|
Post by Finarvyn on Apr 24, 2011 5:05:02 GMT -6
A mini-rant, and I hope not to offend anyone, but I'm suffering from "rules overload." This is not intended to be a "there are too many people making their own rules sets" post, although in many ways this is relevant to my problem. I play a lot of OD&D and C&C. Recently I've been running some DCC alpha playtest sessions. Over the course of my gaming career I've read and/or played Labyrinth Lords, Holmes Basic, Moldvay/Cook B/X, Mentzer BECMI, the Rules Cyclopedia, AD&D, 2E, OSRIC, S&W, BFRPG, and many more. I wrote the WB rules set. They are all so similar fundamentally, and my brain is starting to blur them all together. Yesterday when we got together to run DCC, one of my players asked what seemed like a very simple question: "What kind of hit dice to fighters get?" I blanked. I had to look it up. I had so many rules variants in my head that I honestly couldn't recall which type it was. I knew it wasn't a d4 or d6 (although OD&D uses d6's until Greyhawk) and I suspected it wasn't a d8 ( Greyhawk) so it was probably a d10 ( C&C). Surprise. I was wrong. (Turns out it's a d12.) This isn't the only question that pops up. How many spells do I get at first level? How does healing work? What is my attack bonus? Do I roll low for a stat check or high to beat a target number? (I messed that one up, too, in my DCC playtest when I did it the first way once then remembered to do the TN thing from then on.) The list goes on. If the game is totally different I can usually keep it straight. 7th Sea's "roll and keep" system is different. So is T&T's handful of dice and Monster Rating system. 4E is too different from "regular" D&D to be a problem. It's just the bloat of the sheer quantity of OD&D/ AD&D-based rules sets floating around in my brain, all basically alike but all slightly different. Matt is tweaking and changing the WB a little. And John is making Delving Deeper, which I plan on supporting. And there is discussion on the boards about creating another new OSR "entry level" game which sounds similar but different. And... and... It's driving me insane. I'm fortunate in that my gaming group is cool with it. They don't mind if I have them roll X one time and Y another, as long as we can get together and play something occasionally. I'd just like to play "by the rules" and many times can no longer recall what that means anymore. Just thought I'd rant about it.
|
|
|
Post by havard on Apr 24, 2011 6:05:41 GMT -6
Rules should not get in the way of fun -Havard
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Apr 24, 2011 8:33:59 GMT -6
While I like to look through and read the various rules manuals you mentioned, I always come back to playing house-ruled 1974 D&D: 1. My Carcosa campaign uses only the 1974 rules plus Supplement V: CARCOSA. 2. My current campaign uses a heavily house-ruled version of the 1974 rules only. 3. I'm concocting yet another campaign using only a lightly house-ruled version of the 1974 rules. 4. Occasionally we play a game of Gygaxian D&D, using only the 1974 rules plus Supplement I: GREYHAWK (mostly by the book). 5. I've toyed with a game using only the 1974 rules plus the original Arduin Trilogy. Etc. In short, I always find myself coming back to 1974, and taking the wise words of the "AFTERWARD" to heart: "[W]e urge you to refrain from writing for rule interpretations or the like unless you are absolutely at a loss, for everything herein is fantastic, and the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it just that way!"
|
|
|
Post by Mushgnome on Apr 24, 2011 8:54:32 GMT -6
I hear you. I was a 3rd edition DM for a while there, each session we threw out a bunch of rules that were bogging down the game. By the end, we'd trimmed the 6 stats down to 3 (Fortitude, Reflex, Will) and eliminated race, class, and level from the game (all the PCs were zero-level "people"). And the more rules-lite the game became, the more fun everybody had! Then I discovered OD&D and these forums. I've DM'd 1e, 2e, and 3e, but finally with OD&D I have a set of rules I can pretty much carry around in my head! So kudos to the community here for rescuing me from the insanity of bloated and confusing rules systems, hooray!
