Couldn't agree more with this. Too many folks are ranting and getting themselves worked up over something that they could change. We all did it back in the day, prior to the internet existing in its current form. What's the problem? Don't like 4E? Don't use it. Don't like 3.5? Use 2nd. Don't like AD&D? Use something else. You're the DM, you are god.
@tetsubo57 *claps* Well said, sir, I agree. I have come to the opinion that if you are not tweaking the system to suit yourself, your table or both I might be inclined to question whether you are a true gamer or not. The folks who designed the game can go RAW because they made it. Everybody else needs to fit the game into their peculiar paradigm. I never run any RPG RAW. It's not my style, I have to tinker and put my own stamp on it even if only for the table.
A perfect example of a RAW I don't think about ANYONE follows is the -1 penalty to perception checks per 10 ft., combined with the DC0 to spot a visible creature.
You can be the greatest scout in history yet not spot the tarrasque in broad daylight at 600 ft. range. Spot an airplane/dragon in the sky? Not a frakkin' chance.
I can't do rules as written. If a rule presents problems, or I dont like the side effects of a rule, I change it. There have been times the change was unsuccessful, but the more I GM, the better I get at having the changes result in the effect I wanted. That said, I can't stand on-the-spot houserules. If you're going to implement houserules, decide on it in advance.
Last time I ran pathfinder it had upwards of 40 pages of houserules. It would have been alot less...
... would have been alot less but I had some math challenged players I had to accomodate. Example: Things like fractional BAB, and Saving throw bonuses. BAB is a fraction rounded down. Saving throws are a fraction rounded down, +2 for good saves. I made the change so you could only get that +2 once for each save, and gave the players the fraction. This had no effect at all on single classed characters, but it means if you were to say: wizard 1 rogue 1, you have a total of +1 bab instead of +0.
Many times while reading Pathfinder books I find things I would like to change, but for me it is difficult to davelop a diffrent rule to replace it without it being broken or abused by my players what would you do about that?
@Rocco2461 What don't you like? Has it shown to be a problem in play or just when you've read the rule initially? Is enough of the game not working for you that maybe PF just doesn't meet your needs?
I GM fast and loose mostly, the rules are a good tool until they take fun away from the game then they need to be altered or changed. I also house rule when creating a new setting. I feel that any rule can be changed if it will allow the game to progress. RAW arguments are stopped pretty quick in my campaigns.
I couldn't agree with you more, aside from messing with the sorcerer class so drastically. Every RPG needs to leave some situations to personal interpretation, and many games present sample house rules to encourage starting GMs to start house ruling right away.
Unfortunately, I play a lot of Pathfinder Society which is a very standardized 'Living' system and the GM is really restricted on what he or she can change and there's a very codified set of allowed equipment and whatnot. It's very odd since not only am I a tinkerer, but it really grates me when I'm running a scenario and the players steamroll it and have no fun because I was not afforded the ability to tailor the encounters to the players.
This is actually how I plan to GM my Pathfinder game, RAW. I have never played any other edition of Dungeons and Dragons, and when I picked up Pathfinder my intention was to play THIS game, I chose Pathfinder to play Pathfinder. So I think I have a different mind set about role playing games in general. I understand your ideas about the rules being just a means to your end and your willingness to change them So, I plan on running my game RAW.
@7sibley7 I'll be interested in seeing how long that lasts. I was thinking of house rules as soon as I started reading 3E... I have to keep stopping myself at the moment. I am reading a new game and I keep trying to change it as I go.
@tetsubo57 Heh, Well currently I am sill in the planning phase. I am trying to get a group together. A completely new group, so I have to get them all to read the book. But I am really looking forward to it. The thing that introduced me to D&D was Hero quest the board game. That was many years ago, and since then i have not played any other table top RPG, but the spark remains!
I believe when people online throw out the term RAW, they are actually attempting to start from a place of common ground, that we all can understand. Whether or not you want to change the game for yourself on your own time is irrelevant. When discussing something online, we all must know what our common ground is.
Thus, you are complaining about nothing. This rant is sort of like smashing yourself in the toe, then complaining about it. You CHOSE to be upset by something that is necessary.
@captnavenger Ultimately all rants are pointless. But I have encountered countless folk that seem to believe the game plays itself. that we the players are just along for the ride.
My favorite example is holy symbols in 3.5. According to some unless the symbol is made from wood (or I think silver), it *will not work*. That a cleric using say a gold holy symbol will fail to channel divine energy. That the rules trump the GM. Absurd.
Nice job - nope I'm not a RAW fan, nor do i tolerate rules lawyers. Once you buy it, it's YOUR game. Like you I prefer to tweak before game time, but I'm not as averse to making a call. I playtest things all the time, and many get thrown out, many stay, many die in thought experiment stage. I agree that players should have some limited input in house rules, but whatever side of the screen I'm on, I think it's most important for the GM to be comfortable with the rules.
Nice job - nope I'm not a RAW fan, nor do i tolerate rules lawyers. Once you buy it, it's YOUR game. Like you I prefer to tweak before game time, but I'm not as averse to making a call. I playtest things all the time, and many get thrown out, many stay, many die in thought experiment stage. I agree that players should have some limited input in house rules, but whatever side of the screen I'm on, I think it's most important for the GM to be comfortable with the rules.
