Messing with the basic assumptions of the system

[shilsen]

I’ve seen and sometimes participated in some interesting discussions on ENWorld over the years regarding the sort of gameplay 3e tends towards, the underlying assumptions in the game, and the system’s affinity (or not) for being tweaked. Personally, while I think 3e is far from as adaptive as systems such as Mutants and Masterminds, I think it is quite adaptable. In my games I’ve personally tossed out a lot of the standard assumptions of the system and had absolutely no problems with it, and I was curious to hear what other people have done and how it’s worked out for you. I’m interested in actual mechanical/rules changes and not flavor ones. To start things off, here are the big changes I’ve made:

1. Taking death out of the equation:
In my game, I allow players to use 3 action points (earlier) or 3 swashbuckling cards (currently) to have a PC survive a blow or effect which would take it to -10 hp and lower. The PC ends up at -9 and is stable, cannot be healed up until the current encounter ends, and can be slain if specifically targeted by an enemy in this state. The result of this rule is that PCs essentially don’t die (one death in 70 sessions) even though we average a PC needing to use the 3 card rule every alternate session.
Results: There have been a number of results of this rule. I like to run heavily player/PC-driven games, with the plot directions emerging almost purely from PC background, action and choice. So losing PCs is a real pain for me. At the same time, I don’t like to have easily accessible resurrection in the game, and I also run brutal encounters, with NPCs (especially intelligent ones) punching much above their weight. This house rule allows me to have all of the above exist simultaneously. Also, since I make sure to have lots of repercussions for defeat even if death usually isn’t one of them, combat is never boring or meaningless but usually a tense and exciting affair. In fact, since I don’t get to use death as a real repercussion for defeat or in combat, it impels me to have many different repercussions, and has cemented my opinion that death is only one possible consequence and a fairly boring one at that.

2. Divorcing XP from in-game events:
I abhor the XP calculation charts and I don’t like the idea of roleplaying XP because I find that akin to grading players based on whether their playing style matches my own or not. So I don’t award XP based on any formula, and actually don’t award XP based on anything in-game. Instead, I just award a certain amount of XP per session to keep PCs advancing at a speed I’m comfortable with. All PCs get the same amount of XP and they get the XP even if the player isn’t present (in which case I run the PC). The way I figure it, the major enjoyment in the game is, well, actually taking part in the game, and if the player is already missing out on that, I’m not going to penalize him further by awarding less XP too. I would actually have dropped XP altogether, but have PCs who use item creation feats and spells that drain XP, so I prefer to retain an XP score for each PC but just not award it the standard way. I just started running a monthly game where neither of those will happen, and in that game I have dropped XP altogether.
Results: The best result of this rule is that it frees players up to do what they think their characters should and what they’d have the most fun doing, and not have to worry about whether they’ll make more or less XP due to their choices. If they want to fight an army or want to spend a day schmoozing at a party, they know they’ll get the same amount of XP, so their choices are purely made on an in-game perspective and not with the metagame concern of XP. It also frees me up from having to calculate XP using some arbitrary formula or worrying if they’re leveling too fast or slow. I also avoid all the questions I see on the Rules forums here about what would be the appropriate XP award in some in-game situation.

3. Lowering buff/magic item dependency and removing the Big Six: I don’t like the huge effect of buffing on PC (and NPC) effectiveness and especially the resultant paperwork, and while I have no problems with PCs carrying a boatload of magic items, I find it boring for them to have to always have the standard ones in order to maximize survivability. So in my main Eberron game I’ve provided a way for the PCs to have permanent enhancement bonuses to their abilities, deflection bonuses to AC, enhancement bonuses to natural armor, and resistance bonuses to saves. In my new monthly game, I’ve actually turned all those things into level-based abilities and included enhancement bonuses to AC and weapons in that too.
Results: This rule provides a lot of advantages for me. It cuts down on paperwork as the PCs buff up or are hit by a dispel magic and lose their buffs, and lets me have a better idea of how powerful the PCs will be at all times. It means PCs aren’t filling their lower level spell slots with buff spells but are liable to pick more varied and interesting spells. And it means they have lots of slots open for more interesting magical items than the standard Big Six. Interestingly, it sounds (from what Mearls said recently, which is on the main page of ENWorld right now) like 4e is being designed so that I can do exactly the same thing with no trouble whatsoever.

