Just houserule it

[Black Dougal]

The discussions on grappling rules and DR over the past several days have left me thinking about OSR games and the nature of simpler rules systems.

I am going to go out on a limb and say that the DCC RPG rules perhaps should include neither specific grappling rules nor a DR system. These areas should be left up to the DM to either rule on by fiat, or for the DM to address in houserules in a way which fits with how he runs his game world, or both.

One thing that many of the D20 based systems don't really leave room for is one of the things which was considered a strength of many OSR systems. EGG in the 1e DMG encouraged DMs to rule by fiat and to change the rules as necessary to fit the rules to their games. After all the rules serve the player, not the other way around.

In today's OGL and GSL systems we seem to have moved in the opposite direction. We are all turning into rules lawyers. Granted we are doing it out of necessity due to the complexity of the rules, but it is a trend that I see none the less. It feels like we end up servants to the rules.

* I am continually impressed that every pre-1980 edition of D&D managed to pack the entire rules set into 64 pages, give or take. I believe that modern rules "bloat" is one entry barrier for the hobby. Plus I know that many of us are grown-ups now, without an entire summer to blow learning a new game, and I'd really like to publish a game that is actually playable by a significant chunk of the gaming population - which means easy to grasp, easy to learn, and not a massive tome. As such, I am focused on a relatively short rulebook as the primarily (and probably only) rules product. There won't be a PHB, DMG, MM, etc. There will be one book. Maybe a rules supplement once a year or something to support any evolution of the game, but not much more than that.

One of the reasons that I think the rules fit into 64 pages was the fact that the authors knew they couldn't fit every game situation into the rules as 3e and 4e try to do. Or perhaps they just didn't want to try to account for every situation in the rules.

So, let's just houserule it.

[Black Dougal]

And while we are at it. If you have any fun housrules to share, please post them.

[JRR]

I agree 100%. For instance, in my 30 years of playing rpgs, until 3e, no one ever tried to trip or sunder. Disarm only happened with warp wood or heat metal. On rare occasions, a wizard got grappled, or a party member who was charmed. We wanted to slay the giant, not roll around in the dirt with him. But mechanics in place to allow these maneuvers encourages players to try them. Especially if they blew a precious class ability (feats) on them. In the rare instances someone wants to use trip or sunder, etc the gm can come up with a method. That's what makes dming fun. I'm not opposed to a simple mechanic covering all trip and such tactics under one roof as long as it's simple. A simple saving throw should suffice, but it should be very easy to pass. Honestly, tripping or grabbing someone who is aware of your presence is not an easy thing to do. In real life, grabbing at a guy with a sword just gets you a prosthetic hand.

[Geoffrey]

Yep. Let's keep the DCC: RPG rulebook as slim as possible. The only way to prevent having thousands of pages of rules is to be comfortable with DM fiat.

[mntnjeff]

Yep. Let's keep the DCC: RPG rulebook as slim as possible. The only way to prevent having thousands of pages of rules is to be comfortable with DM fiat.

A HUGE +1 on that Geoffrey!!

Doug asked for an example of play using "house" rules instead of relying upon a rule-intense structure. Actually, I have one that's a counter point to this conversation, it illustrates the problem w/ "extensive" rule systems that try to cover all bases.

Scenario: I was DM and had a group of 6 players. One of them was a guy who hadn't played since AD&D 1E. They were in a mine fighting a dragon (green I think). It was a large cavern w/ a system of rails still in place at varying levels throughout the room. Oh, and we were playing 3.0.

The battle is going poorly for the group and Paul (the AD&D guy), seeing that he's not doing much comes up w/ this plan on the fly. He's going to climb the rails and grab one of the carts sitting up high on the rails and ride it down. As he rides it down he's tying a rope off w/in the cart. OK cool...

Then as it gets closer to the dragon, which is battling the group just below, he tries to lasso the dragon's head as he zips past! Hoping that it will pull its head to the side at the least (so that he can leap off and mount the dragon right behind the head), and maybe derail the car and pull the dragon's head down to the ground w/ the cart allowing the rest of the party a free attack as the dragon untangles itself.

Complex? Sure... Pretty creative? Heck yes! I completely free ran it. I didn't want to drain the vibe and waste time on thinking about what type of feats, or skills or whatever were going to come into play. I asked for a simple to hit roll w/ the rope and a dex check as he leaped off the cart.

Anyway, I LOVE that kind of thing. And this guy comes up w/ stuff like that all the time. He's as out-of-the-box a thinker as I've come across.

[Black Dougal]

Perhaps there could be a specific forum here for houserules with the coolest or most useful ones finding their way into the DCC Annuals. I think that would be full of win.

