A book of house rules might be thicker than the original rulebook.
One thing that happened to me in New Zealand was a great deal of rules discussion with my players there. I believe I have converted Khaghbboommm and Quoghmyre to 7.5 rules. But some interesting new ideas did come up.
This game encourages game masters to play by their own House Rules. The so-called T & T rules are not meant to be thought of as RULES, but more like a book of Guidelines and Suggestions. I was surprised at some of the House Rules that my friends were using, but you know what, they worked.
So, here’s a new House Rule for my game. There are only 20 levels available to T & T characters.. Under the current guidelines character level is determined by attribute magnitudes. A warrior with a strength of 300 would be 30th level. One benefit of levels is you add 1 per level on saving rolls that you would normally miss. Thus a level 30 warrior could add 30 points to all saving roll attempts–only the autormatic fail is ever going to stop him. A line needs to be drawn somewhere. In my game, I’m drawing it at level 20, and I am seriously considering drawing it at level 13. Spells don’t go higher than level 13 in the rulebook, so why should levels go any higher?
What seems like a very reasonable benefit for low-level T & T characters can turn into an incredible system abuse for high level characters. Yes, I’m still talking about Saving Rolls! T & T gives adventure points for trying to make saving rolls. If you roll a 5, 2 while trying to make a level 3 save, then you gain 21 adventure points whether the saving roll succeeds or not. A level 10 saving roll would be worth 70 adventure points and would almost certainly fail, but is an easy way to get lots of adventure points. Since adventure points can be spent to gain attribute points, the player wants as many of them as she can get. House Rule: No character will ever be asked to make a saving roll more than 7 levels higher than the character’s level. It’s too easy to abuse the system with impossible saving rolls. We talked about saving rolls that should be considered automatic failures, but instead of thinking about a sliding scale of automatic fails, I think it’s better not to go into that kind of territory. Why 7? It’s a magic number and fits in as a natural limiter to medium level characters.
And there’s another thing about saving rolls that needs a house rule. Players try something and fail, then everyone else wants to try it, especially if it’s a high level attempt worth lots of points. Sometimes the same player wants to try again and again until she succeeds. And why not? In real life practice makes perfect. If at first you don’t succeed, try and try again. Some GMs might allow that, but it’s a system abuse. House Rule: Only the first try to make a Saving Roll is worth adventure points. Copycats don’t get any. It follows logically that players should only get one attempt to make any saving roll . . .
Unless: If the challenge is set up as a series of saving rolls then the character gets adventure points for the entire saving roll sequence. Example: a character needs 3 level 1 saves on DEX to climb a rope. The challenge is to make 3 saving rolls in a sequence, so the player gets advanture points for all 3 tries.
There were a few other things that came up while I was gaming in the last 2 weeks. One of the things I have been thinking about is de-emphasizing the importance of killing things in T & T. You know, it isn’t really the kill that makes a character a bette character. It’s the fight that teaches the player character. Is it right to give a player 1000 adventure points if he never leaves the farm, but kills 1000 chickens with a monster rating of 1 point each. You could do that in an internet game like World of Warcraft of Runescape, but somehow it seems like cheating to me. Applying some kind of moral code to the game, do I really want to reward mindless slaughter? No. Actually, I don’t. Young Ken St. Andre didn’t consider such things when making up the game. Old Ken St. Andre is inclined to say that what is important is facing and overcoming challenges of different types, not just killing things. I am moving towards a philosophy of awarding adventure points for challenges faced instead of creatures killed.
We need to put together the manuscript for T & T Deluxe Edition soon. Don’t be surprised if you see these House Rules turned into official Guidelines for the future.
end
Saving...
When I ran face-to-face games (which I haven’t for a while), I didn’t always award adventure points for every SR rolled. The only SRs that earned AP were those rolled in situations I deemed important to the game and involved a sufficient degree of stress. A player who had a character attempt an activity just to roll an SR didn’t get AP for it.
In solo games, two of my house rules are to ignore kremm resistance and SRs for spell casting. I forget those rules during play most of the time anyway, which is why they have become house rules. I have never liked those rules, because for one thing they slow down the game for me. If they had been a part of the game in T&T4 and 5, I might not abhor them so much now, but I never understood why a game based on KISS principles would add what I perceived to be unnecessary complexity.
The SR required to cast a spell also makes solo games more deadly for wizards than they were already, as I’ve stated on multiple occasions in multiple venues. It would be one thing if a wizard had to make an SR to hit a target from a distance, just as an archer must make an SR to hit a target from a distance. But when you’re playing a wizard in a solo game and come into a melee situation, if you miss your SR, you’re toast. That’s why I came up with the Solitary Wizard specialist type, as was published in a previous issue of a T&T zine which will go unnamed here. I plan to reprint that article again soon.
All of this sounds like . . . well, I was going to say common sense, but more like: Hard-won wisdom.
All of these little fixes and tweaks and “breaks” are what make the game evolve to be more balanced and challenging as new editions come out. I was very pleased to see that Spite damage was official; that started out as a house rule, but it’s a great way of “fixing” a flaw in the T&T system.
I’d also rule out XP awards for “tactical” SRs. For example, the SR to hit a target with a ranged weapon . . . if the character eventually wins the combat, he or she would get an XP award for that overall achievement.
I was thinking the other night, while drawing a dungeon with narrow corridors, that SRs could be used during combat to change the allocation of damage. A heavily armored fighter could throw herself into the action, in an attempt to take more of the damage so her rogue and wizard companions aren’t torn to bits. The GM could rule that this requires a L2SR vs. DX. (It might be harder in a large room where the opponents have lots of room to maneuver, easier if there were few opponents or the combat was taking place in a narrow hallway.) But the upshot is that this sort of SR wouldn’t earn XP in and of itself.