4. Ignoring the “multiple fight per day” paradigm: I don’t really enjoy playing in or running dungeon crawls, so I almost never do so. What that means is that the PCs in my game rarely have more than one or two combat encounters in a given day. In 70 sessions in my Eberron game (almost all of which have had some combat), I estimate PCs have had 1 combat in one day in about 60% of them, 2 combats in one day in about 30%, and more than 2 combats in about 10% of them. This means that PCs enter most fights with all of their resources and almost fully buffed (due to my preceding point about reworking how the Big Six work) and can afford to blow almost all of their resources in it.
Results: Having less fights in a given game day suits my DMing style better and I haven’t noticed any trouble whatsoever in challenging the PCs (after all, if I had, I probably wouldn’t be using a rule to let PCs survive death). Also, knowing that there will only be one fight or two impels me to make sure that each of them is interesting, memorable and challenging in its own way. I also enjoy the mechanical challenge of giving the PCs a hard time even if they’re having just the one fight or two and are fighting enemies they should (according to CR and the general assumptions of the system) be able to roll over fairly easily. A not-so-direct consequence of that is when the PCs have a fight where they absolutely outclass their PCs and can just strut their stuff, the players really enjoy the change.

5. Removing/reducing attrition-based challenges: This is actually part of the earlier point. Since I don’t do dungeon crawls and large numbers of encounters in a day, I usually don’t challenge PCs by reducing their resources. In fact, I’ve ruled that as long as they have a few minutes PCs automatically heal up between encounters, assuming that they use healing wands (which I don’t track or even charge for, since with tens of thousands of gps in the PCs’ hands, that’s not worth it for me) for the process. So when PCs are challenged by an encounter or situation, they’re usually challenged based on the intrinsic merits of the encounter/situation and not how many encounters they have had earlier.
Results: Pretty much the same as the previous point’s.

I can probably come up with a few more, but that’s more than long enough for now, so I’ll quit here. I’d like to hear from other DMs who’ve messed similarly with the standard mechanical assumptions of D&D, or players in games where the DM has. What were the changes? Did they work or didn’t they? What did you think of them?

 

[Tinker Gnome]

Well, one of the changes in the games I run and play in with my group is that everything is vulnerable to critical hits. This tends to make combat with creatures that were normally immune to them easier if the PCs have good dice rolls. This house rule arose out of ignorance of that fact that certain monsters were immunte to crits, so it has stayed that way ever since. There is also no massive damage save, as I just do not like it. This has had the effect of making the game less deadly, but that is fine with me.

Another rule is that Wizards and Clerics can cast all of the spells in the PHB. This means that Wizards do not have to spend a lot of money on spells and keep track of multiple spellbooks, all of their spells can fit in one spellbook. This arose because no one thinks it is really fun for a Wizard to have to pay tons of money for all their spells. This change has not affected how hard it is to challenge the PCs, and PC deaths have still happened. Despite this, we still do get players who pick Sorcerers because of the increased number of spells per day. no having to keep track of a spell book, and for flavor reasons.

 

[Herzog]

Well, I started a new campaign last year in which I am trying some new things that might be called 'messing', although I think them to be minor changes myself:

