Quote from: Jam The MF on August 29, 2023, 12:58:46 PM
Do you run wild and free with the rules, or do you feel obligated to pay homage to the rich history of the game?

When my group plays Pathfinder, we houserule things like spell materials.  Basically, you don't need materials to cast something unless the material is specific to the spell's target (like some divination spells) or is beyond a certain monetary value.  We also houserule that Spell Focus is a +1 to all spell DCs, not just one school of magic.

Other times, it's a matter of patching exploits. Casting Mount as a weapon is hilarious, but we had to houserule certain limitations on it.  Dropping a horse on an enemy is only funny the first few times.

Quote from: FingerRod on August 29, 2023, 08:10:28 PM
I have all the liberty I need to house rule. But I should have a good reason for it.

And if I find myself needing to house rule a lot, my question becomes am I running the right game?

This.

If I'm interested enough in a game to learn and consider running it, I think I probably owe the creator  a test-drive. I play many games RAW, but if something doesn't work for me I'll consider a change (with player consent).

Quote from: Nameless Mist on August 29, 2023, 08:19:10 PM
The funny thing is, I experience the opposite.  I like 5e's minimal reliance on number crunching.  The mechanics can be a little oversimplified at times, but overall, it's easier to run than most other systems I've played.

The thing about it is the it was created so the characters always win.   It's almost impossible for characters to die (in OSE its easy), combat can be really slow (is OSE it's very quick) and the characters are overpowered from the start.

That's not how D&D used to play and it doesn't feel like the D&D I used to play.

I owe no loyalty to the system or the author. If I don't like a rule, I change it. I've never play a TTRPG 100% RAW in my life, specially not D&D. First thing I did was drop spell memorization, and I rarely cared about race restrictions for classes, specially later on. Over the years, I changed so much it barely looked like D&D, specially in the 2e days.

I always took the rules as suggestions on how to arbitrate the game. Most are just fine, but I'll use a different rule if I think it's better.
The OSR had me re-thinking why I was changing rules. Chesterton's Fence and all that. So I'm a bit more cautious about changing a rule.

Quote from: VisionStorm on August 30, 2023, 09:52:02 AM
I owe no loyalty to the system or the author. If I don't like a rule, I change it. I've never play a TTRPG 100% RAW in my life, specially not D&D. First thing I did was drop spell memorization, and I rarely cared about race restrictions for classes, specially later on. Over the years, I changed so much it barely looked like D&D, specially in the 2e days.

Just curious, when you ditched level limits for demi-humans, did anyone ever play a human in your games? Mechanically unlimited advancement is the only reason to choose human.

Quote from: Jam The MF on August 29, 2023, 12:58:46 PM
Do you run wild and free with the rules, or do you feel obligated to pay homage to the rich history of the game?

I house rule what needs ruling for the world I am using any RPG engine in. Doesn't matter who made it.

N.B. I don't run any version made by WotC as they are craptastic and not D&D really

Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 30, 2023, 12:51:10 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on August 30, 2023, 09:52:02 AM
I owe no loyalty to the system or the author. If I don't like a rule, I change it. I've never play a TTRPG 100% RAW in my life, specially not D&D. First thing I did was drop spell memorization, and I rarely cared about race restrictions for classes, specially later on. Over the years, I changed so much it barely looked like D&D, specially in the 2e days.

Just curious, when you ditched level limits for demi-humans, did anyone ever play a human in your games? Mechanically unlimited advancement is the only reason to choose human.

Not the person you asked, but I can legit count on one finger the number of D&D campaigns I've run where level limits even mattered (to be fair I dumped AD&D early so I didn't have many D&D campaigns period). That one petered out around level 13 and so only barely mattered.

Most of the D&D campaigns I've seen die before level 6, nearly all the rest peter out by level 10 regardless of edition unless the GM is literally handing out levels every other session which, with one exception, are the ONLY campaigns I've seen reach level 20 (the other was a perfect storm that produced a seven year-long 4E campaign... the only thing comparable was my decades long Mage campaign that saw several waves of PCs reach multi-sphere mastery before being retired).

I can also say that 90+% of players I've met pick races purely on appearance and maybe fluff text and don't give two shits about the mechanics. So yes, dumping level limits would make zero difference to them.

Quote from: Chris24601 on August 30, 2023, 03:22:00 PM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 30, 2023, 12:51:10 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on August 30, 2023, 09:52:02 AM
I owe no loyalty to the system or the author. If I don't like a rule, I change it. I've never play a TTRPG 100% RAW in my life, specially not D&D. First thing I did was drop spell memorization, and I rarely cared about race restrictions for classes, specially later on. Over the years, I changed so much it barely looked like D&D, specially in the 2e days.

Just curious, when you ditched level limits for demi-humans, did anyone ever play a human in your games? Mechanically unlimited advancement is the only reason to choose human.

Not the person you asked, but I can legit count on one finger the number of D&D campaigns I've run where level limits even mattered (to be fair I dumped AD&D early so I didn't have many D&D campaigns period). That one petered out around level 13 and so only barely mattered.

Most of the D&D campaigns I've seen die before level 6, nearly all the rest peter out by level 10 regardless of edition unless the GM is literally handing out levels every other session which, with one exception, are the ONLY campaigns I've seen reach level 20 (the other was a perfect storm that produced a seven year-long 4E campaign... the only thing comparable was my decades long Mage campaign that saw several waves of PCs reach multi-sphere mastery before being retired).

I can also say that 90+% of players I've met pick races purely on appearance and maybe fluff text and don't give two shits about the mechanics. So yes, dumping level limits would make zero difference to them.

Pretty much. Most campaigns I've played never made it pass level 10 or so. And the most notable one that eventually did was made up primarily of elf PCs. So racial level limits were rarely a concern regardless.