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Apr 24, 2011 9:25:15 GMT -6
And again I have nothing against all of the variant rules sets out there. I just think I've gotten to the point where they all blur together and I don't know which rules go with which sets anymore. I may have to "thin the herd" some in my mind and focus on just a few so that I can stay sane.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2011 9:40:44 GMT -6
I get what you're saying. I like using a core set of books (my old TLBBs) with a concise set of house rules (like a mini-skirt: long enough to cover the subject but short enough to be interesting). I try not to stray from that framework very often, unless my PCs find themselves on Barsoom or an alternate plane of existence (evil laughter).
|
|
|
Post by aldarron on Apr 24, 2011 10:21:09 GMT -6
Eh, that's what you get for trying to remember the rules I just keep whatever rulebook I'm using handy, in which case it isn't important to try to remember the rule - but its very important to remember where to find it!
|
|
|
Post by Mushgnome on Apr 24, 2011 10:25:15 GMT -6
Eh, that's what you get for trying to remember the rules I just keep whatever rulebook I'm using handy, in which case it isn't important to try to remember the rule - but its very important to remember where to find it! I know!!! How did we ever manage to play the hobby before the invention of searchable PDFs?
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Apr 24, 2011 10:33:13 GMT -6
Um... What's DCC?
|
|
rex
Level 1 Medium
Posts: 13
|
Post by rex on Apr 24, 2011 10:39:53 GMT -6
It's becoming a jungle of alphabet soup abbreviations out there. But...if it's all becoming confusing, just stick with playing one set of rules...?
|
|
monk
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 237
|
Post by monk on Apr 24, 2011 12:27:26 GMT -6
No matter what I try to run, if I don't pay attention it becomes B/X. That's basically the default setting in my brain, so I've stopped trying to fight it!
Luckily, my players don't seem to care about rules mechanics much. They don't want to try other systems, they just want to get in on the action.
|
|
|
Post by chicagowiz on Apr 24, 2011 13:11:38 GMT -6
For me, I play "AD&D lite" pretty much every game I DM. Even though technically I'm playing OD&D/Swords&Wizardry with @theprincesswife, and AD&D/OSRIC with the Dark Ages fellas, I am doing OD&D+Greyhawk+AD&D stuff. If I'm doing something specific, like the marathon, I'll have the cheatsheets to help me remember All the rules variants are cool, but I end up morphing them into my AD&D lite that it ends up being "one ruleset" in my head. The Modern OD&D game just threw me when I had to remember that all HD/damage was d6.
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Apr 24, 2011 13:31:49 GMT -6
Personally, I sit somewhere hovering between OD&D, Greyhawk, and AD&D.
I love only 6-sided hit dice from OD&D
I like weapon vs. armor and variable weapon damage from Greyhawk
And bend bars/open doors from AD&D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2011 15:45:31 GMT -6
I'm a creature of habit and although I play around with house rules, I stick to one rule set for a long period. The last couple of years we've been playing LL, sometimes with AEC, sometimes without. For different campaigns I use different house rules, many of them based on the 3LB, and in my latest I have them all down to a single piece of paper folded booklet style, which I hand out to the players.
I guess because I only borrow from other systems rather than play them straight, I haven't found a multitude of similar games to be a problem. To me they're all just D&D - with some house rules - which is how most of us played the game even with the original books.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Apr 24, 2011 20:47:46 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by blackbarn on Apr 24, 2011 21:36:32 GMT -6
I see these various games as nothing more than published house rules for D&D, and treat them accordingly. The DM's judgment at the table should be enough for any game to keep running smoothly, regardless of what the book actually says. I can see how you'd want to make it "right" for a playtest of the rules, but for a personal game... make it up. I'm sure most people here have enough experience with these games to make sound judgment calls.
|
|
|
Post by Mike on Apr 25, 2011 1:32:10 GMT -6
Thanks heaps. I'm very happy with there being lots of rule sets out there. The more the merrier I say! However, I do like them to be compatible and interchangeable. So I'm fine with fighters getting d6+2 or d8 hp per level. But d12 would phase me.
|
|
norse
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
And it's cold, so cold at the Edge of Time.