1. No sorcerers. Instead, Wizards can cast their prepared spells in any combination they want. (they can prepare 3 different first lvl spells, then cast 1 of them 3 times, all three ones, or any other combination). They may take a reserve feat instead of a familiar. They do not gain bonus feats.
2. same sponteneous spellcasting for clerics. this replaces spontaneous casting of heal spells, but since they can cast prepared heal spells any number of times as long as they have 'spell slots',that doesn't really matter. domain slots can only be used for domain spells, but don't need to be prepared.
3. No fighters. Instead, all 'fighter' classes (until now, barbarian, ranger and ninja) may replace a maximum of 1 gained class ability per level with a fighter bonus feat.
4. Free form 'psion'. As the psion, except they can choose powers from any discipline. Extra restriction: must be a 'psionic' race.
5. Races: Opened up every conceivable combination of races (half-races of any kind).
6. Created a 'no-magic' setting: that is, magic is possible (otherwise changing around magic users as I did would have been pointless...) but the world is dominated by high-level magic users, who like nothing better than to prune the competition (any use of magic may attract some very deadly attention).

Herzog

 

[el-remmen]

My biggest change along these lines is probably the fact that being brought back from 'death's door' (i.e. negative hit points) by means of cure spells leaves the victim exhausted. One hour of rest changes that to merely fatigued. Restoration type spells can be used to mitigate these conditions as normal (but of course that represents a use of resources).

This has the effect of privileging natural healing and reinforces the sense that magic has its limitations and is used for emergencies and quick work around mortal labor and relisiancy not as a replacement for it.

Character heal back hit points at the rate of their BAB +1 for every eight hours of light activity. I use BAB since part of what hit points are is combat prowess and to make fighters heal back at a rate commensurate with their hit die, and wizards at a rate commensurate with theirs. Bed rest and the Heal skill can improved this rate.

This all has the general effect of making the characters much more careful about entering combat and reinforces consequences to combats where people are brought close to death.

 

[ruleslawyer]

I'm probably a bit out of place here, since I run an Iron Heroes game, which is basically all about messing with D&D's basic assumptions. That said, this is pretty much what I did for my previous (3e D&D) game:

1. Tweaking the reward system. I lowered XP rewards for defeating monsters or traps by 50%, reserving the remaining 50% for "story awards." I also gave full XP for resolving encounters by means other than combat (diplomacy or even avoidance). This was intended to have the effect of toning down player attention on "beating" opponents to get levels and focusing them on accomplishing story goals instead, as well as to encourage greater use of less risky tactics than combat (with the goal of promoting "realistic" approaches to hostile encounters). It largely worked, though I probably could have just gone with my current system (no XP, you level up when the DM says so) to equal effect.

I also implemented an individual reward system in the form of fate points: A very powerful action-point-type resource that could be awarded to a to a player who showed exceptional creativity, heroism, or effort. I know that DMs often don't like to "grade" their players' performance, but I found that a reward with no corresponding penalty really helped to boost player morale and encourage cool stuff (writing bard songs, keeping journals, refusing rewards for services, etc.). I have a current system in place in the form of destiny points that appears to serve the same purpose quite well.

2) Making alignment more active. In addition to blue chips (fate points), I kept a stack of white chips (virtue points) and black chips (corruption points) on the table. Instead of alignment, everyone just had virtue or corruption totals. Thus, characters could slide up and down the good-evil scale with acts, and the consequences of individual acts were clearly visible in play. Virtue point totals were prerequisites for exalted feats and other goodies (relic use, etc.).

Again, it appealed to player competitiveness and ambition, and I saw much more actively "good" PCs than I'd seen previously under a "write your alignment down and it'll basically only come up if you're a paladin" system.

3) Giving PCs "Get Out of Jail Free" cards instead of resurrection. I made it very clear IMC at the start that no form of magic short of the Life epic spell seed could restore a mortal to life, meaning that there was basically no raising/resurrection available. Instead, I allowed fate points (see above) to confer enormous bonuses, including +20 to a given roll (essentially an auto-save), a reroll, or a shift from "dead" to "left for dead" a la OGL Conan. This did not appear to change the grittiness of the game at all, but it did make PCs much more sensitive to the fates of important NPCs and had them scared out of their wits when their fate points were running low (in turn encouraging them to more acts that would earn new FPs).

