What are your house rules and why?

Loaded dice?


Is that what memesis was trying to say to me, wow I didn't notice.
 
Loaded dice?
Is that what memesis was trying to say to me, wow I didn't notice.
Click to expand...
My actual point was that your play group seems to support this house rule for reasons that don't actually make any sense, but really do boil down to "we like our version better".  Hey, if you like a rules change, you should go for it.  Just don't make excuses for it, that's all.
 
Hmmm. Lets see, one Houserule I have (though so far it hasn't actually come up) involves Dragonblooded only. Any charm which allows you to take another element's version...doesn't. I prefer that DBs be tied to their own element more strongly than is implied by allowing such. I'd be willing to let someone who has mastered an element's Dragon Path broaden out in such a way...but otherwise...no. A Fire aspect will use fire, a wood aspect wood, etc.


Other than that so far my only houserules have involved tranfering things over to 2E that have not yet been published, such as merits and flaws. I'm currently working on a house rule system for artifact weapons and armor to balance things in the same artifact rating to eachother better. There are a few interpretations that may or may not be houserules, depending on who you talk to, but I suppose are houserulings. Specifically that if a charm requires a minimum in more than one ability, it is a charm of both for the purposes of combos. This ruling was made due to some comments within the Scroll of the Monk.


Hmmm...otherwise we've switched mortals to using the Essence x 10 from Scroll of the Monk, but otherwise using the Players Guide rules for Awakening Essence through merits and flaws, unless it happens in game...in which case it follows the rules of the method used.


Also, if someone has something happen in game, they don't have to spend xp to get backgrounds...nor do they gain a return if they do something that loses them such. If you spend all your resources, well, tough. Earn them back. If you throw your Daikliave into a foe who then sinks into a pit of lava, you better have a plan for getting it out or replace it. On the otherhand if you loot a First Age ruin and find a skyship, and do all the work to get it back running, then, welcome to your new skyship. Occasionally this has led to gripes when someone wasn't willing to go to the effort of actually RPing gaining their cult or some such...but if your character doesn't actually do the work, then things don't spontaneously spawn for you just because you paid xp. On the otherhand, if you DO do the work, then welcome to your reward...I'm not going to charge xp for something outside of yourself. Experience teaches you things and helps you improve yourself, it doesn't give you followers. :)
 
Vanman said:
Yet if you're trained in combat' date=' you learn how to move defensively as a natural progression of your fighting style. Unless you just stand straight up and hack away with no regard toward defense. I can argue the validity of having defenses work the way they are in 2nd Edition all day long, but at the end of the day you're not going to listen.[/quote']Yes, and it seems that it doesn't matter what anyone else's opinion is, if it doesn't match yours it's wrong.  Get over it.  We happen to like using Dexterity+Dodge as a rolled value instead of a static defense and it works in our games.
Click to expand...
Get over yourself. When did I ever say you or EM was wrong? I was disagreeing with EM. I never said he was wrong or that it shouldn't be used in your game. I don't agree with your reasons, but I'm not playing in the game so what I say doesn't matter. If it works for you, then use it to your heart's content. That doesn't change the fact that I think that system is inferior to 2e defenses. I think it is. I also think it slows down combat. So all in all, I think - and this is just my opinion, and I stated this in my original post - that static defenses are superior to the rolled defenses.

Vanman said:
And have you actually played 2nd Edition or are you just basing this on your own mewling perceptions that "passive" defenses are stupid because you roll better? This sounds like a classic case of "I'm taking my ball and going home" syndrome.
Click to expand...
Yes' date=' he has played 2nd Edition, as I'm running the game right now, and we both agreed that DV was not going to be in our games, as passive defense is basically an invisible shield deflecting all incoming attacks without you having to bother noticing them, which is not something everyone just [i']gets[/i] for being there.
Click to expand...
So you haven't actually tried using DV, you just don't like it based on what you read without actually trying it. I have no problems with someone trying something and then changing it because they don't like it. What I do have an issue with is someone calling something stupid without actually trying it.

Oh' date=' and thinking rules are stupid is the entire reason for house rules.[/quote']
I don't disagree with you. But see my comments about trying something before claiming it's stupid.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
The gammers here beside me are D20 fans we no what passive defense is.


We don't like it.
 
It's too bad that you're equating two very different systems. You don't like it because of some weird affection for dice rolling--which I suspect comes down to a wee bit of an attention whoring sort of behavior that draws you to instances where you can be Johnny On The Spot--and you fear change.


We've done this argument before, in other threads, but again, it boils down to a fear of change.  It is such an improvement to the system, and such a streamlining effect, that it makes the combat system much more agile, more 'realistic', and faster to boot.


