Discussing the House Rules Found in the Other Thread

[mormonyoyoman]

Who promised you extended lifespans? I want names!!

[Q Man]

Jun 18, 2018 20:14:49 GMT -5 mormonyoyoman said:

Who promised you extended lifespans? I want names!!

I'd tell you, but then I'd have to k... err... uh.. you know.

[mormonyoyoman]

Did they also promise you could keep your healthcare plan?

[Q Man]

Jun 18, 2018 20:26:40 GMT -5 mormonyoyoman said:

Did they also promise you could keep your healthcare plan?

They said I wouldn't need it. Advanced regeneration was part of the longevity package.

[mormonyoyoman]

For myself, I'd just as soon not hang around much longer, and I'm rather envious of my friends and baby sister who graduated ahead of me.

[True Black Raven]

I'm going to take a shot at one of these.

4.)

Unified XP charts

I scrapped XP altogether for decades because I didn't want to bother with the details and I disliked giving XP for gold since gold is its own reward. Recently I've gone back to XP but am basing it more on monster kills and trap evasion than on gold found. I've been tinkering with using the Fighting Man XP chart, but at 10% of the listed values. Again, not set in stone yet.

This IMO is new school and for the reason that it replaces the original mechanic of XP based on gold which encouraged the original game virtue of exploration which encouraged immersion in the game. It helped people connect with the setting and want to learn about it and become part of it since all of that would help them collect gold and stay alive. The object was not to kill everything and anything, but to avoid combat and use all available options.

Basing experience on on killing things encourages a play style that is not immersed in the setting, it encourages the new school murder hobo trope where PCs view all NPC's even peaceful town people as just XPs on the hoof. Even worse is the reducing the XP for Fighting-Men (and other classes) to go up in levels to 10% of the normal value for a unified fast track XP chart so as to reach high levels really quickly and pretty much bypass all the fun to be had earning your way up in level. If you only want to play high level character that badly, then just start everyone at high level and pretend that you earned it.

Some people may find being given everything on a silver platter to be fun, but it is not for me.

[ripx187]

I've gotta say, I love reading this thread. Great content here, guys.

Secondary Skills



With just a little tinkering, the Career system from Barbarians of Lemuria makes a fast, flexible mechanic for secondary skills. 

This isn't a mechanic, nor is it a rule; it is, however, fun. Nobody makes you roll against tables like this, but some tables are just so entertaining that you want to. I enjoy a bit of background to my characters, and tables like this one are fast and to the point. I never considered it "My Job" maybe it was my father's job? Maybe it is how I earned the start up money? It begs more questions, but it isn't demanding anything from you. 

What makes this table so different is that it is a table for the players. Through the years there have been many colour tables for DM's, but off hand, I think that this is the only one specifically for players to use. You don't need a three-page background with this, it even provides a character motivation if you want it too. It can be as meaningful or as fruitless as you want it to and it can encourage the player to participate in the creation of the setting. 

Now, there is the temptation for the DM to create his own, maybe one that is logical, but once we do that I think that we lose the entire point of it. General tables such as this ADD something that wasn't there before. Usually, we roll up Street Urchin, but there are times where we roll up something odd, like a fisherman in the middle of the desert; this is where the table begins to work its magic. A homebrewed chart would lack this opportunity to dig deeper into the setting than we normally would, and it is the player who gets to do it. 

[simrion]

In a generalized observation to include the issues of "min-maxing" and bolted on "skill" house rules. It seems when D&D first appeared the idea was for the players, through their characters, to pit intelligence, knowledge and wit against the challenges and puzzles the DM populated the dungeon with. Players were encouraged to actually learn stuff, which may have been normal among the original players due their collective fascination with history and militaria due their war gaming experiences. Somewhere along the way such roleplay interaction fell off in favor of rolling a die to accomplish tasks beyond combat. My players have quickly learned that if they don't describe what their character is doing, such as how they are searching for aecret door, they will find nothing regardless of the die roll. Role playing rather than roll playing.

