Rewriting the Rules

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Henry]

Moved to House rules for more appropriate forum, and better response.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[doghead]

Hey RC

I think that there are quite a few people making changes along the lines you mentioned (although the specifics may differ). I've found that trawling (trolling?) the house rules threads is a good way to get ideas. My own bastard-child of 3.5 is largely the result of doing thus.

I must admit my efforts in this area have dropped off to some degree as the scale of the project become apparent. What I have so far is far from my ideal, but sufficient to keep me playing 3.5.

I think some of the outcomes you are seeking are interesting. In particular I like the the evolution of spells from complex ritual to simple spell idea.

But I must admit that the OGL is a complete mystery to me. I'm just a happy house ruler. I don't expect that the ideas will go any further than my games.

 

[derek_cleric]

Ideas or comments are hereby solicited. If anyone knows of a master list of OGC, that would be a boon beyond measure!


RC

It probably isn't what you're looking for but you're welcome to look at my v3.5 SRD-based house rules PHB. Mine it for all the help you need. It's OGL.

Here's your link.....

http://home.psknet.com/allenr/Dark_Coast.html

--Ray.

 

[Li Shenron]

From the number of "views" vs. the number of "posts", I have to conclude that there is very little interest in the topic. So, I suppose, I'll let it drop.

I don't think there's lack of interest. But this sortof heavy changes are very hard to evaluate balance-wise, especially when they are attempted all at the same time. Rewriting combat, rewriting classes, rewriting magic... each of these are challenging enough, and you want to do all of them at the same time Don't be surprised if it sounds somewhat intimidating to even the regular posters of the house rules forum If you want more participation, I suggest you break down each of them into separate topics on different threads (mentioning what else is going to change in the rules), and of course as soon as you write more details about your ideas you'll get lots of opinions!

 

[Grail Quest]

... But this sort of heavy changes are very hard to evaluate balance-wise ... you want to do all of them at the same time Don't be surprised if it sounds somewhat intimidating to even the regular posters of the house rules forum ...

I think game balance is an illusion. There is just so much stuff out there that nothing can truly be evaluated for balance. Part of the difficulty is synergy. Even in a partial point-system that 3E and 3.5E are using, you can have better or worse combinations. And when a player puts together a particularly good combination of feats and classes, whether deliberately or by chance, is there something out of balance?
The truth is all we can do is not deliberately unbalance things. The rest of it is massaging things into something reasonable that won't break the fun of a game for everyone else in the game group.

In every game, I believe every DM has a sense of what the type of action is supposed to be like. The PHB presents a benchmark that just doesn't work for everybody. The problem comes when you try to force it to work across all campaigns. The idea of Core Classes is just such an attempt. There is nothing "core" about them. Every single character class, core or prestige, carries with it an innate culture--a set of assumptions about what the gaming world will be like. And it all makes sense only if you are willing to go along with that.
You can only break out of that by going pure-point system, IMO (something like using the HERO System, or my own "D10").

The main problem of massive rule changes is the time cost. You're not getting paid to do it.
Part of what makes D&D successful is that it has the illusion of catering to a broad audience, when really it does these things:
(a) Sets a benchmark. What D&D has more or less always done is get people to play the game _their_ way. Whenever you do this, you limit imagination, but you cannot produce sourcebooks that work together without doing this. And if you cannot produce enough material that sells, your company will die.

(b) Uses a shotgun approach. Once it has stabilized the feel of a game, it starts throwing out stuff to see what people are interested in. Then it keeps throwing more of that until people get sick of it.
The idea of Prestige Classes, for example--people want to customize, customize, customize. Why? Because core classes aren't so core. They just don't cut it. Prestige Classes are a great way of releasing the imagination that was held back, while making products that sell. After all, you need such-and-such a sourcebook to tell you what the class progression is, right?
Which isn't as sinister as it sounds: without people telling you these class progressions, you might never have come up with them in the first place. Despite all the activity on the House Rule boards, the mass of the human race lacks initiative and imagination. (Why do you think self-improvement public speakers are so popular?)

Anyway, my free-to-download total conversion project is here: www.freewebs.com/d20elements if you want to see someone who's restless about D20.

 

[Piratecat]

Unless you love rewriting rules for the sake of doing so, I'd make sure your players are onboard with these sort of changes before you spend the time to make them. I know that personally I really wouldn't care to play in such a game. If you're stuck with players like me who wouldn't care for such extensive house rules, you could waste a lot of time for no appreciable gain.

I've made sure that PCs use their extensive abilities by slowing level gain. The PCs in my game gain levels about twice a year (again, not everyone's cup of tea) and the slow advancement has made for some very well-rounded characters.

 

[ForceUser]

With all due respect, there's an amount of hubris involved when one decides that something they can write on their own will be better-balanced than a system that was hashed out by multiple professional game designers who have worked in the industry for decades, and play-tested by hundreds of game groups for over a year. Like PCat, I doubt I would enjoy such an extensively modified set of rules. A few house rules here and there I don't mind, generally speaking, but get too far away from core and I lose interest; not just because of all the changes, but because of what that tells me about the game master.

All that said, I do not wish to discourage anyone from doing something they love. Perhaps you are brilliant. I know there are players out there who would be interested in playing such a variant game; I meet them all the time at game stores.