It's so common for people to admit to changing stuff in their games of choice, that it appears a Perfect RPG Ruleset is "Unobtainable".
because it's not really mine until i've made some changes. the perfect ruleset doesn't come to me complete, it is what happens after i've made the changes
For me, it's a combination of that, and my obsession with tinkering with rules.
Hell, I even change my own rules.
oh yeah i've been down that rabbithole sometimes, shit sucks when it stops you from getting a game rolling but it's real fun for puzzling over
Tinkering with rules is itself a fun activity.
Moreover, the ideal game at any given table is as much a product of rulings as rules, which means other peoples' rulings codified are often less than optimal. Against that, you have to balance the cost of the tinkering itself (and the resulting confusion for players).
Finally, the kind of people that frequent gaming message boards are not typical of the wider users.
Quote from: Jam The MF on May 19, 2021, 01:46:58 PM
It's so common for people to admit to changing stuff in their games of choice, that it appears a Perfect RPG Ruleset is "Unobtainable".
Well, I do not think very many people change any rules of the games of their choice. I think the people who are usually the gamemasters change the rules. I think the same people who are the game masters also are the whale product buyers, as well as the ones interested enough in gaming to post and discuss more often. I think it gives a false indication of how many people involved in gaming are interested in changing the rules to be honest.
Quote from: oggsmash on May 19, 2021, 02:11:44 PM
Well, I do not think very many people change any rules of the games of their choice. I think the people who are usually the gamemasters change the rules. I think the same people who are the game masters also are the whale product buyers, as well as the ones interested enough in gaming to post and discuss more often. I think it gives a false indication of how many people involved in gaming are interested in changing the rules to be honest.
Yeah that tracks, they really do have us poor gms by the balls.
Quote from: This Guy on May 19, 2021, 02:12:52 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on May 19, 2021, 02:11:44 PM
Well, I do not think very many people change any rules of the games of their choice. I think the people who are usually the gamemasters change the rules. I think the same people who are the game masters also are the whale product buyers, as well as the ones interested enough in gaming to post and discuss more often. I think it gives a false indication of how many people involved in gaming are interested in changing the rules to be honest.
Yeah that tracks, they really do have us poor gms by the balls.
I would wager a bet the average D&D player who is not a GM likely the average book ownership among pure players might average to be less than 1.
Quote from: Godsmonkey on May 19, 2021, 02:01:06 PM
For me, it's a combination of that, and my obsession with tinkering with rules.
Hell, I even change my own rules.
You even change your own rules? Now that's funny. You can't even be happy with rules of your own making!!!
Even more proof, that perfection does not exist in this world....
Quote from: oggsmash on May 19, 2021, 02:15:23 PM
Quote from: This Guy on May 19, 2021, 02:12:52 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on May 19, 2021, 02:11:44 PM
Well, I do not think very many people change any rules of the games of their choice. I think the people who are usually the gamemasters change the rules. I think the same people who are the game masters also are the whale product buyers, as well as the ones interested enough in gaming to post and discuss more often. I think it gives a false indication of how many people involved in gaming are interested in changing the rules to be honest.
Yeah that tracks, they really do have us poor gms by the balls.
I would wager a bet the average D&D player who is not a GM likely the average book ownership among pure players might average to be less than 1.
i like keeping my money so i'm not gonna take that bet. lived experience tells me it's a battle to get them to read your own damn books let alone pick up a copy for themselves. if you narrowed it down to just the 5E PHB you might get in the upper half of less than one but that's pushin it
I usually have the attitude where the majority of the rules in a game are great, but if I just made a few little changes here and there, then the game would be perfect! (for me)
I've never found a game where I didn't think this.
I try to keep my house rules to a minimum. Minor tweaks and clarifications are fine, but if I have to rewrite whole sections of the rules, I'll play a different game instead. If those minor tweaks and clarifications start piling up beyond a page or two of a Word document, that's too much too.
