House Rules, Ideas and the Like

[SmootRK]

I am not knocking how you want your game to be; when I say I prefer a simpler game, I mean in the overall sense. While any one of your rule additions/modifications are likely very playable, the changes you propose alter the overall game mechanics somewhat. For instance, what skills/feats would I need to give to NPC/Monsters? That is a degree of change that I would avoid. I prefer to keep to the core rule book for most stuff.

That said, I like to add a lot of stuff to the game, but it is mostly things like classes, races, spells, monsters, magic items, etc. Basically just more of the stuff that is already in the game.
I don't add too many modifications to the underlying system. Of the changes I do incorporate are:

• eliminated basically all racial/class restrictions (dwarf MU is OK by me (njordic style)). Essentially any class is open to any race, and I have not run into any game-breaker situations
• a slightly modified attack bonus progression for all classes to differentiate them from each other more
• AD&D style hit dice (F=d10, C=d8, T=d6, MU=d4)
• eliminate the d6 max hit die for elves, halflings - for small races I use a system of 1 hit die type smaller (opposite of the 1/2Ogre getting one die type larger).
• I intend to use backgrounds/specialities, but nobody has seemed to need it

Flavor-wise, my elves are slightly smaller than your basic 'human with pointy ears' style seen in LotR... much more fey style (no mechanical change from rules, but seems more in line with the HD thing above). Dwarves are mechanically the same, but have a more Njordic style (including magic use). Halflings use the smaller HD mechanic but are otherwise intact (and I call them Hobbits). I add more races (see New Races Supplement that I wrote, as well as Monsters as Races Supplement). I have Rangers, Knights, alternate Paladin types, alternate Barbarian types, Druids, and a bunch of stuff that I would allow but nobody has expressed any interest in using.

[Sir Bedivere]

SmootRK, I'm curious about your attack bonus progression. I am considering giving the fighter +1/lvl up to 8, then +1/2 lvls (10, 12, etc.). The table for the rest of the classes would have one change: level 1 would be 0 for all of them. Then, from level 2, there would be no change from the current table. (E.g., clerics and thieves would have +0 at first level, +1 at second, +2 at 3rd/4th, etc.)

What do you do and how has it worked out?

[Sir Bedivere]

I feel like my house rules exist to encourage a style of play that I enjoy. I want folks to differentiate their fighters by more than pure narrative abstraction and equipment choice. I want folks to come up with cool feats that dramatically shift the flow of a combat scene. And you know what? I think these things should be considered a Basic feature of a game.

I have no problem w/ the way you do this, but I just do it directly. I give a 10% (minimum 100) XP bonus per adventure for memorable role-playing, and a 5% (min. 50) bonus for anyone who cracks the entire group up while role-playing in character. I also lead the way when I GM; I try to be enthusiastic and have my NPCs/monsters be theatrical, so it inspires / encourages the players to do the same.

On the other hand, I am a player in a 4e game with all its cool feats and powers, and those things don't particularly inspire. We just look them up to make sure we know what they do, say we do them, roll the dice, and that's that. Having them all spelled out takes the creativity away as far as I'm concerned. Plus, we spend our gaming time thinking about feats and powers -- about game mechanics. In simpler games we spend our time thinking about the game world.

In the end, it's a matter of taste. I prefer my RPGs to be like an interactive piece of fiction; the fun is in telling the story as a group. For some in my 4e group, though, I think the fun is in the game mechanics, thinking about how to best coordinate all of their various capabilities to kill monsters. (I should say I haven't actually asked them this question. It's just how it seems to me when we've talked about different games.)

[Sir Bedivere]

About your proposed rules, I think it makes things too easy in general, and there's not enough differentiation in some skills. For example, Clerics only get +1 religion knowledge, so that means they only know 5% more about religion; that's just really strange to me. The MU has INT as a prime requisite, so the MU in the group may have a better chance of knowing something about religion than the Cleric does.