Lay in your dank cave, fearful of light, but the rest of us going to have S'mores.


Too bad, ya'll troglodytes in your messy cave fear fire, because these S'mores are delicious...
 
1 Passive defense is passive defense, regardless of what games have and what games don't.  


2 Streamlining is not enough of an improvement over what you lose to it.


maybe just what I lose to it.


3 I don't fear change I don't like passive defense you roll attacks and damage, so you roll defense.


If you don't roll defense then you don't roll attacks and damage, making the dice pointless.
 
If you don't roll defense then you don't roll attacks and (damage)' date=' making the dice pointless.[/quote']Actually that probably should read: If you don't roll defense, then why should you roll attacks and damage?  And without that, your dice are pointless, since social rolls are just attacks and defenses.
And I think that passive defenses are just another way of streamlining the system.  But I think that it goes a bit too far, taking part of the chance and fun out of the game.


Oh well.


Any other house rules.
Click to expand...
 
I'm not running a 2E campaign right now, but if I was, I'd use the following.

  • Put my terminology alterations into place.
  • Use both the Relative Appearance and Social Combat During Physical Combat rules listed on the wiki's social combat page.
  • Rationalizing the DV system using the pool consistency variation. Presumably, those that are rolling defense are using something similar, but rolling the pool instead of using its average successes. You might find, instead, that the no pool variation more closely matches your interpretation of DV.
  • Use FrivYeti's weapon and armor revisions
  • I'd want to make a number of rulings on timing, especially as related to movement withing flurries and clinching (which are basically broken or incomplete as written), but I'm not sure how I'd work them yet. Take a look at the wiki's Rulings pages for discussions of specific mechanical issues with 2E and various attempts at solving them.
  • Some of my 1E house rules might apply to 2E games.
 
Dude, that's me! Holy crap people actually look at my stuff and recommend it! I'm just blown away.


Sorry for the thread necro, I just happened to google my name based on another thread talking about name stealing and originality.
 
Just to weigh in on passive vs. active defenses.


1. You're being a bunch of children. None of your ad hominem attacks even seem a little accurate to anyone not involved in the argument. Insults for the sake of insulting are not conducive to productive rules discussion.


2. As someone who actively plays in both 1e and 2e games, I can say that both active and passive defenses have their merits. Active defenses require one to plan out their actions, resulting in a combat scene that has more ebb and flow, and allow for some truly stellar lucky breaks, as well as some truly stellar unlucky breaks. Bad luck is interesting, and I wouldn't game without it. Passive defenses, on the other hand, allow one to spend more time considering different dimensions of strategy. Without having to consider splitting actions for defense, one can split them among other things, or do amazing feats that would be suicidal if one had to consider defense (like, say, using any offensive Charm without a defense combo'd in). Combat with passive defense tends to escalate constantly to big climaxes, because the predictability allows for the scaling to be measured.


And 2e, once you re-word stuff to go back to splits, does support active defense just fine. It's just really hard for newbies to learn how to split actions (I still haven't got the hang of it, which is why my character doesn't really do much in combat in my current 1e game). I do prefer passive defenses, but I can testify that people who like active defenses have the same percentage of logical, intelligent, sane people that people who like passive defenses do.
 
Hi. The thread is three years old. One of the posters you are addressing to got banned three years ago and one another has been inactive for months.


Slowpoke.
 
Hm, that explains why the name wasn't familiar.


Considering that it was near the top of the stack, discussion around here must be really slow.
 
I have too many house rules to articulate. I'll just hit the highlights.


* All splat book charms are subject to review and revision-to evade power creep.


* Updated almost all anima banners.


* Characters can use 1 charm/tick, rather than 1 charm/round.


* I love the curse, but I'm working out a different way to implement limit. I'm trying to integrate limit, willpower, and virtues into a single fluid and logical sub-mechanic.


* tweaked basics of combat: disarming, grappling, guarding, 2 weapon fighting


* we don't roll damage, it's fixed.


* social combat was blended, but has never come out smooth. It's failure has ruined games. It's still a work in progress.


* tweaked many, many charms, including flaws of perfection. I limit DB excellencies to Ability rather than ability + specialty.


* tweaked a few artifacts, including halving the cost of core-book armors.


* Use a completely generic mass combat system.
 
I find it funny that people get upset when you thread-necro, and get upset when you ask a question answered in another thread. Go figure.
 
Yeah, either pick one or the other. Either you can want everything on a subject to stay in the same thread regardless of how old or unused it is, or you can want to leave dead threads dead. Personally I could care less one way or the other, but if its that important to avoid thread necro, then make it so old threads go away after "x" amount of time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top