I'm putting up a custom system, heavily modified 3.x/pf1, along with a custom setting, and I'm looking for feedback on it. I don't have it all posted, but without a real keyboard, it will take me a long time to finished putting it up, so I figure on posting the links and letting people critique it as I digitize it.
I'm using the homebrewery to post it as I can't use my own devices or anything at the moment and it maximizes my writing time. I'll be updating it bit by bit nearly every weekday.
Here
Added a bunch. Not perfectly organized yet. I think I'm going to need to break into a bunch of separate files. It's getting hard to type without the browser screwing up.
I'm not a big fan of homebrew, but I am supportive of people who want to do it. so by all means go for it, and take my commentary with a grain of salt, but, the main issue I see with what you are trying to do is that it lacks simplicity. I've played tons of different RPGs, tabletop games, and boardgames over the last 40+ years, and by far the best ones, are the ones that aren't overly complex.
as for RPG's, aside from 3.5 and PF1, my favorite is Rolemaster, and all three of these have 1 thing in common. just about everything you do, is a single roll, with a bonus, and it's somehow compared to a target number.
Shadowrun (one of my favorite settings) suffers horribly for the sheer number of dice being rolled for every action, and what makes it worse is your roll isn't compared against a target number, but against another roll. Horribly over complicated and quite frankly it slows the game down.
Your system is somewhat falling into this trap, it's just too complicated to figure out what I need to roll for each action.
so by all means continue with your design, but my best bit of advice is that games need to remain simple.
I'm not sure I understand. How is it difficult to know what to roll? It seems quite intuitive to me.
MysteriousMaker wrote: I'm not sure I understand. How is it difficult to know what to roll? It seems quite intuitive to me. in 3.5/PF1 95% of the things you do is a d20 + a number, which you give to the GM who says success or not.
in your system, it's a d12, plus a random number of other dice depending on my stats etc. and (according to your other post) not always the same type of dice, so unless it's already written on my sheet, I have to do some quick calculations.
you wrote it, so of course it seems intuitive to you, but try to get a non-gamer to understand it in less than 5 minutes and see how intuitive it becomes.
Obviously I haven't written it very well, but it is as simple and easy as Savage Worlds, and anyone who thinks SW is complicated and unintuitive has no idea what they are talking about. This clearly it is a problem with my writing and not the design itself. I'll see about rewriting it monday.
For those familiar with SW, basically I mixed SW and d20. You get three dice based on stats, except instead of each being independently compared for successes, they are summed like the d20 variant 3d6.
MysteriousMaker wrote: Obviously I haven't written it very well, but it is as simple and easy as Savage Worlds, and anyone who thinks SW is complicated and unintuitive has no idea what they are talking about. This clearly it is a problem with my writing and not the design itself. I'll see about rewriting it monday.
For those familiar with SW, basically I mixed SW and d20. You get three dice based on stats, except instead of each being independently compared for successes, they are summed like the d20 variant 3d6.
If you're going to do that, why not just use the Savage Core for Pathfinder rule set. it's already written. Or are you just wanting to see what you can create?
TxSam88 wrote: MysteriousMaker wrote: Obviously I haven't written it very well, but it is as simple and easy as Savage Worlds, and anyone who thinks SW is complicated and unintuitive has no idea what they are talking about. This clearly it is a problem with my writing and not the design itself. I'll see about rewriting it monday.
For those familiar with SW, basically I mixed SW and d20. You get three dice based on stats, except instead of each being independently compared for successes, they are summed like the d20 variant 3d6.
If you're going to do that, why not just use the Savage Core for Pathfinder rule set. it's already written. Or are you just wanting to see what you can create? There are a few traits of 3.x that have been dropped by newer systems, even pf1 weakened these traits.
First is scope. 3.x ranges from regular normal people up to and beyond superheroes. Even Superman isn't necessarily lvl 20. You can have a scene involving regular people and superheroes at the same time and the system can handle both equally well even at the same time. (The magebreakers series has sprites as regular members of society. My system should be able to handle that without issue, or so is my intent.)
Second is casual simulationism. The values and stats are all grounded in representation of the fictional world, not meta things. Decisions by the player can generally line up with decisions by the characters.
Basically, read Alexandrian's articles on Dissociative Mechanics and Calibrating Your Expectations. Some people say his article on Calibrating Expectations is a load of poo, but frankly that's irrelevant, because what he describes there is what I want for my system.