I love to houserule, even completely revamp 3.5 from time to time to appease my own sense of balance and fairness (though my gaming friends rarely take these seriously). It's one of the reasons I'm drawn to older systems, especially OD&D, because of the looser rule set that demands houserules to fill in the gaps.
However, RAW is important for character optimization, as manifest on boards such as the BGs, because it provides a baseline for when the no assumptions about houserules can be made.
I've never played in a group without them, except in rare convention play. They're great insofar as they address an imbalance. In games I run, I at most choose between optional rules. I might change things on the fly, but only because I don't want to look something up. (I get a feel for the situation, wing a DC, and ask for a roll.) If a roll seems too hard or too easy to the players, I spin off of that. WHY was the difficulty unexpected? The hidden & improvised reasons become story hooks.
I play house rules a lot, mostly because I have (or had) a group of friends that played together a lot and were used to each other, and knew the rules.
I only ever really play RAW when with a new group or at a con.
House rules, I think, just naturally happen. People like to make modifications so that they can enjoy it better.
Since 1984 I've been adding my friends mana system to all DnD products. So, indeed the concept of raw. is fairly foreign to me as well. No one I play with plays raw either.
Since 1984 I've been adding my friends mana system to all DnD products. So, indeed the concept of R.A.W. is fairly foreign to me as well. No one I play with plays R.A.W. either.
Since 1984 I've been adding my friends mana system to all DnD products. So, indeed the concept of R.A.W. is fairly foreign to me as well. No one I play with plays R.A.W. either.
Now if I'm taking a ruleset and I'm trying to fit it in a setting I would change the rules. Some games are made for different reasons. Pathfinder is just a kit of rules for fantasy gaming. But something like say... Star Wars d6 isn't just a kit of rules. It's tied to the setting and the rules are designed to work with that. I would be more sketchy about house ruling some of it without seeing everything else in play.
AD&D was poorly written IMO so it needed to be house ruled. If I read something odd I would like to see it in play first with the rest of the game mechanics. If I'm not going to play the rules in a rulebook, I see it pointless that I even bought the rulebook. I don't buy a car and start modifying anything unless I have to or later see something I can change to get better performance.
I'm very minimalists house rules and am for the most part RAW. I'm a weirdo!
@scullkrusher I agree in that I try to understand why particular rules in the RAW exist. Obviously the designers had something in mind when they created the rule. Once I've evaluated the rule (and perhaps seen it in use), I decide whether or not it is something I want to hold on to.
I try to start with a game system that *mostly* agrees with my sensibilities so that I don't have to reinvent the wheel. Like you said, why buy and use a game system if you don't like the fundamental design of it?
I like to think that all games I run are "my games", and every system is simply a toolkit for me to abuse. I'm a self-admitted RPG Tinker Gnome. That said, there are times where I think it's important to look at the RAW in terms of review purposes (although I hate to.) For example: My play group LOVES 4E D&D. It's been a successful campaign for me. But part of that is incorporating stuff from older editions, like the Rules Cyclopedia, and I'll admit RAW has faults on its own.
i learned to play the basic and expert (red & blue) dungeons and dragons game and the people i played with used house rules . i have always used house rules . when i started to play ad&d one of my house rules was max hit points at first level and the i used the con modifier for fighters for every class. to me all rpg`s are ment to have house rules . the rules are just the foundation to build on . look at the ad&d forgoten realms from ed greenwood that started as house rules and took off.
@marvelona thank you . its realy about having fun and if a rule gets in the way of having a good time out it goes . i always listent to my players and might incorparate them with a little moding btu it makes them want to keep playing. most of the adventures i run , i run off them top of my head and my players love it . i once ran a dark sun game with 16 people with just using the rule book , my house rules and winging it on the fly.
I believe the least houseruled game I play is WFRP2E.
My only houserule, which my players consent to, is a random roll chart for race (one of the few options in chargen). d10 roll: 1 is Halfling, 2 is Dwarf, 3-8 is Human, 9 is Dwarf, and 10 is Elf. This is done to enforce humanocentric parties, continue the random aspect of chargen, and minimise munchkinism (even subconscious munchkinism).
@azirk83 I've noticed the omission of an random "race" table as well. Just about everything else in WFRP2E character gen has a random option, so I always wondered why race did not.
@azirk83 The only thing a player has is their character. I believe they should get to play the character they want. I didn't get to choose my 'character build' in real life. Genetics is not a choice. I feel no reason to impose that arbitrary bit of reality in an RPG.
If it isn't fun for you, we have incompatible definitions of the word fun. I play games with lots of player driven choice, WFRP isn't one of them at character conception. It is over the course of the game, but the point of it is you don't pick your starting hand. It isn't an attempt at realism, it's just a different form of game. You make a hero out of whatever rat-catcher, valet, or burgher you are given.
I'm a supporter of house-rules. I tend to look for a system that starts off being around 90% palatable to my needs (depending upon setting/playstyle/etc.) and then tweak the other 10% with additions and/or subtractions that improve the experience on the whole.
That said, an RPG is a dynamic, living thing and other changes come as their need is revealed. If a rule is proving to be problematic or non-existant, I take the opportunity to repair it.
