Oh that's an easy answer.   Its because I mold the ruleset to my Campaign world and not the other way around

The rules are just guidelines anyway!

I change things around because I see the rules as a template. A good standard starting point, but needs to be twisted to my desires.

For example, in my Pathfinder 2 campaign, I drastically altered how the champions worked because I don't like players being "dedicated to evil" but wanted to keep the evil options. So instead, those options are of people who think they're not evil.

Quote from: Fergurg on May 19, 2021, 07:49:26 PM
So instead, those options are of people who think they're not evil.

Like the Jedi?

Changing the rules is usually explicitly encouraged within the rules. With the exception of a few tower of cards systems. Burning Wheel comes to mind.

Quote from: Jam The MF on May 19, 2021, 01:46:58 PM
It's so common for people to admit to changing stuff in their games of choice, that it appears a Perfect RPG Ruleset is "Unobtainable".

Not as many people change the rules as it os oft believed. Most are perfectly fine playing a game as is. Pretty much most games I've played as a GM were that way unless changing the game was actually required.

Which brings us to point 2: Some games by their very system require you to change things. gurps, BESM, and several others require the GM to prune the tree as it were or adapt existing material to fit the system.

2a: Other games encourage you to change hings to fit your campaign. AD&D for example despite repeatedly proven false claims otherwise.

3: there are some games though with outright broken rules that pretty much force you to change things just to play the game. Worse offender being White Wolf's d20m Gamma World where they fucked up so many things the was just short of un-playable. AND Baugh and Lizard were such lazy fucks that they didnt even bother to write some rule because "oh the players will do that for us..."

Other games like 5e D&D had in the first few prints enough typos, ommissions and mistakes that it made playing some things a hassle. WOTC themselves change the rules in later prints.

4: and some players just like to tinker with games. Lots of reasons from adding stuff the game isnt covering, to changing like one thing so the game is easier or harder. Or adding BACK IN rules that the publisher removed in later editions. Thanks alot Steve Jackson Games!

Example: alot of RPGs lack rules for underwater adventuring. Some even lack rules for water travel at all. Or lack rules for different types of travel. Star Frontiers lacks all but the most basic swimming rules and maybe a raft. And I'd have to check to confirm theres a raft. Checked. There is no raft but the Explorer can move on water like a boat. The rules mention subs and boats and underwater cities but they never appeared in the rules.

We become gamers because we want to create things. The most driven to create become GMs.

Of course we're going to fiddle with it.

Because there is a mass brainwashing going on about how RAW doesn't matter and it's "your" game. Pfft.

I usually change things that feel clunky to me, because I like straightforward mechanics.
One of my friends however can take a single paragraph rule and complicate it to 3 pages of conditions and degrees of success.

RPG rules (in a traditional game) aren't the game itself in the way the rules to boardgame or a sport are. They're an aid to running the game, and they're designed to run the game the designer envisions.

The game I want to run may be very similar to what the designer envisions, but it's unlikely to be exactly the same.

Additionally, since I'm running the game I want to run (with player buy-in), there is less need to get fully informed assent from every participant when I want to change something. If I want to change the rules of a boardgame, I need to get the approval of each person I want to play against, explaining and defending my reasoning, and hope they want the same thing from the game. This might be relatively easy if I clearly have greater experience with the game, but this won't always be the case. When I"m GMing, the players want me to be running the game I want, and there is inherent trust that I have a pretty decent idea what I'm doing. Which is a longwinded way of saying there are fewer obstacles to convincing the other participants to let me tweak the rules.

So, essentially, the rules are malleable already, and traditioonal GMs are in a position of authority where it's generally accepted by other participants that they're responsible for approval of and maintenance of the rules.

Back in the day I added rules to most of the games I ran, usually adding a folder of additional stuff, be it classes, combat tables, hit locations etc. Nowadays, I take out rules, with the aim of just a page or two of the essential stuff.

That people often make bad changes to rules is almost irrelevant to the discussion.  Of course people make bad changes.  It's the classic, "How do you learn to do it right?  Get experience.  How do you get experience?  You try things and do it wrong." 

A game isn't a NASA moon mission.  Rules changes need some thought and once you get serious about them, some testing.  But if a particular attempt blows up at the table, no real harm done.  It might even be entertaining.  Most of the rules changes that stick in my games are not anywhere close to the first iteration of the change. 

Do some people almost compulsively take it too far and mess up games?  Sure.  That's not a reflection on rules changes in general but a reflection on their relative discernment or current experience. 

There is also this school of thought:  The rules should be standardized so that people can quit wasting their time monkeying with rules and get on with creating content.  It is implicit in the idea that there is some crowd of "proven" designers that should provide the rules for everyone else while the rest of us get on with providing as many games as possible for everyone else.  As a criticism of a particular writer with some notable talent in content creation married to an obsessive but poor grasp of mechanics, it might even have some local validity.  As a general, reflexive critique of rules fiddling, it's a very shallow, self-serving position.  In it's silliest form, it takes the idea that GM's in general should be spending their time training up players for the broader pool of gamers to interact with--i.e. the "community" needs to spend all of its focus making sure that I can get a game--as if good games were a commodity.

