I was part of a comment string on Google+ (Once again G+ is not a wasteland) about Never Unprepared concerning the book’s value for games that were less traditional. The comments were very civil and reasoned, which is much better than most of the experiences I’ve had on Facebook, but one of them irked me. I let it go because it wasn’t relevant to the discussion at hand. Also I enjoy the civil discussion on G+ and take great strides to not upset that balance. Still, it bothered me for the rest of the day. Actually, this subject has been bothering me since the first time I was confronted with it. It was during a discussion about how 1st edition D&D is a well designed game.
During the discussion about 1st edition D&D the person I was talking with said new games were unneccessary and new rules weren’t needed. RPG’s didn’t need new rules sets to do what the old rule set already did. That’s when I questioned him about the rules and discovered he’d house ruled a bunch of them to make the game do what he wanted it to do. On the surface I think this is fine but in my head I keep think this:
If you house rule your game then you’re not playing the game as it was intended so are you actually playing the game you’re defending?
It’s an interesting question. It’s interesting to me at least and more so when I start looking at games like Burning Wheel / Mouse Guard which are explicit in their play, or games like Apocalypse World which has been hacked into Dungeon World and Monster Hearts. Those games use the same core mechanic but are not Apocalypse World. The thing here is if you change the rules to a game you should call it something else. My 4e games isn’t 4e D&D. My players call it Chris’s 4e D&D because I’ve added a bunch of stuff to it and I understand that my D&D game isn’t the stock D&D game.
Getting back to today the comment about traditional games was:
“I don’t think those games have to be run that way, but they commonly are.”
Like I said before, on the surface I have no problem with this. Games should be fun and if someone choose to change the rules to a game and still has fun playing it then I think that’s awesome. Underneath the surface I’m wondering why you’re playing game A when game B can do what you want much better, and without having to change it. I’m also confused when someone says “this game sucks” when they’re not even playing the game the way it was intended. Maybe it’s not a bad game. Maybe this person had the wrong expectations.
And there it is. A house ruled game isn’t the game you bought, should be acknowledged as such, and the house ruled version shouldn’t be judged as a bad game just because it doesn’t do something you want it to do but was never designed to do well.
Point the Next. All RPGs are not games and shouldn’t be called Role Playing Games. I’m looking at Savage Worlds here. You can look at GURPS too if you’d like. Savage Worlds is not a game but a set of tools to create your own games. Now if you buy a Savage setting like 50 Fathoms or Necessary Evil then you’ve bought a game. It has a setting, rules associated with the setting, expectations on character creation, and a campaign built into it in the form of a plot point. The difference is the Savage Worlds core rules don’t imply anything. They’re genre and setting agnostic and promise Fast, Furious, Fun but there’s no inherent game expected except you’ll probably be fighting stuff.
Now before people jump the shark, or think I have, let me talk about D&D. D&D (this includes Pathfinder) is a game but it isn’t as explicit in its setting or what it’s supposed to be doing. fortunately we can tell what the game should be doing by looking at the rules. D&D is a game about adventurers who live apart from normal society by exploring wonderous locations (AKA going into Dungeons), overcoming foes and death-defying situations (killing monsters and avoiding traps), and gathering wealth to advance your cause (taking their stuff so you can go into more dungeons, kill more monsters, avoid more traps, and take more stuff). If you look at the rules of the game most of them are geared for this. There are some social skills but they’re minimal meaning they’re less important than the rest. I know people play this game in different ways but when they do it ends up being less satisfying or a hacked version. Doing a heist job is more fulfilling when you use Leverage. Political intrigue works a lot better with Houses of the Blooded. A game about fighting monsters works better when using D&D.
So where am I going with this? I think people should be more open to understanding RPG’s because there isn’t a one size fits all game out there. Different mechanics highlight different things in games. Different games will influence and create better games for you and your groups in the future. I house rule or hack most games because while I have the mechanical set I want for 80% of the game I want to run I’m always missing that last 20 which irks me and leads me into the realm of design. This is how we got to the games we have today. We built them on the foundations or in direct opposition of the ideals of older games. We cobble together the bits we like and dislike. The thing I see as I read more games is there is probably a game out there to do what you want it to do and while it might be West End d6 it probably isn’t.
To finish I would just like anyone who reads this to ask themselves a question. How much have you had to change your game to get it to do what you want it to do? If the answer is more than I realized or way to much then maybe you’re not playing the right game.
Now I feel better. I’m sure all four or five of you who read this probably think I’m nuts or have un-subscribed by this point but if you haven’t and you have something to say I’d love to hear it.
Chris “The Light” Sniezak