I only houserule with the consent of all players at the table. That is the time for houserules, not before. I plead my case for said rules and achieve a consensus. Does the Rogue like your skill ranks rule Tetsubo?
When talking on an online forum, it's useful to invoke RAW because people often seem to expect Rule 0 to be the end of all rules-based arguments. This is bullshit. I consider citing Rule 0 to be a concession of the point. Those who invoke it have no argument to stand on.
@azirk83 When house-ruling does occur, it's important to communicate them with the players.
I believe RAW is useful, as you say, to demonstrate where someone's position on a rule issue may originate or to establish precedent (even if it is the precedent for distaste). It's also important to remember, as Tetsubo put it, that the game comes under the ownership of the players at purchase/table and it becomes their right to play it the way they feel is most enjoyable.
@Webhead123 Yes, I was pointing out the game isn't the GMs, it's the whole table's.
RAW isn't a play standard, it's an argument standard. Playing RAW or not is the least important argument I've ever seen online. RAW is simply the designer's house rules.
@Webhead123 Arguing from RAW does not seek to give them credence as the Written in Stone Law of the Design Gods on High. It simply gives a point of reference.
Who cares what the guy who wrote the book said, unless I like that stuff he wrote?
@Webhead123 Somebody came on RPGnet recently and was sad that their Pathfinder GM was resetting XP to 0 when the party levelled up, and getting to the next level required trekking all the way back to the next highest level of experience. The game designer and others came on and said "he's doing it wrong". I came on and said that as long as everybody's playing by the same rules he's doing it right, and everybody, including the designer was wrong for disagreeing. The game's designer recanted.
@azirk83 In cases of discussion on RAW where I might cite Rule 0, I explain that it really only results from a matter of "taste" and will detail why I feel the RAW is non-sensible or distasteful for my purposes. I never use Rule 0 to attempt to prove someone "wrong" but to demonstrate that not everyone values the same solution.
If you aren't there to provide a different one, you are effectively not in the discussion. You're being Captain Obvious and have nothing useful to report. If I have a problem with a rule, telling me to "change it!" is not useful to the discussion. This happens a lot online.
People who don't have a problem with a rule I have a problem with should move along or argue their side. Rule 0 is useless in this regard.
@azirk83 Agreed. I never simply cite Rule 0 and then end the conversation. There's no value in that discussion. If I cite Rule 0, I proceed to explain how I might handle the situation differently. Whether or not the other party finds any value in my solution is up to their POV.
@Webhead123 I'm mostly saying that Rule 0 needn't be said because if I'm talking about being unhappy with a rule, I'm already looking to change it. I consider Rule 0/the Golden Rule to be the biggest waste of ink and paper ever printed in the RPG industry, right next to "What is a Roleplaying Game?" section of the book.
@azirk83 Well, you do occasionally get people who pick up an RPG book for the first time and don't understand how RPGs are fundamentally different than, say, a board game or other more diligently rules-based interaction. Introducing the concept of Rule 0 tells the reader that the game rules are not self-justifying.
It's probably a concept that any one who does any form of gaming already has but it might also open the eyes of certain people.
@Webhead123 Tangent time: 1: I entered the hobby with people, not books. I've never met anybody with a story other than "I started gaming with a friend/family member's group". I've met people who've gamed for years and never even read the books.
2: The earliest roleplaying books had no "WiR" sections in them and the hobby survived.
3: Unless you're D&D or WoD, you have no chance of catching the eyes of a non-roleplayer. One could argue these books need a "WiR" section, other RPGs don't.
D&D and WoD, being the two dominant "gateway" RPGs, do have potential to draw people on their own and thus should cater to that new audience. I feel this should probably extend to any other game attached to another licensed property as well (games based on a TV/movie/novel/comicbook license) as you may get fans of the license who will pick up an RPG based upon interest. Someone who reads DC Comics might see the DC Adventures book and say, "I wonder what this is."
@Webhead123 Maybe, but these are mostly displayed in game stores, not readily available in other commercial venues, though this trend has changed recently due to online sales and whatnot. They can be added to the list of valid uses of the WiR section.
@tetsubo57 I would not work in your group. Because if your players were like me, it'd be *your game* all by yourself. If you want a group activity, you make decisions with the group in mind. Or you find yourself without a group. That's my experience. I still find it very interesting that you're liberal when it comes to politics and conservative when it comes to gaming.
And argument is what fuels all progress. To deny the argument is to deny the better idea you don't have.
@azirk83 An argument is not constructive. An argument is not good communication. It is bad communication. Good communication is a discussion. If someone has a valid point, I will listen. I have in the past & I imagine I will in the future. But arguing is something that I want to move away from. I see it as pointless. I am currently reading a cognitive therapy book that deals with this.
@tetsubo57 Damn vague English language. Online Dictionary:
ar·gu·ment –noun
1. an oral disagreement; verbal opposition; contention; altercation
2. a discussion involving differing points of view; debate
3. a process of reasoning; series of reasons
4. a statement, reason, or fact for or against a point
We are talking about different definitions of the word, Tetsubo. You're on 1. I'm on 2, 3, and 4. And I agree with you, as long as you aren't talking 2, 3, and 4.
