The Campaign Builder's Guild

I've noticed that many world-builders seem to really deviate from the core rules of D&D. New races, classes, changing even the basics, like the magic systems, and ability scores, all seem like common occurances. Why is this exactly?

I've got 18 years of playing table-top RPGs under my belt and yet I still feel perfectly able to create interesting unique settings within the framework of the normal rules of the game. Sure a minor tweak here and there, doesn't really cause too much hullabaloo, but why the wild deviation?

Personally I think that if someone wanted to change the rules in such a dramatic way, they might as well create their own gaming system altogether, completely seperate from D&D. Often times these new mechanics really aren't any better, nor do they offer more substance to the game. So what about new homebrewed mechanics is so appealing to so many people?

This is in no way a personal judgement. I am impressed with the bravery of those who undertake such measures, but I am at a loss as to why it would be seen as a neccessity. Help me to understand. Do these new rules make games better in some way that I have missed?

-Nasty-

The number one reason is probably that the vancian spell casting style, the existence of certain Iconic classes as written (usually Paladin, Ranger, or Monk are the offenders), and the existence of certain races.

Remember, some world builders are novel writers as well. I started to write my setting long before I played D&D. While my setting is something very different now, utilizing D&D for it was a crutch for several years. Now that I have the mental acumen to redesign aspects of the system to better suit my setting, I can.

I still run premade adventures in neutral settings. But for my own world, when it is completed, I need things to be changed. Hopefully my changes are for the better, and I'm constantly able to run things past my players and see what they think. So far every change I've suggested has been well received.

But then again, those are my reasons.

...and good reasons they are. It seems in your case Xeviat, that D&D is actually holding you back from playing the game that actually fits the world you had in mind from the beginning. Perhaps in time you'll find another system altogether that will be better equipped to the style of game you wish to play. Or maybe you'll really just create your own game.

I've played D&D since I was ten years old, and while I was a creative lad, the idea of writing a novel was a bit scary at that age. So unlike youself, I learned how to play D&D long before I ever began writing settings for it. This may be the most important distinction between us, when it comes to the game. I write setting for D&D, while you just write settings. Does that seem accurate?

-Nasty-

Quote from: nastynateI've noticed that many world-builders seem to really deviate from the core rules of D&D. New races, classes, changing even the basics, like the magic systems, and ability scores, all seem like common occurances. Why is this exactly?

I've got 18 years of playing table-top RPGs under my belt and yet I still feel perfectly able to create interesting unique settings within the framework of the normal rules of the game. Sure a minor tweak here and there, doesn't really cause too much hullabaloo, but why the wild deviation?



This is in no way a personal judgement. I am impressed with the bravery of those who undertake such measures, but I am at a loss as to why it would be seen as a neccessity. Help me to understand. Do these new rules make games better in some way that I have missed?

-Nasty-

RAW sucks.  And its suckitude is different for each gaming group.  As much as I love D&D, I have never played by RAW.  In 1st edition, we ignored racial class limitations because it was asinine, now in 3.5 they are gone.  Vancian magic is moronic, so we change it to suit our style of game play.  
We homebrew to make the game better for ourselves.  If RAW were perfect, it would not be in its seventh or eighth incarnation(when you include Chainmail, OD&D, Expert, and Basic).
D&D ain't chess, it is meant to be a dynamic and social experience.  

QuotePersonally I think that if someone wanted to change the rules in such a dramatic way, they might as well create their own gaming system altogether, completely seperate from D&D. Often times these new mechanics really aren't any better, nor do they offer more substance to the game. So what about new homebrewed mechanics is so appealing to so many people?

Depends on the mechanic.  My own resource mechanic, combining spell points, action points, and power points, is The Wave Of The Future! Why, because it does add ease and simplicity to the game, just as dumping THACO did for combat.

So would you say Cymro, that you are almost at the point when you would just scrap the rules and start fresh?

You've already got your own publication coming up right?

Would your next step be a whole new game system of your own design?

(dang I'm nosy huh?)

I don't claim that Phaedoras is D&D. I claim that it is d20. I think the rules for combat, character progression and skills are quite good and I think building an entirely new system would probably be unnecessary.

A whole new gaming system is almost always going to be much more work. In addition, you run the risk of throwing out the good things that are surely present in the d20 system when you rebuild it from the ground up. Houserules are a way for everyone to improve their play experience, and since the people here are mostly experienced DMs, each with his own ideas about the perfect campaign setting that usually deviate a lot from the WotC standard, you will see some of the most radical mechanical changes on these forums to accompany those ideas.

As for races and classes, these are actually designed to allow easy tweaking and adding new ones, and many do so for various reasons.

This is all coming from someone who refrains from changing the mechanics of the game most of the time, so I'm just guessing I suppose.

;) Túrin

I know what you're saying Turin. You like the core, much as I do, and wish to help others explain why they choose to change things. People are free (heck expected) to do as they wish, in whatever manner makes their game most entertaining for their players, but are their house rules important to the rest of the people who aren't playing at their tables?

I just am not a big fan of too many house rules, when the closer to D&D things stick, the easier it is to get others involved. Too many house rules and you're going to lose me. Not because I don't understand, but because I don't want to learn a new d20 game each time I glance at a new homebrew thread.

I know that I've personally steered clear of settings that deviate from the core, because I want to discuss D&D, not a d20 suppliment based loosely upon D&D. Many of the settings I've skipped over are probably fantastic too, but if I was interested in playing a game system other than D&D, I wouldn't be building worlds for it. I'd be building for GURPS, or the Storyteller System, or one of the numerous others I've played over the years.

All I'm saying is people are often too quick to jump the gun, and start writing new crunch, when the rules as is are very well suited to do exactly what we already want. Changing them at your own table is one thing, but changing them on a forum where others are trying to read and evaluate them is another.

Stuff like Red Valor is different, but so close to the core that I have no trouble picking things out and evaluating them individually. The same for Orden's Mysteries and others. But when I see in the first post a list of races I've never heard of, with a three line description and some racial ability adjustments, I read no further. It's no longer D&D to me at that point.

Does that make me bull-headed and stubborn? I hope not.

Bull-headed and stubborn? I don't think so. It does make you picky, but picky isn't nessicarily a bad thing - you know what you like, and you stick to what you like. I don't think there is fault in that. Granted, I tend to disagree with you, though I go less extreme than some do. I don't dislike Core. The problem is, I am trying to make worlds that would work for games AND for novels, and to do that I need a level of uniquness, because I don't want to write what's allready been written.

However, you have given me pause to think - perhaps the reason I have so much trouble with my settings is that I use too much non DnD stuff. I get so bogged down creating new races and cultures, it sometimes seems overwhelming. Something worth thinking about. Maybe I need to focus more on what is existing already. Something I'm going to ponder for a bit, actually.

A question for you, nate - if someone had a setting that had the list of races as humans, elves, dwarves, gnomes, skarn, munarii (made up), grulthan (made up), and balzakar (made up), would you consider that setting DnD, or just d20? EDIT: Better way to phrase that question: if you saw something with that list of races, would you read it?