Quote from: This Guy on May 19, 2021, 02:24:40 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on May 19, 2021, 02:15:23 PM
Quote from: This Guy on May 19, 2021, 02:12:52 PM
Quote from: oggsmash on May 19, 2021, 02:11:44 PM
Well, I do not think very many people change any rules of the games of their choice. I think the people who are usually the gamemasters change the rules. I think the same people who are the game masters also are the whale product buyers, as well as the ones interested enough in gaming to post and discuss more often. I think it gives a false indication of how many people involved in gaming are interested in changing the rules to be honest.
Yeah that tracks, they really do have us poor gms by the balls.
I would wager a bet the average D&D player who is not a GM likely the average book ownership among pure players might average to be less than 1.
i like keeping my money so i'm not gonna take that bet. lived experience tells me it's a battle to get them to read your own damn books let alone pick up a copy for themselves. if you narrowed it down to just the 5E PHB you might get in the upper half of less than one but that's pushin it
I wouldn't be able to stand it, if I didn't own a hard copy of the PHB for the game I was playing.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on May 19, 2021, 02:10:01 PM
Tinkering with rules is itself a fun activity.
Moreover, the ideal game at any given table is as much a product of rulings as rules, which means other peoples' rulings codified are often less than optimal. Against that, you have to balance the cost of the tinkering itself (and the resulting confusion for players).
Finally, the kind of people that frequent gaming message boards are not typical of the wider users.
This.
Quote from: oggsmash on May 19, 2021, 02:11:44 PM
Well, I do not think very many people change any rules of the games of their choice. I think the people who are usually the gamemasters change the rules. I think the same people who are the game masters also are the whale product buyers, as well as the ones interested enough in gaming to post and discuss more often. I think it gives a false indication of how many people involved in gaming are interested in changing the rules to be honest.
And this.
Basically cause every table os different and sometimes things need change.
Oh that's an easy answer. Its because I mold the ruleset to my Campaign world and not the other way around :)
The rules are just guidelines anyway!
I change things around because I see the rules as a template. A good standard starting point, but needs to be twisted to my desires.
For example, in my Pathfinder 2 campaign, I drastically altered how the champions worked because I don't like players being "dedicated to evil" but wanted to keep the evil options. So instead, those options are of people who think they're not evil.
Quote from: Fergurg on May 19, 2021, 07:49:26 PM
So instead, those options are of people who think they're not evil.
Like the Jedi?
Changing the rules is usually explicitly encouraged within the rules. With the exception of a few tower of cards systems. Burning Wheel comes to mind.
Quote from: Jam The MF on May 19, 2021, 01:46:58 PM
It's so common for people to admit to changing stuff in their games of choice, that it appears a Perfect RPG Ruleset is "Unobtainable".
Not as many people change the rules as it os oft believed. Most are perfectly fine playing a game as is. Pretty much most games I've played as a GM were that way unless changing the game was actually required.
Which brings us to point 2: Some games by their very system require you to change things. gurps, BESM, and several others require the GM to prune the tree as it were or adapt existing material to fit the system.
2a: Other games encourage you to change hings to fit your campaign. AD&D for example despite repeatedly proven false claims otherwise.
3: there are some games though with outright broken rules that pretty much force you to change things just to play the game. Worse offender being White Wolf's d20m Gamma World where they fucked up so many things the was just short of un-playable. AND Baugh and Lizard were such lazy fucks that they didnt even bother to write some rule because "oh the players will do that for us..."
Other games like 5e D&D had in the first few prints enough typos, ommissions and mistakes that it made playing some things a hassle. WOTC themselves change the rules in later prints.
4: and some players just like to tinker with games. Lots of reasons from adding stuff the game isnt covering, to changing like one thing so the game is easier or harder. Or adding BACK IN rules that the publisher removed in later editions. Thanks alot Steve Jackson Games!