@tetsubo57 outside of this argument I totally agree as a DM/GM of 20+ years I make a rule, and we experiment...but in the end if I like it and the players don't, I am running it! I am by far not an asshole DM, nor am I unfair, in fact I am excessively fair. At the end of the day though, people don't realize the DM both needs to have fun and be confident of what he is running. Now if he uses that power to railroad ya..that is a different story
I do feel most rpg groups use at least a few house rules, and is a nice idea to have a talk with your group to make sure they are all happy with any changes made. Me and my group at the moment has a change over of gm every few months and with that a house rule that i may of had may change with the new gm. My group is house rule light, which works well for us. I also fudge the dice rules a bit, but most gms do that anyway.
@Sutorenja Teen-age Mutant Ninja Turtles RPG. It eventually evolved into a game called After the Bomb. I recommend the 2nd edition. Best mutant animals rules out there.
I house rule the shit out of my games, hehe. I just make sure to tell my players what the changes are up front. If a situation comes up that isn't covered by my house rules or the rules in the book, I make a ruling, and then I jot that down for next time. RAW isn't for me. I don't think I've found a single game that didn't need a tweak here or there. House ruling games is second nature to me.
@Samwise7RPG I house-rule sometimes without thinking about it. It's just a logical extension of how I think something should work within the game.
Even the "best" (i.e. my favorite) game systems get house-ruled here and there. No game system is "perfect" out of the box. You'll always find ways that the RAW doesn't agree with you or your players. The beautiful part of an RPG is that you can always choose to change it!
In a word "No", however i do believe that if you make a ton of house rules to the point were the system is unrecognizable you should either play a diffrent system or make your own game. Having many house rules suggests that the system is not for you.
@tetsubo57 Could this be a generation gap of RPG players?
I'm very minimalist house rules and for the most part RAW. Most of my friends are too. Me and my friends are young players. I find older players make a bunch of pointless house rules. Back then they had to house rule and gotten so used to it they do it now just... because. For the MOST part games today are more complete and better written and like I said before I dislike house ruling for no clear purpose.
@scullkrusher I think that it may be a generational issue. We *had* to create a lot of house rules back in the day. Of course this has been my argument against a lot of the retro clones...
@tetsubo57 I have become a fan of retro clones that aren't straight reprints. They edit, clarify, update, and streamline the rules before printing them. So they aren't really clones I guess? My most recent purchase and game I'm playing is OpenQuest which does just that. Although BRP/RuneQuest are still in print (RQII is really good too) so it may not count as a retro clone but I think it's a update that BRP RPGs needed.
@marvelona Not necessarily. A game is a tool to give coherence and inspiration at your game table. It stands to reason that this, instead of that game, could inspire you in interesting ways that would take you far away from its base concepts, and yet, that your personal game wouldn't have existed without that first input of the rules as written. Ergo, it's not necessarily that the game just isn't for you, it's that it inspired someone in ways that made the game evolved in different ways.
I myself use RAW because I find that this structure work for me because im not much of a mechanic monkey. However I do support the golden rule mention in a lot of White Wolf products that the story/fun always take presidence over the mechanics.
@PagrZero I don't tend to generate long lists of house rules because I don't like overcomplicating the mechanics of any game system. As such, I tend to start with a game system that offers a simple, intuitive and adaptable foundation. Something that offers a point of reference for making situational judgement calls.
Couldn't agree more with this. Too many folks are ranting and getting themselves worked up over something that they could change. We all did it back in the day, prior to the internet existing in its current form. What's the problem? Don't like 4E? Don't use it. Don't like 3.5? Use 2nd. Don't like AD&D? Use something else. You're the DM, you are god.
Antiks72 1 month ago
I don't read the rules the rules read me
morganlean 1 month ago
@tetsubo57 *claps* Well said, sir, I agree. I have come to the opinion that if you are not tweaking the system to suit yourself, your table or both I might be inclined to question whether you are a true gamer or not. The folks who designed the game can go RAW because they made it. Everybody else needs to fit the game into their peculiar paradigm. I never run any RPG RAW. It's not my style, I have to tinker and put my own stamp on it even if only for the table.
KodyaxZavaj 2 months ago
A perfect example of a RAW I don't think about ANYONE follows is the -1 penalty to perception checks per 10 ft., combined with the DC0 to spot a visible creature.
You can be the greatest scout in history yet not spot the tarrasque in broad daylight at 600 ft. range. Spot an airplane/dragon in the sky? Not a frakkin' chance.
lordbaver 4 months ago
I can't do rules as written. If a rule presents problems, or I dont like the side effects of a rule, I change it. There have been times the change was unsuccessful, but the more I GM, the better I get at having the changes result in the effect I wanted. That said, I can't stand on-the-spot houserules. If you're going to implement houserules, decide on it in advance.
Last time I ran pathfinder it had upwards of 40 pages of houserules. It would have been alot less...
Colossusway 7 months ago
... would have been alot less but I had some math challenged players I had to accomodate. Example: Things like fractional BAB, and Saving throw bonuses. BAB is a fraction rounded down. Saving throws are a fraction rounded down, +2 for good saves. I made the change so you could only get that +2 once for each save, and gave the players the fraction. This had no effect at all on single classed characters, but it means if you were to say: wizard 1 rogue 1, you have a total of +1 bab instead of +0.
