Regarding rules mechanics for games that are clearly based-on D&D, but make changes.  What rules does it make sense to alter in certain circumstances, be it for ease of play, or to highlight something specific in the setting; and which would you take as being nothing more than mindless gimmickry or "change for its own sake"?

RPGPundit

Makes sense to change: Things your group hates
Makes no sense to change: Things your group likes

Oh, and change stuff that does not fit your setting.

Let's take Encumbrance for an example. Encumbrance by pound is quickly tossed by many groups as an 'un-fun' rule... and that may have more to do with the implementation.

The goal of that mechanic is to allow tense choices about movement in combat to occur, as well as model certain other parts of the 'strategic' (long-term goal) oriented play. Which goes back to dungeon content as re-usable and procedural (goal becomes to get out with loot, not to scorch and clear).

So the "Encumbrance by Stone" model, which abstracts the 'accounting mini-game' into something useful in play, feels like a better fit to the original goal (Justin posts here, right? thanks for the resources, dude!).

I think the "Bundles" part of Justin's system is key, as it removes tedius list-scanning and option-paralysis by breaking your gear down into discreet packets (that you can then make a choice about tossing if necessary, or the GM can use as a guide to how hard it is to get something out of your pack.. hey, you're the one who bundled the Healing Potions with the live chicken, right?). It feels like a Diablo style interface, and that's a good approach nowdays (because many people who haven't played tabletop RPGs have experienced computer RPG systems).


Is that a good example?

If we are talking about D&D, I think that there are many things you can modify while still keeping the core of the game intact. By core, I mean the basic structural conceits of the game and the way it comes up in actual play: the game of exploration (the dungeon, the wilderness), with characters as archetypes (classes), who face danger and various manner of obtacles along the way, which makes them tougher and more powerful than other people as they survive them up to the point they become heroes themselves (gain experience, gain levels). If you don't have this focus and particularity of the D&D game at its core covered, you don't have a D&D game, IMO.

Then, there are sacred cows, but these vary with each fan of the game. It's basically a mine field. If you modify those (like say, Vancian casting), you should really have a serious reason that plays on the emulation of the setting. Otherwise, you are going to rub some feathers the wrong way.

Now you can have different classes, different races, roll something than d20s, and so on, so forth, but there's a point at which your game just becomes "something else" than D&D.

If you are talking about Arrows of Indra, what I would like to see is a game that emulates the setting and exploration adventures in a D&D manner that is yet specific to the emulated world you want to convey. What I want is for the East Indian fantasy and myth to be felt at the level of the game's play, and not just a manner of dressing on top of bog standard D&D mechanics. The example to NOT emulate here in my mind would be Oriental Adventures for AD&D, which basically was based on the idea that the "Oriental" flair is exotic enough on its own that you don't have to actually show Oriental fantasy at the level of the dungeon. It's basically like playing normal 1E with ninja and samurai costumes, and I don't think it's enough to warrant an entirely new game like Arrows of Indra wants to achieve.

So you've got to have some way of distilling what it is that really stands out about your emulated world and make it a part of the game's design from the ground up, so you are both still playing "D&D" in essence, but in a way that is really emulative of the East Indian flair and particularities of fantasy.

I don't think the combat//to hit rules model missile fire very well.  during hand to hand combat, a to hit roll is supposed to represent a whole series of exchanges between combatants, not a single attack. AC and hit points and whatnot are designed with this in mind. However whenever someone fires an arrow or gun or whatever they are making a single discreet attack. Fooling with this stuff makes sense, unless you like the way it is, in which case why bother?

I take it that you are *not* asking "which rules are OK to change?" since you've played RPGs for a while and written your own. What I think you're asking is: which changes in retro-clones, tribute games, and retro-spinoffs seem like reasonable changes to fit a given playstyle or setting, and which seem like changes merely to be different?

That question is complicated by copyright concerns. Even back in the day, when people were whippin' up their own knock-offs of D&D, they were doing things like replacing names of ability scores to avoid lawsuits. With the OGL, it's easier to replicate some things, but a lot of stuff the cloners want in their game is not in the SRD, so they are forced to provide disguised approximations of original mechanics.

You pretty much have to change the xp numbers in any retro-clone, whether you want to or not. It's annoying, especially the Labyrinth Lord approach of nutso xp goals, like 1,565 xp to reach 2nd level or 3,125 xp to reach 3rd level as a cleric. But it's unavoidable.

People have always changed stuff like hit dice, to-hit mods, damages, and AC, so those are forgivable, even if many times they go a way I would never have gone. I'm infamous for preferring numbers like "1" or in extreme cases "2", and using 1d6 for all melée weapons, but I know other people get more hung up on whether one weapon should do more damage than another, or breaking down combat advantages in more detail (+5 for this, +3 for that.)

You have to change things like wandering monster rolls or treasure/stocking rolls, but I prefer keeping the results as close to the original and just changing the exact dice rolled or mods added, while most others have made more significant changes (like the Swords & Wizardry treasure rolls, which I haven't learned to love. That trade-out process seems too complicated and doesn' seem to make the same kinds of treasure troves.)