[ripx187]

Jun 20, 2018 19:03:01 GMT -5 simrion said:

In a generalized observation to include the issues of "min-maxing" and bolted on "skill" house rules. It seems when D&D first appeared the idea was for the players, through their characters, to pit intelligence, knowledge and wit against the challenges and puzzles the DM populated the dungeon with. Players were encouraged to actually learn stuff, which may have been normal among the original players due their collective fascination with history and militaria due their war gaming experiences. Somewhere along the way such roleplay interaction fell off in favor of rolling a die to accomplish tasks beyond combat. My players have quickly learned that if they don't describe what their character is doing, such as how they are searching for aecret door, they will find nothing regardless of the die roll. Role playing rather than roll playing.

You read my mind. Are any of these rules really old-school, or are they just old rules? An old rule states that elves automatically have a 2 in 6 chance of finding secret doors. I choose to ignore this and always have because it irritated me. The way that I want to play the game is to encourage the players to interact with the setting, not with the dice. I want them to see a room in their minds, and to draw them into that world. Stating, "I search this room.", and rolling the dice isn't good enough, I want to know how you are searching the room. Many believe that this is boring, let's hurry up and get to the good stuff! To me, this is the good stuff. Reward the player over giving them hand-outs. 

[True Black Raven]

Jun 20, 2018 19:22:20 GMT -5 ripx187 said:

Jun 20, 2018 19:03:01 GMT -5 simrion said:

In a generalized observation to include the issues of "min-maxing" and bolted on "skill" house rules. It seems when D&D first appeared the idea was for the players, through their characters, to pit intelligence, knowledge and wit against the challenges and puzzles the DM populated the dungeon with. Players were encouraged to actually learn stuff, which may have been normal among the original players due their collective fascination with history and militaria due their war gaming experiences. Somewhere along the way such roleplay interaction fell off in favor of rolling a die to accomplish tasks beyond combat. My players have quickly learned that if they don't describe what their character is doing, such as how they are searching for aecret door, they will find nothing regardless of the die roll. Role playing rather than roll playing.

You read my mind. Are any of these rules really old-school, or are they just old rules? An old rule states that elves automatically have a 2 in 6 chance of finding secret doors. I choose to ignore this and always have because it irritated me. The way that I want to play the game is to encourage the players to interact with the setting, not with the dice. I want them to see a room in their minds, and to draw them into that world. Stating, "I search this room.", and rolling the dice isn't good enough, I want to know how you are searching the room. Many believe that this is boring, let's hurry up and get to the good stuff! To me, this is the good stuff. Reward the player over giving them hand-outs. 

Excellent points both of you and an exalt for each of you.  I think that is write mostly old rules that have been around a long time and people think they are new ideas, but really they are not. Yes, so this! Role playing rather than roll playing. Tell me what you are doing and often there will be no dice roll. I can just tell you if you succeeded or not.

[Hexenritter Verlag]

Jun 20, 2018 19:22:20 GMT -5 ripx187 said:

Jun 20, 2018 19:03:01 GMT -5 simrion said:

In a generalized observation to include the issues of "min-maxing" and bolted on "skill" house rules. It seems when D&D first appeared the idea was for the players, through their characters, to pit intelligence, knowledge and wit against the challenges and puzzles the DM populated the dungeon with. Players were encouraged to actually learn stuff, which may have been normal among the original players due their collective fascination with history and militaria due their war gaming experiences. Somewhere along the way such roleplay interaction fell off in favor of rolling a die to accomplish tasks beyond combat. My players have quickly learned that if they don't describe what their character is doing, such as how they are searching for aecret door, they will find nothing regardless of the die roll. Role playing rather than roll playing.

