Quote from: Steven Mitchell on August 13, 2022, 10:07:32 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 13, 2022, 06:49:52 PM

My favorite version of D&D is B/X. I don't know why, really - probably the simplicity is a big part of it. But there are many things I dislike. It is a matter of taste - most of the time. But, sometimes, B/X feels like it could de fixed. For example:

- Saving throws are unnecessarily fiddly.
- Same for XP tables, a single one would suffice (with small adjustments).
- Race-as-class is unnecessary and limiting.
- Same for thief skills. 1d20+level (DC 15) simply works better.
- Fighters are too boring, relying too much on magic items.
- Weapons are terrible, like in 5e, some of them are useless or redundant.
- Encumbrance should be modified by Strength somehow.

Anyway... each of those is easy to fix. Fixing all of them at once would almost create a new game. And this game might be better than B/X - better than my favorite D&D.

Dang!  I addressed everything on your list with my design, except starting from the Rules Cyclopedia.  Only problem, is that I changed many  other things as well, making compatibility with B/X only so/so.

As to why we change things--there are all kinds of specific reasons, but mainly we do it because we can and because it is fun to do so.  

Any RPG is at least half do-it-yourself anyway, what with making adventures, custom monsters, custom magic items, etc.  The pool of GMs is already somewhat self-selected for tinkering.  If you are paying attention, you can't run a system for years and not start to have some idea of how and why it is put together the way it is.  It's only a small step from there to popping open the hood.

In my case, if I adjudicate the same way over and over, I'll eventually want a house rule.  If the house rule gets tweaked to the point that it is working well, I consider making it my go to on that thing.  If it chafes against the rest of the system, I want to find out why, and sometimes that is because something else in the system isn't quite perfect for my purposes.  (Sometimes it's because my house rule sucked, after all, but no one bats 1000.)  When you tinker, you learn from the successes and the failures--assuming your players will put up with it.  Like any other skill, sooner or later you get better at it, which then creates a positive feedback loop with all the things that prompted the tinkering in the first place. 

Furthermore, I like the rules to embody my setting, so that the natural language of the rules already half puts a player into the world.

Some people aren't wired this way.  Their focus is on the adventure, the campaign, the setting, or all three.  They'll only grudgingly change a rule if it become undeniable that the rule is interfering with their real interests.  When they change it, they'll change the minimum necessary.  Others jump from setting to setting so fast that there's no point in system tinkering.  Adjudicate and move on.

Agreed! Well, I started with B/X and now I'm adding rules from the RC. I'm one week away form publishing a book of old school feats, basically bringing features from the RC to B/X. One day I might do my own take on levels 15-20, which would replace 15-36, as I don't think 36 levels are needed in my games. I'd still use RC's spells etc.

I think the best way to describe RPGs is to compare it to open source software. RPGs are kinda...computer programs you execute with your brain and some tabletop tools like pencils, paper, and dice.

This means that RPGs are inherently open source software because your brain needs to know the rules to follow them, and open source software inherently leans towards customization and project forking.

There's also the matter that a lot of RPGs rely on their GMs to make up for vast swathes of the game, which--unless you are running a hyper-detailed railroad campaign from a manual, are outright not included in the game. This means that GMs are inherently RPG content developers, which means that the best GMs out there are qualified to modify the game. (In fact, I would say that having the confidence to go off RAW is one of the prerequisites to be a great GM, and the desire for players to rely on the RAW like it's the Bible or something is one of the key things holding many D&D games back. Responsible players can discuss rule changes like sensible human beings, and irresponsible ones probably can't follow basic instructions, anyways.)

I think, as gamers, we are inherently creative types, and there's a certain satisfaction to be gained from "making something of your own," even if that's merely a few houserules. The more empirical "why" is anything from fixing a poorly-worded or poorly-designed rule, altering things to better fit the flow of the table's gaming style, and making the rules conform better to the setting being played (i.e., settings with low gravity would need to change carry limits and jumping distances, amongst other things).

This? Again?

Ok. Lets dance this dance again.

Why? Because no rules can cover everything and no rules can fit everything. Even ones like gurps and MSH still need tweaking sometimes to get something you want or need. Maybe the game lacks rules for underwater travel and combat. Or lacks sufficient rules. You will need to tinker something in to allow it or come up with an in system workaround.

The other reason and a huge one is that these games really spark the imagination to make new things. Some even encourage it. Other systems are so flexible that it just comes naturally to dream up new things to drop in.

And other games are broken in some way and pretty much force you to. D20m Gamma World is the poster child for that. 5e D&D has some glaring problems and fact is the initial print runs had numerous typos and gaffes that WOTC themselves had to 'modify' in later prints. BX D&D has a printing gaffe that shifted a combat table down one. Totally skewing combat if you did not spot it as a error.

Quote from: Krugus on August 13, 2022, 08:54:22 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 13, 2022, 06:49:52 PM
I was just trying to write a post about this.

"Something strange about my head forces me to wonder how can people play B/X as written if plate armor costs 12 garlic.

(And I love B/X, but I loathe this adherence to RAW when they are obviously wrong).

Damn it, I'm Going To Build My Own B/X with Blackjack and Hookers, as the saying goes."

Anyway.