I also liked the idea of having the ability scores modify the roll as dice because I could build on that in description of the results.
I am out of time but hopefully this points you in the right direction.
If I'm reading this right, when making a check I roll a d12, a die based off of one stat, and a second die based off of another stat? Let's say I have a 10 in one of them and a 16 in the other I'd roll a d12, d2, and a d6. If the d2 is a 2 and the d6 is a 1 and I succeeded (let's say I rolled a 12 on the d12) I'd describe how my lower stat was the main one that helped me succeed, right?
I don't mind that as it can add better descriptions, but it's a little clunky.
This reads like it's for more than just you, which is a good idea, but your opinions come through very strongly, which isn't a great idea. (EG: "I personally feel that point buy is missing the point, but for those who simply must optimize their build..."). I like point buy, it works really well for my group and most of them don't optimize their builds. You clearly don't like it, which is fine, but if I were reading this system and weighing if I wanted use all of your ideas I'd be biased against it purely on how you're telling me that I play the game wrong.
Another shining example of this is in the same section: "For those who want the sameness of point buy but not necessarily the minmaxing"
Obviously you're very early into getting it all onto paper, and you're referencing things in the document that you haven't added on yet so it's hard to give any deeper opinion than what I've said.
(EG: "...elves do sleep, but they created a special technique for gaining the benefits of sleep while recharging spell slots. They call it trance, and many casters use trance instead." So does that means caster elves trance AND sleep? Or is "Trance" something caster elves do while sleeping in order to regain their spells? But if that's the case, why would other races think they don't sleep?)
There is a certain intention on what is expected for play. I found the majority of players of 3.x never played as the rules intended (not a bad thing), but it was also rare for anyone to actually understand how play was intended (frustrating at times), but the worst was that it seemed like long time vets who play contrary to the design intent from the beginning lacked the ability to even understand the intended play.
There are so many things in the 3.x DMGs that modern players don't know and don't follow, and refuse to acknowledge when pointed out. It's almost like players become increasingly incapable of understanding the longer they play modern style.
When I first played 3.0, I had the occasional group play as the system expected or very similar, but over the years it has become basically impossible to find someone who plays that way, a rare few will have a discussion about it and claim to play that way but when you they actually play they don't.
So I'm trying to be as explicit and obvious as I can. I don't mind if people don't play according to my intent, but it would be a failure if they don't understand my intent.
Warped Savant wrote: If I'm reading this right, when making a check I roll a d12, a die based off of one stat, and a second die based off of another stat? Let's say I have a 10 in one of them and a 16 in the other I'd roll a d12, d2, and a d6. If the d2 is a 2 and the d6 is a 1 and I succeeded (let's say I rolled a 12 on the d12) I'd describe how my lower stat was the main one that helped me succeed, right?
I don't mind that as it can add better descriptions, but it's a little clunky.
You can but you don't have to. It's supposed to be more like inspiration, not a requirement.
And it's really not clunky in practice. Did it all the time in my savage worlds group.
Of course in your example, I'd probably lean towards luck and chance since the d12 was maxed while the stats were low.
I need to get the chart up as well I guess, as 5-8 is a d2, while 9-12 is a d4.
Okay, I'm going to be blunt here:
You're pretty much flat out saying "I know the right way to play, it's nearly impossible to find anyone else that does and no one listens when I'm telling them they're playing wrong."
That has made me lose any interest in reading further updates you have to your system.
Warped Savant wrote: Okay, I'm going to be blunt here:
You're pretty much flat out saying "I know the right way to play, it's nearly impossible to find anyone else that does and no one listens when I'm telling them they're playing wrong."
That has made me lose any interest in reading further updates you have to your system.
That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying there are multiple ways to play, and the way I prefer has been left behind and rarely even recognized as existing.
There are two kinds of "playing wrong." The first way is how most people take the phrase which is to imply they are playing in a way they should not. The second kind of "playing wrong" is to play in a way that is simply not the intention of the game designers, which is not bad, and not a "shame on you" kind of wrong.
I have zero intention of claiming anyone plays wrong in the first sense. They are games, and it is perfectly fine to play your own way, even if it is vastly different from how the designers intended.
