New House Rule Forum

[Glorelendil]

Maybe the sub forum should be named "Fan Content". It is both more inclusive and better-sounding (especially to first time visitors).

[Rich H]

Maybe the sub forum should be named "Fan Content". It is both more inclusive and better-sounding (especially to first time visitors).

Fan Content instead of House Rules? No, don't agree; fan content covers far more things than just house rules - eg, actual play, adventures, etc.

[Earendil]

Maybe the sub forum should be named "Fan Content". It is both more inclusive and better-sounding (especially to first time visitors).

Fan Content instead of House Rules? No, don't agree; fan content covers far more things than just house rules - eg, actual play, adventures, etc.

But zedturtle's character sheet doesn't include any rules, yet it got moved to the House Rules forum. I don't really see a clear distinction between that and other fan-created extras like adventures.

Actual play is a slightly different kettle of fish, I think, but it's already been suggested that there should be a separate forum for that...

[Glorelendil]

Maybe the sub forum should be named "Fan Content". It is both more inclusive and better-sounding (especially to first time visitors).

Fan Content instead of House Rules? No, don't agree; fan content covers far more things than just house rules - eg, actual play, adventures, etc.

Oh, interesting; I wouldn't have included Actual Play under that heading. But adventures, playable cultures, new adversaries, and character sheets, yes.

I was just thinking that "fan content" says "people love this game so much they add to it in their free time." While "house rules" says "people are dissatisfied."

[Rich H]

Oh, interesting; I wouldn't have included Actual Play under that heading. But adventures, playable cultures, new adversaries, and character sheets, yes.

You see, those things aren't House Rules for me. House Rules are alterations and changes to the existing system whereas fan content enhance, even add to, rather than change what's already there in the game's RAW. I do acknowledge this can be a bit of a grey area when rules are concerned though - eg, what's an alteration and what's an addition and why is one classed as a house rule and the other isn't... But I don't want to really debate this so ignoring that, I simply wouldn't categorise fan adventures with house rules.

I was just thinking that "fan content" says "people love this game so much they add to it in their free time." While "house rules" says "people are dissatisfied."

... But then if you group them all together you've got the same problem that people looking for, say, adventure ideas/write-ups have to wade through all those house rule threads which imply the game is (or may be) crap. You're back to the root cause issue of why they were separated out in the first place.

I'm glad the house rules threads have been moved; I look at them far less than I used to and don't miss them. I hope they remain separate from any other content.

[Stormcrow]

Never split a forum in the hopes of GENERATING traffic; only split it to channel an existing imbalance of traffic. There were a lot of discussions of house rules that created the aforementioned perception of a broken game, plus stress among members arguing. Splitting off the House Rules forum made good sense. Creating an actual play forum in the hopes of getting people to post actual play reports could backfire: if people don't write such posts, you give the impression that no one is playing the game. The same goes for play-by-forum game postings. Until such time as people create another imbalance of topics, don't split off another forum.

[zedturtle]

I understand the logic, and I don't think you're wrong, neccesarily. But we do have several Actual Play threads that get regularly updated. I could generate 3 more threads myself (2 for my active games and I've been thinking it's be nice to do an in-depth analysis of my recently concluded Tales game. I've also been thinking that it'd be nice to have a TARDIS; I never have as much time as I want.).

[Candacis]

Hey, I'm wondering, if it is allowed to make conversions (don't know if it is the right word for it) and share them with others. I mean, use the TOR ruleset to play with it in a different setting. I'm trying to change the TOR rules in a way that they fit a german fantasy setting (Splittermond (which is being done by the same publisher that sells the german translation of TOR)). I'm adding a (very basic) magic system, new traits and weapons, a new attribute, changing the way of character creation slightly (every character now has a profession like mage, thief, merchant etc. and the virtues and rewards depend on those professions) and some other minor stuff.

In my document I'm only explaning my changes and new additions in regards to the TOR rules and the Splittermond setting, I'm not explaining TOR or anything like that. So, someone who would want to use my conversion would have to know the TOR rules beforehand.
Would something like that be okay to share with others (for free, of course)?
I hope that it is the right thread to ask this since it is kind of a house rule (only a very major one).

[zedturtle]

Hey, I'm wondering, if it is allowed to make conversions (don't know if it is the right word for it) and share them with others. I mean, use the TOR ruleset to play with it in a different setting. I'm trying to change the TOR rules in a way that they fit a german fantasy setting (Splittermond (which is being done by the same publisher that sells the german translation of TOR)). I'm adding a (very basic) magic system, new traits and weapons, a new attribute, changing the way of character creation slightly (every character now has a profession like mage, thief, merchant etc. and the virtues and rewards depend on those professions) and some other minor stuff.

In my document I'm only explaning my changes and new additions in regards to the TOR rules and the Splittermond setting, I'm not explaining TOR or anything like that. So, someone who would want to use my conversion would have to know the TOR rules beforehand.
Would something like that be okay to share with others (for free, of course)?
I hope that it is the right thread to ask this since it is kind of a house rule (only a very major one).

I am not a moderator. I will say that we have had a poster on before that started several threads (conversations) about translating TOR to the Old World (Warhammer Fantasy Role Play). He didn't seem to get in any trouble, and he mostly talked about the changes that he was making.

However, it might be best to first start a thread in the House Rules forum to introduce us a bit to Splittermond and why you think TOR (modified) is a good fit for the setting. Because I've argued for years that a custom system to match a setting is better than a universal one, and The One Ring is my winning move in that argument... it is highly optimised to work well at telling stories in Middle Earth, and (just going by what you've already said, if nothing else) takes a lot of work in order to become something else.

[saltmarsh]

The thing is with house rules is they are just that,
What one group think is a good change (no matter how minor ) another group might think is pointless .
So while I find reading other players house rules interesting I seldom use them as I will tend to tweak them only if I think they really need it which is not very often