Colossusway 7 months ago
I would say that In game I dose not work because the players will pick the rules apart until they can use them against me
Rocco2461 8 months ago
Many times while reading Pathfinder books I find things I would like to change, but for me it is difficult to davelop a diffrent rule to replace it without it being broken or abused by my players what would you do about that?
Rocco2461 8 months ago
@Rocco2461 What don't you like? Has it shown to be a problem in play or just when you've read the rule initially? Is enough of the game not working for you that maybe PF just doesn't meet your needs?
tetsubo57 8 months ago
I GM fast and loose mostly, the rules are a good tool until they take fun away from the game then they need to be altered or changed. I also house rule when creating a new setting. I feel that any rule can be changed if it will allow the game to progress. RAW arguments are stopped pretty quick in my campaigns.
scottwayneholmes 9 months ago
I couldn't agree with you more, aside from messing with the sorcerer class so drastically. Every RPG needs to leave some situations to personal interpretation, and many games present sample house rules to encourage starting GMs to start house ruling right away.
darnpenguin 10 months ago
Unfortunately, I play a lot of Pathfinder Society which is a very standardized 'Living' system and the GM is really restricted on what he or she can change and there's a very codified set of allowed equipment and whatnot. It's very odd since not only am I a tinkerer, but it really grates me when I'm running a scenario and the players steamroll it and have no fun because I was not afforded the ability to tailor the encounters to the players.
Nephatrine 1 year ago
This is actually how I plan to GM my Pathfinder game, RAW. I have never played any other edition of Dungeons and Dragons, and when I picked up Pathfinder my intention was to play THIS game, I chose Pathfinder to play Pathfinder. So I think I have a different mind set about role playing games in general. I understand your ideas about the rules being just a means to your end and your willingness to change them So, I plan on running my game RAW.
7sibley7 1 year ago
@7sibley7 I'll be interested in seeing how long that lasts. I was thinking of house rules as soon as I started reading 3E... I have to keep stopping myself at the moment. I am reading a new game and I keep trying to change it as I go.
tetsubo57 1 year ago
@tetsubo57 Heh, Well currently I am sill in the planning phase. I am trying to get a group together. A completely new group, so I have to get them all to read the book. But I am really looking forward to it. The thing that introduced me to D&D was Hero quest the board game. That was many years ago, and since then i have not played any other table top RPG, but the spark remains!
7sibley7 1 year ago
I believe when people online throw out the term RAW, they are actually attempting to start from a place of common ground, that we all can understand. Whether or not you want to change the game for yourself on your own time is irrelevant. When discussing something online, we all must know what our common ground is.
Thus, you are complaining about nothing. This rant is sort of like smashing yourself in the toe, then complaining about it. You CHOSE to be upset by something that is necessary.
captnavenger 1 year ago
@captnavenger Ultimately all rants are pointless. But I have encountered countless folk that seem to believe the game plays itself. that we the players are just along for the ride.
My favorite example is holy symbols in 3.5. According to some unless the symbol is made from wood (or I think silver), it *will not work*. That a cleric using say a gold holy symbol will fail to channel divine energy. That the rules trump the GM. Absurd.
tetsubo57 1 year ago
Nice job - nope I'm not a RAW fan, nor do i tolerate rules lawyers. Once you buy it, it's YOUR game. Like you I prefer to tweak before game time, but I'm not as averse to making a call. I playtest things all the time, and many get thrown out, many stay, many die in thought experiment stage. I agree that players should have some limited input in house rules, but whatever side of the screen I'm on, I think it's most important for the GM to be comfortable with the rules.
ivanmike1968 1 year ago
Nice job - nope I'm not a RAW fan, nor do i tolerate rules lawyers. Once you buy it, it's YOUR game. Like you I prefer to tweak before game time, but I'm not as averse to making a call. I playtest things all the time, and many get thrown out, many stay, many die in thought experiment stage. I agree that players should have some limited input in house rules, but whatever side of the screen I'm on, I think it's most important for the GM to be comfortable with the rules.
ivanmike1968 1 year ago
screw playing raw house rules....well rule ^_^
eveplayer12 1 year ago
I love to houserule, even completely revamp 3.5 from time to time to appease my own sense of balance and fairness (though my gaming friends rarely take these seriously). It's one of the reasons I'm drawn to older systems, especially OD&D, because of the looser rule set that demands houserules to fill in the gaps.
However, RAW is important for character optimization, as manifest on boards such as the BGs, because it provides a baseline for when the no assumptions about houserules can be made.
Hushashabega 1 year ago
I always try to give the RAW a fair shake before introducing house rules.
jpow42 1 year ago
I've never played in a group without them, except in rare convention play. They're great insofar as they address an imbalance. In games I run, I at most choose between optional rules. I might change things on the fly, but only because I don't want to look something up. (I get a feel for the situation, wing a DC, and ask for a roll.) If a roll seems too hard or too easy to the players, I spin off of that. WHY was the difficulty unexpected? The hidden & improvised reasons become story hooks.
everkang 1 year ago
I play house rules a lot, mostly because I have (or had) a group of friends that played together a lot and were used to each other, and knew the rules.