Most players I've met also tend to pick races based largely on appearance or what they feel like playing that day. Mechanical concerns are largely secondary, although I do think that they're a valid concern, just not one that your average normie player gives a crap about. And I'm not sure how racial level limits or class restrictions adequately addresses anything.

Quote from: Jam The MF on August 29, 2023, 12:58:46 PM
Do you run wild and free with the rules, or do you feel obligated to pay homage to the rich history of the game?

The rich history of D&D is people house ruling it to hell and back, so... I don't understand the question?

Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 30, 2023, 12:51:10 PM
Just curious, when you ditched level limits for demi-humans, did anyone ever play a human in your games? Mechanically unlimited advancement is the only reason to choose human.

It was a stupid balancing mechanic that didn't work, and was fundamentally flawed in conception.

Quote from: GhostNinja on August 30, 2023, 09:37:39 AM

Quote from: Nameless Mist on August 29, 2023, 08:19:10 PM
The funny thing is, I experience the opposite.  I like 5e's minimal reliance on number crunching.  The mechanics can be a little oversimplified at times, but overall, it's easier to run than most other systems I've played.

The thing about it is the it was created so the characters always win.   It's almost impossible for characters to die (in OSE its easy), combat can be really slow (is OSE it's very quick) and the characters are overpowered from the start.

That's not how D&D used to play and it doesn't feel like the D&D I used to play.

Fair enough.  Full disclosure: I've never played OSE.  My experience with D&D is strictly 2E, 3E, 3.5E, 4E, and 5E.  As a DM, I don't feel like the characters are overpowered in 5E overall, but whenever I do feel like they are too powerful, I just either boost the stats on an enemy, or I increase the number of enemies.

Quote from: Nameless Mist on August 30, 2023, 06:28:14 PM
Fair enough.  Full disclosure: I've never played OSE.  My experience with D&D is strictly 2E, 3E, 3.5E, 4E, and 5E.  As a DM, I don't feel like the characters are overpowered in 5E overall, but whenever I do feel like they are too powerful, I just either boost the stats on an enemy, or I increase the number of enemies.

I know that talking to people and watching videos this is a complaint that I hear often.   OSE is a cleaned up version of the D&D Basic/Expert rules.  I run a bi-weekly game (running it tonight) and its a lot of fun.

I always try to play by the rules first, because I feel that you need to understand the system before making your changes. A rule that you don't like on paper may assume a different meaning once you try it interlocked with the others.

Sometimes I immediately see something that I don't like. Permanent level loss in earlier editions of D&D, for example (IMHO it should be the result of something truly awful, not from a random undead randomly swinging at you). My first house-rule, in B/X, was that you rolled for your HP when you increase your level, but if the end result was below the average for your class then you got the average (for example, a level 4th Fighter, d8 in B/X, was guaranteed to have at least 18 HP).

In D&D 3/3.5E I house-ruled a lot the combat rules because, as much as I like the overall system, it is clear that 3.5E WANTS for the players to use miniatures - and I sketch situations on graph paper. However, it was not as difficult as it seems.

Generally speaking - but this is more of a Rule 0 - I never stop an exciting moment to look for a rule. I wing things on the spot then I check. Sometimes it turns out that the way I did it was better.

Lastly, and this is the most curious thing, when I'm the DM rules are a tool to be used or thrown away. Somehow, when I'm the player I'm very strict about the rules. It is a total contradiction but I literally know the rules more in-depth when I'm the player than I bother to learn when I'm a GM - and I'm not a rule-lawyer (the word of the GM is always the holiest, but if I can help them by knowing a rule thus avoiding a frantic search in the manuals then I do it).

Quote from: VisionStorm on August 30, 2023, 03:44:01 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on August 30, 2023, 03:22:00 PM

Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 30, 2023, 12:51:10 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on August 30, 2023, 09:52:02 AM
I owe no loyalty to the system or the author. If I don't like a rule, I change it. I've never play a TTRPG 100% RAW in my life, specially not D&D. First thing I did was drop spell memorization, and I rarely cared about race restrictions for classes, specially later on. Over the years, I changed so much it barely looked like D&D, specially in the 2e days.

Just curious, when you ditched level limits for demi-humans, did anyone ever play a human in your games? Mechanically unlimited advancement is the only reason to choose human.

Not the person you asked, but I can legit count on one finger the number of D&D campaigns I've run where level limits even mattered (to be fair I dumped AD&D early so I didn't have many D&D campaigns period). That one petered out around level 13 and so only barely mattered.

Most of the D&D campaigns I've seen die before level 6, nearly all the rest peter out by level 10 regardless of edition unless the GM is literally handing out levels every other session which, with one exception, are the ONLY campaigns I've seen reach level 20 (the other was a perfect storm that produced a seven year-long 4E campaign... the only thing comparable was my decades long Mage campaign that saw several waves of PCs reach multi-sphere mastery before being retired).

I can also say that 90+% of players I've met pick races purely on appearance and maybe fluff text and don't give two shits about the mechanics. So yes, dumping level limits would make zero difference to them.

Pretty much. Most campaigns I've played never made it pass level 10 or so. And the most notable one that eventually did was made up primarily of elf PCs. So racial level limits were rarely a concern regardless.

Most players I've met also tend to pick races based largely on appearance or what they feel like playing that day. Mechanical concerns are largely secondary, although I do think that they're a valid concern, just not one that your average normie player gives a crap about. And I'm not sure how racial level limits or class restrictions adequately addresses anything.

I am more in the camp of giving human characters some cool perks of their own rather than limiting non humans these days. That way all options have something different to offer and there are no artificial restrictions.