Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="aboyd" data-source="post: 4946028" data-attributes="member: 44797">Depending upon your players, you're going to have to take it in one of many different directions.&nbsp; I play in one campaign where these rules would be taken in stride, and nobody would change much of anything unless the new rules directly ruined an aspect of their build.&nbsp; And even then, they'd only change what they have to.&nbsp; It's a pretty good group.I have another group which contains a min/maxer.&nbsp; He's not a munchkin -- he's not breaking rules or deliberately misinterpreting things incorrectly to gain advantage.&nbsp; However, he will take any game mechanic you introduce and push it to the maximum allowed.&nbsp; I had said at one point that if he hired a bard to assist him with the &quot;marketing&quot; of his character, he could use that as an &quot;aid another&quot; attempt when he was rolling up his weekly pay.&nbsp; He took that new game mechanic and hired 20 bards, had them stage an opera, and expected to get 20 &quot;aid another&quot; checks to stack, sending his weekly pay skyrocketing to a game-breaking level.&nbsp; If it worked, no adventurer would have done any adventuring.&nbsp; There would be hundreds upon hundreds of bards in any given town, all staging operas and symphonies and plays, all sucking so much money out of the local economy that almost immediately, the whole planet's financial stability would collapse.Based upon what you said in your #4 change, it sounds like you have at least one player who is willing to bend the rules to unrealistic levels.With players like that, any change you introduce will be an excuse to maximize everything possible.&nbsp; If you allow unlimited changes, even for things unrelated to your house rules, you may expect that someone(s) will go nuts with changes.&nbsp; They may even try to make changes that are unrealistic, such as swapping in a bunch of higher-level feats and omitting their necessary lower level feats.&nbsp; Stuff like that.So to me, having learned my lesson, I would say that changes are fair only for things that are directly affected by the new house rules.&nbsp; Of course, some of your changes are quite broad.&nbsp; If the ranger doesn't like the new average for his twin strike attack, you may have to let him swap the whole thing.Finally, as for house rule #6 (no takebacks on moves) I think that's almost micro-manage-ish in execution.&nbsp; I mean, it's so unnatural, you will have to watch the battlemat like a hawk and you will have to constantly shut down your players as they violate that rule over and over again.&nbsp; So I would say, make it more like chess, where the rule is that the move ends &quot;once you let go of your piece.&quot;&nbsp; That's not only more realistic, so that players are more capable of complying, but it's also a rule that other people use in other games, which will be a selling point.&nbsp; Your players may find it to be &quot;fair&quot; in that sense, and help you to enforce it.&nbsp; Of course, they're going to enforce it on you too, so make sure whatever you decide, you can live with it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="aboyd, post: 4946028, member: 44797"] Depending upon your players, you're going to have to take it in one of many different directions. I play in one campaign where these rules would be taken in stride, and nobody would change much of anything unless the new rules directly ruined an aspect of their build. And even then, they'd only change what they have to. It's a pretty good group. I have another group which contains a min/maxer. He's not a munchkin -- he's not breaking rules or deliberately misinterpreting things incorrectly to gain advantage. However, he will take any game mechanic you introduce and push it to the maximum allowed. I had said at one point that if he hired a bard to assist him with the "marketing" of his character, he could use that as an "aid another" attempt when he was rolling up his weekly pay. He took that new game mechanic and hired 20 bards, had them stage an opera, and expected to get 20 "aid another" checks to stack, sending his weekly pay skyrocketing to a game-breaking level. If it worked, no adventurer would have done any adventuring. There would be hundreds upon hundreds of bards in any given town, all staging operas and symphonies and plays, all sucking so much money out of the local economy that almost immediately, the whole planet's financial stability would collapse. Based upon what you said in your #4 change, it sounds like you have at least one player who is willing to bend the rules to unrealistic levels. With players like that, any change you introduce will be an excuse to maximize everything possible. If you allow unlimited changes, even for things unrelated to your house rules, you may expect that someone(s) will go nuts with changes. They may even try to make changes that are unrealistic, such as swapping in a bunch of higher-level feats and omitting their necessary lower level feats. Stuff like that. So to me, having learned my lesson, I would say that changes are fair only for things that are directly affected by the new house rules. Of course, some of your changes are quite broad. If the ranger doesn't like the new average for his twin strike attack, you may have to let him swap the whole thing. Finally, as for house rule #6 (no takebacks on moves) I think that's almost micro-manage-ish in execution. I mean, it's so unnatural, you will have to watch the battlemat like a hawk and you will have to constantly shut down your players as they violate that rule over and over again. So I would say, make it more like chess, where the rule is that the move ends "once you let go of your piece." That's not only more realistic, so that players are more capable of complying, but it's also a rule that other people use in other games, which will be a selling point. Your players may find it to be "fair" in that sense, and help you to enforce it. Of course, they're going to enforce it on you too, so make sure whatever you decide, you can live with it. [/QUOTE]

Verification