I agree that some people jump to changing crunch too easily sometimes.

However, I do think it is sometimes necessary to have houserules apply to your campaign setting (and thus its thread here) rather than just to your own game, because the houserules are an integral part of how the setting works.

QuoteA question for you, nate - if someone had a setting that had the list of races as humans, elves, dwarves, gnomes, skarn, munarii (made up), grulthan (made up), and balzakar (made up), would you consider that setting DnD, or just d20? EDIT: Better way to phrase that question: if you saw something with that list of races, would you read it?

If I got to read an interesting story about the world itself, and the people, places, mythology, and nations...and then got ststs for these races then yes, I would read it. New crunch in a campaign setting should only be an enabler, or an afterthought to make the story work. The setting is important to me, not the mechanics of it.

When see stats first, or too early, I thin...amatuer game designer, not interesting new world. We're all amateur game designers in a way, but our strength are in making fantasy worlds, not designing house rules. I leave the rules to the pros (the real paid gamedesigners and play-testers of WotC).

Not one piece of fluff, no matter how terrible, has ever broken the game...I do not fear fluff. I will read any fluff, and either like it or not like it, based entirely upon the literary quality of the work, and its application in game play.

Crunch however is easily broken, by simple unforseen combinations; therfore I say leave the crunch to guys paid to do the boring leg-work. We can write backgrounds, stories, and scenery; there's no harm done in that. Bad crunch ruins games...and we're amateurs.

QuoteHowever, I do think it is sometimes necessary to have houserules apply to your campaign setting (and thus its thread here) rather than just to your own game, because the houserules are an integral part of how the setting works.

This is never a problem in my eyes. If you house rule that humans are the natural crossbreed of orcs and elves...wonderful. If all people in your setting have wild talent at level one for free...that's cool too. These are setting enablers, not sweeping changes. But they belong in small sidebars, or spoilers, or maybe quote boxes...not in the main text portrayed as though the new mechanics are the heart and soul of what makes the wolrd different. There in lies my issue.

-Nasty-

I see what you're getting at Nate; I've often presented my setting with crunch first instead of fluff. Often we over haulers do this because the crunch is what we're most worried about; I already like my fluff, but I want my crunch to be fair and balanced.

Does that explain it a little more?

yes very much. I still prefer the fluff...it's the whole reason I'm reading.

Then I'll be sure to be as fluffy as possible.

I'm trying to devise a new short story, but I'm probably just going to start narrating the campaign I'm running now (not my Red Hand campaign, but my Sylphenhest campaign).

Just a very simple answer to your question, without reading the whole thread (I have a lot of music to write tonight):

Many of the core classes, races, and in particular, the magic system, do not do what I personally need them to do for the campaign I'm trying to build.  It's not 100% "I don't like elves," but rather, "Elves don't fit this campaign, and just changing them makes them non-elves anyway, so I may as well work out a new race."

The short answer: Because I don't think the old ones fit my campaign setting.

I think that crunch exists to support fluff. As long as it does that adequately, it's fine. The crunch as provided by WotC does not do as good a job as I'd like in supporting the fluff I've written for the Jade Stage, so I've written my own. This is the severe readers' digest version of my rationale, and I can certainly expand more upon it if you'd like.

The other big reason I changed some mechanics was to sidestep some cliches (this involved primarily changing fluff, as well.)

Anyway, your quote in a recent post: "New crunch in a campaign setting should only be an enabler, or an afterthought to make the story work. The setting is important to me, not the mechanics of it," really sums up my own thoughts on the usage of new mechanics.

My setting is not all about new mechanics, but I'm not going to break my back to keep the WotC standard mechanics when my new ones suit me better.

Quote from: nastynateSo would you say Cymro, that you are almost at the point when you would just scrap the rules and start fresh?

You've already got your own publication coming up right?

Would your next step be a whole new game system of your own design?

(dang I'm nosy huh?)

No, the d20 framework and the OGL are pretty good.  My big bugaboo is the magic system, which has needed an overhaul since the late '70s.  Most of my other fixes are minor and cosmetic, the dropping of prcs, renaming of mixed races, defaulting pc races to TN, adjusting TWF, etc.

Some things in the d20/OGL cannot be improved upon in my opinion.  Though I am adding to Altvogge product identity alchemy, I find the skill system a thing of beauty, as well as opposed rolls for combat.

Totally agrred on the skill system Cymro. I love its simple effectiveness.

Quote from: nastynateTotally agrred on the skill system Cymro. I love its simple effectiveness.

Opposed rolls rock.

I am also a fan of the point buy system.  

Point buy is a cheap rip off of other games that have always had a balanced character generation system. I agree that it kicks butt, and I use it exclusively, but it's nothing new to me; it's just new to D&D (and about time I might add)

I perfer rolling, personally: it makes things more interesting and adds an element of unpredictability.

And nothing is more satisfying that watching three sixes come up. :)

Rolling up stats only leads to advantages and disadvantages (based entirely upon luck) between your players. It's not fair to be penalized for hours and hours of game play, because you weren't as lucky as the guy sitting next to you...3 minutes of chance shouldn't have that kind of effect upon your character IMHO.

I don't fault those that like it...rolling stats is like gambling; it's fun and exciting. I want that element of chance in game, not out of game. I simply prefer my players all have a more (not perfect, but more) equal opportunity. Nothing is worse in my eyes, than some lucky SOB getting the best starting PC package, while the other players get punished with weaker characters.  

-Nasty-

Quote from: nastynateRolling up stats only leads to advantages and disadvantages (based entirely upon luck) between your players. It's not fair to be penalized for hours and hours of game play, because you weren't as lucky as the guy sitting next to you...3 minutes of chance shouldn't have that kind of effect upon your character IMHO.

I don't fault those that like it...rolling stats is like gambling; it's fun and exciting. I want that element of chance in game, not out of game. I simply prefer my players all have a more (not perfect, but more) equal opportunity. Nothing is worse in my eyes, than some lucky SOB getting the best starting PC package, while the other players get punished with weaker characters.  

-Nasty-

Which is exactly why I started using PB.  Too many times of watching a player roll all sixteens or higher, and waiting while the guy who rolled all eights and tens rerolls and rerolls until they get a decent character.

im in total disagreement about the point-buy system.   its just rediculously unrealistic and un-fun.
everyone isn't as good as everyone else.   life isn't fair.

Quote from: nastynateRolling up stats only leads to advantages and disadvantages (based entirely upon luck) between your players. It's not fair to be penalized for hours and hours of game play, because you weren't as lucky as the guy sitting next to you.

It sounds like you guys are running into player problems.

Since the very first time i played dnd i understood that your stats are your character.
If you got a bad roll, you just made up background for your character to cover for it.   thats just good playing.

