Forums of the Megaverse®

I needed clearer movement rules, so I wrote some. They're part of my standard house-rule handout. I'm currently considering some significant alterations to MDC/Armor and actions per round. I don't really like taking a game too far away from the printed rules because it establishes a barrier that players must overcome to participate, but I want the game to play a certain way. I'm willing to compromise up to a point, but often I'm left considering other games.

For Palladium, I always modify the rules to make the system run more smoothly. For other games, only occasionally where it is needed.

The game texts are rather like reading a novel where pages have been torn out at random - you have to make it up in your head what happened on the missing pages.

There needs to be an option for 'I only modify rules in the interest of filling in the gaps and eventually never modifying a rule ever again'

I wouldn't mind getting some rules, canon and gap filling house rules, together to make something like the warhammer quest boardgame. Actually I think I did once - pitty I don't have the notes anymore.

I chose "routinely changes rules", but really that's an understatement. My house rules almost completely replace the canon rules for everything except character generation.

--flatline

I use much in the way of optional material and have had to rewrite stuff that was poorly written. There are some aspects of the game that are better left alone, though, and for the most part I try and stick to the basic game mechanics.

Little Snuzzles wrote:Greetings to all...

I've heard many people complain about pretty much every game system by every publisher that something about the rules didn't make sense to them. Indeed, there is much debate both here and elsewhere about how rules work and apply.

While I find it interesting to hear people's intepretation of rules, I must admit that its puzzles me when I see GMs adhereing to a rule that they don't like. I see both rules and descriptions (of NPCs, governments, weapons, etc) as guidelines that are not written in stone.

For example, I had a long-running Rifts game in which all the Spugorth were Principled and were allied with the Cosmo-Knights against the TGE. Biowizardly was a banished practice, and, instead of slave-raiding missions, the Spugorth engaged in intergalactic humanitarian missions.

Another example, I had a game that was all magic-using OCCs/RCCs, so we agreed to cut PPE costs in half for all PCs and NPCs. Usually, I just use the PPE system as it is, however.

Last example: I usually increase the damage output on big military and robot vehicle weapons by 2D6 - 4D6 because I simply think they should be stronger than what's available on the open market.

To be responsible to the players, in my games we always come to a agreement as to how we are going to do things: by the book or modifications; it's always a team effort and everyone knows what is what.

Since the topic of rules debate is a neverending issue, I'm curious as to how others feel about this?

I sometimes use rules I don't necessarly like because of after effects. if I change x rule, what effects would it have on gameplay, and do I want the concequences of that change?

For example, i've never liked that telepathy dosn't allow you to probe deeper for secrets and is limited to only surface thoughts, but if I change it, what's to stop it from being abused for stealing secrets from every NPC who dosn't have a mind block? I don't like the limit, but i'm not sure how to balance it if I change it, so it stays as it is by default.

Other rules who's balance I feel confident in keeping I routinely modify as I wish.

Oh, I forgot to address the 'why use rules you don't like'. Because doing things you don't like (to some degree) is how you expand your horizon.

Otherwise you end up only ever playing the one way (the way you like) and that's not very broadening.

Noon wrote:Oh, I forgot to address the 'why use rules you don't like'. Because doing things you don't like (to some degree) is how you expand your horizon.

Otherwise you end up only ever playing the one way (the way you like) and that's not very broadening.

You're advocating masochism as a way of expanding your horizons.

There are much better ways that aren't nearly as painful.

--flatline

The last group I sat down and played with used the RAW for the most part. The only time we house-ruled was when we came across something that wasn't really clear on the rules, and we spent a minute or two discussing it to make sure everyone was good with it. Most of the rule changes we had were to PC creation. The only game-play change we had was my choice to use the PPE channeling rules in our PFRPG setting.

Noon wrote:There needs to be an option for 'I only modify rules in the interest of filling in the gaps and eventually never modifying a rule ever again'

Agreed.

flatline wrote:

Noon wrote:Oh, I forgot to address the 'why use rules you don't like'. Because doing things you don't like (to some degree) is how you expand your horizon.

Otherwise you end up only ever playing the one way (the way you like) and that's not very broadening.

You're advocating masochism as a way of expanding your horizons.

There are much better ways that aren't nearly as painful.

--flatline

The old maxim of "No pain, no gain" is not a universal truth... but it's pretty close.
Granted, the presence of pain doesn't necessarily mean gain, and often does not... but that's not what Noon's talking about.
Growth comes from challenge, not from always getting to do everything exactly the way you would prefer.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

flatline wrote:

Noon wrote:Oh, I forgot to address the 'why use rules you don't like'. Because doing things you don't like (to some degree) is how you expand your horizon.

