We've all ignored a few rules here and there, but have you ever slashed a particular rule set down to the bone? Why?
How did the players respond? Any resentment over not getting the game they hoped for?
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;878587We've all ignored a few rules here and there, but have you ever slashed a particular rule set down to the bone? Why?
To tell the truth, I welcome such occurrences as possibilities to try new rulesets and I resort to "butchery" very sporadically.
There were only a few times I stripped the ruleset to barest minimum. Mostly to introduce newbies to the hobby, or because I was playing with children. There were a few occurrences when we had no access to any accessories and had to find another ways to play (road trip).
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;878587How did the players respond? Any resentment over not getting the game they hoped for?
I don't think so. As you probably already guessed, they either didn't knew what to expect, or agreed on simplified "mechanics", so they were already aware that it will a limited experience at best.
I'm not sure that this counts, but I've had many times that I have run full settings based on "quickplay" rules instead of the full rules set simply because I appreciated the simpler format. Also, I'm currently running a FFG Star Wars with the "basic box set" rules only, even though I own the full hardback rulebooks.
Yes, though it's usually because I or we don't know all the rules yet, or I/we think some of the rules are annoying or wrong-minded.
I don't remember ever running a slashed version of something with a player who knew the full rules and was attached and resentful of the slashing.
However I have been that player. In fact, I'm pretty sensitive to it. As someone who loves GURPS tactical combat with lots of optional and house rules, played out on a map with terrain and counters for bodies and dropped weapons and everything, I have been very disappointed when playing with GURPS GM's who want to use only basic rules and/or play combats without a map. I tend to avoid such games. It's like watching a war or action movie and having them not show or half-ass the action scenes (or having someone fast forward through them).
Quote from: JesterRaiin;878597There were only a few times I stripped the ruleset to barest minimum. Mostly to introduce newbies to the hobby, or because I was playing with children. There were a few occurrences when we had no access to any accessories and had to find another ways to play (road trip).
Same for me... with kids and new people... and impromptu play when no dice/rules/stuff was available.
I've also experienced the opposite... where some numberlover got ahold of a very simple system and shitted it up with all sorts of complexities because he thought the basic game just wasn't cutting the 'realistic' mustard. I should have just handed him my stack of Phoenix Command books... but I think he was sold on the idea of 'fixing' the game (Chaosium's Future World).
Whenever we were playing AD&D, we ended up flipping the tables for Saving Throws, so that roll high was better than roll low. We also did the same for Armor Class. My players at the time didn't like it, since it was a pretty distinct change in the way the rules worked (and wasn't reflected in their books). This was back in the day before digital was even common, and printers had just moved away from dot matrix. I ended up typing out on a typewriter replacement sheets in their PHB/Unearthed Arcana and my DMG to reference. It took both my players and I time to get used to it, but was one of the best changes I'd introduced.
Although I cannot take credit for it, I for one am glad that the "roll high" method was eventually adopted by D20 games.
I stripped down surprise and initiative in AD&D so a single roll handled both and I've never looked back.
I ran campaigns with the Exalted Quickstart and the Trinity Quickstart because the WW system was just far too much for me to deal with. Almost all my players were happy with it.
I've had a couple players who preferred more crunch, but even they admitted they knew most of the group wasn't interested in buying or learning new stuff versus just sitting down and playing.
It's been a long time since I had a crew who all (or most) were into crunch versus fast play.
Every time I've simplified a game or switched from a complex ruleset to a simpler one the reaction was positive.
When I run games of Labyrinth Lord and Lamentations of the Flame Princess for groups used to playing 3e and Pathfinder they practically weep with joy when they find out that there are no Attacks of Opportunity in those systems. AoO are apparently one of those things that a lot of people just accept because it's part of the game but secretly despise.
Quote from: ZWEIHÄNDER;878659Whenever we were playing AD&D, we ended up flipping the tables for Saving Throws, so that roll high was better than roll low.
Eh... That's how the saving throw tables work. Roll high enough to equal or beat the listed target number.
My players aren't very rules-averse, but...
1. Combining MERP and RM (which complicates MERP and simplifies RM).
2. Using modified Second Edition Shadowrun instead of full-blown Third.
3. Basic 5e
4. Aces and Eights doing skills like Hackmaster Basic.
All went over well.
My players don't usually own their own copies of the rules anyway so sometimes I just don't tell 'em I've stripped the rules down. They appreciate simplicity anyway.
Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;878695When I run games of Labyrinth Lord and Lamentations of the Flame Princess for groups used to playing 3e and Pathfinder they practically weep with joy when they find out that there are no Attacks of Opportunity in those systems. AoO are apparently one of those things that a lot of people just accept because it's part of the game but secretly despise.