My only point is that the intended style of play of 3.x is seemingly not ignored but just plain unknown. So I want to find a way to make it more obvious to players as the intended way of playing, not as a requirement of play, but to A) show the kind of play I'm wanting to see from potential players at my table, but also B) to make it more generally known that the common style of play is not the only way to play.
You see, you accuse me of telling others they are playing wrong, but in my experience, getting anyone who is a veteran player to recognize anything other than the common playstyle even exists is met with hostility and accusations such as yours, even when I go out of my way to show that I'm merely discussing alternatives and not claiming anything as better nor wrong.
This
MysteriousMaker wrote: I'm merely discussing alternatives and not claiming anything as better nor wrong. directly contradicts stuff like this:
ART: Alpha Version by MysteriousMaker wrote: "I personally feel that point buy is missing the point, but for those who simply must optimize their build..." You clearly think rolling is better.
"For those who want the sameness of point buy but not necessarily the minmaxing..." You think people that use point buy minmax. (But somehow people that roll don't?)
MysteriousMaker wrote: "There is a certain intention on what is expected for play." How is this not telling people there's a certain way to play and therefore if they're not playing that way they're 'wrong'?
You asked for feedback, I've offered some. Your current write-up makes it clear that you have a preferred play-style, which is fine to have, but my suggestion is that talking down about other styles or that "anyone who thinks SW is complicated and unintuitive has no idea what they are talking about" isn't a good way to get people interested in your system / willing to provide feedback.
Take my advice or not, it doesn't matter to me.
If you take this post as being hostile that's not my intention, I have no dog in this fight. But maybe I'm misreading what you meant with "getting anyone who is a veteran player to recognize anything other than the common playstyle even exists is met with hostility and accusations such as yours". Whatever your meaning was, I'm not bothered by it but, as I said, I have no interest in reading further updates about your system.
Best of luck to you with it.
Warped Savant wrote:
ART: Alpha Version by MysteriousMaker wrote: "I personally feel that point buy is missing the point, but for those who simply must optimize their build..." You clearly think rolling is better.
Why would you think that? You seem to be bringing a lot of biases and ascribing a lot of meaning that just isn't there.
My comment demonstrates that I don't see any value in using point buy to achieve the specific gameplay I'm promoting, and does not comment on point buy outside of that very narrow context, and even then, my comment suggests a weakening of that meaning as I still provide point buy for those who feel strongly enough to use it anyway despite it not working very well for the intended design.
Yet you ascribe my comment as being a general and universal statement. By taking it as a universal statement, that elevates the comment to a moral comment as suddenly you are taking the comment in all contexts, thus turning it into an attack against all others. That's purely from your take on it, and has nothing to do with the comment itself. Basically, you are putting words in my mouth.
Quote:
Quote: "For those who want the sameness of point buy but not necessarily the minmaxing..." You think people that use point buy minmax. (But somehow people that roll don't?)
The fundamental trait of point buy is minmaxing. It is a precise placement of points to accurately and precisely achieve a specific goal with little to no room for taking the unplanned and unknown values and figuring out how to work them into your designs.
Rolling by it's very nature is giving you unknown values that may or may not work well with your plans and you have to figure out how to work with or around the values.
Quote:
MysteriousMaker wrote: "There is a certain intention on what is expected for play." How is this not telling people there's a certain way to play and therefore if they're not playing that way they're 'wrong'?
Because there is a difference between between being wrong in a very limited context vs being wrong on a general holistic level. And a difference between being wrong in terms of failing to achieve something vs being wrong in a moral sense.
If you want to make a film in JJ Abrams style vs just plain making a film. Making a film in the style of a specific filmmaker is a very narrow thing that is easy to get wrong and it can be wrong because it is not in the correct style without being a wrong way to make a film in general.
People generally take being wrong in the general sense as being wrong on a moral or emotionally deep level, like it's some sort of attack on them. But if they are simply failing to fit a very narrow and specific boundary, than it's not a moral failing nor an attack on them to remark that they are outside that boundary, it is just a critique or comparison.
Quote:
You asked for feedback, I've offered some. Your current write-up makes it clear that you have a preferred play-style, which is fine to have, but my suggestion is that talking down about other styles or that "anyone who thinks SW is complicated and unintuitive has no idea what they are talking about" isn't a good way to get people interested in your system / willing to provide feedback.