When a mechanic *has* to be changed for legal reasons, I think it's reasonable to change die type, mods, target number, and whether it is roll high/roll low, but doing other things may be too gimmicky. Like, if starting gold and equipment required bidding on "wealth cards" that are kept secret until all bidding is done. (Not that I've seen any game do that...)

Simplifying mechanics doesn't seem too bad in any case, nor does a minor complication for a very clearly stated playstyle goal, even if it's a goal I'd never try for myself. Like, if someone said "I want my combats to be OVER THE TOP!", I could see someone adding exploding damage rolls or exploding attack rolls.

Ascending AC.

I was not a fan of how S&W White Box used 1d6+ or - a modifier for weapon damage, seemed like completely missing the point of a original 3-booklet D&D retroclone, especially when monsters kept the OD&D damage values.

Trying to shoehorn a variety of 3.x mechanics in seems to go against the grain.  I understand it's not "Old School Slavish Devotion to Ancient Holy Texts", but if you want to incorporate a skill system, make something up.  If descending AC really did run over your puppy and laugh, make something up.  More than once I have seen these SRD snippets added in because the designer fell for the 'newer=better' fallacy for the rules; the same reasoning that sees Monopoly, Clue, checkers and backgammon changing their rules twice a decade.

I'm in the minority but I'm a big fan of the Ref/Fort/Will save trio. It feels more natural to me, especially when I'm creating something like a pit trap - save vs. Reflex just sounds less awkward than save vs petrify in that situation.

Pete

Quote from: RPGPundit;547276Regarding rules mechanics for games that are clearly based-on D&D, but make changes.  What rules does it make sense to alter in certain circumstances, be it for ease of play, or to highlight something specific in the setting; and which would you take as being nothing more than mindless gimmickry or "change for its own sake"?

I think Ascending AC is a no-brainer unless you are looking for actual backward compatibility with original D&D editions.

I think moving various class skills such as thief skills and ranger tracking into a general d20-based attribute and level oriented skill system like D&D 3.x is also desirable.

Quote from: Planet Algol;547404I was not a fan of how S&W White Box used 1d6+ or - a modifier for weapon damage, seemed like completely missing the point of a original 3-booklet D&D retroclone, especially when monsters kept the OD&D damage values.

Didn't know that. What was the range of the modifiers used for weapons?

The original spirit of the rules?  I'm glad to hear you say so because once I purchase the rights to D&D I'm releasing Rolemaster Standard System under the title Advanced Dungeons & Dragons and it'll be the last edition of D&D.  

Quote from: talysman;547326I take it that you are *not* asking "which rules are OK to change?" since you've played RPGs for a while and written your own. What I think you're asking is: which changes in retro-clones, tribute games, and retro-spinoffs seem like reasonable changes to fit a given playstyle or setting, and which seem like changes merely to be different?

Yes, precisely, and no, this is not about Arrows of Indra.

QuoteThat question is complicated by copyright concerns. Even back in the day, when people were whippin' up their own knock-offs of D&D, they were doing things like replacing names of ability scores to avoid lawsuits. With the OGL, it's easier to replicate some things, but a lot of stuff the cloners want in their game is not in the SRD, so they are forced to provide disguised approximations of original mechanics.

Ok, so instead of calling it "wisdom" you call it "gnosis", I take it that's an acceptable change to you?

QuotePeople have always changed stuff like hit dice, to-hit mods, damages, and AC, so those are forgivable, even if many times they go a way I would never have gone. I'm infamous for preferring numbers like "1" or in extreme cases "2", and using 1d6 for all melée weapons, but I know other people get more hung up on whether one weapon should do more damage than another, or breaking down combat advantages in more detail (+5 for this, +3 for that.)

The real question is what degree of change is acceptable.  If you're talking about "let's use ascending AC instead of descending", that seems pretty sensible to me.  If you're talking about "let's make it all backward so you have to roll a number, subtract the add the AC value, subtract your to-hit bonus, and then get below a certain score to hit", is there really a point to that kind of thing?

QuoteYou have to change things like wandering monster rolls or treasure/stocking rolls, but I prefer keeping the results as close to the original and just changing the exact dice rolled or mods added, while most others have made more significant changes (like the Swords & Wizardry treasure rolls, which I haven't learned to love. That trade-out process seems too complicated and doesn' seem to make the same kinds of treasure troves.)

When a mechanic *has* to be changed for legal reasons, I think it's reasonable to change die type, mods, target number, and whether it is roll high/roll low, but doing other things may be too gimmicky. Like, if starting gold and equipment required bidding on "wealth cards" that are kept secret until all bidding is done. (Not that I've seen any game do that...)

Technically speaking, no mechanic has to be changed for legal reasons.  Names might have to be, but you can't copyright or trademark game rules themselves.  You have to rewrite them in your own words, but you there's no way that you're legally forbidden from having long swords do a d8 damage, or have a certain condition give you -2 to hit, or for orcs to have AC5, etc.

RPGPundit

Quote from: John Morrow;547552I think Ascending AC is a no-brainer unless you are looking for actual backward compatibility with original D&D editions.

I think moving various class skills such as thief skills and ranger tracking into a general d20-based attribute and level oriented skill system like D&D 3.x is also desirable.

As long as the math works out the same then the only practical difference is that personal preference.

The fly in the ointment with ascending AC is AD&D use of repeating 20s.