Some rules books actually encourage house rules, saying things like "it's important to note that these are only guidelines, and the GM should discard the parts that don't fit".
I usually simplify a bit.

The big one is Rolemaster though; it definitely has some elements that add to the fun, but I don't think I'd ever want to run it as written.

I prefer rulings over rules most of the time.

I started with OD&D and thus had to make/expand rules for some things. Everyone in our original  group had their own set of house rules for their campaign setting/world (we all DM'ed and played in each other's games). This was the norm at the time, and IMO it's still the way to do things. The Setting informs the rules, not the other way around.  Now, we didn't always LIKE every rule  or setting the other guy made up, but we just went along and had fun with it. I've got 0 tolerance for rules lawyers and setting canonistas. I tried playing with my older Brother when we were kids, and he was a complete rules lawyer, and I quit on him and never played another game with him. He was the same with board games.  Those types of gamers suck the fun out of it all and I've asked several to leave my table over the years. It's a game of make believe faeries and elves, get over yourselves.

For my "OD&D/S&W mashup" game, I'm very light on magic items and magic healing. All classes get some beefing up. My healing/recovery rules take cues from DCC RPG and 13th Age. Recently,  I'm playing  around with a Arduin-esque (VOL III, IIRC) Hit Point system and a  spellcasting variant from The Wizard's Aide because these fit my style/setting.

Make the game your own. That was always the intent (before it took off, the APA went gonzo and Gary felt the need to reign it all in with the publication of AD&D).

I tinker with nearly every other D&D game too.  e.g.

I completely removed C&C 's 12/18 prime system (because it's wonky) and replaced with best of two rolls for a prime and static CB of 15.

In 13th Age I completely adopted the fan supplement "13th Age Companion characters" for the newbies/kids group. No more complicated than a B/X character, yet fits seamlessly within the 13A  rules framework.

For 4E , I made many changes to work it into something that fits my ToTM , fast paced game style. I's my favorite edition since OD&D

Some other games I might not make much changes at all- Call of Cthulhu, RQ2/OQ, FFG Star Wars, Dungeon World, etc because the systems are tighter and generally well done as written for the intent of the setting/gameplay. They benefit from more experience than Gary et al had at the beginning.

It's all good. I don't want samey gamey all the time.

Quote from: Trond on May 20, 2021, 09:12:32 AM
Some rules books actually encourage house rules, saying things like "it's important to note that these are only guidelines, and the GM should discard the parts that don't fit".
I usually simplify a bit.

The big one is Rolemaster though; it definitely has some elements that add to the fun, but I don't think I'd ever want to run it as written.

I literally rewrote RMSS (other than Spell Law and Arms Law, pretty much in it's entirety). It was a project I had long planned, and finally got around to a few years ago. Then ran a fun 18 - 24 month campaign. There are a few further tweaks I'd make if I went back to it again, but I was mostly happy. Of course, I had 10 solid years of playing basically nothing but RM2 and RMSS to draw on.

I'm currently running Traveller, using the MongTrav 1e playtest document as the foundation, with bits of CT, T:NE and T5 bolted on.

My next game is planned to be ACKS, with a mere half-dozen pages of fairly straightforward house rules (many of which are actually just clarifying which optional rules are in use). Oh, plus hexcrawling rules adapted from the Alexandrian.

A Super Simple way of handling Class Skills:

In OD&D, via White Box - Fantastic Medieval Adventure Game; Thief Skills are incredibly simple to run.

At Levels 1 through 3, a Thief has a 2 in 6 chance of success (33%) on a 1d6 Roll.

At Levels 4 through 6, they have a 3 in 6 chance (50%).

At Levels 7 through 9, they have a 4 in 6 chance (67%).

Then finally at Level 10, a 5 in 6 chance (83%).

You could incorporate Advantage / Disadvantage, by rolling an extra d6 when appropriate; to adjust for situational modifiers.  Then; take this entire simple template, and use it to run primary skills for All PC Classes.  If a PC attempts a skill which is not a primary skill for their class, they do so with Disadvantage.

However; as DM I'd say that if the Thief can't succeed at picking the lock, then no one can.  If the Magic User can't read the scroll, then no one can.  If the Thief or Magic User are unconcious or otherwise not present, I'll allow other PC classes to make an attempt with Disadvantage.

No rule-set is perfect for YOU except for the one you create yourself.

Not everyone is willing to create their own set of rules, so they change existing systems.

I kinda like 5e, for example. I think it has a great "spine" and lots of irritating details and bookeping, so I keep the core and adjust weapons, spell points, etc., usually removing/consolidating stuff I don't like.

With OSR I do the opposite: I always want to add some detail and customization. PC skills, "multi-classing", a few feats, etc.

I wrote Dark Fantasy Basic (see the sig) to add all the stuff I liked from 3e and 5e to my favorite D&D (Moldvay's basic). I also wrote a couple of PDFs on 5e streamlining weapons and armor, adding a few more options (from 3e and my own).