You read my mind. Are any of these rules really old-school, or are they just old rules? An old rule states that elves automatically have a 2 in 6 chance of finding secret doors. I choose to ignore this and always have because it irritated me. The way that I want to play the game is to encourage the players to interact with the setting, not with the dice. I want them to see a room in their minds, and to draw them into that world. Stating, "I search this room.", and rolling the dice isn't good enough, I want to know how you are searching the room. Many believe that this is boring, let's hurry up and get to the good stuff! To me, this is the good stuff. Reward the player over giving them hand-outs. 

Though the 2 in 6 doesn't bother me, I do concur that most players see describing their actions as boring and just want to get to it. I've been told to hurry up and roll while I tried to describe how I was either searching or trying to overcome a trap or other obstacle. It is funny that one of my crappiest Refs actually allowed such activities instead of relying on rolls - when he wasn't screwing us over & plot hammering us to the goal of the adventure. This is why I've grown to love OD&D & Delving Deeper - combat & such is quick so the players can immerse ourselves in the game. 

[simrion]

Not to belittle dice rolling because rolling dice IS fun...the various examples of play in volumes such as #3 underworld and wilderness do encourage description of activity prompting dice rolls. And I can't help but think to the Gygax 10 x 10 rooms with secret doors in Tomb of Horrors each with it's own unique method of opening. To my mind description of you character's actions is strongly implied and encouraged.

[simrion]

And back on topic if I recall correctly it was mentioned somewhere that Dave Arneson was personally knowledgeable on many subjects and expect his players to be so as well. Something about a seafaring adventure where nautical knowledge among the players was advantageous if not vital to success.? Again that concept of the players pitting their wits against the challenges of the adventure NOT simply having high stats with bonuses or high skill ranks or whatever. My players moan and groan about riddles and such but I love and embrace such challenges as a player, by way of example.

[Admin Pete]

I'm not very good at riddles and I can't draw, but I have put runes (self devised) on a rock wall and the players have figured out what I was thinking of and went where the runes were telling them to go. Some people are really good at reading body language and pickup from the refs unspoken non-verbals when they are on the right track.

[ripx187]

Spells

That's something I experiment a lot with, because I've never come to like the spell system, especially at low levels. I feel it restrains MU's, especially at lower levels, and some spells just never get prepared and used. Personally, I found playing MU's rather boring at the first levels, as you can rarely even use magic. So here's what I used last time:

Similarly to Fin, I allowed a generic ranged attack spell "cantrip" which can be cast without limit but rolls damage with disadvantage. It requires a to-hit roll. A similar attack can be made as a melee attack, which does regular 1d6 damage (mostly just fluff, except for monster immunities or resistances).

And here's the major overhaul, in short:

Spells can be prepared as usual, but you can still cast spells if they're unprepared (see below).

Prepared spells can be cast by expending a number of HP equal to the spell's level.

Unprepared spells cost double that amount of HP.

Any spell can be cast from the traveling spell book as a ritual taking 1 turn per spell level (this is intended to allow castings of Read Magic and similar spells more freely).

This makes spell-casters more powerful at higher levels, but so far we've rarely come to these levels. 

Alright, I really like parts of this one. I enjoy it when the players gamble, and I love the idea that magic is dangerous. However, I don't think that this is stiff enough.

The spell table is what one can safely cast. These spells are prepared ahead of time, and done so with no risk to the caster. Those spells are normal.

One can also choose to play with fate, and cast spells that are not prepared, but this is dangerous. Spells cast in this method are volatile and act as if cast by a Magic user 3 levels higher, but at a cost. Each spell does physical damage to the caster = 1d8 per spell level, save vs. poison for half damage. Any wizard who is killed doing this comes back as an undead creature. 

I'll have to play-test this, if it is too bad then I can add a chance for spell failure, spell normal, and this. My players hate preparing spells, and sometimes they cheat or don't keep proper records. 

[mormonyoyoman]

Jun 21, 2018 7:24:07 GMT -5 Admin Pete said:

I'm not very good at riddles and I can't draw, but I have put runes (self devised) on a rock wall and the players have figured out what I was thinking of and went where the runes were telling them to go. Some people are really good at reading body language and pickup from the refs unspoken non-verbals when they are on the right track.