4) Ditching "necessary" stat-booster items.I gave every PC in my game benefits roughly commensurate (though predating) those from the Vow of Poverty feat in BoED. In turn, I stripped out the "Big Six" and related spells (instead allowing similar spells/items to produce very high, very short-lived temporary bonuses) and the basic save-boosters, and drastically reduced PC wealth, making most magic items into near artifacts.

5) Keeping DR deadly. Because of my policy regarding magic items, I emphasized the rarity and dangerousness of creatures immune to "mere" weapons, and cut down on the number of creatures with those abilities, essentially restricting them to lycanthropes (the whole silver thing), incorporeal beings, and powerful outsiders. As a result, DR stayed relevant into quite high levels, even without generous use of x/material or x/epic DR.

6) Magic system changes. I removed the wizard, sorcerer, cleric, and druid entirely in favor of the Arcana Unearthed greenbond and magister. I retooled the greenbond to handle both nature-priest/druidic and standard warrior-priest cleric archetypes, and folded back in all the D&D spells I thought "necessary" (leaving out the stuff like time stop, RAW polymorph and shapechange, etc). I turned wild shape into a feat progression.

7) Skills for everyone! I gave every PC 2 extra skill points. I found that change insufficient to accomplish what I intended (namely, giving the fighters a role out of combat) and finally instituted a rule allowing every PC to use the skill points from a bonus Intelligence (only) to take any skill of his choice. That helped (a bit).

That's my list. Probably plays ping-pong with a number of 3e's assumptions.

 

[jdrakeh]

With the exception of your #1, it seems that we run our D&D very similarly. That said, I have been toying with using my Risus system for Fate (see the current front-page thread about mortality for details) in conjunction with D&D. It doesn't really remove death -- what it does remove is a large amount of the randomness typically associated with it.

 

[FireLance]

I've done divorcing XP from in-game events. PCs just gain one level after every adventure because my group likes a fast pace of advancement. Spells that require an XP cost require an expensive power component instead.

In addition, I also divorce the acquisition of treasure, wealth and gear from in-game events. Every time the characters level up, they get to re-select whatever gear they want, up to the standard wealth guidelines for a character of their new level. So, a 2nd-level PC with 900 gp of gear, say, a masterwork greatsword, breastplate, a composite longbow [+2 damage bonus], ammunition, and other adventuring equipment, makes a level. He can select up to 2,700 gp of gear, say, a masterwork spiked chain, full plate armor, a masterwork composite longbow [+1 damage bonus], a potion of bull's strength, a potion of cure light wounds, ammunition, and other adventuring equipment.

The standard in-game explanation for how the PC's gear improves is that he belongs to an organization that keeps him appropriately equipped. Along the way, our group has developed additional handwaves: some magic items actually improve with the character (as a paladin grows in power, the +1 longsword he frequently uses becomes a +1 holy longsword, for example) or change because of in-game events (the +1 holy longsword dealt the final blow to a demon and now thirsts for the blood of other fiends, becoming a +1 holy evil outsider bane longsword), the character is given a reward, the character gains an inheritance, the character actually finds treasure at the end of the adventure, etc.

I've found that this shifts attention towards the character and story elements, and away from the penny-pinching accounting that has characterized many of my previous campaigns (PCs tend to avoid using charged and one-shot items, loot every last piece of equipment from dead bodies to sell, and keep track of every single arrow and copper piece). It also cuts down on intra-party squabbling about who gets what, and saves the DM the hassle of second-guessing what the players want, and placing appropriate treasure in the adventure. In addition, it ensures that the PCs are relatively well-balanced with respect to each other (nobody gets all the good magic items) and with the challenges they are expected to face (they are always equipped with a reasonable amount of gear for their level).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I used to tweek 1Ed & 2Ed a bit- like removing racial class limits, on occasion.

3.X? Not so much. Nor many of the other DMs in my group.