Interesting. While I'm glad 5e has made miniatures unnecessarily again, I was pleased that they kept AoO. They put a price tag on choosing battles poorly (harder to flee) and monsters trying to slip past the fighter to focus on the wizard. I feel the strategic element gained outweighs the simplicity lost.
Quote from: Simlasa;878646Same for me... with kids and new people... and impromptu play when no dice/rules/stuff was available.
I've also experienced the opposite... where some numberlover got ahold of a very simple system and shitted it up with all sorts of complexities because he thought the basic game just wasn't cutting the 'realistic' mustard. I should have just handed him my stack of Phoenix Command books... but I think he was sold on the idea of 'fixing' the game (Chaosium's Future World).
True, true.
To this day I don't understand why people insist on tweaking rulesets to the point they no longer resemble original one, rather than simply switch to different one, more fitting their needs and tastes.
I mean... What's the point? The energy & time wasted in the process should rather go to story & skill departments, as far as I'm concerned.
AD&D 1e pretty much requires stripping the rules down. Nobody has ever complaines, because it is nigh impossible to figure out all the rules anyhow. :p
Quote from: JesterRaiin;878727To this day I don't understand why people insist on tweaking rulesets to the point they no longer resemble original one, rather than simply switch to different one, more fitting their needs and tastes.
For the same reason hardcore hackers & computer gamers build their own desktops and racers are always working on their cars.
I've always wanted to do this to Rifts, probably starting with cutting down on the skill system.
If Savage Worlds Rifts doesn't wirk for me, I'll give it another try.
Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;878766For the same reason hardcore hackers & computer gamers build their own desktops and racers are always working on their cars.
Can't say I understand that either. I don't even set a wallpaper on my PC/tablet/smartphone. ;]
Quote from: JesterRaiin;878727True, true.
To this day I don't understand why people insist on tweaking rulesets to the point they no longer resemble original one, rather than simply switch to different one, more fitting their needs and tastes.
I mean... What's the point? The energy & time wasted in the process should rather go to story & skill departments, as far as I'm concerned.
Creativity is a funny thing. I find spending much time on story to largely be a waste of my efforts (my games run best with a single sheet of prep notes and a map), while time spent getting firearms to work the way I like to pay big dividends at the table.
The world is great that we are all different beasts.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;878727To this day I don't understand why people insist on tweaking rulesets to the point they no longer resemble original one, rather than simply switch to different one, more fitting their needs and tastes.
Because it takes less time and money to modify the ones I have and know than it does to buy and read tens or hundreds of new games trying to find the one that will do what I want/need without needing any modification. Hell, even if I were given free copies of every game and supplement ever published as they were published so lack of money would no longer be an issue, it would still take less time to mod something I already know well than to read them all in the hope that one would be just perfect RAW and then learn that one (assuming it exists) well and convert all y setting/adventure stuff to it.
Quote from: JesterRaiin;878727To this day I don't understand why people insist on tweaking rulesets to the point they no longer resemble original one, rather than simply switch to different one, more fitting their needs and tastes.
I mean... What's the point? The energy & time wasted in the process should rather go to story & skill departments, as far as I'm concerned.
1) It's fun!
2) You assume that my tweaks are meant to end up with something identical (or even similar) to an existing system. This is often not, to the best of my knowledge, the case. I mean, sure, it's conceivable that, at some point, there may have been a published RPG which was broadly similar to Shadowrun, Second Edition, but used RoleMaster-style crit tables to resolve the effect of damage instead of just checking off boxes on the damage track. If such a thing exists (or existed), I've never heard of it, so, when I wanted to play that, I had to hack it up myself. (And I retooled automatic weapons while I was at it, because "the entire burst hits or the entire burst misses" was stupid. Not to mention tweaking the die rolling mechanic so that target numbers of 6 and 7 wouldn't be equivalent. And...)
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;878587We've all ignored a few rules here and there, but have you ever slashed a particular rule set down to the bone??
Well, I slashed RQ6 to the bone, merged it with Maelstrom Domesday's list of attributes, and only kept Combat Manoeuvres:).
QuoteWhy?
I was running Exalted on the summer camp of the fencing school where I train, and needed a system for Exalted I could explain in 15 minutes;).
QuoteHow did the players respond? Any resentment over not getting the game they hoped for?
None whatsoever, only two of them knew what Runequest 6 is, have never played it, and they were both there to play Exalted, not quibble over the fine points of a system.
Quote from: AsenRG;878956on the summer camp of the fencing school where I train
Interesting, what styles? Have you ever attempted to alter a kind of crunchy system like RQ6 to more accurately represent different real world combat styles?