Otherwise you end up only ever playing the one way (the way you like) and that's not very broadening.

You're advocating masochism as a way of expanding your horizons.

There are much better ways that aren't nearly as painful.

--flatline

The old maxim of "No pain, no gain" is not a universal truth... but it's pretty close.
Granted, the presence of pain doesn't necessarily mean gain, and often does not... but that's not what Noon's talking about.
Growth comes from challenge, not from always getting to do everything exactly the way you would prefer.

I choose to play by rules that attempt to maximize my enjoyment of the game I'm playing. The challenge that I seek comes not from unnecessarily burdensome game mechanics, but from the setting and storyline itself.

Also, "no pain, no gain" applies to the domain of physical exercise and that's because of the way our muscles work. I can think of no other domain that has similar requirements. And no, mental anguish doesn't count.

--flatline

flatline wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

flatline wrote:

Noon wrote:Oh, I forgot to address the 'why use rules you don't like'. Because doing things you don't like (to some degree) is how you expand your horizon.

Otherwise you end up only ever playing the one way (the way you like) and that's not very broadening.

You're advocating masochism as a way of expanding your horizons.

There are much better ways that aren't nearly as painful.

--flatline

The old maxim of "No pain, no gain" is not a universal truth... but it's pretty close.
Granted, the presence of pain doesn't necessarily mean gain, and often does not... but that's not what Noon's talking about.
Growth comes from challenge, not from always getting to do everything exactly the way you would prefer.

I choose to play by rules that attempt to maximize my enjoyment of the game I'm playing. The challenge that I seek comes not from unnecessarily burdensome game mechanics, but from the setting and storyline itself.

Also, "no pain, no gain" applies to the domain of physical exercise and that's because of the way our muscles work. I can think of no other domain that has similar requirements. And no, mental anguish doesn't count.

--flatline

Working within the boundries given can exercise the Mind.

Damian Magecraft wrote:

flatline wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

flatline wrote:

Noon wrote:Oh, I forgot to address the 'why use rules you don't like'. Because doing things you don't like (to some degree) is how you expand your horizon.

Otherwise you end up only ever playing the one way (the way you like) and that's not very broadening.

You're advocating masochism as a way of expanding your horizons.

There are much better ways that aren't nearly as painful.

--flatline

The old maxim of "No pain, no gain" is not a universal truth... but it's pretty close.
Granted, the presence of pain doesn't necessarily mean gain, and often does not... but that's not what Noon's talking about.
Growth comes from challenge, not from always getting to do everything exactly the way you would prefer.

I choose to play by rules that attempt to maximize my enjoyment of the game I'm playing. The challenge that I seek comes not from unnecessarily burdensome game mechanics, but from the setting and storyline itself.

Also, "no pain, no gain" applies to the domain of physical exercise and that's because of the way our muscles work. I can think of no other domain that has similar requirements. And no, mental anguish doesn't count.

--flatline

Working within the boundries given can exercise the Mind.

The rules of the setting should dictate what is and isn't possible inside the game, not the game mechanics. If you have two sets of game mechanics that both simulate the setting and you like one better than the other, why would you choose to use other one?

I'm all for experimentation to figure out what works best, but purposefully choosing a suboptimal rule set for no other reason that to choose a suboptimal rule set makes no sense to me unless you are a game designer and feel the need to understand why and to what extent a rule set is bad.

--flatline

flatline wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

flatline wrote:

Noon wrote:Oh, I forgot to address the 'why use rules you don't like'. Because doing things you don't like (to some degree) is how you expand your horizon.

Otherwise you end up only ever playing the one way (the way you like) and that's not very broadening.

You're advocating masochism as a way of expanding your horizons.

There are much better ways that aren't nearly as painful.

--flatline

The old maxim of "No pain, no gain" is not a universal truth... but it's pretty close.
Granted, the presence of pain doesn't necessarily mean gain, and often does not... but that's not what Noon's talking about.
Growth comes from challenge, not from always getting to do everything exactly the way you would prefer.

I choose to play by rules that attempt to maximize my enjoyment of the game I'm playing. The challenge that I seek comes not from unnecessarily burdensome game mechanics, but from the setting and storyline itself.

Also, "no pain, no gain" applies to the domain of physical exercise and that's because of the way our muscles work. I can think of no other domain that has similar requirements. And no, mental anguish doesn't count.