OTOH, if this fighter made a habit of selfless action, she might be awarded XP at the end of the adventure for heroic actions . . . with the suggestion that it go toward increasing Charisma.
I think some of those ideas a good ones. Limiting AP awards to only SR made under stress makes sense. The same thing kind of applies for the copycat issue as well. Having seen someone attempt something kind of softens the lesson from the school of hard knocks, limiting the effects.
But, I’m not that fond of the 7+ levels idea. It feels like an arbitrary number and you have to stop and figure out if you get AP or not. The same objection is valid for limiting AP for rolls in combat since you get AP for the fight. It’s just too fiddly. KISS and all that.
Limiting the game to 20 levels or 12-13 as the spells would work fine without breaking anything, so that one I approve of.
Interesting ideas all.
I think there is going to be easy agreement to the limiting of SR APs
As for kremm resistance and INT SRs for spell casting, I like the notion that a wizard can’t just zap anything and do it over and over but I rather prefer the idea of a SR on WIZ instead of simply getting a bad feeling when facing someone with higher WIZ. Having just played under 7.5 with Ken, I really don’t think these changes slow the game down. Levels are artificial whether it’s the 5.5 way or 7.5 – depends on whether you have a spend or save mentality 
I think they could be done away with completely.
I’ve just written up a summary of the differences between 5.5 and 7.5 (there are plenty) and I will send it on to Ken.
If in a campaign, I’m of the opinion that adventure points should only be awarded for saving rolls that are either particularly heroic or clever. I also don’t think full AP should be awarded for a failed SR. Either 1/4 to 1/2 (GM’s discretion) based on the player’s role playing of the situation and/or the originality/cleverness of the idea.
Sneaking around a goblin patrol in the dark, not so amazing. Painting your warrior’s face with a paste made from green lichen, donning an old burlap sack, and then trying to bluff your way past as a lady goblin with a half-empty bottle of troll tequila as a bribe… excellent.
However, if just doing a one-shot adventure, then I say load ‘em up.
The original rationale for AP from SR’s was, if I recall correctly, something like “if you have to make a Saving Roll, then you’re having an Adventure whether you like it or not”, and therefore should earn Points for it. That reasoning seemed — and STILL seems — eminently sound. If the concept has proved excessive today, it is because of the level multiplier. [Name calling here deleted by editor.] The AP’s you gain from SR’s were never intended to be more than a tiny trifle, a token award, given in recognition of the risk inherent in any SR. Confine the AP award to the ACTUAL ROLL — PERIOD. Problem SOLVED! Sheesh — did I really have to SAY that!?
–”Glarrrn” of Trollhalla
In actual play I have never found the AP from SR to be excessive. Like I responded to Ken mail wise, I suggest it’s easier to keep it as it is. KISS.
If you have the trouble that your players earn to much AP from SR, I think you should just disallow ridiculous SR attempts, and use the copycat ruling.
When I comes to wizards I respect the insight Mike has, since he has thought much more than I on it. I still like the idea of magic being a little wild and random, though. But, how do you add randomness without hosing the wizard? I don’t know.
Hmmm.
Not sure if I see the point in limiting levels; most games don’t run long enough for a character to get up to those lofty levels, and if a campaign DOES run that long, it seems odd to build a limit into the game that would amount to a disincentive to keep playing. If the GM is tired of setting up adventures for mega-characters, he should just end the campaign. Besides, a character who gets up to level 30 will likely have all of his other stats up to fifty or more…
AP for FAILED saving throws, on the other hand, might be a problem, though there are many ways to control it. In the interest of KISS, though, maybe the answer is to only use the level multiplier on SUCCESSFUL saving rolls. If you fail, you get seven or eight points from the die roll, and no more.
The level limitation came because some solo dungeons and mad GMs (not angry, crazy, like me) sometimes multiply attributes by a high number like 5, 7, or 10. If you have a relatively high attribute to begin with and multiply by 10, you can get insanely high character levels. Thus, it makes sense to simply say that no character is ever more than a level 20 character, regardless of attribute values under the 7.5 rules.
Here’s a link to a new blog site – there are 2 posts up, one comparing 5.5 to 7.5 and the other offering some specific kindred spells on the premise that only humans can join the Wizard’s Guild…onwards and sideways!
http://gemsandgiants.blogspot.co.nz/
Mark
I don’t agree with either. These arbitrary limits sound reasonable, but in practical use they are just about placing limits on a game that doesn’t need them.
If I have players who have 30th level characters, why shouldn’t they have the benefits of having played up to that level? In practice, I have one 15th level PC and three 14 level PCs. Both their players and myself, think that’s about as far as we want to go with their sagas. Too many dice in each combat, or too many non-T&Tish math shortcuts to streamline things. But if the players wanted to go further I’d provide the campaign for them.
As for the “Don’t be an Asshole GM” rule, I generally range my impossible SRs about four levels beyond the Delver’s level. But now that you’ve told me not to, I just want to.
I often use very high SR to reward great ideas that are sure to fail! AP should be the same for failed SR, as we often learn more from our failures than our successes.
Woke up this morning, had a beer glass in my hand….
Woke up this morning…
And thought – three main character classes, let’s go with 3 approachers to combat. Warriors get 1 extra dice per level for weapons ‘cos they’re that good and get double armour protection and combat adds, rogues can use any weapon/armour and get comabt adds, wizards can use/waar anything but get no combat adds. Simple! Not artificial!
Can a wizard ever learn how to fight well enough to get combat adds? Maybe, if you swing it with the GM or rationalise it…
Upwards
Mark