I only ever really play RAW when with a new group or at a con.
House rules, I think, just naturally happen. People like to make modifications so that they can enjoy it better.
TheJillers 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Since 1984 I've been adding my friends mana system to all DnD products. So, indeed the concept of raw. is fairly foreign to me as well. No one I play with plays raw either.
Manjikoa 1 year ago
Since 1984 I've been adding my friends mana system to all DnD products. So, indeed the concept of R.A.W. is fairly foreign to me as well. No one I play with plays R.A.W. either.
Manjikoa 1 year ago
Since 1984 I've been adding my friends mana system to all DnD products. So, indeed the concept of R.A.W. is fairly foreign to me as well. No one I play with plays R.A.W. either.
Manjikoa 1 year ago
I love house rules... I cut and paste at will. :)
GMCiaramella 1 year ago
Continued...
Now if I'm taking a ruleset and I'm trying to fit it in a setting I would change the rules. Some games are made for different reasons. Pathfinder is just a kit of rules for fantasy gaming. But something like say... Star Wars d6 isn't just a kit of rules. It's tied to the setting and the rules are designed to work with that. I would be more sketchy about house ruling some of it without seeing everything else in play.
scullkrusher 1 year ago
AD&D was poorly written IMO so it needed to be house ruled. If I read something odd I would like to see it in play first with the rest of the game mechanics. If I'm not going to play the rules in a rulebook, I see it pointless that I even bought the rulebook. I don't buy a car and start modifying anything unless I have to or later see something I can change to get better performance.
I'm very minimalists house rules and am for the most part RAW. I'm a weirdo!
scullkrusher 1 year ago
@scullkrusher I agree in that I try to understand why particular rules in the RAW exist. Obviously the designers had something in mind when they created the rule. Once I've evaluated the rule (and perhaps seen it in use), I decide whether or not it is something I want to hold on to.
I try to start with a game system that *mostly* agrees with my sensibilities so that I don't have to reinvent the wheel. Like you said, why buy and use a game system if you don't like the fundamental design of it?
Webhead123 1 year ago
I like to think that all games I run are "my games", and every system is simply a toolkit for me to abuse. I'm a self-admitted RPG Tinker Gnome. That said, there are times where I think it's important to look at the RAW in terms of review purposes (although I hate to.) For example: My play group LOVES 4E D&D. It's been a successful campaign for me. But part of that is incorporating stuff from older editions, like the Rules Cyclopedia, and I'll admit RAW has faults on its own.
TheChaosGrenade 1 year ago
i learned to play the basic and expert (red & blue) dungeons and dragons game and the people i played with used house rules . i have always used house rules . when i started to play ad&d one of my house rules was max hit points at first level and the i used the con modifier for fighters for every class. to me all rpg`s are ment to have house rules . the rules are just the foundation to build on . look at the ad&d forgoten realms from ed greenwood that started as house rules and took off.
dawala1000 1 year ago
@dawala1000 And later on those rules became part of the game!, completely unrelated to the subject but just found it was cool
marvelona 1 year ago
@marvelona thank you . its realy about having fun and if a rule gets in the way of having a good time out it goes . i always listent to my players and might incorparate them with a little moding btu it makes them want to keep playing. most of the adventures i run , i run off them top of my head and my players love it . i once ran a dark sun game with 16 people with just using the rule book , my house rules and winging it on the fly.
dawala1000 1 year ago
I believe the least houseruled game I play is WFRP2E.
My only houserule, which my players consent to, is a random roll chart for race (one of the few options in chargen). d10 roll: 1 is Halfling, 2 is Dwarf, 3-8 is Human, 9 is Dwarf, and 10 is Elf. This is done to enforce humanocentric parties, continue the random aspect of chargen, and minimise munchkinism (even subconscious munchkinism).
azirk83 1 year ago
@azirk83 I've noticed the omission of an random "race" table as well. Just about everything else in WFRP2E character gen has a random option, so I always wondered why race did not.
Webhead123 1 year ago
@Webhead123 Most people go the other way, and allow people to choose their starting career. Kills the fun of chargen for me and my group, though.
azirk83 1 year ago
@azirk83 The only thing a player has is their character. I believe they should get to play the character they want. I didn't get to choose my 'character build' in real life. Genetics is not a choice. I feel no reason to impose that arbitrary bit of reality in an RPG.
tetsubo57 1 year ago
@tetsubo57 It's part of the fun.
If it isn't fun for you, we have incompatible definitions of the word fun. I play games with lots of player driven choice, WFRP isn't one of them at character conception. It is over the course of the game, but the point of it is you don't pick your starting hand. It isn't an attempt at realism, it's just a different form of game. You make a hero out of whatever rat-catcher, valet, or burgher you are given.
azirk83 1 year ago
I'm a supporter of house-rules. I tend to look for a system that starts off being around 90% palatable to my needs (depending upon setting/playstyle/etc.) and then tweak the other 10% with additions and/or subtractions that improve the experience on the whole.
That said, an RPG is a dynamic, living thing and other changes come as their need is revealed. If a rule is proving to be problematic or non-existant, I take the opportunity to repair it.
Webhead123 1 year ago
I only houserule with the consent of all players at the table. That is the time for houserules, not before. I plead my case for said rules and achieve a consensus. Does the Rogue like your skill ranks rule Tetsubo?