I'll be honest, this is the only example that I can see any possibility of it being condescending in retrospect. But honestly, if you think that SE is complicated, then you're not ready to play at my table nor ready to even to give a critique of my system. It is advanced after all, and you can't expect a noob to give critical feedback on sufficiently advanced topics, just like you wouldn't ask an average 5 year old to critique particle physics research papers, and no one would take it as offensive to disregard a 5 year old's babble about particle physics.
Quote:
But maybe I'm misreading what you meant with "getting anyone who is a veteran player to recognize anything other than the common playstyle even exists is met with hostility and accusations such as yours". Whatever your meaning was,
My meaning is purely that it is my experience. There is always problems. The only players who understand that style of play are those that introduced me to gaming and those I introduce to gaming. Everyone else gets offended and hostile. Maybe I'm just that bad at explaining. I'm sure that is at least part of it, but given my success with introducing new players, it clearly is not the full issue.
MysteriousMaker wrote:
The fundamental trait of point buy is minmaxing. It is a precise placement of points to accurately and precisely achieve a specific goal with little to no room for taking the unplanned and unknown values and figuring out how to work them into your designs.
There is a huge fundamental difference between guaranteeing that I have the minimum stats possible to make the character I want playable, and Min/Maxing.
3.5 had rules to handle this, like being able to raise any stat to the minimum required for a class. PF solved this by not having any required minimums.
But if I want to play a Wizard and I know we're playing until 20th level, I am damn sure going to want to start the game with a minimum of 15 INT, so I can guarantee 9th level spells when they become available. rolling stats (in the strictest roll method, (3d6 in order)) does not allow me to play this character. so most players used the "instant abortion" method and just rolled and rerolled characters until they came up with the stats they wanted. It wasn't min/maxing, it's simply the game mechanic didn't work well. So various methods to make those characters possible entered the game, 4d6 drop the lowest, 3d6 place where you want, array, point buy etc.
min/maxers (and even worse, power gamers) vastly prefer any dice roll method, because they can "roll all 18's" and it's legit because their "friend" witnessed it. Point buy (and array) at least puts everyone on an even playing field. our house rules have mitigated this even more, we use point buy, but don't allow any stat over 17, or below 10, before racial mods at character creation.
Now, can mix/maxers abuse point buy? sure, but the solution is not to change the mechanic, but to change the player. either talk with them and get then to not min/max to the level they do, or to get other players.
however, one of the things that leads to min/maxing is bad GMs, the GM that feels like it's a competition, and that they have to always outthink the players, when the game becomes a GM vs the players. these game invariably lead to a game of rocket tag, where the players and the GM are trying to always one up each other.
TxSam88 wrote:
There is a huge fundamental difference between guaranteeing that I have the minimum stats possible to make the character I want playable, and Min/Maxing.
The only minimums I'm aware of for 3.5 is the spellcasting. There are no other minimum requirements. Not even for multiclassing. Well, some feats have minimums but those all make sense when you remember it's a casual simulation system, not a complicated version of chess.
But this again is demonstrating a misunderstanding of how 3.5 is intended to play. Paizo style AP like campaigns that run straight from lvl 1 to near max lvl as a single overarching story is a modern concept and not the expectation when 3.0 was created.
Things were still fairly old school in those days. Single modules taking place in a single lvl was the norm. Reaching lvl 20 was expected to take years if not decades in-game as players complete storylines and then do stuff in downtime, moving from dungeon delvers to leaders of organizations. And from this, characters didn't need to be established from day 1 to run till 20 and players can have multiple characters that they swap between for each module.
Further, the average for rolling 4d6 drop lowest is for the highest stat to be at least 15, and players got to place them as desired, ensuring that even if you were playing a caster, you'd have what is needed. Even being unlucky and having 13 as the highest stat would still be fine as items could make up the difference by the time it mattered.
And then the idea of playable, the game is very playable with low stats, but most modern players don't agree because it's not what they are used to. I think the psychological effect of penalties started the whole mess, which is why I changed the modifiers to not have penalties in my system.
And rolling is better for minmaxers only when the GM lets them get by with such stupid tricks. All a GM needs to do is require witnessing the rolls themselves and minmaxers immediately denounce rolling as the worst mechanic ever.
All that said, the problem is not solely the player. Different mechanics pit the player into different mindsets.
