New Mechanics...Why?

Thanuir · June 15, 2006, 02:41:53 AM

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).

Xathan · June 15, 2006, 06:08:19 PM

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.)

CYMRO · June 15, 2006, 06:32:25 PM

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:

Hibou · June 15, 2006, 07:11:41 PM

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.

Túrin · June 16, 2006, 05:48:54 AM

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

Hibou · June 16, 2006, 10:27:23 AM

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. :)

Thanuir · June 18, 2006, 02:39:56 AM

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.

Jürgen Hubert · June 23, 2006, 06:19:23 AM

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 and magic licences.

Right now, I am contemplating the addition of rules for membership in organizations and societies 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...

the_taken · July 01, 2006, 09:42:34 PM

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...

Jester · July 02, 2006, 06:12:07 PM

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.

Johnny Wraith · July 03, 2006, 03:38:24 AM

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.

SilvercatMoonpaw · August 08, 2006, 08:37:44 PM

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 "OkayÃ¢,¬Â¦no, D&D won't workÃ¢,¬Â¦HARP won't workÃ¢,¬Â¦Action! System won't workÃ¢,¬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.

Wensleydale · August 09, 2006, 09:41:20 AM

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.

Matt Larkin (author) · August 09, 2006, 01:46:01 PM

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.

Soup Nazi · August 10, 2006, 09:11:38 PM

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.

The Campaign Builder's Guild

News:

New Mechanics...Why?

Thanuir

Xathan

CYMRO

Hibou

Túrin

Hibou

Thanuir

Jürgen Hubert

the_taken

Jester

Johnny Wraith

SilvercatMoonpaw

Wensleydale

Matt Larkin (author)

Soup Nazi