Quote from: CRKrueger;878961Interesting, what styles?
It's Historical European Fencing of the HEMA variety:).
QuoteHave you ever attempted to alter a kind of crunchy system like RQ6 to more accurately represent different real world combat styles?
It already does that quite well, especially with Combat Styles. I guess we could try and make it do even more, but we'd end with a mix between RQ6, TRoS, LotW, GURPS Martial Arts, Millennium's End and Unknown Armies;).
Quote from: Old One Eye;878756AD&D 1e pretty much requires stripping the rules down. Nobody has ever complaines, because it is nigh impossible to figure out all the rules anyhow. :p
I always looked at those big books and all the stuff crammed in them as the equivalent of a big box of LEGOs dumped out in the floor in front of me, with a Post-It that reads:
"See what you can make out of this -have fun!"
Quote from: Old One Eye;878756AD&D 1e pretty much requires stripping the rules down. Nobody has ever complaines, because it is nigh impossible to figure out all the rules anyhow. :p
1e is really modular. You can rip giant chunks out of it and it still runs just fine.
Few people give Gygax enough credit as a designer for this.
I wonder what percentage of DMs ever used the weapon type vs AC rules.
Quote from: yosemitemike;879029I wonder what percentage of DMs ever used the weapon type vs AC rules.
No idea, I've never used it. However, I find weapon length absolutely integral to the system and think latter editions are weaker for not including.
Quote from: yosemitemike;879029I wonder what percentage of DMs ever used the weapon type vs AC rules.
A better question would be "How many used it after they tried it?"
The training/ style points part of the DMG was for me, the most useless part of any RPG I've ever seen.
Quote from: yosemitemike;879029I wonder what percentage of DMs ever used the weapon type vs AC rules.
There was a point when I was including something like it in games that used GURPS, because that's one of the better rules of D&D in my book;).
Quote from: yosemitemike;879029I wonder what percentage of DMs ever used the weapon type vs AC rules.
My players forced me to adopt them into my D&D games because they wanted to feel like it was realistic. We didn't drop them until 2e landed (and we used their chopped down version for a while... then I dropped those entirely).
But yeah - I've hacked and slashed at 1e/2e from top to bottom. Tossed derived stats out/put them back in, Armor as DR, No alignment, complete class overhauls, spell-system overhauls. blah blah blah...
I've slain all the sacred cows, drank the blood, and frankensteined them back together at some point.
These days - in 5e I'm pretty much just creating new content using the base-rules.
I played a LOT of 1e AD&D as a teen in the 80's, with both my peers and adults. Mind you, everything in life was more "Regional" back before the Internet, so I don't know if my experiences were particular to Illinois, but...
No DM I ever played under ever used: Psionics, the Bard class, training costs to go up a level, rolling to see if attacks hit the head if somebody didn't have a helmet, keeping track of PC age and the resulting stat modifiers, or keeping track of material components for spells. I don't recall anyone ever playing a monk, but I could be wrong.
I played with a DM who used weapon type vs. armor type only once. Only once did I see someone use the weird rules for humans switching classes (A guy had a fighter with an 18 INT and didn't want to waste it, so after beefing up with several fighter levels he switched to magic-user. He planned it out very carefully.). I think I might have once played under a DM who actually broke rounds up into segments (The memory is hazy and I might be getting AD&D mixed up with Champions).
Quote from: tenbones;879115My players forced me to adopt them into my D&D games because they wanted to feel like it was realistic. We didn't drop them until 2e landed (and we used their chopped down version for a while... then I dropped those entirely).
I never used them and I don't think my players ever noticed.
I guess from some points of view my houserules can be seen as 'radically simplified'. Mostly out of personal laziness.
Quote from: Shipyard Locked;878587We've all ignored a few rules here and there, but have you ever slashed a particular rule set down to the bone? Why?
I was in the process of razing Shadowrun 4E down to the bone (and had run a few playtest sessions of it) when I discovered that Eclipse Phase had basically already done it.
Like most people, my version of AD&D was really just BD&D with a handful of things from AD&D grafted on. Which has a similar effect, but not exactly.
I've used my Super Simple Grappling (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1047/roleplaying-games/super-simple-grappling) rules for 3E for so long that I occasionally forget how unnecessarily contorted the AD&D-derived rules for grappling are in the actual game.
Players have never complained about any of this.
I've gone back to OD&D, using only d6 for all hit points, all weapons (except a couple) doing 1d6 damage, and monsters all having 1 attack for 1d6 (except a couple.)
As I hoped, it's made magic users less cowardly, low levels less lethal, and nobody knows OD&D any more anyway. I like the changes, and the players haven't objected.