Posts: 233
|
Post by norse on Apr 25, 2011 3:24:29 GMT -6
I like the chaos
|
|
|
Post by DungeonDevil on Apr 25, 2011 8:56:46 GMT -6
Step back. Clear out the cerebellum. Breathe deep. Later the important, salient points should float to the surface.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Kilgore on Apr 25, 2011 12:18:16 GMT -6
They are all so similar fundamentally, and my brain is starting to blur them all together. This is the key to what you're saying, I think. The originals, the clones of the originals, and most of the offshoots of the clones are all more or less the same game and rightly regarded as such. But details are different, and that conflicts a bit with the " they're all the same game" thinking. At high and even medium level, they're practically identical. A the very lowest level there are obviously differences, some of them rather significant. After trying a gamut of games, we've settled pretty much on nearly-by-the-book Labyrinth Lord and our own homebrew that is D&D-like but different enough mechanically to not get confused with the real thing.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Kilgore on Apr 25, 2011 12:22:10 GMT -6
The DM's judgment at the table should be enough for any game to keep running smoothly, regardless of what the book actually says. I agree with the sentiment and believe strongly in DM rulings. But if you sit down with players and tell them that you're going to play OD&D and then start deviating from OD&D by using stuff from other editions that contradicts what's written in OD&D, the players would have a fair gripe.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Apr 25, 2011 16:50:32 GMT -6
My problem isn't my players -- they are more than happy to let me run any game system I want! The problem is, where I usually cobble together house rules from all over, I'm trying to follow a single rules system for a while to see how it goes. And I'm forgetting which rules are in that rulebook and which are from other rulebooks.
|
|
|
Post by kenmeister on Apr 25, 2011 17:40:24 GMT -6
Thanks heaps. I'm very happy with there being lots of rule sets out there. The more the merrier I say! However, I do like them to be compatible and interchangeable. So I'm fine with fighters getting d6+2 or d8 hp per level. But d12 would phase me. Well, I see what you're saying, but on the other hand I love that C&C gave monks a d12 hit die. At last, some respect!
|
|
|
Post by blackbarn on Apr 25, 2011 17:56:28 GMT -6
The DM's judgment at the table should be enough for any game to keep running smoothly, regardless of what the book actually says. I agree with the sentiment and believe strongly in DM rulings. But if you sit down with players and tell them that you're going to play OD&D and then start deviating from OD&D by using stuff from other editions that contradicts what's written in OD&D, the players would have a fair gripe. Yes, if it was specified it would be "by the book", and the players all understood the game intimately. If it was just "playing OD&D" then don't the books themselves state to make up and change whatever you wish, and to make rulings? I'm not assuming some crazy DM that is changing things on a whim, but a fair judge who might make rulings on things (like fighter hit dice) in the form of house rules, rather than worry over which answer is correct and which set of rules he is remembering. I think indecision in a DM, and looking for rules all the time, suggests the "judge" is no such thing, but is a slave to someone else's (the author's) rulings, unable to adapt the game to the needs of himself and his players. But yes, going against player expectations is not a good idea, and that should be addressed at the start of the game, if the players are more than casual gamers.
|
|
Koren n'Rhys
Level 6 Magician
Got your mirrorshades?
Posts: 355
|
Post by Koren n'Rhys on Apr 25, 2011 20:36:08 GMT -6
I love the variety of offshoot games that are available out on the new nowadays, but I tend to look at them all for rule tweaks and ideas I can use as house rules in my own game. I'm a Rules Cyclopedia guy and always want to pull stuff I find into that ruleset somehow.
I like the simplicity of WhiteBox, and think it's great for a simple pick-up game or to introduce new players BUT I find myself trying to add in rules to get it back to RC pretty quickly. I've looked at S&W Core and Complete, but they aren't the expanded game I really want to play.
