Who else is a maniac who cannot but tweak all gaming stuff?

[mythusmage]

I don't tweak, I mangle.

 

[IronWolf]

I tend to play as written, by the book. I don't seem to be able to find the time to make sure my tweaks won't throw anything off or out of balance. If I stick with the RAW then people can come into a game I run with minimal learning of house rules, etc.

 

[Psimancer]

I don't tweak, I mangle.

I resemble that remark...

 

[Eremite]

(snip) I am a cannonist and by that I don't mean I sling a lot of lead or propel myself through the air. (snip) (

Well, the reason someone might mistake your meaning is that a cannon is adevice for slinging lead and canon is the word that you're trying to use....

I tend to tinker substantially. I like adding material from as many sources as possible and for the players to have access to the same material for their PCs.

I also believe in an underlying design logic so that means I have made several significant changes across the body of rules to various spells (darkness = darkness not darkness = shadow is a minor but necessary change), domains (I like the spells to actually reflect the domain's name as well as the powers), monsters (note to the designers of MMII: you do know that there are rules and precedents to monster design in 3.x... and you ignored them), stat blocks (too many errors for my tastes), prestige classes (I like balance and flavour) and even a couple of the base/core classes.

 

[Rasyr]

I think, therefore I tweak

 

[Orius]

I tend to add lots of stuff in, my campaign uses everything and the kitchen sink where possible. But I'm a D&D player, and D&D has always been the type of game where you can just add stuff at will. I don't go around rewriting the game to the point where I have a thick binder of house rules. To me, if I don't like something, I'm not going to go through the bother of rewriting it, I just don't use it. But I like adding stuff like spells, feats, monsters and so on to the game. Basically, I prefer stuff the works with the core rules as written and tends to be along the lines of supplimentary material.

 

[maddman75]

I've not met a game yet that I don't want to change. There's a couple really, really good ones that only need minor adjustments. Buffy is nearly perfect, just the 'glass ninja' effect. But you can argue that this is a feature not a bug. The new World of Darkness is really nifty, but if I get deeper into it I'm sure I'll want to change this or that.

If I were to run D&D again rather than just play, there would be some massive changes. Hit points/healing would be altered, some kind of change to arcane magic. I'm contemplating getting rid of clerics entirely. I'm tempted to collapse the skill system, but that would be a lot of work and require playtesting.

 

[Wombat]

I never use a set of rules or a campaign setting "as written"; I have to tweak it until it fits my needs and vision of a given campaign.

As my gamers say, "We don't play 3.0 or 3.5; we play 3.Wombat."

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I don't tweak, I mangle.

I wish that I had said that first!

Tweaks, tweaks, and outright rewrites... I just added the rules for losing limbs from Swashbuckling Adventures to my OGL Steampunk game, to be used if the PC fails a Death from Massive Damage roll, but is willing to spend an Action Point in order to lose a random limb instead.

Heck, I bodge!

The Auld Grump

 

[Turanil]

I don't tweak, I mangle.

Ah Crap@#$!!! I was drinking orange juice when I did read this one! (LOL! )