So it was bad writing when Ned Stark died in the ASOIF series?

I think some rules (not all of them - some are just book work and hot air) challenge ones personal notion of there always being a happy ending.

But yeah, when Kevin leaves them all optional, they aren't going to challenge anyone who can simply opt not to use them.

flatline wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:Working within the boundries given can exercise the Mind.

The rules of the setting should dictate what is and isn't possible inside the game, not the game mechanics. If you have two sets of game mechanics that both simulate the setting and you like one better than the other, why would you choose to use other one?

I'm all for experimentation to figure out what works best, but purposefully choosing a suboptimal rule set for no other reason that to choose a suboptimal rule set makes no sense to me unless you are a game designer and feel the need to understand why and to what extent a rule set is bad.

--flatline

Except what you define as "bad" is not what others do...
and your insistence that the setting define whats possible is "unique" to say the least...
The mechanics define what is/isn't possible, the setting "should" influence not dictate the mechanics.

Noon wrote:So it was bad writing when Ned Stark died in the ASOIF series?

I'm not familiar with the reference so I have no opinion.

I think some rules (not all of them - some are just book work and hot air) challenge ones personal notion of there always being a happy ending.

I don't understand why you think that ignoring or replacing bad rules has anything to do with "happy endings". If you ever play in a game I run, I think you'll find that it is far more lethal than the canon rules.

But yeah, when Kevin leaves them all optional, they aren't going to challenge anyone who can simply opt not to use them.

I always chuckle when a book identifies a rule as "optional" because unless it's a videogame where the rules are part of the programming, ALL rules are used at the discretion of the GM.

--flatline

Damian Magecraft wrote:

flatline wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:Working within the boundries given can exercise the Mind.

The rules of the setting should dictate what is and isn't possible inside the game, not the game mechanics. If you have two sets of game mechanics that both simulate the setting and you like one better than the other, why would you choose to use other one?

I'm all for experimentation to figure out what works best, but purposefully choosing a suboptimal rule set for no other reason that to choose a suboptimal rule set makes no sense to me unless you are a game designer and feel the need to understand why and to what extent a rule set is bad.

--flatline

Except what you define as "bad" is not what others do...

Clearly, "bad" is a subjective ruling. You might have perfectly good reasons for liking rules that I would consider "bad".

and your insistence that the setting define whats possible is "unique" to say the least...
The mechanics define what is/isn't possible, the setting "should" influence not dictate the mechanics.

And here we disagree. For me, the game mechanics should attempt to simulate the physics of the setting, not the other way around.

--flatline

flatline wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:

flatline wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:Working within the boundries given can exercise the Mind.

The rules of the setting should dictate what is and isn't possible inside the game, not the game mechanics. If you have two sets of game mechanics that both simulate the setting and you like one better than the other, why would you choose to use other one?

I'm all for experimentation to figure out what works best, but purposefully choosing a suboptimal rule set for no other reason that to choose a suboptimal rule set makes no sense to me unless you are a game designer and feel the need to understand why and to what extent a rule set is bad.

--flatline

Except what you define as "bad" is not what others do...

Clearly, "bad" is a subjective ruling. You might have perfectly good reasons for liking rules that I would consider "bad".

and your insistence that the setting define whats possible is "unique" to say the least...
The mechanics define what is/isn't possible, the setting "should" influence not dictate the mechanics.

And here we disagree. For me, the game mechanics should attempt to simulate the physics of the setting, not the other way around.

--flatline

I've seen some really wrong ideas tossed out by people insisting on the mechanics over what should actually be possible. The Marvel Super-hero game uses a game mechanic where income (called Resources) is defined as a rank. The mechanic has it that it can only go up (in the Advanced version of the game), and what your actual job is if any is irrelevant (at least how some insist). So you could be unemployed but land a job as a CEO and hear 'well that's nice, your income is still that of a homeless person but at least you have a good excuse to spend advancement funds on increasing your Resource rank'. On the other side you could start as the CEO then just blow off the job but still keep with the CEO income (then again with how reality is you can just about do that in the real world with those Platinum parachutes).

Definitely the last thing you do is let a mechanic be the end-all and be-all of things, otherwise you get things like that or worse where one is having utterly ridiculous things occur because the mechanic is treated as exceeding what the nature of the setting should allow for. Mechanics must come below what's sensible, you can't have a decent RP experience if mechanics are hampering things by causing non-nonsensical things to be the ruling.