Must be because even our favorites are not perfect. Or some kind of OCD that prevents me form enjoying B/X's typos. This is from OSE:



My favorite version of D&D is B/X. I don't know why, really - probably the simplicity is a big part of it. But there are many things I dislike. It is a matter of taste - most of the time. But, sometimes, B/X feels like it could de fixed. For example:

- Saving throws are unnecessarily fiddly.
- Same for XP tables, a single one would suffice (with small adjustments).
- Race-as-class is unnecessary and limiting.
- Same for thief skills. 1d20+level (DC 15) simply works better.
- Fighters are too boring, relying too much on magic items.
- Weapons are terrible, like in 5e, some of them are useless or redundant.
- Encumbrance should be modified by Strength somehow.

Anyway... each of those is easy to fix. Fixing all of them at once would almost create a new game. And this game might be better than B/X - better than my favorite D&D.

But - not strictly compatible with my favorite game. Is this a problem? I'm not sure. I like using old school (and OSR) monster manuals, and adventures, etc. These minimal changes are not stopping me from doing that.

I think I pretty much found the perfect game for my group, but I'm not sure anyone else is interested. If I write something meant to be fully compatible with existing rules, it seems to be a lot more interest.

If I found my perfect D&D tomorrow I'd probably stop writing rules. And, TBH, sometimes I wish someone else would do it so I could stop thinking about it (although I still really like my own clone published in 2017). But I haven't found the perfect one. And even a game that "fixes" everything will "fix" some stuff that I didn't want fixed... Thus sending everyone into an unending quest for the perfect system...

Adding some of my coppers to this:
- Same for XP tables, a single one would suffice (with small adjustments).

Unified XP tables is easy enough use the basic fighter xp table and call it a day.

- Race-as-class is unnecessary and limiting.
True.  Pick a Race then a Class works just as well. 
Using B/X rules our house rules are if you go single class you can go to max level.   If you dual class, 480,000 xp is the max you can go (F/MU 11/10) and if you triple class then 200,000 xp is the limit (so a F/MU/T would be able to reach 8/8/9)

Did you add anything for humans under this system?

For me, it's because the rules that I use are not satisfactory for some reason:

• They don't contain particular rules for a scenario, so I have to make them up
• The spot rules don't work when taken to extremes
• I just don't like a spot rule and have to change it
• The rules perhaps don't suit the group I am in

Quote from: ForgottenF on August 13, 2022, 10:22:42 PM
I mean, the whole roleplaying hobby started from a couple of nerds DIY-ing an existing game into a different one that appealed to them more. I'd argue it's intrinsic to the appeal of the hobby.

And even after releasing the original D&D, Gygax never even paused tinkering with the rules, first with Greyhawk and then with AD&D. So if the authors of the game can't stick with RAW, why should anyone else?

Quote from: Jam The MF on August 13, 2022, 06:45:36 PM
It is a strong compulsion, indeed.

It seems we can't accept and run anything, straight up RAW.

I'm going to attach a PDF of the last page of the Traveller LBB Book 3, because i think that it supplies some insight to this.

(Done in accordance with the FFE Fair Use Policy found here   https://www.farfuture.net/FFEFairUsePolicy2008.pdf )

Quote from: Jam The MF on August 14, 2022, 05:36:45 AM
Yes, we're never satisfied.  We look for things to not like.

Not all all. I think even most tinkers will think twice before changing something that is working well.  I think most tinkers have had the experience where something worked well enough for months or even years--until they saw the flaw, and that was that.  You can't unsee some things, and you really can't when the game is shouting them in your face.

Quote from: Jam The MF on August 13, 2022, 06:45:36 PM
It is a strong compulsion, indeed.

It seems we can't accept and run anything, straight up RAW.

I don't change rules. I just don't use all of them.

Quote from: Slambo on August 14, 2022, 01:44:43 PM

Quote from: Krugus on August 13, 2022, 08:54:22 PM

Adding some of my coppers to this:
- Same for XP tables, a single one would suffice (with small adjustments).

Unified XP tables is easy enough use the basic fighter xp table and call it a day.

- Race-as-class is unnecessary and limiting.
True.  Pick a Race then a Class works just as well. 
Using B/X rules our house rules are if you go single class you can go to max level.   If you dual class, 480,000 xp is the max you can go (F/MU 11/10) and if you triple class then 200,000 xp is the limit (so a F/MU/T would be able to reach 8/8/9)

Did you add anything for humans under this system?

We are using OSE B/X ruleset and just used what they had in the book:

Ability Modifiers +1 CHA , +1 CON
Blessed:  when rolling hp, roll twice and take the best of the two rolls.
Decisiveness: On a tied initiative roll, humans act first as if they won the roll OR they get a bonus of +1 to Initiative rolls if using individual initiative.
Leadership:  all human retainers/merc's gain a +1 loyalty & morale bonus.

Usually it's because I want to do something or reflect something in my game world and the rules either don't allow it or don't fit well. I quite like symmetry and simplicity aesthetically but I wouldn't change rules just for that. 

I'm an engineer so I tinker with everything, not just games.  For me, it's just a part of my personality - I don't need any additional reasons.

Long ago before smart phones I worked for a digital mapping company and learned about copytraps. Basically this was a false road (usually a dead-end of some kind) placed on a commercial map so that anyone that republished the map could be found out easily and sued. The error in the Thieves skills, and knowing TSR was pretty protective, suggests maybe they were trying something similar.

I'm an engineer, this is what I do.