Example: alot of RPGs lack rules for underwater adventuring. Some even lack rules for water travel at all. Or lack rules for different types of travel. Star Frontiers lacks all but the most basic swimming rules and maybe a raft. And I'd have to check to confirm theres a raft. Checked. There is no raft but the Explorer can move on water like a boat. The rules mention subs and boats and underwater cities but they never appeared in the rules.
We become gamers because we want to create things. The most driven to create become GMs.
Of course we're going to fiddle with it.
Because there is a mass brainwashing going on about how RAW doesn't matter and it's "your" game. Pfft.
I usually change things that feel clunky to me, because I like straightforward mechanics.
One of my friends however can take a single paragraph rule and complicate it to 3 pages of conditions and degrees of success.
RPG rules (in a traditional game) aren't the game itself in the way the rules to boardgame or a sport are. They're an aid to running the game, and they're designed to run the game the designer envisions.
The game I want to run may be very similar to what the designer envisions, but it's unlikely to be exactly the same.
Additionally, since I'm running the game I want to run (with player buy-in), there is less need to get fully informed assent from every participant when I want to change something. If I want to change the rules of a boardgame, I need to get the approval of each person I want to play against, explaining and defending my reasoning, and hope they want the same thing from the game. This might be relatively easy if I clearly have greater experience with the game, but this won't always be the case. When I"m GMing, the players want me to be running the game I want, and there is inherent trust that I have a pretty decent idea what I'm doing. Which is a longwinded way of saying there are fewer obstacles to convincing the other participants to let me tweak the rules.
So, essentially, the rules are malleable already, and traditioonal GMs are in a position of authority where it's generally accepted by other participants that they're responsible for approval of and maintenance of the rules.
Back in the day I added rules to most of the games I ran, usually adding a folder of additional stuff, be it classes, combat tables, hit locations etc. Nowadays, I take out rules, with the aim of just a page or two of the essential stuff.
That people often make bad changes to rules is almost irrelevant to the discussion. Of course people make bad changes. It's the classic, "How do you learn to do it right? Get experience. How do you get experience? You try things and do it wrong."
A game isn't a NASA moon mission. Rules changes need some thought and once you get serious about them, some testing. But if a particular attempt blows up at the table, no real harm done. It might even be entertaining. Most of the rules changes that stick in my games are not anywhere close to the first iteration of the change.
Do some people almost compulsively take it too far and mess up games? Sure. That's not a reflection on rules changes in general but a reflection on their relative discernment or current experience.
There is also this school of thought: The rules should be standardized so that people can quit wasting their time monkeying with rules and get on with creating content. It is implicit in the idea that there is some crowd of "proven" designers that should provide the rules for everyone else while the rest of us get on with providing as many games as possible for everyone else. As a criticism of a particular writer with some notable talent in content creation married to an obsessive but poor grasp of mechanics, it might even have some local validity. As a general, reflexive critique of rules fiddling, it's a very shallow, self-serving position. In it's silliest form, it takes the idea that GM's in general should be spending their time training up players for the broader pool of gamers to interact with--i.e. the "community" needs to spend all of its focus making sure that I can get a game--as if good games were a commodity.
Some rules books actually encourage house rules, saying things like "it's important to note that these are only guidelines, and the GM should discard the parts that don't fit".
I usually simplify a bit.
The big one is Rolemaster though; it definitely has some elements that add to the fun, but I don't think I'd ever want to run it as written.
I prefer rulings over rules most of the time.
I started with OD&D and thus had to make/expand rules for some things. Everyone in our original group had their own set of house rules for their campaign setting/world (we all DM'ed and played in each other's games). This was the norm at the time, and IMO it's still the way to do things. The Setting informs the rules, not the other way around. Now, we didn't always LIKE every rule or setting the other guy made up, but we just went along and had fun with it. I've got 0 tolerance for rules lawyers and setting canonistas. I tried playing with my older Brother when we were kids, and he was a complete rules lawyer, and I quit on him and never played another game with him. He was the same with board games. Those types of gamers suck the fun out of it all and I've asked several to leave my table over the years. It's a game of make believe faeries and elves, get over yourselves.