Examples include:  Kreskin, Osterlind, Dunninger, Annemann. Blackstone Sr was supposed to be adept at it, but didn't use it in his act. He used it to get free donuts.

[Admin Pete]

Jun 21, 2018 8:56:04 GMT -5 ripx187 said:

Alright, I really like parts of this one. I enjoy it when the players gamble, and I love the idea that magic is dangerous. However, I don't think that this is stiff enough.

The spell table is what one can safely cast. These spells are prepared ahead of time, and done so with no risk to the caster. Those spells are normal.

One can also choose to play with fate, and cast spells that are not prepared, but this is dangerous. Spells cast in this method are volatile and act as if cast by a Magic user 3 levels higher, but at a cost. Each spell does physical damage to the caster = 1d8 per spell level, save vs. poison for half damage. Any wizard who is killed doing this comes back as an undead creature. 

I'll have to play-test this, if it is too bad then I can add a chance for spell failure, spell normal, and this. My players hate preparing spells, and sometimes they cheat or don't keep proper records. 

Let us know how the play testing goes.

[Admin Pete]

Jun 21, 2018 10:18:15 GMT -5 mormonyoyoman said:

Jun 21, 2018 7:24:07 GMT -5 Admin Pete said:

I'm not very good at riddles and I can't draw, but I have put runes (self devised) on a rock wall and the players have figured out what I was thinking of and went where the runes were telling them to go. Some people are really good at reading body language and pickup from the refs unspoken non-verbals when they are on the right track.

Examples include:  Kreskin, Osterlind, Dunninger, Annemann. Blackstone Sr was supposed to be adept at it, but didn't use it in his act. He used it to get free donuts.

Free donuts, I could go for those, but my doctor would not be happy with me.

[mormonyoyoman]

If he had one, I don't think his would have either. I think he used a doctor in Colon, Michigan when his troupe took a break in summers. No A/C in theaters then, so a lot of vaudeville folks didn't tour during the summer - because no one would sit in a vaudeville house for very long in the summer!

[Admin Pete]

Jun 21, 2018 10:28:49 GMT -5 mormonyoyoman said:

If he had one, I don't think his would have either. I think he used a doctor in Colon, Michigan when his troupe took a break in summers. No A/C in theaters then, so a lot of vaudeville folks didn't tour during the summer - because no one would sit in a vaudeville house for very long in the summer!

He had trouble with his colon? That is TMI, lets not go up that road. Monkeys form troupes, what was he doing with monkeys? 

[hedgehobbit]

Jun 17, 2018 16:52:13 GMT -5 Q Man said:

I just don't understand what the problem is that people have with rolling 3d6 in order for the stats.

Because it's terrible.

They get one number under 12 and think that is unplayable.

Looks at the pregens for D1. Only two of the characters have any stats under 12. One has an 18, and they other (whose lowest stat is 11) has a 17 and a 16. Or those from S1 where of the 20 pregens, all but four had either an 18 or two 17s. The lowest stat among those characters was a 7 and that character had two 18s. Also, look at the consistently high stats of the named NPCs in Rogue Gallery.

So it's easy to see where the idea that characters with stats under 12 are unplayable comes from.

If you want to go back even further, Gygax wrote an article in an issue of Europa ('74) where he suggests that players who rolled low stats should choose demi-humans because those characters will probably die before they hit the level limit.

[Q Man]

Jun 21, 2018 16:23:57 GMT -5 hedgehobbit said:

Jun 17, 2018 16:52:13 GMT -5 Q Man said:

I just don't understand what the problem is that people have with rolling 3d6 in order for the stats.

Because it's terrible.

That is a bold statement, but why are they terrible? In OD&D playing with the 3LBBs why is it such a terrible thing to have numbers of an average person, instead of all 18's. A PC with low numbers is not fatally handicapped.

Jun 21, 2018 16:23:57 GMT -5 hedgehobbit said:

They get one number under 12 and think that is unplayable.

