My New Massive Body of House Rules

[thewyzard]

I've constructed a massive amount of house rules, some of which are general and some of which are intended for a specific game I'm going to be running on Google+

However, I haven't actually run or played T&T that much, and I'd like people to read over what I've written and give me their thoughts. This seems like the best place to go for that.

Unfortunately, I think the body of text I've written is too long to post into a thread here, so I'm just going to provide a link.

deepspacecorrespondence.blogspot.com/

Again, any thoughts and reactions are appreciated, critical or complimentary.

[unclecranky]

Kk. Give me a bit, thewyzard.
Okay, having read them through, most of what I read stands - you would have to print them out for your players, but it looks good on paper. I would be a bit confused playing for the first time, but nothing you've done would either mystify me for very long or give me the creeping willies. The place you're liable to run into the MOST opposition from long-term players with is changing the SR Tables - that might get you called 'heretic!' from other players and GMs, but new players wouldn't know the difference and short-term vets would get used to it quick.
Wizardry - as you've used it there, was a little confusing. And the three-spell system is a smart one - It gives beginning players a lot less confusion to start.

[devadasi]

it looks like alot of thought and work went into that, for which i say kudos. On the other hand, TnT's charm (for me) is not just the ease by which it can be houseruled, but the simplicity and ease, and dare i say "near perfection" of the rules as written.

Your talent system feels to much like a familiar skills/feats system... which isn't to say it wouldn't work..... just that i would feel terribly constrained by it, both as a GM and a player.

[mahrundl]

I've only glanced at it quickly, but there seem to be some interesting and potentially useful ideas in there. Using all of those changes will give you a game that is rather heavily divergent from T & T, as I'm sure you're quite aware, but that's not an issue as long as it works for you and your players.

I'm going to limit my comments on this, because I tend to play pretty strongly 'by the book' 5th edition, and have rarely if ever found a house rule that I liked well enough to use more than briefly. So I'm probably not the best judge of how good your ideas are.

Although reading through your posts has given me an idea for a new spell: That's a (G)Natty Beard, which causes the target's hair to become insect infested...

[thewyzard]

Dec 23, 2012 15:47:23 GMT -5 unclecranky said:

The place you're liable to run into the MOST opposition from long-term players with is changing the SR Tables - that might get you called 'heretic!' from other players and GMs, but new players wouldn't know the difference and short-term vets would get used to it quick.



Wizardry - as you've used it there, was a little confusing.

I thought and thought about the SR thing, and the fact is, I'm sticking to it.

1. It makes the math of calculating SRs back and forth on the fly slightly easier (Due to the way benchmarking works, there are times when for Speed checks you start with the target number and work your way back to the SR level).

2. It gives me a more trivial level of difficulty to roll against, for when I want to give PCs a chance to blow it but expect even an average one to probably succeed.

3. I could always just set everything to a minimum of SR2 anyway, they'd still be going for 20 and they'd just get twice as much AP.

So, I think it's going to work for me.

[thewyzard]

Dec 23, 2012 16:55:35 GMT -5 devadasi said:

Your talent system feels to much like a familiar skills/feats system... which isn't to say it wouldn't work..... just that i would feel terribly constrained by it, both as a GM and a player.

You may well be correct on this. I'm kind of okay with Feat-style abilities when they're done well, and don't accidentally end up being "exclusionary." That is, they create an effect where all of a sudden things you think adventurers should be able to do become exclusive to some given feat, because a designer made a feat about it.

Sometimes skills can be exclusionary, too. I'm looking at you, Use Rope. Thanks for making sure that characters who didn't want to spend skill points on bullshit can't rappel down a cliff face anymore. Ugh.

So, I don't know. The Talents might stay, get expanded, or get cut eventually. I'm going to see what they look like in play and how my players react to them.

[thewyzard]

Dec 23, 2012 17:01:18 GMT -5 mahrundl said:

I've only glanced at it quickly, but there seem to be some interesting and potentially useful ideas in there. Using all of those changes will give you a game that is rather heavily divergent from T & T, as I'm sure you're quite aware, but that's not an issue as long as it works for you and your players.

You know, I'm not really keeping track of how divergent its going to be. Combat is still going to be a comparison of Hit Point Totals. Stuff is still going to get resolved with SRs.

My initial design purpose was that since Attributes are so important, I wanted them to do more and tell us more about how the characters and the world work. You know, if PCs can end up having these gigantic, superhuman scores in their attributes, shouldn't that make them more superhuman? So, I set out to start benchmarking tasks. If a superhumanly strong guy can defeat hordes of enemies, then I think a superhumanly smart one should be able to have a laboratory like Rhialto the Marvelous, or a superhumanly fast one should be able to leap ridiculous distances.

Anyway, that's what I'm going for.