For my "OD&D/S&W mashup" game, I'm very light on magic items and magic healing. All classes get some beefing up. My healing/recovery rules take cues from DCC RPG and 13th Age. Recently, I'm playing around with a Arduin-esque (VOL III, IIRC) Hit Point system and a spellcasting variant from The Wizard's Aide because these fit my style/setting.
Make the game your own. That was always the intent (before it took off, the APA went gonzo and Gary felt the need to reign it all in with the publication of AD&D).
I tinker with nearly every other D&D game too. e.g.
I completely removed C&C 's 12/18 prime system (because it's wonky) and replaced with best of two rolls for a prime and static CB of 15.
In 13th Age I completely adopted the fan supplement "13th Age Companion characters" for the newbies/kids group. No more complicated than a B/X character, yet fits seamlessly within the 13A rules framework.
For 4E , I made many changes to work it into something that fits my ToTM , fast paced game style. I's my favorite edition since OD&D
Some other games I might not make much changes at all- Call of Cthulhu, RQ2/OQ, FFG Star Wars, Dungeon World, etc because the systems are tighter and generally well done as written for the intent of the setting/gameplay. They benefit from more experience than Gary et al had at the beginning.
It's all good. I don't want samey gamey all the time.
Quote from: Trond on May 20, 2021, 09:12:32 AM
Some rules books actually encourage house rules, saying things like "it's important to note that these are only guidelines, and the GM should discard the parts that don't fit".
I usually simplify a bit.
The big one is Rolemaster though; it definitely has some elements that add to the fun, but I don't think I'd ever want to run it as written.
I literally rewrote RMSS (other than Spell Law and Arms Law, pretty much in it's entirety). It was a project I had long planned, and finally got around to a few years ago. Then ran a fun 18 - 24 month campaign. There are a few further tweaks I'd make if I went back to it again, but I was mostly happy. Of course, I had 10 solid years of playing basically nothing but RM2 and RMSS to draw on.
I'm currently running Traveller, using the MongTrav 1e playtest document as the foundation, with bits of CT, T:NE and T5 bolted on.
My next game is planned to be ACKS, with a mere half-dozen pages of fairly straightforward house rules (many of which are actually just clarifying which optional rules are in use). Oh, plus hexcrawling rules adapted from the Alexandrian.
A Super Simple way of handling Class Skills:
In OD&D, via White Box - Fantastic Medieval Adventure Game; Thief Skills are incredibly simple to run.
At Levels 1 through 3, a Thief has a 2 in 6 chance of success (33%) on a 1d6 Roll.
At Levels 4 through 6, they have a 3 in 6 chance (50%).
At Levels 7 through 9, they have a 4 in 6 chance (67%).
Then finally at Level 10, a 5 in 6 chance (83%).
You could incorporate Advantage / Disadvantage, by rolling an extra d6 when appropriate; to adjust for situational modifiers. Then; take this entire simple template, and use it to run primary skills for All PC Classes. If a PC attempts a skill which is not a primary skill for their class, they do so with Disadvantage.
However; as DM I'd say that if the Thief can't succeed at picking the lock, then no one can. If the Magic User can't read the scroll, then no one can. If the Thief or Magic User are unconcious or otherwise not present, I'll allow other PC classes to make an attempt with Disadvantage.
No rule-set is perfect for YOU except for the one you create yourself.
Not everyone is willing to create their own set of rules, so they change existing systems.
I kinda like 5e, for example. I think it has a great "spine" and lots of irritating details and bookeping, so I keep the core and adjust weapons, spell points, etc., usually removing/consolidating stuff I don't like.
With OSR I do the opposite: I always want to add some detail and customization. PC skills, "multi-classing", a few feats, etc.
I wrote Dark Fantasy Basic (see the sig) to add all the stuff I liked from 3e and 5e to my favorite D&D (Moldvay's basic). I also wrote a couple of PDFs on 5e streamlining weapons and armor, adding a few more options (from 3e and my own).
