Three Issues to Keep in Mind when Changing the Rules.

[amerigoV]

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

I've tinkered in my time. In the end, its rarely to the good. If I am making wholesale changes to the game, I stop and ask myself if I am playing the right game in the first place.

That is my approach to it.

 

[eamon]

[...]I think there really are three issues that every DM should stop and consider before making changes.

1. Exactly how does this change work?
2. How often is this issue going to come up in play?
3. Players can only interact with the game world through the mechanics of the game as adjudicated by the DM. When the DM begins changing mechanics, the players can no longer accurately assess the results of their efforts.

I think you've answered your own question splendidly :

Personally, I've got a fantastic group right now, so, these issues rarely, if ever, come up. However, I have seen them come up a lot more in the past. And, thinking about it, I'm sure you're right that it was a lack of communication that caused a lot of 1-3 becoming real problems at the table.

If players don't expect the DM to screw them, and miscommunications are resolved reasonably, then none of the points 1-3 need be significant roadblocks. In practice, I give the player's veto power: if anyone seriously objects, you either convince them or try something else. Rule fights or feelings of unfairness aren't fun.

The typical goal of changing rules is to make better conform to a particular vision of how the fiction should work though, is it not? If the game is attempting to emulate modern day TV PI-drama, but the GM expects bullets to ricochet off of metal, it is better to change the rules and make sure the PCs know of the change prior to attepting to shoot out a lock.

My three issues to consider when changing rules is different:

1) Who is affected? Who is advantaged compared to the base rule? Who is disadvantaged? Am I favouring/disfavouring a current player over others? Are some strategies favoured and should that be pointed out to the players?

2) How will the change affect the world development and its presentation to the players?

3) What are the edge cases of the change and are there any obvious break points I'm introducing?

These are more like the things I think about. Reasonable points!

I do tinker, and so far successfully. If you will, there's a Rule 0 I'd like to add, which is an absolute must that every house rule without exception must satisfy, no matter how brilliant the balance, world development and edge cases are:

0) House rules must be simple - ideally they should be simpler than the original rules they replace.

 

[Hussar]

If players don't expect the DM to screw them, and miscommunications are resolved reasonably, then none of the points 1-3 need be significant roadblocks. In practice, I give the player's veto power: if anyone seriously objects, you either convince them or try something else. Rule fights or feelings of unfairness aren't fun.

Oh totally. Like I said in the OP, none of the issues I brought up are necessarily problems. They might be problems, so DM's should keep them in mind, but, no, absolutely not, are they always going to be problems.

 

[Lanefan]

To see how this point can come up outside the context of house ruling: Consider a new player who doesn't know the 3E rules very well, and who has his/her PC pick up two swords to start fighting twin-blade style because the PC's shield has been left behind and there are a hell of a lot of orcs between the PC and the exit from the dungeon.

In my view, it makes a huge difference at this point whether or not the GM informs the player of such matters as: the penalty to hit for wielding two swords; the likely approximate AC of the orcs, given the armour they're wearing; etc. With this mechanical information, the player can work out whether picking up the second sword is actually increasing or decreasing his/her PC's chances of making it out alive.

Why?

Isn't a new player allowed to learn the hard way any more, by trial and error? Hell, I don't like it when experienced players crunch the math to this extent before deciding what to do (never mind what the character actually *would* do); I sure don't want to see new players doing it!

In this case informing the player of dual-wield penalties - the existence of such, but not hard numbers - makes sense as the character would realize dual-wielding's benefits come with costs. Also, by this point the Orcs should have already been described as for example being lightly-armoured. From here it's up to the player to decide what the PC does, preferably based on character rather than numbers.

Lan-"dual-wielding requires dexterity, of which I have no knowledge"-efan

 

[pemerton]

Why?

Isn't a new player allowed to learn the hard way any more, by trial and error?

A couple of reasons.