If I used this system, I might do something like 1/2 ability score (round down) w/ +3 or +5 for a small number of skills the PC has trained in. Have you looked at the various skills supplements for BF (Backgrounds and Specialties, Background Skills, and Secondary Skills)? I'd be interested to know what you thought about them.

I never really got into the whole Feats thing, so I don't have much to say about it.

[SmootRK]

SmootRK, I'm curious about your attack bonus progression. I am considering giving the fighter +1/lvl up to 8, then +1/2 lvls (10, 12, etc.). The table for the rest of the classes would have one change: level 1 would be 0 for all of them. Then, from level 2, there would be no change from the current table. (E.g., clerics and thieves would have +0 at first level, +1 at second, +2 at 3rd/4th, etc.)

What do you do and how has it worked out?

I could not seem to locate it (having it on a sheet of paper?, who the heck uses paper these days?!) My recent games are with several children (ages range from 6 to 11), so I have not been utilizing too much changes yet. They do use the AD&D style hit dice... I don't think any one of them have even noticed the alteration, as I don't think they have even actually read the rules completely.

The parts I remember is similar to your progression. The 1st level of each class (except fighter) is same as zero-level. Fighter gets best progression, next best progression is cleric followed closely by Thief, with MU progressing the slowest... all in all, it is similar to AD&D progression, if that game used an Attack Bonus instead of tables.

As to Hit Dice, I also tend to use non-existent dice at times. For instance when using a small race, one hd smaller might be d3 for MU (d6, 1-2=1, 3-4=2, 5-6=3), or a MU/T gets d5 (d10, 1-2=1, etc) unless small race d4 (avg of d3 and d5).

[MacLeod]

I am not knocking how you want your game to be; when I say I prefer a simpler game, I mean in the overall sense. While any one of your rule additions/modifications are likely very playable, the changes you propose alter the overall game mechanics somewhat. For instance, what skills/feats would I need to give to NPC/Monsters? That is a degree of change that I would avoid. I prefer to keep to the core rule book for most stuff.

The Skills portion of the house rules would rarely apply to monsters and would easily be created on the fly, so I don't see that as a problem.
Feats are always made up on the fly so that isn't an issue either. And, yeah, like I said before... it does change the game mechanics overall. That was my intention. And it moves the game towards a style that I prefer.

On the other hand, I am a player in a 4e game with all its cool feats and powers, and those things don't particularly inspire. We just look them up to make sure we know what they do, say we do them, roll the dice, and that's that. Having them all spelled out takes the creativity away as far as I'm concerned. Plus, we spend our gaming time thinking about feats and powers -- about game mechanics. In simpler games we spend our time thinking about the game world.

I think you are misunderstanding the house rules. There is no pre-defined lists outside of the opening skill bonuses. The skill and feat list you see in the earlier post are samples and examples designed to display the mechanical implications.

In the end, it's a matter of taste. I prefer my RPGs to be like an interactive piece of fiction; the fun is in telling the story as a group. For some in my 4e group, though, I think the fun is in the game mechanics, thinking about how to best coordinate all of their various capabilities to kill monsters.

But... ... ... why can't it be both? Why can't you engage someone with interesting and interactive fiction while giving them cool mechanics to play with?

About your proposed rules, I think it makes things too easy in general, and there's not enough differentiation in some skills. For example, Clerics only get +1 religion knowledge, so that means they only know 5% more about religion; that's just really strange to me. The MU has INT as a prime requisite, so the MU in the group may have a better chance of knowing something about religion than the Cleric does.

That depends on how you deal with it. The house rules specifically state that the Attribute used is up to the folks at the table. Clerics could easily utilize Wisdom whilst narratively justifying its use.
Plus, a Magic-User's (general) lack of involvement with religions could easily garner him a -4 on his Religion Knowledge checks. Unless he puts a point into Religion Knowledge of course.
To justify a low chance of success with Religion Knowledge you could also figure that Religion Knowledge relates specifically to the mythology and rituals of deities. What if the cleric is less of a man of the cloth and more of a random servant of a deity whom gained his powers and drives unwittingly? Maybe the deity speaks to cleric, but for reasons of his own, doesn't preach his history/morals to the cleric (maybe out of shame or some other nefarious plot?).

