Topic: House Rules vs RAW, and the layered complexities of RM

[Marc R]

I understand all the "realistic" reasons for the extra roll, I just think that in order to speed the game along, we don't need to have all the rolls. The ability to screw up in a completely random, non-important incident is one of the reasons some people get turned-off from games like RM, I think. They don't want their character to die just because he fumbled a parry from an attack by henchman #4, and he fell down the stairs, broke his neck, so the evil bad guy is now able to dominate the kingdom putting everyone in magical slavery.

I have actually had a guy stop gaming completely because of a fumble. Overboard? You bet. But there it is. I would rather be gaming with them than enforce a (imo) silly rule. I also believe that the reason all of these "story-telling" games, like The Dresden Files, and Houses of the Blooded, are gaining in popularity is due to the dislike of the incredibly randomness of old-school games.

The new "buzz-words" are: smooth, easy, fast, etc... particularly when it allows the player to push the mechanics into the background and concentrate on their character and the story. Which I prefer.

I totally think that Rule #1 above all others is "The GM can change any rules to fit their game style and concept."

But also that Rule #0 above even that is "If you're not having fun, you're doing something wrong, and the players are going to leave."

I don't think any house rule or deviation is ever wrong, per both of those, it's merely non RAW. A lot of these discussions branch out from a house rule discussion (Like the "Do you resolve the full parry attack rolls when "Stunned" or "Must Parry"?" thread split off from "multiple parries?".). . .and often that talk is more about how house rule #1 is rooted in house rule #2. . .i.e. "I allow combatants to parry multiple opponents" is built on top of "I don't roll when a combatant makes a +0 OB attack."

Often, in these conversations, people get to hostile arguing "That's totally overpowered" or "You must be killing PCs left and right" when I suspect that's not true, since the GM has been running and the Players keep coming back to play. . . .I suspect people lose track of how many house rules they use, and what the RAW even is, and don't realize that the "Simple" thing they are discussing is actually a complex layering of house rules that they've developed over a long period. That complex works, and is fun, and so it's never wrong, but sometimes just a part of it sounds off, or seems unworkable.

I try to probe and ask what else lies behind what people are talking about to try and uncover those further layers. . .and split off some replies into separate threads so each layer can be discussed alone rather than in a mess. The splitting part is something only we moderators can do, but I suspect if we all kept in mind that it's far more likely that either we're misunderstanding what someone says, or that there's something else buried in there that makes it make sense, we'd be a bit less scary to some of the new members.

[GrumpyOldFart]

A rule is always wrong if, and only wrong if, it fails to mesh with the feel of the game the GM and his gaming group wants. If I don't like the feel of the game your group is trying for and vice versa, then I won't play in your games, you won't play in mine, and we'll both be happy with that.

 

[arakish]

I am like Marc R.  There are two rules I go by as a GM.

Rule 1) The GM is allowed to change any rules to fit his world setting.
Rule 2) If ever in doubt, refer to Rule 1.

Can't get any simpler and don't need more rules than these two.  Ever since I became a third level GM (Monty Haul, Rules Nazi, Story Teller), I have always looked at any gaming system as a set of guidelines instead of as a set of rules.

rmfr

[Marc R]

I think that third rule is key too though. . . .if everyone is having fun, all is good, if not, the GM  will be absolutely correct. . .and alone.

[Grinnen Baeritt]

I've often thought that one persons answers to a "problem" caused by misunderstanding of RAW is often solved by WAR...

(Write Another Rolemaster) 

[markc]

I've often thought that one persons answers to a "problem" caused by misunderstanding of RAW is often solved by WAR...

(Write Another Rolemaster) 

[RandalThor]

Do I get a special, "Your quote started another thread" point? 

...and we'll have fun, fun, fun, 'till the GM takes our Rolemaster away...fun, fun...

[Lord Garth]

I'm probably a minority, but I do not, ever, allow rerolls or something of the such. Yes, you fumbled and went to hell. Grow up. I have nothing against saving a party with a particular incident (patrol passing by, nice clerics on their way to thanksgiving, yearly do-good dragon convention ...) happenning so as to get them back on their feet, but rules are rules. If you start bending them too much we might as well just forgo dice rolling and people can start reading crits to their hearts content. We'll still have a couple of Gin & Tonics anyhow.

When a player finds a rule too restrictive I have no qualms stopping the session and going over the rule with them. Once a rule has either been accepted or house ruled we move on, and after the session I write my players an email with any changes we might have agreed upon.