First, I don't find the trial-and-error that satisfying. The GM is, after all, working from a mathematically precise set of rules. The player is, in effect, trying to infer those rules - which include a probabilistic element - from a fairly finite data-set. This isn't a puzzle game that especially interests me as either player or GM.

Second, and related, I think this is a place where the fact that the game is a game with mathematical mechanics really matters. In real life, when I try to do something physical I get pretty instant feedback - via organic sensation - as to whether or not it's something I'm capable of doing, and how much harder I can hope to push it. When it comes to going down a hill, for example, I don't need to compute in some abstract way the trade off between the penalty to a Dex check for running (on the one hand) and the reduced number of checks required because at one check per round I'll be down there quicker if I run rather walk (on the other hand) - I can pretty quickly judge whether running down the hill rather than walking is likely to be worthwhile given the greater risk of twisting an ankle.

A player isn't actually experiencing what it is like for his/her PC to try and fight orcs while wielding two weapons. All s/he has to go on is the maths.

Hence my preference for the maths to be transparent. And one way to do that, of course, is to design the game so that the maths almost never vary, and it is simply about rolling higher or lower - Runequest is an example of this, and Rolemaster in its simplest form also comes fairly close to this. But D&D - especially post-AD&D - with its plethora of options and modifiers and the like - is quite different. In this sort of case, for the maths to be transparent requires the player to know at least the base bonus to the roll, the modifiers being applied, and the likely range of target DCs (in the orc case, for example, this would be the AC typically associated with the armour they seem to be wearing).

 

[Mark CMG]

[...]I think there really are three issues that every DM should stop and consider before making changes.

1. Exactly how does this change work?

(. . .)

2. How often is this issue going to come up in play?

(. . .)

3. What else? This is the issue that, in my mind anyway, might be the most pernicious. Players can only interact with the game world through the mechanics of the game as adjudicated by the DM. When the DM begins changing mechanics, the players can no longer accurately assess the results of their efforts.

I'm not sure the example being used is necessarily the best, but I agree in great part that the outline is both important and valid. I would add in regard to the third point that there are factors beyond game mechanics that must figure into the adjudication of any given situation that have to do with presentation of setting and precedent of previous interaction, as brought up by a number of other posters. The problem with giving any single example is that it carries added knowledge, that cannot be fully expressed, that falls under the heading of having had to have been there. However, the premise still feels sound to me. A GM has to watch how any system works with his players, in the moment, and determine if the situation warrants making some adjustment, even in times when the GM might express to the players that the adjustment is being made for the given situation. I'd further caution that such adjustments should be rare since the unseen can of worms being opened could lead to future confusion and, if it does, it becomes incumbant upon the GM to be gracious in how that future confusion gets cleared up, lwaning toward favoring the players. No rule set can cover all eventualities, neutrality and fairness should always guide the GM (which makes the choice of the word "pernicious" at least imprecise if not inaccurate).

 

[eamon]

A player isn't actually experiencing what it is like for his/her PC to try and fight orcs while wielding two weapons. All s/he has to go on is the maths.

See, you shouldn't go around saying sensible stuff like that - I can't XP you anymore already!

 

[Hussar]

Pemerton - I do think that this is something that gets lost sight of sometimes. You're right, all the player really has to go on is the maths. "Should I do X" has to be grounded in some form of judgement of the probabilities involved. When the DM starts introducing changes to those probabilities based on the DM's particular judgement of those probabilities, the player is more or less forced to view any action through the lens of what the DM considers to be possible/plausible.

This could be a good or a bad thing depending on all sorts of factors.

 

[Lanefan]

First, I don't find the trial-and-error that satisfying. The GM is, after all, working from a mathematically precise set of rules. The player is, in effect, trying to infer those rules - which include a probabilistic element - from a fairly finite data-set. This isn't a puzzle game that especially interests me as either player or GM.

Which tells me you and I see the game in vastly different ways when we're on the players' side of the screen. When I'm playing I don't care about the math - the less I have to deal with it the better. I'll just roll the dice and the DM can do all the figgerin' and then tell me whether I accomplished anything useful. Eventually, I'll be able to better guess the odds - just like my character, I'm learning as I go along. Before that point, it's a mystery...