Also, I'm not so sure how easy the system is. If you roll 8, 9, 9, 10, 10, 11 for your stats... Even if your PC is an absolute master of some Skill, he'd only have an 80% chance of success against Standard Difficulty Tasks... and that's only when using his best stat. Imagine, now, using the lesser stats... or better yet... an actually hard task! This is, of course, only if that player dumps Five Levels Worth of Skill bonuses into a single Skill.

If I used this system, I might do something like 1/2 ability score (round down) w/ +3 or +5 for a small number of skills the PC has trained in.

I could see this working. Primary and Secondary Skills, a distinction only made at character creation. +5/+3 then every 3 or 4 levels, add a +1 to a specific Skill or something like that.

Have you looked at the various skills supplements for BF (Backgrounds and Specialties, Background Skills, and Secondary Skills)? I'd be interested to know what you thought about them.

Yeah. Just didn't jive with me I guess.

I never really got into the whole Feats thing, so I don't have much to say about it.

Yeah... its all about making up maneuvers on the spot and applying mechanical implications to them. Not meant to incite arguments at the table but to provide a cinematic element to the game... cinematic and epic whilst still being mechanically relevant.

[Sir Bedivere]

While any one of your rule additions/modifications are likely very playable, the changes you propose alter the overall game mechanics somewhat. For instance, what skills/feats would I need to give to NPC/Monsters? That is a degree of change that I would avoid.

The Skills portion of the house rules would rarely apply to monsters and would easily be created on the fly, so I don't see that as a problem.

NPCs still need them, and whether or not they apply to monsters might depend on which monsters are used in the game.

Feats are always made up on the fly ...

Whoah there, you wild and crazy fellow you! That had NOT come up before. I went back and read your original description and nowhere do you say all this stuff is made up on the fly. Which leads me to ...

On the other hand, I am a player in a 4e game with all its cool feats and powers, and those things don't particularly inspire. ....

I think you are misunderstanding the house rules. There is no pre-defined lists outside of the opening skill bonuses.

I beg to differ. It's difficult to misunderstand something that was never explained, no matter how hard I might have tried!

I prefer my RPGs to be like an interactive piece of fiction; the fun is in telling the story as a group. For some in my 4e group, though, I think the fun is in the game mechanics, thinking about how to best coordinate all of their various capabilities to kill monsters.

But... ... ... why can't it be both? Why can't you engage someone with interesting and interactive fiction while giving them cool mechanics to play with?

Why can't pecan pie taste so delicious and be as healthy as broccoli? The more rules there are, the more you have to focus on mechanics. I've found that the best storytelling comes when the rules fade into the background, when players don't have to think about them at all. There's two ways to achieve that: Don't have many rules, or play a lot (the more rules, the more you have to play before they fade into the background). I don't have time to play a lot because I have a job and I'm going to school, so I opt for simplicity. With a good gaming group, simplicity can be polished to elegance.

For example, Clerics only get +1 religion knowledge, so that means they only know 5% more about religion; that's just really strange to me.

That depends on how you deal with it. The house rules specifically state that the Attribute used is up to the folks at the table. Clerics could easily utilize Wisdom whilst narratively justifying its use. Plus, a Magic-User's (general) lack of involvement with religions could easily garner him a -4 on his Religion Knowledge checks. Unless he puts a point into Religion Knowledge of course.

No one but the cleric deals much in religion, so now we should deduct 4 from every other class's Religion Knowledge checks? Much simpler to give the cleric +5 to begin with.

To justify a low chance of success with Religion Knowledge you could also figure that Religion Knowledge relates specifically to the mythology and rituals of deities. What if the cleric is less of a man of the cloth and more of a random servant of a deity whom gained his powers and drives unwittingly? Maybe the deity speaks to cleric, but for reasons of his own, doesn't preach his history/morals to the cleric (maybe out of shame or some other nefarious plot?).