Sure, you may have 2 guys playing wizards, one with all 16s and one with all 10s...  and the guy with 16s is going to be significantly better than the guy with 10s.   but this is also a player problem.   the group should have gotten together and discussed everyone's role in the party before there was the conflict.    maybe the guy with 10s shouldnt have been a wizard, and he would be having more fun. (this making sense?)

I've found that a good group will take care of their character's role in the party w/o worrying about stats.  
We've played a LOT of different characters w/ diff stats/ and diff ways of generating those stats, and the PB system is probably my least favorite.    I feel that, by using the PB system you're removing one of the most important parts of the game, at the very beginning.  

That being 'luck'.

Quote from: daggerhartim in total disagreement about the point-buy system.   its just rediculously unrealistic and un-fun.
everyone isn't as good as everyone else.   life isn't fair.

It sounds like you guys are running into player problems.

Since the very first time i played dnd i understood that your stats are your character.
If you got a bad roll, you just made up background for your character to cover for it.   thats just good playing.

Sure, you may have 2 guys playing wizards, one with all 16s and one with all 10s...  and the guy with 16s is going to be significantly better than the guy with 10s.   but this is also a player problem.   the group should have gotten together and discussed everyone's role in the party before there was the conflict.    maybe the guy with 10s shouldnt have been a wizard, and he would be having more fun. (this making sense?)

I've found that a good group will take care of their character's role in the party w/o worrying about stats.  
We've played a LOT of different characters w/ diff stats/ and diff ways of generating those stats, and the PB system is probably my least favorite.    I feel that, by using the PB system you're removing one of the most important parts of the game, at the very beginning.  

That being 'luck'.

Unrealistic?  
No more so than rolling dice.
PB does not make all characters equal, what it does is establish a baseline for characters and for the DM.  In my experience a "lucky roller" can totally overwhelm encounters, especially at lower levels.  What you have then is no longer a fun group gaming experience, but several players playing second fiddle  to the superstar with all 17s and 18s.  This sucks for the other players.
With PB, no one will signicantly outshine everyone else.  No ubermensch to make the "regular characters" wonder why they bothered to play.


Oh, and in your example, the wizard with all tens is just a guy with no first level or higher spells and a crappy HD.  PB makes for more consistently satisfied players, human nature being what it is.

The only problem with 25 Point Buy is that 4d6 drop the lowest gets you consistantly better scores. I like 28 point buy myself, or 32 point buy; but if you use anything higher than 28, you need to boost the power of monsters: give them default array stats without boosting their stats, and give them 32 point buy for +1 CR.

Sure, "all characters created equally" isn't realistic, but don't you remember that the PCs are exceptional? I don't think it would be fair for one player to play a 5 sixteens and one 18 monk (had it happen once) while another character's highest score is a 14. I've seen a bland all 14s character once, which was pretty rediculous actually.

Point buy allows players to craft the character they wanted to play, which is a definate improvement. Allow random chance in game, not out of the game.

My mana system is on track to be completely edited soon. Look forward to one alternate mechanic which many will appreciate.

I don't like 25 point buy either to honest...32 point buy will get something along the lines of 16,16,14,10,10,10 for stats which is far from overpowered in my humble opinion.

Point buy almost never results in carbon copy stats because each class requires different things to focus on. Nobody playing a barbarian is going to to have the same stats as a monk or paladin because the class abilities rely on different stats.

The system isn't perfect...it actually favors MAD characters, who can get a bunch of 14s, rather than say a wizard who wants an 18 intelligence at level one, but this drawback is far less problematic than the one Cymro pointed out...

-Nasty-

On the point-buy tangent, responding in particular to daggerhart, I don't think that having a player with substantially lower stats being dissatisfied with others in his party who are better than him in literally everything can be described as a simple 'player problem'.

D&D is a roleplaying game, of course, but it's one with a heavy statistical aspect.  I don't think it's fair to make somebody invest hours and hours into a game where there 'role' is to be the perpetually less-competent fellow.  A few very hardcore purist role-players might like that, but certainly not everyone.

In the real world, are there people who are better than everybody else at seemingly everything?  Yes - these people we call oligarchs. ;)

But this is a game.

Quote from: Kalos MerOn the point-buy tangent, responding in particular to daggerhart, I don't think that having a player with substantially lower stats being dissatisfied with others in his party who are better than him in literally everything can be described as a simple 'player problem'.

D&D is a roleplaying game, of course, but it's one with a heavy statistical aspect.  I don't think it's fair to make somebody invest hours and hours into a game where there 'role' is to be the perpetually less-competent fellow.  A few very hardcore purist role-players might like that, but certainly not everyone.

In the real world, are there people who are better than everybody else at seemingly everything?  Yes - these people we call oligarchs. ;)

But this is a game.

Well put.
For an Oligarch.   :king:

On the greater matter at hand, I don't really understand.

Nasty, the point you seem to be arguing is that people either have to play an unaltered (or nearly so) D&D or else a different system completely their own?

Why can't 'their own' system be D&D with a few minor changes?  Am I missing something?

(After all, FR has the Shadow Weave, Eberron has action points, etc...)

My point was that many people start writing new mechanics without any significant reason. I completely understand making up new mechanics to support a unique aspect of a particular setting...that's not my issue.

What I'm confounded by is the desire to alter the rules just because you want to, and building a new setting around the new rules. I think people are too quick to jump on the amateur game-designer bandwagon without ever playtesting their ideas. House rules are fine (in your house), but changing huge aspects of the d20 rules system (like spellcasting, or the skill system) is pointless without thorough R&D.

When a homebrew opens up with new mechanics, before I even get a chance to read about the setting or understand the fundimental purpose of the new rules, I don't bother reading at all. Mechanical obsession is bad. We should be the authors of good fluff first and foremost, and mechancis should be a secondary focus. A tweak here and there is refreshing, a whole new revision of the system just turns me off. The core SRD is quite sound, and the universal building block upon which we all should begin constructing any d20 based setting.

-Nasty-

P.S. Sure there are things within the d20 system that aren't perfect. I won't refute that. But there is far more good than bad.  

Quotebut changing huge aspects of the d20 rules system (like spellcasting, or the skill system) is pointless without thorough R&D.

still[/i] has problems. someone's built-from-scratch magic system, while maybe getting rid of the dreaded spell-memorization in a unique way, is bound to have a lot more, possibly game-breaking, problems while in play.

i'm particularly dubious when i get the feeling that new, sweeping reforms to the system not only haven't been tested thoroughly, but haven't been tested at all. i'm fine with beta-testing a new base class while playing, but not a new magic system, a new skill system, AND all new base classes. at least not without the upfront understanding that there's gonna BUGS ;)

I'm in favor of thematic changes. In my games, I've switched over to Mana Point spellcasting with augmentations, I've added three ability scores and taken some points away from others, I've made magic subscribe to a little MAD to reduce spellcaster power (partially to balance Mana Point casting which has actually increased the power of casters), I've switched to a VP/WP system, I've switched to Weapon/Armor Proficiency groups, I'm making new feats (and altering a few others), and I'm adding a little to the skill system.

