hutch@shark.UUCP (Stephen Hutchison) (01/16/84)
Is anyone out there fond of severely mutated rules? My curiousity is aroused by seeing all this talk by people who are playing with supposedly strict AD&Dtm, and seeing the differences in game philosophy. I have to admit to being from a heretical background, though. Therefore, anyone with strong religious convictions in favor of the AD&Dtm system, continue reading at your own risk. (I find that AD&Dtm offends my aesthetic sense, and have no major gripes with it per se, although I disagree with many "simplifying" decisions.) History of a FRP heretic: I started frping way back in my junior year of college, and it was using a rather unusual rules set, a modified Warlock, which was modified D&D as described in Strategic Review (?) magazine. The notion of spell-points was introduced here, along with a rather different idea of how weapon damage worked. We (our DM Spider and myself) tweaked mercilessly upon the rules whenever it looked like they were inaccurate or unfair. This included incorporating AD&Dtm stuff as it was published. Then, when I moved off to California, Spidey ran into a friend who used the Chivalry and Sorcery rules. Since these were inherently better organized than the AD&D rules, with a much more reasonably designed Magic system, we decided to hack on them instead. Obviously they still had far to go. When I moved back to God's Country, we decided to completely revise, expunging all traces of any published system. This has been done to a great extent, but we are somewhat hampered by the desire to keep some hint of compatibility with the other systems. That allows the folk who have become addicted to other systems to play in our respective worlds. Our current ruleset looks sort of like C&S except that it doesn't. We have a lot more information about characters, a much improved magic system with reasons for everything, and the combat system is inherently more flexible and comfortable. All has been tuned to improve the roleplay aspect, somewhat to the detriment of the wargame simulation aspect, and unfortunately it is too possible to get really ferociously nasty characters, with time. It does take time, though. Player-monster equilibrium is maintained by having the behaviour and intelligence of the monsters CLEARLY DEFINED, thus allowing for the nuking of player character monsters, unless reasonable caution is maintained. If monsters fight as fiercely and (when appropriate) as cleverly as the player characters, then they have an even chance. Some fudging does take place since it is rather traumatic to blow away a character which has had so much effort and care put into its design. However, mercy is tempered by justice. As a drawback we have what some consider to be just TOO MANY characteristics and indices. This is why we are automating the game, which process is taking considerable time. So. What has anyone out there done about hacking rules? Anything in the way of automated game management aids? Hutch ...tektronix!tekecs!hutch
twiss@stolaf.UUCP (Thomas S. Twiss) (01/21/84)
It sounds like Steve Hutchinson has the right idea. I've been a game player for many years and I've played with some really excellent players and DMs. I don't, however consider myself to be either a good player or DM and my friends and I just play for fun. But there is one VERY important thing I've learned. It is ridiculous to try and adhere strictly to the rules of any system because 1) they are not exhaustive enough, and 2) it destroys creativity which is the very antithesis of the game. Now I know I'll get flames saying "it takes more intelligence to be creative under strict rules". Well, this may be true, but it seems that the original precepts of the game can be met by players OR a DM who can show a little ingenuity. And rather than argue endlessly about the rules, all participants should be governed by the will to do what is reasonable and not try and needlessly cheat somebody by bending the rules. If a party comes up with something really smart and it isn't outrageous, they should be rewarded, but at the same time, it hardly seems reasonable to have a party of second level characters hauling around whales. The DM and the players should be able to rationally deal with "rule bending". When Steve Hutchinson makes up his own rules, it seems that he is fulfilling the purpose of the game: creativity within a definite but loose framework of constants and rules. Congratulations Steve! Tom Twiss !ihnp4!stolaf!twiss P.S. The inevitable flames are welcome.
andree@uokvax.UUCP (01/24/84)
#R:shark:-21000:uokvax:2400029:000:3256 uokvax!andree Jan 22 01:57:00 1984 Yeah, I homebrew my FRP rules. The second universe I built had homebrew rules (the second universe EVERYBODY in our group built had homebrew rules - we had all so severely hacked the D&D rules (this is app pre-AD&D) that it was a natural), to the extent that it didn't look at all like D&D. I think that D&D's most fatal flaw is the system of levels. I can't rationalize how somebody can go from "probably dead after one sword blow" to "Oh, did we get fireballed?". The second problem I see is the VERY HIGH distinction between character classes. Doesn't make sense to me. Finally, the fact that magic tends to overpower swordplay at high levels [I'm not sure this can be escaped - but I try to push the level as high as possible.] Given this, my first set of homebrew rules through out levels, and character classes. The key driving force was "experience points." You got ep for knocking other people out of a battle. You then got to spend this (along with some cash) on improving your abilities in any given area (swordplay, etc). Magic was spell point driven, each spell having a formula for determing how much it cost (to learn, to throw, and to maintain). The total number of spell points you had between rests was whatever you had spent learning spells. This suffered from the problem that, no matter how good you were with a weapon, you could (in theory) find somebody arbitrarily better. The effect was about right, in that if he were n times better than you, you would hit him 1/n'th as often as he hit you, and he might NEVER hit you, but it still felt weird. I also added fatigue in such a way as to make wearing heavy armor possible if you were a wimp, but very costly. For my third (and current) universe, I used the runequest system - modified, of course. No more experience points. You now have some skill level with a weapon (initial level determined by combination of base characteristics and chance), and every time you succeed at something, there is a chance (that decreases as you get better) that you learned enough to get better at what you did. It's all flat. For example, if you currently have a 20% parry ability with a sword, you'll parry 20% of the hits made on you (you have to use a sword, of course). Everytime you succeed, there's an 80% chance of you getting better. People tend to get to 60-70% fairly quickly (or they get dead), and then hang, getting better slowly. It mimics the learning curve very nicely. Character classes came back, of a sort. Magic now comes in 6 colors, and there is a 2/3 or so chance that any given character will be able to practice one color. Some people can use more than one, some can't use any. This is done by having a a randomly determined base ability in each color, such that you usually can't succefully throw ANY spells, hence can't get better at that color. The spells in a color are logically related, and can be combined (thought nobody but me knows it, yet) in interesting ways. The whole thing is manna driven (and manna leaks away at a known rate, hehe), and staffs and wands are channels/amplifiers. This too, hangs together in a way that feels right to me. I am interested in what others have done, as I'm always willing to use somebody else's good idea. <mike