[finarvyn]

One of my favorite moments in freewheeling DM style came just a few years ago when I was trying to get a newbie interested in RPGs.

SHE: I try to jump the chasm.
ME: Roll to see what happens.
SHE (Looking at piles of dice): Roll what?
ME: Just pick up a die and roll it. Tell me what it says.
SHE: You're kidding!

The point of this "just pick up something and roll" is that most of the time the roll is high or low, which is good or bad. I don't need a fancy chart in a book to nit-pick rules for me, but I can make up a general guideline about how easy or hard a task might be and wing it from there.

What if the dice roll is in the middle? I just look thoughtful and aske them to roll again.

[GnomeBoy]

This thread is all well and good, but I seriously must ask...

...did she make it across the chasm?

[Jeffrey]

I've said for years: we need to get our heads out of the rulebooks and back in the game.

[smathis]

I agree in principle. But I think this kinda conflates the purpose of the Grappling thread altogether. Here's my most recent post there. Reposted here because I feel it's relevant.

Regarding Grappling... I'd like to see something simple. It really breaks down to two things for me.

1) Restraining another character. How do you do it? What does restraining a character do to that character? And how do they get out of it? That shouldn't take more than a paragraph or two, really.

2) An option to lose a combat in some way besides being killed. Like getting knocked out or something. How does that happen? Because it happens a good deal in Appendix N and I don't feel like the ruleset will accurately reflect the inspiration without something like that. And, again, it's something that I think could be defined in a couple of paragraphs.

Now, yes, we could house-rule those. But I think they're prevalent enough in Appendix N that they deserve a mention.

I think there's wisdom in leaving things open-ended and expecting DMs to fill in the blanks. That's why I wouldn't propose any rules for disarm, sunder or tripping in DCC. I think those can all be adequately covered by MDA or some decent DMing.

But I think attacking someone with the intent to restrain them and getting knocked out or attacking someone with the intent to knock them out (instead of killing them) at least deserve a mention. Even if they just leverage existing mechanics like...

1) Grappling... Roll to hit. Target must be your size or smaller. If target is your size, it can add its STR bonus to its AC for the attack. If you hit, the target is restrained. It must roll a Reflex save at DC 12 + your STR bonus each round to break free. That's all it can do while restrained. You do 1d4 + STR bonus damage to the target while it is restrained. Each additional "restrainer" (up to 4) holding the target adds a +1 to the DC for the reflex save. Use the highest STR bonus for the save. Attempting a "grapple" attack against an armed opponent grants that opponent a "free whack" at your character.

2) Getting Knocked Out... If you take an amount of Damage greater than your CON score, roll a Fortitude save with the DC equal to the damage. If you fail, you get knocked out for 1d4 hours but only take 1/2 the damage in hit point loss. If not, you're fine and keep going. But take the full hit point loss.

Neither of those are heavy (although Grappling has to take into account a couple of different situations). And neither would lead to rules bloat, IMO. Or necessitate that DCC go down the path of including rules for Sundering or Disarming.

In fact, I'm fairly sure that even simpler and more elegant ideas could make both even lighter.

But both are things that (A) happen in the fiction fairly often and (B) traditionally D&D has done rather poorly or not at all.

So, yes, in principle I agree with the thread. But specifically, I disagree on the two facets of unarmed combat I've been "grappling" with over in the thread on Grappling.

[Black Dougal]

I agree in principle. But I think this kinda conflates the purpose of the Grappling thread altogether. Here's my most recent post there. Reposted here because I feel it's relevant.

...

So, yes, in principle I agree with the thread. But specifically, I disagree on the two facets of unarmed combat I've been "grappling" with over in the thread on Grappling.

I am not exactly sure what you mean by "conflates the purpose of the Grappling thread altogether". I am going to assume you mean that I am confusing the purpose of the other thread. Sorry, my brain went tilt on that sentence.

That being said, I think my comment doesn't fit really well into the discussion in the other thread. It would have been disruptive. Had I made it in that thread it might have been a distraction from the issue and would not have added to the discussion. Also, it has wider application than just the DR and Grappling threads. It is something that warrants consideration for each thing that is added to the rules. Anything, even a four line paragraph, can be rules bloat, if it is text that doesn't need to be in the book. Add enough four line paragraphs and soon the rules are 400 pages in length. Grappling may be a warranted inclusion to the rules. However, not everything should be codified into the rulebook.

Something to consider relating to Grappling in specific. It has been said several times that there are many crappy systems to handle grapples. It seems like everyone has an idea for one which works for the way that they would use the game system and which works well for their gaming group. How many of those have general applicability? What percentage of the DCC player community (when there is one) will think "great, yet another crappy grapple system"? It has also been said that it is hard to get this sort of system right. Perhaps this reason alone is enough to warrant the exclusion of Grappling rules? Try to get it right, but leave open the possibility that, like Joseph's attempt at multiclass rules, it may need to be scrapped and left to DM-determination.