1. Taking death out of the equation:

My fellow gamers don't mind lethality, though DM fiats got used to save a few PCs over the years, like the current party's sole pure mage (and from -15HP, no less). Oddly enough, our current group was having PC membership flux due to RW scheduling conflicts, so we were often without much healing while going through RttToEE. My PC was designed as kind of a Jack-of-All-Trades with an Indiana Jones vibe, so I offered to run a Cleric if the DM let my PC die the next time he was mortally wounded. Despite hitting -10HP, he allowed another PC to save mine. One adventure later, the party's rogue got greased- HE's now playing a cleric. Go figure.

Arbitrary? Perhaps. But you can't depend on getting the proverbial life preserver, so you tend to act as if your PC was still in real jeopardy.

2. Divorcing XP from in-game events:

I've always based XP on what I felt was the value of the adventure, divided equally, but I do give out bonuses for extremely good RP.

3. Lowering buff/magic item dependency and removing the Big Six:

I have no idea what you mean by "Big Six," but as for buff/item dependency- for me, it varies from campaign to campaign, and sometimes even within a campaign.

4. Ignoring the “multiple fight per day” paradigm:

and

5. Removing/reducing attrition-based challenges:

Never used it, myself. Some days, there was no combat, other days, I've had mid-level wizards whipping out their mundane crossbows because the situation was that dire...

There is nothing quite like the look a spellcaster player's face takes on when they realize they have to pick up the fallen fighter's sword & shield if he expects to live another 2 rounds.

Skills for everyone!

I haven't done it recently, but on occasion, I've used an approach more often seen in modern world RPGs which typically have "Everyman skills."

In 3.X, what I occasionally do to simulate this is allow players to pick a number (1d4+Int bonus) of skills to be permanent Class skills for that PC, based on their background. (Players who provide me no PC background lose this benefit.)

 

[Lanefan]

1. Taking death out of the equation:
In my game, I allow players to use 3 action points (earlier) or 3 swashbuckling cards (currently) to have a PC survive a blow or effect which would take it to -10 hp and lower. The PC ends up at -9 and is stable, cannot be healed up until the current encounter ends, and can be slain if specifically targeted by an enemy in this state. The result of this rule is that PCs essentially don’t die (one death in 70 sessions) even though we average a PC needing to use the 3 card rule every alternate session.
Results: There have been a number of results of this rule. I like to run heavily player/PC-driven games, with the plot directions emerging almost purely from PC background, action and choice. So losing PCs is a real pain for me. At the same time, I don’t like to have easily accessible resurrection in the game, and I also run brutal encounters, with NPCs (especially intelligent ones) punching much above their weight. This house rule allows me to have all of the above exist simultaneously. Also, since I make sure to have lots of repercussions for defeat even if death usually isn’t one of them, combat is never boring or meaningless but usually a tense and exciting affair. In fact, since I don’t get to use death as a real repercussion for defeat or in combat, it impels me to have many different repercussions, and has cemented my opinion that death is only one possible consequence and a fairly boring one at that.

The big difference here between us is that in my game the story - whether driven by players or DM - is by design bigger than any one character and can, or should, be able to survive anything short of a TPK. That said, I also don't mind characters getting raised if resources and situation allow (though the same holds true for their opponents as well...there's nothing like telling a player his PC recognizes the Giant he is fighting as he killed it last time the party was here!). But yes, coming up with other significant ramifications of defeat (other than straight gear loss) is something I need to work on.

2. Divorcing XP from in-game events:
I abhor the XP calculation charts and I don’t like the idea of roleplaying XP because I find that akin to grading players based on whether their playing style matches my own or not. So I don’t award XP based on any formula, and actually don’t award XP based on anything in-game. Instead, I just award a certain amount of XP per session to keep PCs advancing at a speed I’m comfortable with. All PCs get the same amount of XP and they get the XP even if the player isn’t present (in which case I run the PC). The way I figure it, the major enjoyment in the game is, well, actually taking part in the game, and if the player is already missing out on that, I’m not going to penalize him further by awarding less XP too. I would actually have dropped XP altogether, but have PCs who use item creation feats and spells that drain XP, so I prefer to retain an XP score for each PC but just not award it the standard way. I just started running a monthly game where neither of those will happen, and in that game I have dropped XP altogether.
Results: The best result of this rule is that it frees players up to do what they think their characters should and what they’d have the most fun doing, and not have to worry about whether they’ll make more or less XP due to their choices. If they want to fight an army or want to spend a day schmoozing at a party, they know they’ll get the same amount of XP, so their choices are purely made on an in-game perspective and not with the metagame concern of XP. It also frees me up from having to calculate XP using some arbitrary formula or worrying if they’re leveling too fast or slow. I also avoid all the questions I see on the Rules forums here about what would be the appropriate XP award in some in-game situation.