Second, and related, I think this is a place where the fact that the game is a game with mathematical mechanics really matters. In real life, when I try to do something physical I get pretty instant feedback - via organic sensation - as to whether or not it's something I'm capable of doing, and how much harder I can hope to push it.

A player isn't actually experiencing what it is like for his/her PC to try and fight orcs while wielding two weapons. All s/he has to go on is the maths.

If the character's never tried dual-wielding before then the player is in perfect shape! It's a new thing for both of them, and only after the battle's done will each one know whether it's an effective tactic or not...and isn't that what experience points are all about?

Hence my preference for the maths to be transparent. And one way to do that, of course, is to design the game so that the maths almost never vary, and it is simply about rolling higher or lower - Runequest is an example of this, and Rolemaster in its simplest form also comes fairly close to this. But D&D - especially post-AD&D - with its plethora of options and modifiers and the like - is quite different. In this sort of case, for the maths to be transparent requires the player to know at least the base bonus to the roll, the modifiers being applied, and the likely range of target DCs (in the orc case, for example, this would be the AC typically associated with the armour they seem to be wearing).

As DM, I prefer the math to be simple. As player, I prefer it to be not so much transparent as invisible - out of sight, out of mind. I get annoyed with myself when I catch myself working out odds etc. in my head at the table when I should instead be playing my character(s) and leaving the numbers to the DM.

Lan-"and my calculations are always wrong anyway"-efan

 

[Hussar]

Which tells me you and I see the game in vastly different ways when we're on the players' side of the screen. When I'm playing I don't care about the math - the less I have to deal with it the better. I'll just roll the dice and the DM can do all the figgerin' and then tell me whether I accomplished anything useful. Eventually, I'll be able to better guess the odds - just like my character, I'm learning as I go along. Before that point, it's a mystery...

Yeah, this is a playstyle thing. And, it really depends what system you're using as well. Some systems are FAR more forgiving of a single mistake than others. After 1st or 2nd level, for example, AD&D characters are pretty durable (by and large) and most creatures can't kill you in a single round (barring of course, save or die, or bombing someone with a balor. ) So, trying something and losing a round to folly doesn't really make or break things.

I honestly found 3e a lot less forgiving here since creatures are just SO much more capable of dealing large amounts of damage. Blowing a single round, when most combats only last about 4 rounds, means a significant loss.

I can honestly go either way. In a fairly tactical, crunch heavy game like D&D (any version really) or say, a Palladium game, then yeah, I want to know the odds beforehand. That's part of the game. In a much softer game, I'm much more willing to wing it.

If the character's never tried dual-wielding before then the player is in perfect shape! It's a new thing for both of them, and only after the battle's done will each one know whether it's an effective tactic or not...and isn't that what experience points are all about?

Well, now you start getting into some dodgey territory. Exactly what does the PC know? Is duel wielding, for example, something a trained warrior has never tried before? I think you could argue either way. And, that sort of thing tends to bog down the game into "Yes I do" "Nuh uh" type arguments.

I tend to err on the side that the warrior does know about weapons, and he probably should know how effective he would be if he picks up two swords.

Now, if he picks up random magic item #12, then we're off to the races.

As DM, I prefer the math to be simple. As player, I prefer it to be not so much transparent as invisible - out of sight, out of mind. I get annoyed with myself when I catch myself working out odds etc. in my head at the table when I should instead be playing my character(s) and leaving the numbers to the DM.

Lan-"and my calculations are always wrong anyway"-efan

I'm not sure that calculating the odds (ok, maybe calculating to ten decimal points is bad) is all that unrealistic though. I think you could make a pretty strong argument that the character should, at least in fairly broad terms, know how effective using a particular weapon would be.

It would probably come as a fairly large shock to get whacked with the 3e two weapon fighting penalties without warning.