When talking on an online forum, it's useful to invoke RAW because people often seem to expect Rule 0 to be the end of all rules-based arguments. This is bullshit. I consider citing Rule 0 to be a concession of the point. Those who invoke it have no argument to stand on.
azirk83 1 year ago
@azirk83 When house-ruling does occur, it's important to communicate them with the players.
I believe RAW is useful, as you say, to demonstrate where someone's position on a rule issue may originate or to establish precedent (even if it is the precedent for distaste). It's also important to remember, as Tetsubo put it, that the game comes under the ownership of the players at purchase/table and it becomes their right to play it the way they feel is most enjoyable.
Webhead123 1 year ago
@Webhead123 Yes, I was pointing out the game isn't the GMs, it's the whole table's.
RAW isn't a play standard, it's an argument standard. Playing RAW or not is the least important argument I've ever seen online. RAW is simply the designer's house rules.
azirk83 1 year ago
@azirk83 "RAW is simply the designer's house rules."
Exactly. I believe Gary Gygax himself had said it as such.
Webhead123 1 year ago
@Webhead123 Arguing from RAW does not seek to give them credence as the Written in Stone Law of the Design Gods on High. It simply gives a point of reference.
Who cares what the guy who wrote the book said, unless I like that stuff he wrote?
azirk83 1 year ago
@azirk83 "It simply gives a point of reference."
Precisely.
Webhead123 1 year ago
@Webhead123 Somebody came on RPGnet recently and was sad that their Pathfinder GM was resetting XP to 0 when the party levelled up, and getting to the next level required trekking all the way back to the next highest level of experience. The game designer and others came on and said "he's doing it wrong". I came on and said that as long as everybody's playing by the same rules he's doing it right, and everybody, including the designer was wrong for disagreeing. The game's designer recanted.
azirk83 1 year ago
@azirk83 In cases of discussion on RAW where I might cite Rule 0, I explain that it really only results from a matter of "taste" and will detail why I feel the RAW is non-sensible or distasteful for my purposes. I never use Rule 0 to attempt to prove someone "wrong" but to demonstrate that not everyone values the same solution.
Webhead123 1 year ago
@Webhead123 The provide a different one.
If you aren't there to provide a different one, you are effectively not in the discussion. You're being Captain Obvious and have nothing useful to report. If I have a problem with a rule, telling me to "change it!" is not useful to the discussion. This happens a lot online.
People who don't have a problem with a rule I have a problem with should move along or argue their side. Rule 0 is useless in this regard.
azirk83 1 year ago
@azirk83 Agreed. I never simply cite Rule 0 and then end the conversation. There's no value in that discussion. If I cite Rule 0, I proceed to explain how I might handle the situation differently. Whether or not the other party finds any value in my solution is up to their POV.
Webhead123 1 year ago
@Webhead123 I'm mostly saying that Rule 0 needn't be said because if I'm talking about being unhappy with a rule, I'm already looking to change it. I consider Rule 0/the Golden Rule to be the biggest waste of ink and paper ever printed in the RPG industry, right next to "What is a Roleplaying Game?" section of the book.
azirk83 1 year ago
@azirk83 Well, you do occasionally get people who pick up an RPG book for the first time and don't understand how RPGs are fundamentally different than, say, a board game or other more diligently rules-based interaction. Introducing the concept of Rule 0 tells the reader that the game rules are not self-justifying.
It's probably a concept that any one who does any form of gaming already has but it might also open the eyes of certain people.
Webhead123 1 year ago
@Webhead123 Tangent time: 1: I entered the hobby with people, not books. I've never met anybody with a story other than "I started gaming with a friend/family member's group". I've met people who've gamed for years and never even read the books.
2: The earliest roleplaying books had no "WiR" sections in them and the hobby survived.
3: Unless you're D&D or WoD, you have no chance of catching the eyes of a non-roleplayer. One could argue these books need a "WiR" section, other RPGs don't.
azirk83 1 year ago
@azirk83 You have a point.
D&D and WoD, being the two dominant "gateway" RPGs, do have potential to draw people on their own and thus should cater to that new audience. I feel this should probably extend to any other game attached to another licensed property as well (games based on a TV/movie/novel/comicbook license) as you may get fans of the license who will pick up an RPG based upon interest. Someone who reads DC Comics might see the DC Adventures book and say, "I wonder what this is."
Webhead123 1 year ago
@Webhead123 Maybe, but these are mostly displayed in game stores, not readily available in other commercial venues, though this trend has changed recently due to online sales and whatnot. They can be added to the list of valid uses of the WiR section.
azirk83 1 year ago
@azirk83 And in the "big name" book sellers like Barnes & Noble, usually next to or near the graphic novels/manga/video game strategy guides section.
Webhead123 1 year ago
@azirk83 Since invoking it have haven't run a game with a rogue to complain. :)
My house rules really aren't about 'arguing'. Discussion yes, argue, no. It is ultimately my game. I consider Rule 0 a perfectly valid position.
tetsubo57 1 year ago
@tetsubo57 I would not work in your group. Because if your players were like me, it'd be *your game* all by yourself. If you want a group activity, you make decisions with the group in mind. Or you find yourself without a group. That's my experience. I still find it very interesting that you're liberal when it comes to politics and conservative when it comes to gaming.
