What would you change?

[Clarabell]

What kind of things would you or have you changed in whatever system you use as far as gameplay or rules go?

For me, I'd change the spells per day system in D&D. Never have liked that. That and I'd change combat so its more active, fast moving.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Would go mana based system for 3.5 (yes, I know there are options for it, I use them).

Warhammer.v2 - career path progression. Would have gone with a starting career then a path plan. Example: Rat Catcher (starting career), could follow a fighter path, drawing from a list of talents, skills and advancements. Or, follow a Rogue path. Get away from all those careers, just keep the startign one.

 

[coyote6]

I would have had GURPS 4e go with a skill system that was less finely delineated; something with broader skills would be my preference. Or, even better, some kind of "telescoping" skill system that let you pick how detailed you wanted to be (you can do it a little, between Wild Card skills or using GURPS Lite's skill list -- but it's crude, and seems like a pain).

I'd have made M&M 3e less DC Heroes-esque; it seems to have inherited the latter's difficulties in dealing with normal human ranges of Strength.

 

[Aethas]

One of the groups I play in is playing D&D 4E and I'd change the power system in it if I could figure out a good way to do it. I'd definitely prefer a fatigue point system for powers, like something similar to what GURPS has, but it seems like it'd be impossible to balance everything with a point system like that. That's the only major game mechanic that's really ever bugged me.

 

[Oryan77]

I've changed players quite a few times. Does that count? There are a lot of extremely annoying people to game with.

On the other hand, I've changed players quite a few times. Maybe I'm the annoying one to game with?

Naw, I'm cool as hell.

 

[IronWolf]

I really wouldn't change much with my system of choice. If I were to become unhappy with it there are plenty of others to choose from. Of course I am not much of a tinkerer with systems...

 

[deganawida]

I would have put in 4e (or, to be more honest, any edition of D&D past OD&D) different types of arcane magic, modeling elementalists, summoners, and so on, with different spell lists, different class features, and different ways of using magic. This is rather than the 3.x on up method of simply determining if a caster is Vancian or not.

 

[Hand of Evil]

Monsters (all systems) - Fear of fire: yes/no - Damn it, the torch can be a weapon too, waving it in front of creatures should have an effect. It is like a wall of protection!

 

[DragonLancer]

I'd remove AoO's as I find they do nothing for the game. Tends to cause heated discussion at the table as to whether an action should or shouldn't draw an AoO.

 

[Verdande]

I'd remove AoO's as I find they do nothing for the game. Tends to cause heated discussion at the table as to whether an action should or shouldn't draw an AoO.

Plus it discourages doing anything other than just standing there and attacking- not very exciting.

I personally tinker all over the place for my games. A quick list of things I've done recently to play around with Labyrinth Lord:

1)Moved all casters from Vancian to one of three magic systems: Prayer, Diabolism, and Elementalism, and made it unlimited
1a) Made magic risky, instead of "use as much as you can as fast as you can, then rest," thereby nearly eliminating the 15 minute adventuring day.
2) Gave fighters a couple of abilities to demonstrate that they're absolute masters of combat
3) Differentiated between melee fighters and sharpshooting ranger types, and stuck in a magic-finding fighter to boot
4)Took out the boring theif and added an assassin and a dungeoneer

That's all in the Aremorican Addendum, by the way. And it's all free, so you can look it over yourself if you want.