and should do what they want. But I do think a lot of times people make big assumptions and start turning dials and tweaking settings prematurely.

The only thing I disagree with here is the bolded bit, I violently dislike that in every RPG where it's true (which does include 3E and 5E, but notably not 4E). Just start people with a more reasonable amount of HP and increase it less as they level up you absolute scoundrels!

But TRADITION!!! (sung as per Fiddler on the Roof) is a very hard thing to beat and an awful lot of people either like it or are so used to it they don't even notice - and at least it rapidly goes away as an issue (I just don't think it should be one to start with!).

 

[Reynard]

The only thing I disagree with here is the bolded bit, I violently dislike that in every RPG where it's true (which does include 3E and 5E, but notably not 4E). Just start people with a more reasonable amount of HP and increase it less as they level up you absolute scoundrels!

But TRADITION!!! (sung as per Fiddler on the Roof) is a very hard thing to beat and an awful lot of people either like it or are so used to it they don't even notice - and at least it rapidly goes away as an issue (I just don't think it should be one to start with!).

I care less about fragility than I do 5E not letting character generation be complete until 3rd level. That has always felt like a weird choice.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I care less about fragility than I do 5E not letting character generation be complete until 3rd level. That has always felt like a weird choice.

Yeah and I always find it pretty funny that 5E does that given that like, 2nd edition realized that was a problem and so started Dark Sun characters at L3, and indeed, post-Dark Sun, a lot of AD&D campaigns I played or ran in, we just started at 3rd. I guess one can do the same with 5E, but like man, what a weird issue to intentionally retain!