[unclecranky]

And I think you've done a good job with it. As to the SRs, I'm not saying you're wrong-it's more along the line that most of the old f*rts (like me) are gonna pitch hissies because you're 'mucking about with the SR system'. Expect a lot of very important sounding harrumphing.
And muck away, I say, young man, muck away. There are no sacred cows in T&T. And us old f*rts could do with a rise in blood pressure. Keeps us active.
Oh, and have an Exalt. That's me saying you've done a bloody good job.

[devadasi]

Dec 24, 2012 10:13:57 GMT -5 thewyzard said:

Dec 23, 2012 17:01:18 GMT -5 mahrundl said:

I've only glanced at it quickly, but there seem to be some interesting and potentially useful ideas in there. Using all of those changes will give you a game that is rather heavily divergent from T & T, as I'm sure you're quite aware, but that's not an issue as long as it works for you and your players.

You know, I'm not really keeping track of how divergent its going to be. Combat is still going to be a comparison of Hit Point Totals. Stuff is still going to get resolved with SRs.

My initial design purpose was that since Attributes are so important, I wanted them to do more and tell us more about how the characters and the world work. You know, if PCs can end up having these gigantic, superhuman scores in their attributes, shouldn't that make them more superhuman? So, I set out to start benchmarking tasks. If a superhumanly strong guy can defeat hordes of enemies, then I think a superhumanly smart one should be able to have a laboratory like Rhialto the Marvelous, or a superhumanly fast one should be able to leap ridiculous distances.

Anyway, that's what I'm going for.

honestly not trying to be contrarian here, but can't they do that already? If super genius Wizard wants to have a perfect labratory can't he already do that with the IQ saving roll as it is?

Do you need to have all this stuff ruled and statted out to make it possible? Can't the warrior with superhuman ST decide to pick up a huge boulder and take out hordes of enemies with a 10th level Strength save? Does he need to have "boulder hurling" as a talent first?

This is purely personal, but the high level player who says: "I grab one of the orcs by his feet and swing him around in a circle to drive away the hoard surrounding me" (erm Luck save lvl7) is ALWAYS gonna score way more points for me than the guy who says "I'm going to use my 'defeat hordes' talent, to even the odds.

Just sayin'.

But if you are your players groove on this, my opinion doesn't mean squat. Its all about fun.

[devadasi]

TnT is kinda famous for its hackability. I do find that this contributes to a persistent trend wherein those who have never actually played much Tunnels and Trolls glue on a whole series of house rules ostensibly to improve the game, while in effect removing its essence.

As has been said, if you and your players are playing the houseruled version, and everyone is having a blast, then what i say is just a meaningless rant from a grognard.

But from what i've seen in general, these attempts generally fall into a kind of genre of "lets make TnT more like DnD... so that DnD players won't think its lame".

My own opinion says it can't succeed. If your players are set on a fairly mechanical set of rules like DnD (esp. 1e advanced and onward), then TnT is never really going to seem like anything but an imitation.

The lack of rules in TnT is what gives it is spontanaity, its colorful quirkiness, its "vive la difference".

In TnT characters can literally TRY anything. The more rules you make determining how and when these things can be tried, the less imagination your players will be allowed to use, and the less that MAGIC that is pure TnT just can't really appear.


That said, my hope is that your game succeeds with you AND your players. Because gaming is fun. and gaming is good.


But as someone who has run literally THOUSANDS of hours of various DnD editions, and HUNDREDS of hours of TnT, my two cents is that the game as written is already better than any version of DnD. Its the "black sheep" of early RPGs, and trying to paint it white so the rest of the heard will accept it is taking away its individuality.

( again, all this 100% my personal opinion and said opinion does not preclude anyone's game from being 100% awesome with the right GM and the right players.)

[zanshin]

A very impressive variety of work Wyzard. I like the idea of a hero 'class' for PC's. I can also live with lots of bits like second best attribute increasing level. I haven't read it all , but will when I have the time and give you more detailed feedback. I would not personally change SR's - my view as a GM is that if the difficulty of an action does not warrant a L1 save (i.e. vs 20), the character can just accomplish it.

20 is the level at which an average human will only accomplish the task occasionally (one in 6 times). That seems the right level of difficulty to start rolling to succeed at a task.

The extra tweaks to stats are fun additions.

[zanshin]

Further comments as they occur to me.

I like the Talents you have codified. If I was playing in your game I would like the option of creating my own talents at a similar power level. I like that the talents give extra bonuses, and you can still try stuff without the talent.

[zanshin]

I'm less keen on using Spirit AND Strength for Spells - but it is mitigated a bit by all characters being able to cast spells. I am simply not a fan of the power lifting wizard syndrome, and the extra book keeping it entails, but it was the method for 5e and many people still like it.

[zanshin]

You should probably give some acknowledgement for the spell names that you are adapting , as they are the product of ken St Andre's fevered and brilliant imagination

Overall, looks like it will work fine - you have elaborated upon a tried and trusted chassis. Hope you have lots of fun. Have an exalt for all the effort. Your blog looks cool and interesting. Thank you for sharing.