Looks at the pregens for D1. Only two of the characters have any stats under 12. One has an 18, and they other (whose lowest stat is 11) has a 17 and a 16. Or those from S1 where of the 20 pregens, all but four had either an 18 or two 17s. The lowest stat among those characters was a 7 and that character had two 18s. Also, look at the consistently high stats of the named NPCs in Rogue Gallery.

So it's easy to see where the idea that characters with stats under 12 are unplayable comes from.

If you want to go back even further, Gygax wrote an article in an issue of Europa ('74) where he suggests that players who rolled low stats should choose demi-humans because those characters will probably die before they hit the level limit.

What do the pregens in post OD&D modules have to do with anything? One those were not written for OD&D and two even if they were so what, it doesn't effect what takes place in my campaign. D1, S1 and the Rogue Gallery have nothing to do with old school OD&D. That is one of the bad things about these "official" products, the stat inflation got out of hand and so everything had to be munchkined up in order to sell it. The module disease IMO had a pervasive bad influence by sending a false message that only characters that had "Greek god" stats were viable, which is completely untrue. If Gygax suggested such a thing, then shame on him. I disagree with him, I have never found characters with low stats to be non-viable or that they would die early solely because of their stats. The only way that happens is if the DM targets those characters for death. Otherwise players skill will win out over poor stats a lot of the time. Now you could go to Arduin Bloody Arduin mode and characters will die at a high rate regardless of the stats. Using 3d6 in order is only a problem if the DM makes it a problem.

[hedgehobbit]

Jun 20, 2018 19:03:01 GMT -5 simrion said:

In a generalized observation to include the issues of "min-maxing" and bolted on "skill" house rules. It seems when D&D first appeared the idea was for the players, through their characters, to pit intelligence, knowledge and wit against the challenges and puzzles the DM populated the dungeon with. Players were encouraged to actually learn stuff, which may have been normal among the original players due their collective fascination with history and militaria due their war gaming experiences. Somewhere along the way such roleplay interaction fell off in favor of rolling a die to accomplish tasks beyond combat.

I've talked about this extensively. There are two methods of creating a challenge in a RPG: challenging the player and challenging the character. Combat has, since the beginning been mainly about challenging the character whereas, exploration and social interactions were mainly focused on challenging the player. The reason for this is that describing how you search a room or where you go in the dungeon doesn't require mechanics. Neither does talking to NPCs. These things can be effectively represented through player/DM interactions. Player challenge was favored in early D&D which is why you saw so many monsters designed to look like different monsters (gas spore & adherer) or regular dungeon objects (mimic & piercer). 

Starting with the second generation of RPGs, particularly Runequest, you started to see a much higher emphasis on challenging the character instead of the player. Here you start seeing character skills for searching and negotiating. Possibly, this is due to the fact that you now have game written by people who have been playing RPGs much longer and who might enjoy playing an inexperienced character. At this point, "character knowledge" became a bad thing that players were expected to pretend didn't exist.

Oddly, player challenge made a return, but now it's in the form of system mastery, where a player's knowledge of class features, rules, and combos is expected to determine success or failure. That's why it might seem like rolling for things that could be decided by gameplay seems like a modern, min-max type of thing. 

[Deleted]

Jun 21, 2018 17:28:10 GMT -5 hedgehobbit said:

Jun 20, 2018 19:03:01 GMT -5 simrion said:

I've talked about this extensively. There are two methods of creating a challenge in a RPG: challenging the player and challenging the character. Combat has, since the beginning been mainly about challenging the character

Incorrect.  Or, correct only if nobody is using tactics.

ESPECIALLY not from the beginning.

[Keyone1234]

Jun 21, 2018 16:23:57 GMT -5 hedgehobbit said:

Jun 17, 2018 16:52:13 GMT -5 Q Man said:

I just don't understand what the problem is that people have with rolling 3d6 in order for the stats.

Because it's terrible.