All of my changes were done for two reasons: world flavor and personal preference (my only preference changes have been switching to proficiency groups, adding and altering feats, and the little addition to the skill system).

But these changes have all been added one by one over several years of gaming, and playtested rather thouroughly. I've done enough varient playing to have learned a thing or two about balance. I see house rules breaking apart when a DM doesn't keep reign over alternate material that comes into the game; PrCs, for instance, can completely break house rules since they weren't designed with house rules in mind.

Quote from: nastynateMy point was that many people start writing new mechanics without any significant reason. I completely understand making up new mechanics to support a unique aspect of a particular setting...that's not my issue.

What I'm confounded by is the desire to alter the rules just because you want to, and building a new setting around the new rules. I think people are too quick to jump on the amateur game-designer bandwagon without ever playtesting their ideas. House rules are fine (in your house), but changing huge aspects of the d20 rules system (like spellcasting, or the skill system) is pointless without thorough R&D.

When a homebrew opens up with new mechanics, before I even get a chance to read about the setting or understand the fundimental purpose of the new rules, I don't bother reading at all. Mechanical obsession is bad. We should be the authors of good fluff first and foremost, and mechancis should be a secondary focus. A tweak here and there is refreshing, a whole new revision of the system just turns me off. The core SRD is quite sound, and the universal building block upon which we all should begin constructing any d20 based setting.

-Nasty-

P.S. Sure there are things within the d20 system that aren't perfect. I won't refute that. But there is far more good than bad.  

I completely disagree.  I do not know anyone who changes rulesets just to "game-designer bandwagon".  
The rules are not perfect and many peoples' fixes are not perfect either, but I think you are just being a bit of a humbug here.

Thorough R&D? I used to game with the guy who introduced Baba Yaga's Hut into D&D.  His ideas and those of many others went straight from the brain to the gaming table.  Some ideas went straight to print, never having appeared more than once in a game, if that.

While he fits your idea of fluff before mechanics, not every game or CS needs to fit that.

I do not feel the need to be a good author of fluff "first and foremost".  I feel the need to balance all aspects of my campaign to suit me and my players.  If my CS does not sell well, so be it.  I had fun creating.  My players love it.  What else matters?

The Core SRD is only sound until someone comes up with a more elegant solution to its problem mechanics.  THACO was considered sound until  opposed rolls.  Vancian magic has never been sound, but now their is my Resource Point system and dozens of other alternatives, each better than Core.

Don't be so reactionary and quick to dismiss what is new and different.  Some might not be any good, but a lot will be excellent.  Remember, some bad ideas have been thoroughly playtested, and still not changed/

Quote from: CYMRO

Quote from: nastynateMy point was that many people start writing new mechanics without any significant reason. I completely understand making up new mechanics to support a unique aspect of a particular setting...that's not my issue.

What I'm confounded by is the desire to alter the rules just because you want to, and building a new setting around the new rules. I think people are too quick to jump on the amateur game-designer bandwagon without ever playtesting their ideas. House rules are fine (in your house), but changing huge aspects of the d20 rules system (like spellcasting, or the skill system) is pointless without thorough R&D.

When a homebrew opens up with new mechanics, before I even get a chance to read about the setting or understand the fundimental purpose of the new rules, I don't bother reading at all. Mechanical obsession is bad. We should be the authors of good fluff first and foremost, and mechancis should be a secondary focus. A tweak here and there is refreshing, a whole new revision of the system just turns me off. The core SRD is quite sound, and the universal building block upon which we all should begin constructing any d20 based setting.

-Nasty-

P.S. Sure there are things within the d20 system that aren't perfect. I won't refute that. But there is far more good than bad.  

I completely disagree.  I do not know anyone who changes rulesets just to "game-designer bandwagon".  
The rules are not perfect and many peoples' fixes are not perfect either, but I think you are just being a bit of a humbug here.

Thorough R&D? I used to game with the guy who introduced Baba Yaga's Hut into D&D.  His ideas and those of many others went straight from the brain to the gaming table.  Some ideas went straight to print, never having appeared more than once in a game, if that.

While he fits your idea of fluff before mechanics, not every game or CS needs to fit that.

I do not feel the need to be a good author of fluff "first and foremost".  I feel the need to balance all aspects of my campaign to suit me and my players.  If my CS does not sell well, so be it.  I had fun creating.  My players love it.  What else matters?

The Core SRD is only sound until someone comes up with a more elegant solution to its problem mechanics.  THACO was considered sound until  opposed rolls.  Vancian magic has never been sound, but now their is my Resource Point system and dozens of other alternatives, each better than Core.

Don't be so reactionary and quick to dismiss what is new and different.  Some might not be any good, but a lot will be excellent.  Remember, some bad ideas have been thoroughly playtested, and still not changed/

Well put, but not everybody who designs these new rules has your experience, or intuitive design sense. As I mentioned before, I've played numerous game systems, so it's not new rules that I oppose. It's clumsy new rules with no real purpose.

Xev has been working on his system very thoroughly, and I think it will be both balanced and effective when all is said and done. My interest there however has been purely academic, I know next to nothing about his setting, just tiny a bit about the three worlds. Orden's Mysteries on the other hand has been a pure joy to read, without any significant rules changes.  

I don't need rules changes to draw me in. The setting itself has nothing to do with rules, and I'm reading for the setting. Others may not be, but I can't speak for them.

-Nasty-

I tend to deviate from the core rules because at times, they seem to hinder the game I want to play. I've got different ideas than what the original designers had, and I hold my ideas just as valid and worthy as anything WotC can churn out.

I've been playing for 16 years just 2 years shy of you nastynate, and while I could use everything with only a minor tweak or two, but it's not what I want the settings to be like.

We could concievably make up our own new systems, and I have done so many times. Think of D&D and most RPGs like cars. Some people are happy to just let it have all the standard factory parts, but some of us want to do some work on it, and we want to do it ourselves. To many of these people, creating the homebrew rules is just as fun as playing.

New rules aren't always better, sometimes they slow things down too much, but other times they work like a charm and do exactly what the creator intended.

Quote from: ArnkelI tend to deviate from the core rules because at times, they seem to hinder the game I want to play. I've got different ideas than what the original designers had, and I hold my ideas just as valid and worthy as anything WotC can churn out.

I've been playing for 16 years just 2 years shy of you nastynate, and while I could use everything with only a minor tweak or two, but it's not what I want the settings to be like.

We could concievably make up our own new systems, and I have done so many times. Think of D&D and most RPGs like cars. Some people are happy to just let it have all the standard factory parts, but some of us want to do some work on it, and we want to do it ourselves. To many of these people, creating the homebrew rules is just as fun as playing.

New rules aren't always better, sometimes they slow things down too much, but other times they work like a charm and do exactly what the creator intended.

If the setting demands new rules to accomodate new directions then so be it. That's what I like.