And argument is what fuels all progress. To deny the argument is to deny the better idea you don't have.
azirk83 1 year ago
@azirk83 An argument is not constructive. An argument is not good communication. It is bad communication. Good communication is a discussion. If someone has a valid point, I will listen. I have in the past & I imagine I will in the future. But arguing is something that I want to move away from. I see it as pointless. I am currently reading a cognitive therapy book that deals with this.
tetsubo57 1 year ago
@tetsubo57 Damn vague English language. Online Dictionary:
ar·gu·ment –noun
1. an oral disagreement; verbal opposition; contention; altercation
2. a discussion involving differing points of view; debate
3. a process of reasoning; series of reasons
4. a statement, reason, or fact for or against a point
We are talking about different definitions of the word, Tetsubo. You're on 1. I'm on 2, 3, and 4. And I agree with you, as long as you aren't talking 2, 3, and 4.
azirk83 1 year ago
@tetsubo57 outside of this argument I totally agree as a DM/GM of 20+ years I make a rule, and we experiment...but in the end if I like it and the players don't, I am running it! I am by far not an asshole DM, nor am I unfair, in fact I am excessively fair. At the end of the day though, people don't realize the DM both needs to have fun and be confident of what he is running. Now if he uses that power to railroad ya..that is a different story
skuzzyknuckles 1 year ago
I do feel most rpg groups use at least a few house rules, and is a nice idea to have a talk with your group to make sure they are all happy with any changes made. Me and my group at the moment has a change over of gm every few months and with that a house rule that i may of had may change with the new gm. My group is house rule light, which works well for us. I also fudge the dice rules a bit, but most gms do that anyway.
markcrew162 1 year ago
TNMNT rulebook?
Sutorenja 1 year ago
@Sutorenja Teen-age Mutant Ninja Turtles RPG. It eventually evolved into a game called After the Bomb. I recommend the 2nd edition. Best mutant animals rules out there.
tetsubo57 1 year ago
@tetsubo57 TMNT RULEBOOK! 8DDDDD
also, homebrew, have about 30 pages of it
Sutorenja 1 year ago
I house rule the shit out of my games, hehe. I just make sure to tell my players what the changes are up front. If a situation comes up that isn't covered by my house rules or the rules in the book, I make a ruling, and then I jot that down for next time. RAW isn't for me. I don't think I've found a single game that didn't need a tweak here or there. House ruling games is second nature to me.
Samwise7RPG 1 year ago
@Samwise7RPG I house-rule sometimes without thinking about it. It's just a logical extension of how I think something should work within the game.
Even the "best" (i.e. my favorite) game systems get house-ruled here and there. No game system is "perfect" out of the box. You'll always find ways that the RAW doesn't agree with you or your players. The beautiful part of an RPG is that you can always choose to change it!
Webhead123 1 year ago
In a word "No", however i do believe that if you make a ton of house rules to the point were the system is unrecognizable you should either play a diffrent system or make your own game. Having many house rules suggests that the system is not for you.
marvelona 1 year ago
@marvelona I agree. But at one time (when dinosaurs rolled dice) there weren't many options available...
tetsubo57 1 year ago
@tetsubo57 Could this be a generation gap of RPG players?
I'm very minimalist house rules and for the most part RAW. Most of my friends are too. Me and my friends are young players. I find older players make a bunch of pointless house rules. Back then they had to house rule and gotten so used to it they do it now just... because. For the MOST part games today are more complete and better written and like I said before I dislike house ruling for no clear purpose.
scullkrusher 1 year ago
@scullkrusher I think that it may be a generational issue. We *had* to create a lot of house rules back in the day. Of course this has been my argument against a lot of the retro clones...
tetsubo57 1 year ago
@tetsubo57 I have become a fan of retro clones that aren't straight reprints. They edit, clarify, update, and streamline the rules before printing them. So they aren't really clones I guess? My most recent purchase and game I'm playing is OpenQuest which does just that. Although BRP/RuneQuest are still in print (RQII is really good too) so it may not count as a retro clone but I think it's a update that BRP RPGs needed.
scullkrusher 1 year ago
@marvelona Not necessarily. A game is a tool to give coherence and inspiration at your game table. It stands to reason that this, instead of that game, could inspire you in interesting ways that would take you far away from its base concepts, and yet, that your personal game wouldn't have existed without that first input of the rules as written. Ergo, it's not necessarily that the game just isn't for you, it's that it inspired someone in ways that made the game evolved in different ways.
Odhanan 1 year ago
@Odhanan Even if it evolved from the original, it is now a different game! That is why i said one of the options is to make your own game.
marvelona 1 year ago
I myself use RAW because I find that this structure work for me because im not much of a mechanic monkey. However I do support the golden rule mention in a lot of White Wolf products that the story/fun always take presidence over the mechanics.
PagrZero 1 year ago
@PagrZero I don't tend to generate long lists of house rules because I don't like overcomplicating the mechanics of any game system. As such, I tend to start with a game system that offers a simple, intuitive and adaptable foundation. Something that offers a point of reference for making situational judgement calls.
Webhead123 1 year ago