I would disagree with that too, there is nothing inherently good or bad about any particular method character generation. To just say it's terrible, just because doesn't make it so. Using 3d6 in order is just as valid as saying all character start with all 18's across the board. In OD&D one is not demonstrably better than the other.

[Deleted]

Jun 21, 2018 16:23:57 GMT -5 hedgehobbit said:

Jun 17, 2018 16:52:13 GMT -5 Q Man said:

I just don't understand what the problem is that people have with rolling 3d6 in order for the stats.

Because it's terrible.

There are no terrible methods of character generation.

There are only terrible players.

[Keyone1234]

Jun 21, 2018 16:23:57 GMT -5 hedgehobbit said:

Looks at the pregens for D1. Only two of the characters have any stats under 12. One has an 18, and they other (whose lowest stat is 11) has a 17 and a 16. Or those from S1 where of the 20 pregens, all but four had either an 18 or two 17s. The lowest stat among those characters was a 7 and that character had two 18s. Also, look at the consistently high stats of the named NPCs in Rogue Gallery.

So it's easy to see where the idea that characters with stats under 12 are unplayable comes from.

If you want to go back even further, Gygax wrote an article in an issue of Europa ('74) where he suggests that players who rolled low stats should choose demi-humans because those characters will probably die before they hit the level limit.

If you are basing your argument on pregens you are standing on sand. They are not even rules in the game and the rules themselves are guidelines not some hard and fast thing that we have to follow. I would like to the the article your refer to as to what he specifically said, but even if Gygax said that, it contradicts OD&D itself or else they would have just put in a method of Chargen in Men & Magic that guaranteed all high stats for all players if that statement is true and that is not what they did.

[Keyone1234]

Jun 21, 2018 17:52:25 GMT -5 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Jun 21, 2018 17:28:10 GMT -5 hedgehobbit said:

I've talked about this extensively. There are two methods of creating a challenge in a RPG: challenging the player and challenging the character. Combat has, since the beginning been mainly about challenging the character

Incorrect.  Or, correct only if nobody is using tactics.

ESPECIALLY not from the beginning.

Have an Exalt for truth!

[Keyone1234]

Jun 21, 2018 17:53:21 GMT -5 @gronanofsimmerya said:

Jun 21, 2018 16:23:57 GMT -5 hedgehobbit said:

Because it's terrible.

There are no terrible methods of character generation.

There are only terrible players.

Also true! 

[hedgehobbit]

Jun 21, 2018 16:52:22 GMT -5 Q Man said:

That is a bold statement, but why are they terrible?

I'm not saying that characters generated by 3d6-in-order are terrible. Just that randomly generating character that vary widely in ability score is inferior to systems where characters are basically equal.

Consider two characters, one with below average scores and one with above average scores. The player of the character with below average stats will know that should that character die, he will most likely get a much better character in exchange. Thus he will be rewarded for dying. Likewise, the player of the above average character will be punished more for dying as his new character will likely be worse.

Thus, the player with the below average character will be encouraged to act in a risky fashion or, more likely, to simply sacrifice that character to help his fellow adventurers. For example, I was playing through B1 and we found a room with a skeleton holding an obviously magical shield covered in an obviously bad yellow fungus. A player, whose character rolls were crappy, simply walked in, grabbed the shield and took the save. He ended up failing the save so he got a new, much better character and a +1 shield.

If all characters are basically equal, then there's no incentive to play recklessly, nor is there a fear that a freak die roll might cost them their 1 in a 1,000, high roll character. All players will treat their characters with an appropriate amount of respect, which, from my experience, greatly increases immersion.

Jun 21, 2018 16:23:57 GMT -5 hedgehobbit said:

The module disease IMO had a pervasive bad influence by sending a false message that only characters that had "Greek god" stats were viable, which is completely untrue.

I'm not disagreeing. Just stating that the idea that greek god stats are required started in old school D&D. Originally OD&D but made worse with the Greyhawk supplement and then made much worse in AD&D. And that this problem is one caused entirely by the randomized nature of rolling for ability scores.