Rolling, and actually rolling, puts players in the mindset of being creative and thinking how to work with what they got. Point buy puts players into thinking about how to design things to work for specific outcome.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
MysteriousMaker wrote: Warped Savant wrote: You clearly think rolling is better. Why would you think that? I am talking about point buy within the conext of your system. I had thought that was obvious since this is a thread about your system.
This: "I don't see any value in using point buy to achieve the specific gameplay I'm promoting" and this "despite it not working very well for the intended design" is you saying that you think rolling is better for your system. I'm not putting words in your mouth.
MysteriousMaker wrote: The fundamental trait of point buy is minmaxing. I disagree but it's a matter of opinion and I'm not going to attempt to change yours.
MysteriousMaker wrote: ...there is a difference between between being wrong in a very limited context vs being wrong on a general holistic level. Yes. And you're telling them they're playing wrong in a limited context. You're telling them they're playing wrong.
MysteriousMaker wrote: ...just like you wouldn't ask an average 5 year old to critique particle physics research papers I've never read SW so I have no opinion on it, but we're not 5 year olds and your system isn't anywhere as complex as particle physics.
This, again, reads as if you're talking down to people.
Not a good look for someone asking for advice and critiques.
MysteriousMaker wrote: The only players who understand that style of play are those that introduced me to gaming and those I introduce to gaming. Everyone else gets offended and hostile. Yeah, okay. You think the people that taught you how to play and that people you have taught to play are the only people that know the intended way to play.
Have a gold star.
I've wasted too much time on this conversation already; I'm out.
MysteriousMaker wrote: TxSam88 wrote:
There is a huge fundamental difference between guaranteeing that I have the minimum stats possible to make the character I want playable, and Min/Maxing.
The only minimums I'm aware of for 3.5 is the spellcasting. There are no other minimum requirements. Not even for multiclassing. Well, some feats have minimums but those all make sense when you remember it's a casual simulation system, not a complicated version of chess.
But this again is demonstrating a misunderstanding of how 3.5 is intended to play. Paizo style AP like campaigns that run straight from lvl 1 to near max lvl as a single overarching story is a modern concept and not the expectation when 3.0 was created.
Things were still fairly old school in those days. Single modules taking place in a single lvl was the norm. Reaching lvl 20 was expected to take years if not decades in-game as players complete storylines and then do stuff in downtime, moving from dungeon delvers to leaders of organizations. And from this, characters didn't need to be established from day 1 to run till 20 and players can have multiple characters that they swap between for each module.
Further, the average for rolling 4d6 drop lowest is for the highest stat to be at least 15, and players got to place them as desired, ensuring that even if you were playing a caster, you'd have what is needed. Even being unlucky and having 13 as the highest stat would still be fine as items could make up the difference by the time it mattered.
And then the idea of playable, the game is very playable with low stats, but most modern players don't agree because it's not what they are used to. I think the psychological effect of penalties started the whole mess, which is why I changed the modifiers to not have penalties in my system.
And rolling is better for minmaxers only when the GM lets them get by with such stupid tricks. All a GM needs to do is require witnessing the rolls themselves and minmaxers immediately denounce rolling as the worst... yeah, minimums were around before 3.5, same as 4d6, and 3d etc. the history of the game has shifted from only 3d6, to alternate methods because the original method did not work.
and 1-20 modules have been around since 1e, the classic beginning at Hommlet and going through the slaver series, giant slayer series, temple of elemental evil, descent to the vault of the drow etc being the prime example. perhaps not packaged as a single AP, but certainly used as one by many many people, and 1-20 was done not in decades, but in the course of just a few years.
And yes, having the GM watch you roll your dice does reduce the background cheating/instant abortion character, but dissatisfaction with your character leads to you purposely getting it killed off so you can try again, or lack of interest in the game which causes the game to die.
Letting players have fun is the secret to a good game. and having the stats available to do what you want with the character is critical to that. Now, I'm not saying to allow min/max, but there are good ways of generating stats that are fair, yet still allow people to play what they want.
Mindset makes a very big difference in the experience of the game. Truly massive. I'd say the difference mindset has on the experience of the game is larger than the difference achieved by switching from d20 to palladium or shadowrun or whatever.
Your mindset clearly looks at dice as unfair, as demonstrated by your reference to better ways of generating stats that are fair. But have you sat down and questioned why you think rolling is worse?