Nightmask wrote:

flatline wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:

flatline wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:Working within the boundries given can exercise the Mind.

The rules of the setting should dictate what is and isn't possible inside the game, not the game mechanics. If you have two sets of game mechanics that both simulate the setting and you like one better than the other, why would you choose to use other one?

I'm all for experimentation to figure out what works best, but purposefully choosing a suboptimal rule set for no other reason that to choose a suboptimal rule set makes no sense to me unless you are a game designer and feel the need to understand why and to what extent a rule set is bad.

--flatline

Except what you define as "bad" is not what others do...

Clearly, "bad" is a subjective ruling. You might have perfectly good reasons for liking rules that I would consider "bad".

and your insistence that the setting define whats possible is "unique" to say the least...
The mechanics define what is/isn't possible, the setting "should" influence not dictate the mechanics.

And here we disagree. For me, the game mechanics should attempt to simulate the physics of the setting, not the other way around.

--flatline

I've seen some really wrong ideas tossed out by people insisting on the mechanics over what should actually be possible. The Marvel Super-hero game uses a game mechanic where income (called Resources) is defined as a rank. The mechanic has it that it can only go up (in the Advanced version of the game), and what your actual job is if any is irrelevant (at least how some insist). So you could be unemployed but land a job as a CEO and hear 'well that's nice, your income is still that of a homeless person but at least you have a good excuse to spend advancement funds on increasing your Resource rank'. On the other side you could start as the CEO then just blow off the job but still keep with the CEO income (then again with how reality is you can just about do that in the real world with those Platinum parachutes).

Definitely the last thing you do is let a mechanic be the end-all and be-all of things, otherwise you get things like that or worse where one is having utterly ridiculous things occur because the mechanic is treated as exceeding what the nature of the setting should allow for. Mechanics must come below what's sensible, you can't have a decent RP experience if mechanics are hampering things by causing non-nonsensical things to be the ruling.

The mechanics define the system.
The setting refines the mechanics.
its a balancing act.
Its just as easy (easier in some respects) to go to the same extremes when you insist the fluff defines the rules.
Also no system is "perfect"
That is why the GMs most powerful tool is the word... no.

flatline wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

flatline wrote:

Noon wrote:Oh, I forgot to address the 'why use rules you don't like'. Because doing things you don't like (to some degree) is how you expand your horizon.

Otherwise you end up only ever playing the one way (the way you like) and that's not very broadening.

You're advocating masochism as a way of expanding your horizons.

There are much better ways that aren't nearly as painful.

--flatline

The old maxim of "No pain, no gain" is not a universal truth... but it's pretty close.
Granted, the presence of pain doesn't necessarily mean gain, and often does not... but that's not what Noon's talking about.
Growth comes from challenge, not from always getting to do everything exactly the way you would prefer.

I choose to play by rules that attempt to maximize my enjoyment of the game I'm playing. The challenge that I seek comes not from unnecessarily burdensome game mechanics, but from the setting and storyline itself.

I understand that that is the particular kind of challenge that you are comfortable with.

Also, "no pain, no gain" applies to the domain of physical exercise and that's because of the way our muscles work. I can think of no other domain that has similar requirements. And no, mental anguish doesn't count.
--flatline

Why not?

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Also, "no pain, no gain" applies to the domain of physical exercise and that's because of the way our muscles work. I can think of no other domain that has similar requirements. And no, mental anguish doesn't count.
--flatline

Why not?

Because exercising the mind should not cause damage to it. Not so with muscles.

If you are inducing mental anguish in an attempt to exercise your mind, you are doing it wrong.

--flatline

flatline wrote:I don't understand why you think that ignoring or replacing bad rules has anything to do with "happy endings". If you ever play in a game I run, I think you'll find that it is far more lethal than the canon rules.

The cannon rules don't, as far as I can tell, dictate anything about lethality - could go years with no PC death, or a PC dies every five minutes. The rules don't control which is the case.

So I don't know what you're comparing it against? Far more lethal than this series of accounts?

But yeah, when Kevin leaves them all optional, they aren't going to challenge anyone who can simply opt not to use them.

I always chuckle when a book identifies a rule as "optional" because unless it's a videogame where the rules are part of the programming, ALL rules are used at the discretion of the GM.

Where potential players have agreed to that, yes.

Otherwise if a person doesn't agree to that, but knowing that the GM accepts that person into play, then either A: No, they are not at the discretion of the GM or B: The GM is being hella passive aggressive.

