Just like D&D except....not.

[Umbran]

I guess that those are my musings, and I was wondering: How do you decide whether to tweak a game of choice versus branching out to another game?

Well, for me, it's easier, as I don't have a single "game of choice". I love D&D. I love lots of other systems, too.

Similarly, when someone asks about how to accomplish something drastically different than the "common or accepted" way of playing a game, what pushes you to advise "do this thing" versus "play this game"?

Basically, if what you are looking for is a "drastic" departure (say, a complete departure of genre), I suggest that you look for another game that does what you want better - find the right tool for the job you're trying to do.

When I want to run a game, my focus is on delivering interesting and cool stuff to my players. Doing whole lots of experimental work on my own that I cannot properly test typically runs contrary to that goal. I figure the best bet is to at least look to see if someone else has created what I need before I go and reinvent the wheel.

Sometimes, the wheel you want doesn't exist, and you have to build it yourself.

It is also entirely okay (and fun) to just engage in some design and engineering experimentation, and not focus quite so much on delivering to players. Then, seeing how far you can bend a system without breaking it is interesting.

 

[innerdude]

I'm of the mindset that if my house rules take up more than a page then this probably isn't the game for me. This does not include bits of the system that are optional or have different ways they can be implemented. I'm only talking about wholesale changes to the core game itself.

I'm one of those guys who suggests trying new games in threads like the ones you describe. I do this because I love variety in my game systems and I like to share that love for lots of different games.

On the "1-page of house rules" --- Absolutely.

Stuff like variant classes, or homebrewed classes are a little bit different, as they're just an extension of the existing rules.

But as far as actually changing the way the game "plays," anything more than a page and a half would be too much.

 

[steenan]

I definitely like trying new games. I also like modifying them. And by "modifying" I mean doing much more than a single page of houserules.

I feel a need for a system to fit the genre and mood of play. It just does not feel right if game mechanics encourage me to do things that don't have their place in the setting and genre and discourage me from doing things that fit there. I also hate when games needlessly complicate things that don't really help in play and lack rules for things that are important.

That's why I often ask myself: what I really want to happen in play? How do I want it to feel? What should be the focus? What is so important in the setting that it requires detailed rules?
Then I sit down and browse the games I have and various free games available on the net. And I often find something that fits my needs much better than the original system, or at least have parts that can be ported there. Sometimes, I switch the entire mechanics while leaving the setting and play assumptions intact (for example, I ran several great Exalted sessions, none of them using the original rules).

In my experience, the system defines a lot of how the game feels. D&D with all-werewolf party would still play like D&D. I ask a question "why are they werewolves and what it means to them" and choose a system based on the answer.