I don't think you have to accept the premise that rules can be perfect to see value in trying to improve them. A ruleset has a lot of rules (or at least, most do) and very few of them do everything you want right out of the box. Sometimes a player wants a character that seems like an interesting concept and there are no concerns about power-level, but it just doesn't exist yet. Building a new class before the publisher gets around to releasing it adds options and is one of the best reasons to tinker with the rules.
A second reason to tinker with the rules involves improving game play. If the average damage of a single attack is 30 and characters are 'perfectly healthy' at 1 hit point, but dead at -10, it might not fit with the types of games you want to run. Adjustments to when death occurs or how damage can be soaked fit into this category. Rules can go in the opposite direction, too. A triple-confirmed critical resulting in instant death adds lethality and based on what genre of game you're emulating might seem worthwhile. A few relatively minor changes can have profound impacts on how the game plays, and if everyone understands what they are and there's group consensus, there's nothing wrong with that.
The third major category of rule changes involve actual fixes to the rules - sometimes if you follow the rules exactly you run into a place where the rules are silent or contradictory. Publishers issue errata, so once again, makes sense to address it as a table rather than waiting for the publisher to issue a ruling.
A collection of tweaks might collectively be very minor. A binder with 300 rules might only come up once per year if the base rules are pretty clear and work well, but if the game doesn't really do what you want they might be pretty major. Taken far enough, you have a new game.
My friends and I ended up in that place. We don't pretend to be playing D&D, but someone familiar with D&D or other RPGs would certainly recognize it. We continually update, modify and clarify our rules based on playtesting. For example, we had a special ability (like a feat) that let you take a penalty on attack rolls and get a bonus on defense. Turns out, it was a pretty good ability for people that never make attack rolls (like Wizards casting spells). We thought about requiring an attack roll, but we didn't like the visual of warriors swinging their swords while they walked through the forest or that a group of warriors approaching a castle wall while the defenders peppered them with arrows couldn't get a benefit. We ended up settling on allowing the benefit unless you do something that requires a standard/full action that doesn't involve an attack roll. That prevents most spells (but not spells like burning hands) but it also doesn't allow for a dragon to defensively stomp an area (ie, an area attack that doesn't require an attack roll). As a result of the tweaks we've made, we think we've got an ability that does what we want when and where we want it - but as we continue to playtest we might adjust it in other ways. We might decide the benefit is too much or too little, or we might decide DR works better than a bonus to Defense - but the only way to know is to keep an open mind about how the game is working.
Ultimately, we want a game that's mechanically robust (the rules are clear on how to resolve most situations), the rules are easy and quick to apply (ie, we don't want to calculate the acceleration due to gravity with consideration for terminal velocity of humans and dragons) and we want gameplay that is consistent with the type of heroic fantasy we're playing.
Making your own rules is a lot more work and can be a little humbling - it turns out that not every idea is good - but tweaking rules can make the game better based on objective criteria (ie, resolution is faster if we remove these 4 steps) and subjective criteria (and I like the Debilitating conditions we have more than tracking damage on a particular body part).
Of course, there's also nothing wrong with letting people decide what's fun for them. Not everyone wants to play in a game with house rules, but if they are okay with it, there's nothing wrong with trying new things.
Is there a strong urge to make changes to RPG rulesets?
Not necessarily. If you'd asked me this 20-25 years ago, I would have told you that my observations at that time had been that people love to dick around with various versions of D&D. They don't do a whole lot of tweaking of other RPGs. The same DMs I gamed with who had the most houserules for the D&D game played so strictly by the book when running Cyberpunk or Rifts.
My observations have mostly held over the years, though tweaking of other-than-D&D games does seem to be a little more common than it used to be. On the other hand, WotC versions of D&D seem to me to be tweaked less than TSR versions of D&D. This would tend to actually uphold my original idea that there is something especially tweakable by pre-millennial D&D.