Because exercising the mind should not cause damage to it. Not so with muscles.

If you are inducing mental anguish in an attempt to exercise your mind, you are doing it wrong.

Anguish damages the mind?

Maybe you're thinking of some kind of extreme anguish??

Noon wrote:

flatline wrote:I don't understand why you think that ignoring or replacing bad rules has anything to do with "happy endings". If you ever play in a game I run, I think you'll find that it is far more lethal than the canon rules.

The cannon rules don't, as far as I can tell, dictate anything about lethality - could go years with no PC death, or a PC dies every five minutes. The rules don't control which is the case.

So I don't know what you're comparing it against? Far more lethal than this series of accounts?

Perhaps a better way to say what I mean is that my house rules are less forgiving than canon.

Excellent reading, by the way. Very amusing. They were doomed from the beginning since they were often outnumbered and had no time to recover between encounters. I doubt the system used would have mattered much.

I don't think I've ever participated in a dungeon crawl that didn't result in at least half the party dying...but that's sort of the point of a dungeon crawl.

But yeah, when Kevin leaves them all optional, they aren't going to challenge anyone who can simply opt not to use them.

I always chuckle when a book identifies a rule as "optional" because unless it's a videogame where the rules are part of the programming, ALL rules are used at the discretion of the GM.

Where potential players have agreed to that, yes.

Otherwise if a person doesn't agree to that, but knowing that the GM accepts that person into play, then either A: No, they are not at the discretion of the GM or B: The GM is being hella passive aggressive.

I agree that applicable house rules should be explained up front. Even better if they've been written up so that players can familiarize themselves and have a reference.

But here's the funny thing, if you focus on the story and ignore the mechanics as much as possible, then it's actually not required to explain the house rules as long as they properly simulate the rules of the setting. If the player shoots a villain in the back of the head and the villain, as expected, dies, then the player doesn't really care what your house rules are for sneak attacks or critical hits. Rules only become an issue when the results contradict expectations. Sure, one way to set expectations is to teach everyone the rules being used, but another, perhaps better way, is to make sure that the results of following the rules is always in agreement with our intuition of how things are supposed to work in that setting.

Because exercising the mind should not cause damage to it. Not so with muscles.

If you are inducing mental anguish in an attempt to exercise your mind, you are doing it wrong.

Anguish damages the mind?

Maybe you're thinking of some kind of extreme anguish??

Done right, exercising the mind should be fun and invigorating. If you're torturing yourself, you're doing it wrong.

--flatline

flatline wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Also, "no pain, no gain" applies to the domain of physical exercise and that's because of the way our muscles work. I can think of no other domain that has similar requirements. And no, mental anguish doesn't count.
--flatline

Why not?

Because exercising the mind should not cause damage to it. Not so with muscles.

Are you associating damage with pain or with gain...?

flatline wrote:Sure, one way to set expectations is to teach everyone the rules being used, but another, perhaps better way, is to make sure that the results of following the rules is always in agreement with our intuition of how things are supposed to work in that setting.

I think people can easily have different intuitions than each other. One person thinks you shoot the villain in the back of his head, he'll die, another read some article and thinks it's possible for the round to simply richochet across the round of the skull.

To me, the solution seems to be to have the rules in advance - printed out and available. Even if they don't read them they could have and you can point to what your using in the text they could have read before play.

Done right, exercising the mind should be fun and invigorating. If you're torturing yourself, you're doing it wrong.

So if I feel anguished to some degree by the end of Romeo & Juliet (god, I hope you know this reference!), you think I've damaged my brain?

I think emotions are rather like muscles - they can do with a work out, to be able to take heavier loads in future. I would think someone who's roleplayed through tragedies would cope with a latter real life tragedy than if they'd never explored the concept through roleplay before. You might argue no, it'd make them no better equiped to deal with their emotions (not even slightly better equiped). But I'd disagree. It'd make atleast a slight difference.

I've done all.

in D&D 4th, I got fed up with them constantly updating the rules each month (to keep new rules from breaking with old ones). So I said 'we play by canon/RAW as of the Nov 2010 update'. I made 3 houserules, 2 of which I discovered were actual rules I had overlooked in a supplement, so I have 1 houserule.

In PB games I try to only clarify rules as needed. When one rule contradicts another I note the one I'm using. I have a limited number of completely made up houserules. Mostly I try to find things and index them as needed with book and page #. There are more houserules and 'clarifications' than I would like, but it is definately still a PB system.

I have also created my own Fantasy system from the ground up and published it online.