Here I strongly disagree. I see ExP as a character (not player) reward for taking risks and getting involved. If your PC gets involved while another hangs back, you should get more ExP, plain and simple...and if you bump sooner than the other guy, so be it. That said, I also give out a "dungeon bonus" (a.k.a. story reward) at the end of each adventure; the logic here being these reflect all the little things you do in the field that I can't be bothered to give out trivial amounts of ExP for at the time. This is usually based on length of time you were in the party during that adventure...if it was a 20-day adventure and you joined on day 12, you'd get 8/20 of the full dungeon bonus. (the origin of this was to replace 1e's ExP-for-gold)

Your point about choices is well-made, though.

3. Lowering buff/magic item dependency and removing the Big Six:
Results: This rule provides a lot of advantages for me. It cuts down on paperwork as the PCs buff up or are hit by a dispel magic and lose their buffs, and lets me have a better idea of how powerful the PCs will be at all times. It means PCs aren’t filling their lower level spell slots with buff spells but are liable to pick more varied and interesting spells. And it means they have lots of slots open for more interesting magical items than the standard Big Six. Interestingly, it sounds (from what Mearls said recently, which is on the main page of ENWorld right now) like 4e is being designed so that I can do exactly the same thing with no trouble whatsoever.

Not so much of an issue for me as a 1e DM but I'd be all over this were I running 3e. As for magic items, I've said my piece in other threads on that; but rest assured my games do not lack for "interesting" magic items nor PCs willing to use 'em.

One thing I'm doing for my next game is getting rid of spell pre-memorization...all the casters are going to work very much like 3e Sorcerers do. That alone should (I hope) see a wider variety of spells get cast.

4. Ignoring the “multiple fight per day” paradigm: I don’t really enjoy playing in or running dungeon crawls, so I almost never do so.
Results: Having less fights in a given game day suits my DMing style better and I haven’t noticed any trouble whatsoever in challenging the PCs (after all, if I had, I probably wouldn’t be using a rule to let PCs survive death). .... A not-so-direct consequence of that is when the PCs have a fight where they absolutely outclass their PCs and can just strut their stuff, the players really enjoy the change
5. Removing/reducing attrition-based challenges: This is actually part of the earlier point. Since I don’t do dungeon crawls and large numbers of encounters in a day, I usually don’t challenge PCs by reducing their resources. ... So when PCs are challenged by an encounter or situation, they’re usually challenged based on the intrinsic merits of the encounter/situation and not how many encounters they have had earlier.
Results: Pretty much the same as the previous point’s..

Mostly a question of style, here. I'm always up for a good old-fashioned dungeon crawl on either side of the screen, and I quite like the attrition model both as player *and* DM. As a player, I want to have the tactic of "wear 'em down slowly" in my toolbox if we're up against something that all at once we just can't handle e.g. a village of giants. I want to be able to use the time-honoured tactic of doing more damage to them in a day than they can heal overnight and then running off to hide, repeating until we win. And if it means the DM can (try to) do the same to us, so be it.

Now, as for messings I've done...well, they were all for 1e. Still interested?

Lanefan

 

[Fenes]

I run my campaign almost exactly like Shilsen.

1. No character death unless wished for, or chosen after a clear warning (although I don't use points or cards).

2. No XP. The party levels up when we see fit.

3. Less magic items and buffs.

4. Few fights/dungeons. Seldom more than one per session, and most minor fights are handwaved.