We've all ignored a few rules here and there, but have you ever slashed a particular rule set down to the bone? Why?

 How did the players respond? Any resentment over not getting the game they hoped for?

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;878587We've all ignored a few rules here and there, but have you ever slashed a particular rule set down to the bone? Why?

To tell the truth, I welcome such occurrences as possibilities to try new rulesets and I resort to "butchery" very sporadically.

There were only a few times I stripped the ruleset to barest minimum. Mostly to introduce newbies to the hobby, or because I was playing with children. There were a few occurrences when we had no access to any accessories and had to find another ways to play (road trip).

Quote from: Shipyard Locked;878587How did the players respond? Any resentment over not getting the game they hoped for?

I don't think so. As you probably already guessed, they either didn't knew what to expect, or agreed on simplified "mechanics", so they were already aware that it will a limited experience at best.

I'm not sure that this counts, but I've had many times that I have run full settings based on "quickplay" rules instead of the full rules set simply because I appreciated the simpler format. Also, I'm currently running a FFG Star Wars with the "basic box set" rules only, even though I own the full hardback rulebooks.

Yes, though it's usually because I or we don't know all the rules yet, or I/we think some of the rules are annoying or wrong-minded.

I don't remember ever running a slashed version of something with a player who knew the full rules and was attached and resentful of the slashing.

However I have been that player. In fact, I'm pretty sensitive to it. As someone who loves GURPS tactical combat with lots of optional and house rules, played out on a map with terrain and counters for bodies and dropped weapons and everything, I have been very disappointed when playing with GURPS GM's who want to use only basic rules and/or play combats without a map. I tend to avoid such games. It's like watching a war or action movie and having them not show or half-ass the action scenes (or having someone fast forward through them).

Quote from: JesterRaiin;878597There were only a few times I stripped the ruleset to barest minimum. Mostly to introduce newbies to the hobby, or because I was playing with children. There were a few occurrences when we had no access to any accessories and had to find another ways to play (road trip).

Same for me... with kids and new people... and impromptu play when no dice/rules/stuff was available.

I've also experienced the opposite... where some numberlover got ahold of a very simple system and shitted it up with all sorts of complexities because he thought the basic game just wasn't cutting the 'realistic' mustard. I should have just handed him my stack of Phoenix Command books... but I think he was sold on the idea of 'fixing' the game (Chaosium's Future World).

Whenever we were playing AD&D, we ended up flipping the tables for Saving Throws, so that roll high was better than roll low. We also did the same for Armor Class. My players at the time didn't like it, since it was a pretty distinct change in the way the rules worked (and wasn't reflected in their books). This was back in the day before digital was even common, and printers had just moved away from dot matrix. I ended up typing out on a typewriter replacement sheets in their PHB/Unearthed Arcana and my DMG to reference. It took both my players and I time to get used to it, but was one of the best changes I'd introduced.

Although I cannot take credit for it, I for one am glad that the "roll high" method was eventually adopted by D20 games.

I stripped down surprise and initiative in AD&D so a single roll handled both and I've never looked back.

I ran campaigns with the Exalted Quickstart and the Trinity Quickstart because the WW system was just far too much for me to deal with. Almost all my players were happy with it.

I've had a couple players who preferred more crunch, but even they admitted they knew most of the group wasn't interested in buying or learning new stuff versus just sitting down and playing.

It's been a long time since I had a crew who all (or most) were into crunch versus fast play.

Every time I've simplified a game or switched from a complex ruleset to a simpler one the reaction was positive.

When I run games of Labyrinth Lord and Lamentations of the Flame Princess for groups used to playing 3e and Pathfinder they practically weep with joy when they find out that there are no Attacks of Opportunity in those systems. AoO are apparently one of those things that a lot of people just accept because it's part of the game but secretly despise.

Quote from: ZWEIHÄNDER;878659Whenever we were playing AD&D, we ended up flipping the tables for Saving Throws, so that roll high was better than roll low.

Eh... That's how the saving throw tables work. Roll high enough to equal or beat the listed target number.

My players aren't very rules-averse, but...
1. Combining MERP and RM (which complicates MERP and simplifies RM).
2. Using modified Second Edition Shadowrun instead of full-blown Third.
3. Basic 5e
4. Aces and Eights doing skills like Hackmaster Basic.

All went over well.

My players don't usually own their own copies of the rules anyway so sometimes I just don't tell 'em I've stripped the rules down. They appreciate simplicity anyway.

Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;878695When I run games of Labyrinth Lord and Lamentations of the Flame Princess for groups used to playing 3e and Pathfinder they practically weep with joy when they find out that there are no Attacks of Opportunity in those systems. AoO are apparently one of those things that a lot of people just accept because it's part of the game but secretly despise.

Interesting. While I'm glad 5e has made miniatures unnecessarily again, I was pleased that they kept AoO. They put a price tag on choosing battles poorly (harder to flee) and monsters trying to slip past the fighter to focus on the wizard. I feel the strategic element gained outweighs the simplicity lost.

Quote from: Simlasa;878646Same for me... with kids and new people... and impromptu play when no dice/rules/stuff was available.

I've also experienced the opposite... where some numberlover got ahold of a very simple system and shitted it up with all sorts of complexities because he thought the basic game just wasn't cutting the 'realistic' mustard. I should have just handed him my stack of Phoenix Command books... but I think he was sold on the idea of 'fixing' the game (Chaosium's Future World).

True, true.

To this day I don't understand why people insist on tweaking rulesets to the point they no longer resemble original one, rather than simply switch to different one, more fitting their needs and tastes.

I mean... What's the point? The energy & time wasted in the process should rather go to story & skill departments, as far as I'm concerned.

AD&D 1e pretty much requires stripping the rules down.  Nobody has ever complaines, because it is nigh impossible to figure out all the rules anyhow.