But that's not what I think is going on. Because I myself am the greatest exception to my old thesis. I do a very BtB 1E game. Am I really just rising above the almost brain-washing effect TSR D&D has on gamers to force them to tweak the game?
I don't think so. When I look at what I get out of running such a BtB game, it's because when I read the odd rules in the DMG, it inspires me. It triggers my imagination. I have a real love for the ideas in there, and I want to share those ideas so other gamers can experience them, too.
And when I think back to those old DMs who houseruled the hell out of their D&D games, I see the same thing in them. Here's something I created that I love. I want to share this thing I love with all of you. He would always get excited when we'd play one of his homebrew races. When it came to running Cyberpunk, he didn't need to tweak the rules, because the game itself was something he loved that he wanted to share with us, since we didn't play Cyberpunk other than when he ran it.
So I think the real underlying motivation is to share something that we see from a unique point of view that we love. This better explains why so many people tweak while others are steadfast BtB, and why some games seemed to get tweaked more than others.
I'm less convinced about notions of adjusting the rules to fit the campaign. I put my campaign before the rules, and yet I still run BtB. Because writing house rules is still putting rules first. It's just a different set of rules. Putting the campaign first means viewing the rules as a set of tools. A hammer drives a nail. It doesn't tell you what size boards to nail together or in what configuration. It doesn't tell you what to build. I could still construct the same frame with a power drill and screws or joints and wood glue. The hammer is not the house, and the rules are not my campaign.
Quote from: Lunamancer on May 20, 2021, 08:13:48 PM
On the other hand, WotC versions of D&D seem to me to be tweaked less than TSR versions of D&D. This would tend to actually uphold my original idea that there is something especially tweakable by pre-millennial D&D.
I don't know about this.
I
can't play WotC D&D without tweaking it. Especially not 5E. I don't look at it and see a fantasy role playing game, I see a superhero game if left untweaked and played as written. But I can play BECMI, or AD&D (both editions) without tweaking them if I
want to, and they seem like fantasy role playing games. And I didn't run or play 4E for any appreciable amount of time until I returned to older editions or Pathfinder for fantasy role playing games.
Quote from: Dropbear on May 20, 2021, 10:27:58 PM
Quote from: Lunamancer on May 20, 2021, 08:13:48 PM
On the other hand, WotC versions of D&D seem to me to be tweaked less than TSR versions of D&D. This would tend to actually uphold my original idea that there is something especially tweakable by pre-millennial D&D.
I don't know about this.
I can't play WotC D&D without tweaking it. Especially not 5E. I don't look at it and see a fantasy role playing game, I see a superhero game if left untweaked and played as written. But I can play BECMI, or AD&D (both editions) without tweaking them if I want to, and they seem like fantasy role playing games. And I didn't run or play 4E for any appreciable amount of time until I returned to older editions or Pathfinder for fantasy role playing games.
My old school 8th level fighter feels like a superhero.
Quote from: Sable Wyvern on May 20, 2021, 10:22:49 AM
Quote from: Trond on May 20, 2021, 09:12:32 AM
Some rules books actually encourage house rules, saying things like "it's important to note that these are only guidelines, and the GM should discard the parts that don't fit".
I usually simplify a bit.
The big one is Rolemaster though; it definitely has some elements that add to the fun, but I don't think I'd ever want to run it as written.
I literally rewrote RMSS (other than Spell Law and Arms Law, pretty much in it's entirety). It was a project I had long planned, and finally got around to a few years ago. Then ran a fun 18 - 24 month campaign. There are a few further tweaks I'd make if I went back to it again, but I was mostly happy. Of course, I had 10 solid years of playing basically nothing but RM2 and RMSS to draw on.
I'm currently running Traveller, using the MongTrav 1e playtest document as the foundation, with bits of CT, T:NE and T5 bolted on.
My next game is planned to be ACKS, with a mere half-dozen pages of fairly straightforward house rules (many of which are actually just clarifying which optional rules are in use). Oh, plus hexcrawling rules adapted from the Alexandrian.