Now to be fair in return, what I've been calling the modern way of playing has been around almost from the beginning. Gygax seemed to have a great distaste for it when he talks about "playing the game" vs "playing the mechanics." Now I have no problem with players being on either side of that distinction, but I've been bothered greatly by the fact that "playing the mechanics" not only seems to be the only kind of player out there these days, but it seems like "playing the mechanics" type players seem to have a fundamental problem understanding "playing the game" type play.
Your discussion of how bad stats leads to players killing off their characters because they are "bad" characters. That is built entirely on the fundamental mindset of "playing the mechanics." People who "play the game" don't do that, because it misses the entire point of "playing the game." Those "bad" characters are not bad characters to players of a different mindset.
I'm not making mechanics to play like modern play but with altered mechanics. I'm looking to support a fundamentally different mindset. So different that even how you judge good characters from bad is wildly different.
I'm just having a massive amount of trouble communicating the difference.
MysteriousMaker wrote:
Your discussion of how bad stats leads to players killing off their characters because they are "bad" characters. That is built entirely on the fundamental mindset of "playing the mechanics." People who "play the game" don't do that, because it misses the entire point of "playing the game." Those "bad" characters are not bad characters to players of a different mindset.
I disagree, and so does the mechanics of the game. your suggestion of playing the numbers as dealt to you forces people to not play the character they want (I wanted to play Conan, but my rolls gave me an 8 STR, so no way I can play Conan now (non min/max system)). yet, the mechanics of the game allow players to play what they want (Man, I really want to play Conan, I'm going to spend more point on STR, let's say a 17, so I can start pretty strong (what you consider a min/max system).
TxSam88 wrote: MysteriousMaker wrote:
Your discussion of how bad stats leads to players killing off their characters because they are "bad" characters. That is built entirely on the fundamental mindset of "playing the mechanics." People who "play the game" don't do that, because it misses the entire point of "playing the game." Those "bad" characters are not bad characters to players of a different mindset.
I disagree, and so does the mechanics of the game. your suggestion of playing the numbers as dealt to you forces people to not play the character they want (I wanted to play Conan, but my rolls gave me an 8 STR, so no way I can play Conan now (non min/max system)). yet, the mechanics of the game allow players to play what they want (Man, I really want to play Conan, I'm going to spend more point on STR, let's say a 17, so I can start pretty strong (what you consider a min/max system). Still missing the difference. One doesn't go to the game looking to play conan, but rather they go to the game to see what they get and what they can build from what is handed to them. Like an artist taking an existing picture and merely modifying it, building on what is given rather than dictating the end result from the beginning.
If you watch Brandon Sanderson's lectures on writing, one if the things that gets brought is the two types of writers, one type that explores and writes to discover what happens next vs the other kind of writer that writes for a specific outcome. Architects vs explorers. The difference here is similar, you are like an architect of sorts, you create characters from an end idea that you build with the mechanics, while I'm an explorer taking random bits as inspiration and building what I can from them.
You can see this in my comment of using the dice representing different stats as inspiration for description of outcome. Taking inspiration from what is given rather than dictating from whole cloth.
MysteriousMaker wrote: . One doesn't go to the game looking to play conan, but rather they go to the game to see what they get and what they can build from what is handed to them.
yeah, I think you are wrong here, and I'm pretty sure that you are not understanding that most people prefer systems in which they can control the outcome. Most people come up with a concept first and then build the character to fit, not get random stats and see what they can do with it. Point buy has become the preferred system because people want to play their concept, not what the dice gods allow them to.
TxSam88 wrote: MysteriousMaker wrote: . One doesn't go to the game looking to play conan, but rather they go to the game to see what they get and what they can build from what is handed to them.
yeah, I think you are wrong here, and I'm pretty sure that you are not understanding that most people prefer systems in which they can control the outcome. Most people come up with a concept first and then build the character to fit, not get random stats and see what they can do with it. Point buy has become the preferred system because people want to play their concept, not what the dice gods allow them to.
I never said the style I want is a contender for the most popular. Most writers are of the architect type. Thus "most people" is irrelevant here.
I know the style I'm supporting is a minority, but it's a style that deserves to exist and deserves recognition, especially as it's much closer to the original "play the game" styles compared to the modern "play the mechanics" styles.
Just because the latter are by far more common doesn't mean we should focus on them to the exclusion of all else.
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules
|