If you make new rules first, and then contrive a setting to make use of them, it feels force fed. I do not like that approach.

Apparently some people still don't grasp what I've been saying. New mechanics should come into play only after the setting itself requires them. We're a campaign builders' guild. We write campaign settings. We're not a d20 designers' guild, and if we were I wouldn't have even joined the site.

I don't even need rules at all, to enjoy reading about a campaign setting. The mechanics do not have to be any different to make the setting interesting; they should be an afterthought to help facilitate game play. I stay away from settings that have more crunch than fluff, because frankly I'm not that interested.

I have no issues with people designing new mechanics as either setting enablers, or house rules. I do not like to be force fed mechanics that may or may not actually do anything for the setting.

I don't disagree with anything you said Arnkel. I just felt obligated to point out that a new setting doesn't always need new mechanics, and we should consider why it is that we choose to impliment them, before we cram crunch into our worlds.

-Nasty-

P.S. I have a few altered mechanics in my setting too. But I wrote them well after I had already written about the people, power groups, cultures, nations, and so on. Most of mine were simple tweaks to change things I didn't like, or fix things that didn't fit too well. Some were flavor based changes, others were deviations away from mechanics I didn't like. The point is of course, that I didn't even need to mention mechanics at all to write my world; only after it was close to completion did I begin to address them.

Quote from: ArnkelI tend to deviate from the core rules because at times, they seem to hinder the game I want to play. I've got different ideas than what the original designers had, and I hold my ideas just as valid and worthy as anything WotC can churn out.

I've been playing for 16 years just 2 years shy of you nastynate, and while I could use everything with only a minor tweak or two, but it's not what I want the settings to be like.

We could concievably make up our own new systems, and I have done so many times. Think of D&D and most RPGs like cars. Some people are happy to just let it have all the standard factory parts, but some of us want to do some work on it, and we want to do it ourselves. To many of these people, creating the homebrew rules is just as fun as playing.

New rules aren't always better, sometimes they slow things down too much, but other times they work like a charm and do exactly what the creator intended.

And sometimes new rules bypass age-old problems (Vancian magic).

I think the saving grace of d20 is the fact you can rewire it completely to suit your own taste.

QuoteI think the saving grace of d20 is the fact you can rewire it completely to suit your own taste.

Agreed

I second nastynate (again). We're all looking for good fluff here first and foremost aren't we? To me, changing crunch is an inconvenience that comes up once you find that the flavour of the setting requires the rules to change. This came up most prominently when I decided to remove alignment from my game, and I'm STILL not completely satisfied about the way I fixed the paladin.

There's also a big difference between the campaign builder and the DM here. What I described above gives my experience as a campaign builder. Back when I DMed an actual campaign, me and some of the players had great fun finetuning rules here and there wherever we thought it could improve the play experience. The difference is that as a DM, you make any rules change that makes the game more fun (for us, a prominent example I remember was toying around with tables for special effects on critical hits), while as a campaign builder you are (IMO) only entitled to SUGGEST rules changes to the DM, specifically where the flavour of the setting seems to require such a thing. Saying "in this setting, clerics cast domain spells spontaneously rather than getting an extra slot per day for them" just because that's a variant rule you like makes no sense, while saying (as a DM) "in this campaign, clerics cast domain spells spontaneously" just because you like that variant rule makes perfect sense (assuming the players agree).

;) Túrin

Quote from: TúrinSaying "in this setting, clerics cast domain spells spontaneously rather than getting an extra slot per day for them" just because that's a variant rule you like makes no sense, while saying (as a DM) "in this campaign, clerics cast domain spells spontaneously" just because you like that variant rule makes perfect sense (assuming the players agree).

;) Túrin

However, what about saying "In this setting, clerics cast domain spells spontaneously because every god focuses on embodying his ideals and powers, and wants to further them in the world, because in this setting dieties take as active a role in the world as possible due to a war where mortals tried overthrow the gods." In my opinion, a campaign builder is allowed to make any rules he wants (here's the kicker) as long as the rules are for a fluffy reason in the setting. If their is a good, in setting reason to make the changes mechanically, it should be made. For example, in Datrik, I am making a new skill tied to using The Mirrored Paths, or a least a new branch of the knowledge and survival skills, because the setting requires it to show how able someone is to use The Mirrored Paths. There is a reason behind my mechanical changes: I don't see why I shouldn't make them if they enchance the setting.

EDIT: really should read rest of the tread before I post...

That being said, I agree with nasty that changes made because 'you like them' or whatever are not good and, as Turin said, should be up to the DM to use if he wants to.

New Mechanics... Why? Because the old ones suck.

To put it in a gentle and reasonable tone... because some may find the core rules unsatisfying, and departure from them is desired without resorting to an entirely different game or system.

It's what popped into my head when I looked at the name of the thread...

If it were entirely up to me, I'd never write a single rule for any aspect of my campaign setting.  I'd never make a stat block for an original monster, I'd never explain the mechanics for new spells, feats or skill uses, because everything the players could never need to know would be supplied in the fluff.  I'd say: "this is D&D because there are dungeons and there are dragons, not because it has anything to do with Hasbro or D20".  Yes, ideally I'd go diceless, because for me the story and the artistic beauty of my creation (and my players' interaction therewith) always takes preference over any need for mechanical accuracy, and individualising my setting's rules is simply too much effort in the wrong places.

So when I make a setting, I don't have any rules in mind.  I don't think about fighters and rogues and paladins, because these are ultimately unrealistic representations of human experience (not every accomplished thief knows how to deliver lethal blows to the unwary).  The problem here is that when all of the fluff is sorted out, I often find that the existing mechanics simply do not suit my vision.  I like gritty realism with visceral and lethal combat, where even the heroes can be felled by a single well-placed blow.  In standard d20 this simply doesn't happen; a renowned warrior can endure many direct blows without noticeable impediment.  The Vitality/Wound variant solves this to an extent, but it still doesn't account for the fact that most combatants avoid attacks rather than endure them.  The Class Defence system accounts for this, thankfully, but coupled with the Wound system this means that I am alrady using two variants, the reliability of which is questionable.

To top that off we have the Vancian Magic system, which really shits me, and in its absence the only readily available (and purportedly thoroughly tested) alternative is the spell point/mana system, which also fails to supply me with an appropriate representation of magic (both systems are overly rigid; I perceive magic as somewhat fickle while generally reliable, and a given individual's arcane potential is in a constant state of flux).  The only satisfactory solution requires an entirely new magic system, but for a seventeen year old who has been playing for a little over two years, that is overly ambitious to say the least.

So far, in order to satisfactorily express the idiosyncrasies of my setting, I've had to dispense with the current classes, magic system, hit point and armour class mechanics, among other things.  Basically, It's a total revision of the D&D mechanics, and that's just crazy.  For the time being I'm using GURPS, as that is the only system that can realistically accommodate my needs (although magic is still posing a bother), but only one of my three groups uses it, so I'll inevitably have to somehow convert to D20.