Nah, I'm not going to change my campaign (which makes clerics the graduates of an extensive education process) just to make it fit with a single rule option. If it's going to be a rule, it needs to be pretty universal and not dependent on what might be the case, or on the GM designing his world around it. Your example would be a good reason for an exception, but it's not a good reason to adopt your system. (To be clear, I think there are good reasons to adopt it, just not that one.)

I never really got into the whole Feats thing, so I don't have much to say about it.

Yeah... its all about making up maneuvers on the spot and applying mechanical implications to them. Not meant to incite arguments at the table but to provide a cinematic element to the game... cinematic and epic whilst still being mechanically relevant.

I wish you'd said that at the beginning. If I'd known this was just a rule of thumb to encourage PCs to try exciting things, I'd have been a bit more open to the idea. From the original description it sounded like an attempt to port 3.5/4e feats into BF, something I'm not interested in.

Anyway, I have to run. I'll come back later in the week and re-read the whole thread with 'making it up on the fly' in mind.

[Sir Bedivere]

PS, I guess we start quoting 3-deep next?

[actingkeith]

Why can't pecan pie taste so delicious and be as healthy as broccoli? The more rules there are, the more you have to focus on mechanics. I've found that the best storytelling comes when the rules fade into the background, when players don't have to think about them at all. There's two ways to achieve that: Don't have many rules, or play a lot (the more rules, the more you have to play before they fade into the background). I don't have time to play a lot because I have a job and I'm going to school, so I opt for simplicity. With a good gaming group, simplicity can be polished to elegance.

Amen.

I was going to also call out most of the rest of this post, but that'd be gilding the lily. Sir Bedivere echos the thoughts of my original post in this thread, summing in up nicely with his pie/broccoli imagery.

Well-reasoned, concise, poetic.

[MacLeod]

NPCs still need them, and whether or not they apply to monsters might depend on which monsters are used in the game.

Depends on a lot of things. I usually make up numbers on the fly anyways if required. But I also don't roll for anything NPC-related unless it is appropriately dramatic or interesting.
I don't really think my style of play is unique though... ... ...

Whoah there, you wild and crazy fellow you! That had NOT come up before. I went back and read your original description and nowhere do you say all this stuff is made up on the fly.

Hm, I suppose it wasn't implied. Huh. Well, as you may have noted from previous posts... it is a rough draft and wasn't ever meant to be a comprehensive final version. My bad, heheheh...

I beg to differ. It's difficult to misunderstand something that was never explained, no matter how hard I might have tried!

Now you know, and knowing is half the battle.

Why can't pecan pie taste so delicious and be as healthy as broccoli? The more rules there are, the more you have to focus on mechanics.

Sounds like a cop out answer to me, sir. If more mechanics aren't your cup of tea, even if said mechanics are incredibly simple, then this thread* isn't for you.
I wouldn't say that these house rules even elevate the game to rules-medium yet. So I still feel like there is a really quick and intuitive system here that won't detract from the fiction one bit. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this point.

* A thread about house rules

No one but the cleric deals much in religion, so now we should deduct 4 from every other class's Religion Knowledge checks? Much simpler to give the cleric +5 to begin with.

This isn't necessarily true... the only reason I would penalize a generic MU is because they spend so much time studying magic, a scientific power, as opposed to letting themselves fall in faith and believe in that power.

Nah, I'm not going to change my campaign (which makes clerics the graduates of an extensive education process) just to make it fit with a single rule option.

This would be a caveat of your own campaigns. As I said before, I play sort of loose with the rules and let folks determine things for themselves. Interpreting their own numbers versus the "standard" can be part of the fun... especially in a game where most characters of the same class are mechanically the same.

If it's going to be a rule, it needs to be pretty universal and not dependent on what might be the case, or on the GM designing his world around it. Your example would be a good reason for an exception, but it's not a good reason to adopt your system. (To be clear, I think there are good reasons to adopt it, just not that one.)

eh, maybe.
I like to design rules with setting implications... and the Skill/Feat rules are pretty generic for my hand. Though feats do imply that PCs can be pretty epic folks (at any Level).