RM is an awesome game. Sure, I've changed so many rules over the past 20 years that I'm pretty sure if I ever had the pleasure of gaming with any of you we'd spend the first 2/3 hours arguing which set of rules to use. But fumbles are just as much a part of the game as high-end open rolls.

#1 Rule. We game to have fun.
#2 Rule. When we change rules, they apply to NPCs too.
#3 Rule. All rules are there as guidelines, but they are pretty damn good guidelines.

[MariusH]

I agree - rerolling the dice is a complete no-go. We have our own way of saving party members (NOT the entire party, though), by giving each player a few (three) "wyrd points" to start with. Such a point can be used, AFTER a battle, or other tactical situation is completely determined, to alter a crit result of "irrevocably dead" to unconcious for a long time. This was particularly useful in our last campaign, where there was practically no magic, and lifegiving was absolutely out of the question. A character was absolutely dead if he had no wyrd-points left, or if none of the others could get to him and get him away (we had to leave one guy behind at at time, and flee the battle). Also, in some situations it was made clear that wyrd-points would NOT be allowed, where players had to make difficult decitions or perhaps were trying very dangerous, dare-devil actions ("Do you REALLY want to fight that dragon? OK, but this is a no wyrd situation"). Even in a campaign with magic, we tend to play low-level campaigns, and thus the wyrd-points are still neat (the "oops, you fumbled and killed yourself" just destroys the game - just putting the poor character out of action for the remainder of the battle can be better). But death HAS to be an option, to keep the fun and excitement. So if there are no wyrd points left, you DO get a chance to trip in the stairs, fall down and crush your scull. The players are still careful, and no one ever wishes to have to use a wyrd point.

As for rules and house rules, we do it slightly differently. We make a hasty ruling then and there (quick GM call), and then we discuss the rule by mail before the next session, in order not to lose game time. We try to keep the rules discussions to a minimum during play.

Oh, and we ALWAYS roll the +0 attack (although in the past, we played it differently). In a "must parry" or "stun" situation, we have ruled that it cannot cause damage; it's a pure "fumble check" (I'll have to re-think this one, though - perhaps open-ended rolls should be allowed to cause damage after all?...). Otherwise, it might cause damage, like any other attack.

[Lord Garth]

Oh, and we ALWAYS roll the +0 attack (although in the past, we played it differently). In a "must parry" or "stun" situation, we have ruled that it cannot cause damage; it's a pure "fumble check" (I'll have to re-think this one, though - perhaps open-ended rolls should be allowed to cause damage after all?...). Otherwise, it might cause damage, like any other attack.

Each to its own. As I stated in another recent thread, I don't. If I were to have fumble checks for Must Parry or Stun/Stun no Parry, I'd allow open ended to give the player the chance to completely snap out of it and have their full OBs. You are after all giving them the full nastiness of a fumble. You could even complicate it a wee further and come up with a chart similar to the ones present in RM2 (they go up to 174 if memory serves) and have the roll+OB-applicable mods determine wether they'd get to attack or not. Or maybe not. Regardless, I'd go with open ended = full OB to attack if having players roll for fumble checks in MP & Stun scenarios.

[GrumpyOldFart]

At its most fundamental, the purpose of the rules, both RAW and house rules, is to define the amount and type of order in your system. More rules = more order, more granular rules = higher order.

On the other hand, dice rolling injects chaos into the system. The more granular your dice rolls are (eg d100 vs. d20) the more chaotic and unpredictable the individual potential result. The more often the system calls for a die roll, the greater chance of a chaotic result overall. Or in the form above, more rolls = more chaos, more granular die rolling conventions = higher chaos.

The purpose of house rules is to allow the GM to tweak the system to get the level of improbability he wants, both in how often unforeseen events occur and how extreme those results may be. It's easy to assume that you don't want the mechanics for a post-apocalyptic dystopia to be chaotic to the point of being ludicrous... until you think about the premise of Paranoia.

 

Beyond that, the GM and the players decide what best serves the setting/scenario. Sometimes I think people forget that the point is to have fun, the setting and scenario exists solely to serve that point, and the mechanics exist solely to serve that. In short, questions concerning the details of the mechanics you "should" use might not be as high up on the priority list as you think they are, and "should" needs to be resolved in terms of the kind of the results that make your setting fun to play, rather than any other standard.