So ultimately, I'd like to dispense altogether with rules and rely purely on the decisions of myself and my players, but the arbitration of one's own players is a shaky bet, and they often distrust the decisions of a DM who makes no use of distinctly and definitively presented rules, so for now I'm basically stuck with the status quo, and that is not enough.

Quote from: Velox121New Mechanics... Why? Because the old ones suck.

To put it in a gentle and reasonable tone... because some may find the core rules unsatisfying, and departure from them is desired without resorting to an entirely different game or system.

It's what popped into my head when I looked at the name of the thread...

True.  So very true.

The popularity of D&D/d20 is a direct result of its adaptability.  I do not know anyone who plays strictly by the Core.
Hell, the Core has actually changed with the release of the errata.  

Understandably having everyone and their brother with house ruled stuff can be kind of confusing and overwhelming (yet another Magic-system replacement / variant caster class?). At the same time the point of the rules is to support your playstyle. Personally, I would never want to run a game that D&D's standard ruleset wants you to run -- A game where good guys face off against bad guys, and one of the parties wins and takes the other one's stuff.

There's nothing wrong with that game, it's just not the one I want to run as a DM. I'm a stickler for consistency and realism of the setting, so the wacky economy and power structure of your average D&D world doesn't appeal to me. I don't care for PCs foolishly risking their lives to run some stupid errand either. In my games ideally the winners are the ones who play the political game and only rarely resort to combat -- As such I think it's important to simplify and increase the deadliness of combat and to give a finer system of handling diplomatic relations than the core rules define.

One of my many gripes about d20 settings is that they don't do enough changes to the rules. Look at Eberron -- I fail to see how this setting is any different from any other D&D setting. Talk about noir moral ambiguity and pulp-action is just talk, the setting is exactly the same as standard D&D, the only change is that you've got action points and that's so insignificant -- I've yet to see them used in a way that actually changes the play experience. I'm not saying that Eberron is no different from standard D&D -- It's got some interesting things going on, it's just that the play it supposedly favors isn't meaningfully handled via the mechanics. More games need to sit down and say, "Look, Using Rope is not going to be a significant part of any game in this setting, so we don't need to have a skill to govern it."

System is setting is system. Separating them, dealing with one and ignoring the other, does not work very well, IME.
If you have a gritty setting, where a single shot of teh crossbow can deadly, you need to change the rules. Likewise, if you remove hit points and have attack deal ability damage, you need to change the setting.

D&D is a genre. The core rulebooks are full of setting material, because rules are setting material. IF you would like to play in a setting like that where Conan roams, or Middle Earth, or almost any non-D&D setting ever developed, you need to houserule. A lot. Or use another system entirely (which I did).

I think you have some good points, Thanuir, but I also think you can achive the right flavor through minor houseruleing, depending on the setting. While I agree that Middle Earth just doesn't work with D20 mechanics, due to the nature of magic, it is easy to use d20 mechanics to express, for example, Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time (most of the changes they made to magic were cosmetic, if I remember right.)

One obvious reason for new mechanics:
It is FUN!

My recent experimenting with a better VP/WP has been a joy that helps the time pass on those boring nights at work, cut off from the real world...   :cry:

The whole houseruling thing is why I've recently decided to go 99% fluff in my Sleep thread. The magic of the setting is the flavor, not the crunch. Otherwise there'd be people saying "OMG I LIKE SLEEP BEST BECAUSE IT HAS THE JESTER AND THE THAUMATURGE!", and that's not what I'd like to see in response. However, I have created a separate thread where I'm working on alternate classes, but I am doing this both because I have a different view on fantasy roles and I don't think some of them (such as the Rogue, as someone pointed out earlier with regards to every one of them being able to backstab) are realistic. For the most part I plan on tweaking them in hopes I make at least some of them more simpler, and give additional player options through the use of skills and feats. So, summing my banter up, I'm trying to simplify (or even 'restrict') my base classes, and have their expansion and uniqueness come from the abilities they choose, not by selecting from 30 different core classes.

In regards to point buy, I think it's just the most reasonable for party play, though it certainly isn't the most realistic. If you've got creative and reasonable players, you can still get some realism out of it, because some people like to play characters that don't have a lowest score of 10, and some just don't care if they've got an 8 in  one of their scores depending on what class they're playing.

The reason why I really do crunch editing is because I want my world to seem as realistic as it can for a fantasy (or in Vilydunn's case, a claustrophobic realm of untold horror) world, and lining up 20 10th level Rogues from radically different walks of life and professions and seeing that they can all strike weak spots with equal ability just doesn't make sense to me.

So what you are really doing is creating your world, and, at the same time, develop variant rules that anyone could add to their campaign regardless of setting. Thus, you are separating
a) campaign buildership,
b) rules finetuning to you and your group's personal preference, and
c) DMing at the table.

Which is exactly the point I was trying to make earlier.

Túrin

Assuming that was pointed at me at all (was it?), then that's the jist of what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to create 'realistic' variants that could be used alongside or in place of certain classes, many of which are only minor modifications from base classes with different names (The Hunter, and the Professional). Sleep itself is generally for fluff, and I intend to keep it that way. Other threads where I post material from the setting are purely optional and are only my own interpretations. Someone who wanted to run a game in Vilydunn could certainly use all of the base classes  and monsters and such. That's why I prefer keeping the fluff separate: if you don't like what you see for crunch, you can always do it your own way. Seeing the crunch tied right in with the fluff kind of suggests that the setting won't work without those specific mods.

I will never decide to build a setting around crunch, because it doesn't work for me that way. Vilydunn and Aath came out of concepts of a maddening world of nightmares and a world of endless fantastic possibility, respectively, and it was not for a month after I really got into building The Nightmare that I realized the core classes wouldn't fit it. Why? It was too dark a world. Its people hated and feared all kinds of magic. You didn't have wizards walking around who could cast any spell they felt necessary, be it a Continual Flame spell to light the streets, a Haste spell to make his actions so much faster, or a Meteor Swarm to obliterate a field of enemies. You didn't have priests of the gods traveling the world and healing the wounded, consulting with angels for support and speaking words so holy they could break the spines of demons. Such power is limited to the wicked and the elusive. Magic itself corrupted those who dared wield it.

That's mainly why I'm changing classes around. Most of the new classes have very limited, if any, access to magical powers, to better fit the world. The Thaumaturge has some control over 'miracle' magic and time magic; the Hierophant has some control over magiks that deal with weather, divinity, and various other niches; the Enchanter has some alteration magic and shapeshifting; and the Warlock, one of the two most proficient casters, has access to a lot of spells that maim and defile, but even he cannot match the Sorcerer, who is the only spellcaster to really have a wide range of possible spell choice. Most of the others fill very specific roles and are sort of like specialist wizards in that they've only got one or two primary schools of magic at their disposal. The other classes are barely able to (if at all) use any kind of magical powers. Add in my need for different roles in Vilydunn with a personal preference for a world with magic that reminds you more of a twisted Disney movie rather than a teenage world of ultimate wizards and unstoppable warriors, and you've got my reasons. :)

Quote from: Xathan, Hobo AlchemistI think you have some good points, Thanuir, but I also think you can achive the right flavor through minor houseruleing, depending on the setting. While I agree that Middle Earth just doesn't work with D20 mechanics, due to the nature of magic, it is easy to use d20 mechanics to express, for example, Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time (most of the changes they made to magic were cosmetic, if I remember right.)