If I need to point a player towards a rulebook for reference, I suppose it's LL since I haven't read enough of Dark Dungeons to be sure of the compatibility to RC, but I use the real TSR stuff as my base rules. But, I need to be use to tell them it won't be LL or DD by the book, they're just close. And of course I have a booklet of house rules and setting info that gets put out on the table for reference.
Yeah, there's a lot of variants out there, but I don't try to memorize any of them. Pick that core ruleset you can fall back on and use the rest for inspiration.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Kilgore on Apr 25, 2011 21:48:15 GMT -6
in the form of house rules Well, that's something entirely different than just plopping stuff from 2e AD&D into a game that contradicts something written in the rules of the version being played against the expectations of the players. Generally, I guess it would go the other direction, with expectations based on later versions being dashed by rules from older versions. Like in this AD&D game: Player: "I'm going to play a cleric." DM: "Good choice. Roll d6 for hit points." Player: "What? Don't you mean d8?" DM: "No. And you don't get a spell at first level." Player: "Forget it. I'm playing a fighter instead." DM: "Okay. Roll d6+1 for hit points." Player: "..." In general, clerics from various editions (or fighters) from various editions are more or less similar. But there are meaningful differences that depend on which edition is being played.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Apr 26, 2011 4:21:26 GMT -6
I like the simplicity of WhiteBox, and think it's great for a simple pick-up game or to introduce new players BUT I find myself trying to add in rules to get it back to RC pretty quickly. I know what you mean. I don't play WhiteBox "by the book" either because there are too many options that I like to add in. By the time I adjust saving throws, add in extra classes, etc, I typically either go toward OD&D or toward C&C instead. But on the other hand, when I buy or download a set of rules such as LL or whatever, I sometimes want to play those games "by the book" before I start to tweak them and house rule them. That's when I start to forget what makes each game different from each other. (The initial point of my thread.) LL, for example, is quite similar in many ways to other editions of D&D but not 100% the same, and with all of the add-ons (Advanced Edition Companion, Original Edition Characters)there are just that many extra rules to keep track of. And that's just one example, since S&W comes in three flavors, "basic" has Holmes/Moldvay/Mentzer/etc, and so on -- each slightly different from the other. It's not "house" rules that I get confused, but BTB rules!
|
|
|
Post by kenmeister on Apr 26, 2011 5:40:41 GMT -6
Thinking of this thread, I realized that the reason I've held off buying the S&W Complete book is that, really, how many different ways do I need to say the same thing? For example, I've got the original Ranger from the Strategic Review, the 1E ranger, the 2E ranger, the 3E ranger, the 3.5E ranger, the AEC ranger, the C&C ranger, the hackmaster ranger, and I bet I'm forgetting something. Remembering which ranger has what sided hit die is difficult already ...
|
|
|
Post by chicagowiz on Apr 26, 2011 7:28:26 GMT -6
Thank you for this thread. This has finally explained to me why I've moved away from being a clone cheerleader to just playing D&D. I open the new books as much as I open the old books, but as ken says "How many different ways do I need to say the same thing?" It ends up that what explains it best, or what has the best chart, or whichever book is right at my fingers is the one I open and I find what I need.
|
|
Koren n'Rhys
Level 6 Magician
Got your mirrorshades?
Posts: 355
|
Post by Koren n'Rhys on Apr 26, 2011 7:36:08 GMT -6
But on the other hand, when I buy or download a set of rules such as LL or whatever, I sometimes want to play those games "by the book" before I start to tweak them and house rule them. That's when I start to forget what makes each game different from each other. I suppose I don't really run into this issue because I don't look at any of these as a game to play BTB. If I run a D&D game, I'm going to run "real" D&D - whatever edition that is at the time. All the clones are (again) just mined for ideas or perhaps rule interpretations or clarifications. I've got to say I do love the Labyrinth Lord OEC and AEC books since they bring in OD&D and AD&D rules, respectively, but are specifically written to mesh with BX/BECMI. I suppose S&W is the only exception to the above, since I never will own a set of the LBBs. I've poked through the PDFs and, um... the versions available around here but S&W does organize it so nicely it's easier to use.
|
|