I also used it for a number of years, and then brutally simplified it, and used the online RM1 character generator. I posted a number of points in these forums years ago. The players said they really enjoyed RM, and didn't get why it sometimes gets a bad rap, so I had to point out how much I had tweaked and streamlined it. But the resulting system is a lot of fun, and definitely still a variant of RM, so I'll give ICE that.
Quote from: Pat on May 20, 2021, 11:29:39 PM
My old school 8th level fighter feels like a superhero.
Only after 120,000 XP though, lol.
The rules are my lego set, shall I not step on them barefoot? If you prick weapon speed factors shall that guy not bleed? Once more into nerfing magic dear friends, cry "gestalt!" and unleash the dogs of esoteric meta calculus!
I don't think that it is so much changing the rules, but customizing them to our satisfaction for play.
Quote from: Omega on May 19, 2021, 10:27:50 PMNot as many people change the rules as it os oft believed. Most are perfectly fine playing a game as is. Pretty much most games I've played as a GM were that way unless changing the game was actually required.
Your experience is different than mine as I've never played an RPG campaign with a GM that didn't change the rules. However, oftentimes they don't realize they've changed the rules and are just playing it wrong. But they like it the wrong way so that's effectively a change.
Changing rules isn't unique to RPGs. Boardgamers have their variants, video gamers have their mods, cooks tweak their recipes, and even movie buffs make fan edits. It seems like a universal desire.
I'm probably at the extreme end, having gone past modding to bespoke systems.
I ultimately just write my own systems for each game I run. I've got two alternate systems I built for World of Darkness derived campaigns, my own fantasy system, my own D6-based Star Trek system and am currently banging out my own Robotech/mecha system for a campaign.
I am normally trying to customize things to fit a homebrew setting.
Some rules require tinkering because they suck, such as Mongoose Traveller 2nd edition.
Because rules where meant to be broken. 8)
Im a dork
Quote from: horsesoldier on May 25, 2021, 09:27:57 AM
Some rules require tinkering because they suck, such as Mongoose Traveller 2nd edition.
i have the 2nd edition but haven't dug into it, what would you suggest changing other than "buy different edition"
Quote from: horsesoldier on May 25, 2021, 09:27:57 AM
Some rules require tinkering because they suck, such as Mongoose Traveller 2nd edition.
Believe you me, the playtesters tried their damnedest to make it an uprated version of Mongoose Traveller 1st edition but we were ignored.
Quote from: jeff37923 on May 25, 2021, 02:25:15 PM
Quote from: horsesoldier on May 25, 2021, 09:27:57 AM
Some rules require tinkering because they suck, such as Mongoose Traveller 2nd edition.
Believe you me, the playtesters tried their damnedest to make it an uprated version of Mongoose Traveller 1st edition but we were ignored.
That's a terribly frustrating experience. I had a similar experience with FFG's Star Wars. They had decided their end results before playtest, and input be damned.
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 25, 2021, 04:15:01 PMThat's a terribly frustrating experience. I had a similar experience with FFG's Star Wars. They had decided their end results before playtest, and input be damned.
So many tabletop playtest sessions start at the late beta phase, and many companies just see it as free PR.
Quote from: Shrieking Banshee on May 25, 2021, 04:18:18 PM
Quote from: HappyDaze on May 25, 2021, 04:15:01 PMThat's a terribly frustrating experience. I had a similar experience with FFG's Star Wars. They had decided their end results before playtest, and input be damned.
So many tabletop playtest sessions start at the late beta phase, and many companies just see it as free PR.
Funny enough, FFG actually had a Pay-to-Beta their products after the initial playtesting. Their decisions were over and done well before even that prior stage, and the Betas were just cash grabs.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron on May 19, 2021, 11:39:45 PM
We become gamers because we want to create things. The most driven to create become GMs.
Of course we're going to fiddle with it.
Wins the thread