Certainly. Try Sandman. Or Hobb's books, for more conventional series.
D&D is good for adventuring with lots of fighting, or at least emphasis on it. For stuff that is not that, D20 is not optimal. D&D much less.
It can work. Making it work does have certain charm. But it is also lots of work. I won't go there again.

All games with rigid levels, for example, have very specific feel. Or classes. Or hit points. Or emphasised combat subsystem. Or character generation subgames.

For the most part, rules bore me. With Urbis, I have tried to stick to the Core Rules as closely as possible - anything in the Core Rules can also be found in Urbis. I've only added new rules when I thought they really added something important to the setting - such as the Nexus Towers (http://juergen.the-huberts.net/dnd/urbis/nexus_towers.html) and magic licences (http://juergen.the-huberts.net/dnd/urbis/magic_and_the_law.html).

Right now, I am contemplating the addition of rules for membership in organizations and societies (http://www.thecbg.org/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?7957) because they tie in nicely with the focus of the setting on politics and intrigue. But the magic system is the same, there are no new classes, and while there is a new "default" PC race, it has always existed in the Monster Manual...

I myself prefer little deviation from D&D. For a while I thought I was being snobbish, but someone who actualy thought making up new rules was the only way to go actualy proved me wrong. He made a game sytem based on a relatively popular manga/anime series, very flavourful and poured his blood and soul into it. Unfortunetly the result is a mess that I've totaly given up on trying to play. Not only does every character suffer from such aweful MAD that the 36 point buy is insufficient (he actualy declares a 40 point buy is normal for PCs), his crunch can't aproximate the characters he's based his sytem on properly. The system also suffers from extreme limitations of character creation, and he was openly hostile to input when I tried pointing out some of his errors (although my opening statement in his forumns was essentialy a "go back to D&D" message, so I guess I deserved it).

There are some gems hidding in that pile of trash he calls a game, but it's not worth getting my hands dirty trying to dig them out.

It gets worse. I can't play a game as a tribute the anime I like because most of the players that would play it are playing his game, blindly living with his crap because it's the only one left with the name that they like. I showed up too late to save them...

Quote from: the_takenI myself prefer little deviation from D&D. For a while I thought I was being snobbish, but someone who actualy thought making up new rules was the only way to go actualy proved me wrong. He made a game sytem based on a relatively popular manga/anime series, very flavourful and poured his blood and soul into it. Unfortunetly the result is a mess that I've totaly given up on trying to play. Not only does every character suffer from such aweful MAD that the 36 point buy is insufficient (he actualy declares a 40 point buy is normal for PCs), his crunch can't aproximate the characters he's based his sytem on properly. The system also suffers from extreme limitations of character creation, and he was openly hostile to input when I tried pointing out some of his errors (although my opening statement in his forumns was essentialy a "go back to D&D" message, so I guess I deserved it).

There are some gems hidding in that pile of trash he calls a game, but it's not worth getting my hands dirty trying to dig them out.

It gets worse. I can't play a game as a tribute the anime I like because most of the players that would play it are playing his game, blindly living with his crap because it's the only one left with the name that they like. I showed up too late to save them...

Totally your right not to want to play with any other systems than D&D, but there's nothing magical about the D&D system. Personally I think D&D's pretty poor at really capturing the feel of most fantasy books (ie, low magic) and on the other extreme of anime isn't really fluid enough to capture the essence of the thing. There's also no reason to complain about whatever point-buy you're using -- I'm currently playing in a campaign based on George R. R. Martin's Song of Ice and Fire (notoriously gritty low magic setting) and most of the NPCs have greater than 42pt point buy values. It really doesn't matter as long as there is parity and people are having fun.

I think that people replying to this thread have left an important side of this matter untouched: The need to be different.

Although this isn't necessarily true for everyone it is common to see all these changes to the crunch purely because the builders are trying to make their campaigns original and different from everyone else's. I know I've felt this. At first, I started changing the whole system, taking out levels and designing a new magic system, I tried to make a mix between a skill based game (Like World of Darkness games) and core D&D. After a while, I decided that maybe I was spending too much time figuring out how to balance things and keeping them fresh and new rather than thinking about the fluff and the campaign itself. In the end, I decided to go back to core rules and make some changes that felt appropiate to accomodate my setting (Races and classes, mostly), at least until I got every bit of fluff covered and felt entirely sattisfied with everything about it.

In general, I think that the need to stand out and/or be different is something that we all want to do as human beings. Campaign settings are a reflection of ourselves (Readers will surely think this, even without actually knowing so) and the urge to demonstrate that we are unique makes us sometimes lose track of what we were aiming for in the first place.

This is how I feel after trying to understand this thread: :hammer:
I'm the guy being beaten.

@nastynate: You say that creating crunch first is a bad idea.  There is no other way for me to express my disagreement: :?:   So you're saying that one should design all the fluff before choosing the mechanics to use?  So in essence D&D shouldn't even be a consideration until the fluff is done.  It doesn't always work that way: I need a structure to work against.  I need to see the rogue and think "What can I do with this?  Try and think a way to include this." If I have no structure to work against I create the fluff, then go "Okayâ,¬Â¦no, D&D won't workâ,¬Â¦HARP won't workâ,¬Â¦Action! System won't workâ,¬Â¦gosh, nothing works."  You can't put clerics and wizards in if your magic works differently, but if you recognize that you could never come up wtih a new magic system before you start writing you fluff then you can figure out how to modify the fluff to fit what you have to work with.  No system will ever be what I want, and D&D isn't even near the top.

And even working withing the D&D rules the new crunch one comes up with is important to where you want the fluff to go.  For examples, I started my setting, Ah'rem, with only the vague idea that I wanted to cut down magic so that I didn't need a dragon's hoard of treasure to even out casters and non-casters.  In fact that's still what Ah'rem is: crunch, now with a tiny bit of flavor tacked on.  The setting need not exist if the crunch isn't there.  Ah'rem cannot exist with the current core rules either.

I say that you're lucky that you can focus on one aspect of you setting until it's done.  I can't.  You write things as if watching a movie from start to finish; I design like I just watched previews and have to construct the rest of the movie around those best bits.  And don't tell me to finish everything so that you don't have to read through a disorganized jumble, because if I do I might as well give up.  I can't sustain interest in this stuff without your help, and if that means posting crunch before fluff than that's what I'll do.  Just because you've got 18 years of RPG experience and I've barely played 10 games total does not mean that you have the final word on setting creation.

You want a setting that has no crunch.  Fine.  I'll post an idea I had a few years back, posted on the WotC boards and yet no one responded.  And it's all fluff.

I'm one of the people you seem to be complaining about... *grins*

What we seem to have here is fluff v crunch. I have to say that Kalara got very few comments on the WOTC boards, and only one here (well, it is only a link) whereas Goromor and Aelwyd, with their variant magic systems, are rather different. Sure, Goromor's system uses the regular spells with different casting methods... and that's it. It has a few homebrewed races, and one homebrewed class. Oh, and two new spells. That's it. I agree with you to some extent on the subject that we do need fluff, and that crunch shouldn't be everything, but as Silver said, you need crunch first sometimes.

Aelwyd has a totally new magic system, very similar to Phoenix Knight's in his setting. I admit, maybe it's not balanced. But it'll never get balanced if I don't present it to unbiased people other than me, nor if I don't playtest it. This is one of the reasons why I'm starting a PbP game in Aelwyd, to test the system out.

As for classes... Aelwyd is a celtic setting. Do you think Paladins, the archetypal knight in shining armour, would fit there? Or the wizard or sorceror, the mediaeval-ish magic user? Or even the rogue, a mediaeval thief, or cleric? Even the druid is nowhere near a true celtic druid, nor is the bard anywhere near a true celtic bard. Are the goblins of DnD fey? Are the gnomes and dwarves and elves? No? Well, there's a reason to change them to fit a celtic-welsh setting.

An interesting read, all around.  It's a difficult topic, but I'll take my stab at answering the question.  Any of us homebrewers constantly face the balancing act of keeping things familiar enough to facilitate play, while still trying to fit our concept, which is (hopefully) original enough not to be a clone of some existing setting.  Had I been the first to post here, I'd have said something very much like Xeviat for myself.  I'm sure many of us sometimes ask ourselves if it is worth it, if it is better to just stick with core despite the flavor.  As for any artificial ideal of whether or not it is still D&D, I don't see how that matters.  I'm pretty sure there's nothing sacred about D&D that playing something else is blasphemy.

Kishar has a lot of houserules for the simple reason that mechanics do strongly influence the feel of a game.  The current system makes magic very common, magic items both common and necessary, and presumes spellcasting of arcane and divine varieties all over the place.  It feels very point and click, no mystery.  So I created a new magic system that fit the feel of the setting I was going for.  Could I have made a setting with the feel of the current system?  Sure, but that wasn't the setting I wanted to tell stories in.  And like, Xeviat, my setting exists for purposes beyond those of just RPGs.  I switched to the d20 Modern classes because, with the removal of magical abilities from core classes, only a handful of classes were left.

Quote from: NastyNate...and good reasons they are. It seems in your case Xeviat, that D&D is actually holding you back from playing the game that actually fits the world you had in mind from the beginning. Perhaps in time you'll find another system altogether that will be better equipped to the style of game you wish to play. Or maybe you'll really just create your own game.

The Riddle of Steel[/i] since I first saw it (best game system ever), but had a very hard time getting anyone to try it.

Speaking for myself, I do not create new crunch and then build fluff to support it.  I designed a new magic system to support the fluff.  Even when writing the system, I wrote the fluff first (it's the continual commentary by Kyros for those that read my Kishar: Mechanics thread).  I can only once remember creating crunch simultaneous to a world, and that was when I created my own game system.  I think it likely that few people design mechanics and then build a setting for it.  What you do see, however, is many of us listing mechanical changes first.  In my case, a separate thread (like WitchHunt mentions), with a link to it in my main thread.  I do so (and I assume others do so) because crunch influences the feel of the system.  If you look at Kishar assuming the feel of a normal D&D world, you've missed the point before you've even started.  It's important for players/readers to know right off the bat there is no divine magic, that magic is rare and unpredictable, and that people don't run around with lots of supernatural abilities.

Quote from: NastyNateWhat I'm confounded by is the desire to alter the rules just because you want to, and building a new setting around the new rules. I think people are too quick to jump on the amateur game-designer bandwagon without ever playtesting their ideas. House rules are fine (in your house), but changing huge aspects of the d20 rules system (like spellcasting, or the skill system) is pointless without thorough R&D.

is[/i] testing.  We post so we get feedback about potential problems before they screw up our campaigns in which we probably have something invested beyond the scope of rules testing.  Then we try them out in campaigns.  As Golem mentions, new systems will never be tested or balanced unless we start somewhere.  Saying that we shouldn't post stuff that's not tested is much like saying we shouldn't brainstorm or post settings that aren't published.  After all, these settings aren't tested either.  Most posters are amateur setting builders, too.

Quote from: Luminous CrayonAnyway, your quote in a recent post: "New crunch in a campaign setting should only be an enabler, or an afterthought to make the story work. The setting is important to me, not the mechanics of it," really sums up my own thoughts on the usage of new mechanics.

My setting is not all about new mechanics, but I'm not going to break my back to keep the WotC standard mechanics when my new ones suit me better.

Yeah, exactly.  Believe me, I would not go through the work or the risk of houserules unless I thought my setting needed them.  Of course, I have tried other houserules (Vp/Wp and so on) that are less crucial to the setting, but that's just experimenting to see who's on to what.

You seem in later posts to agree that new mechanics are okay if the setting needs them.  I guess my point is that probably most designers that designed new rules felt their setting needed them.

Wow! I've been absent for like two months, and I still get feedback on this thread...hehe.

Just to keep things in perspective. When this was posted most of the new "settings," being posted had little substantial content other than crunchy house rules, new races, new classes, and little to no theme or story at all. It was driving me nuts, but I'm feeling much better now.

I still stand by the belief that the setting is not really about rules, but about themes, descriptions, moods, situations, politics, environment, people, culture, religion, history, social conflict, and other things that are not encapsulated in stat blocks and feats. The game mechanics we create, should be designed to support the setting, and enable concepts that we have envisioned to affect the world in relevent ways outside of role-playing.

Game mechanics do not a setting make...both Eberron and Forgotten Realms use almost the exact same SRD (with very minor exceptions) but they are not the same setting. When a setting requires that I learn a new combat system, a new magic system, a new XP system, 10 new races, 100 new monsters, and 40 new classes, it is a significant endeavor. Especially when after those 20 pages of crunch there is a single page of actual setting.

That was the point of my original post. Since then people seem to have figured all that out on their own (no thanks to my ranting on this thread). Now the new settings are far more rich and interesting, and game rules have been pretty much relegated to other more appropriate areas in the CBG forums.

-Peace-

P.S. Sorry I've been gone so long guys.

QuoteGame mechanics do not a setting make...both Eberron and Forgotten Realms use almost the exact same SRD (with very minor exceptions) but they are not the same setting.

Which does not excuse the fact that they both use a suck ass magic system.
Or that after so many rules editions, a Warrior is some NPC git, and the premier Warrior PC class is called Fighter.  Bad aesthetics.



And, welcome back!