[smathis]

I am not exactly sure what you mean by "conflates the purpose of the Grappling thread altogether". I am going to assume you mean that I am confusing the purpose of the other thread. Sorry, my brain went tilt on that sentence.

I felt that this thread tying the Grappling thread into line with all the other threads about possible rule considerations was doing a disservice to the purpose of the Grappling thread. As an example, consider both the Healing and DR threads. Both of those proposed various rules changes at the onset and have involved discussions of rules changes and different approaches. Some of them offered by me, even.

Whereas the Grappling thread began as a simple question... How is DCC going to handle it? No proposition for rules changes. Those came in response to a simple question which was (mostly) answered. And then the discussion drifted to a breakdown about what I "meant" by Grappling. Which is where the discussion remains. I identified two specific instances that I would like DCC to address. I listed those above.

I have no honest-to-goodness rules I'm trying to push. I only want Joseph to know that I'd like to see DCC offer something in those areas. And, if possible, I'd like to know how those might be handled. I don't much care what or how. As long as they're touched upon so I can focus on playing games in an Appendix N style and not have to worry about play-testing rules for them when prehistoric Ape Men attempt to hold PCs down and take them captive.

Contrast that with the Healing and DR threads... The first post of both is a proposal for a rule. Followed by discussions of that rule and more proposals.

That being said, I think my comment doesn't fit really well into the discussion in the other thread. It would have been disruptive. Had I made it in that thread it might have been a distraction from the issue and would not have added to the discussion. Also, it has wider application than just the DR and Grappling threads. It is something that warrants consideration for each thing that is added to the rules. Anything, even a four line paragraph, can be rules bloat, if it is text that doesn't need to be in the book. Add enough four line paragraphs and soon the rules are 400 pages in length. Grappling may be a warranted inclusion to the rules. However, not everything should be codified into the rulebook.

I agree on the wider application. I think both situations are common enough in the literature, though, that they warrant at least a sidebar on "Hey, here's an idea for when a character wants to attack and limit further action instead of doing damage... Or, hey, here's an idea for when character wants to knock someone out instead of kill them."

As opposed to, say, rules for Kung Fu. Or FTL space travel. Which don't appear all that much in Appendix N.

Something to consider relating to Grappling in specific. It has been said several times that there are many crappy systems to handle grapples. It seems like everyone has an idea for one which works for the way that they would use the game system and which works well for their gaming group. How many of those have general applicability? What percentage of the DCC player community (when there is one) will think "great, yet another crappy grapple system"? It has also been said that it is hard to get this sort of system right. Perhaps this reason alone is enough to warrant the exclusion of Grappling rules? Try to get it right, but leave open the possibility that, like Joseph's attempt at multiclass rules, it may need to be scrapped and left to DM-determination.

That's precisely why I'd prefer to have something in DCC giving at least a general idea of how those situations would be resolved. I'd want something generally applicable. And, as I see it, Joseph is in far better position to create something for those two instances that IS generally applicable. And elegant. And NOT crappy.

That's why I wanted to raise the topic. I don't think it's rules bloat. In fact, Joseph may very well be able to handle both situations without adding any new rules to DCC. But I feel both situations deserve mention in DCC.

[Hamakto]

I agree 100%. For instance, in my 30 years of playing rpgs, until 3e, no one ever tried to trip or sunder. Disarm only happened with warp wood or heat metal. On rare occasions, a wizard got grappled, or a party member who was charmed. We wanted to slay the giant, not roll around in the dirt with him. But mechanics in place to allow these maneuvers encourages players to try them. Especially if they blew a precious class ability (feats) on them. In the rare instances someone wants to use trip or sunder, etc the gm can come up with a method. That's what makes dming fun. I'm not opposed to a simple mechanic covering all trip and such tactics under one roof as long as it's simple. A simple saving throw should suffice, but it should be very easy to pass. Honestly, tripping or grabbing someone who is aware of your presence is not an easy thing to do. In real life, grabbing at a guy with a sword just gets you a prosthetic hand.

The only problem with a house rule is...

If you make it too easy, they will want to do it all the time.

If you make it too hard, they will complain that it should be easier to do.

I do like the idea of not having a rule for everything, but certain actions are now part of the gaming environment for players. Skills, grapple (i.e. trip/disarm), and other are now what players expect to do.

If everything becomes house ruled, then yes... your group is fine. But you will find people less comfortable with switching groups because the entire situation could be different via rules.

The one NICE thing about 3e/4e/pathfinder is that you can jump into a campaign and only have X house rules to worry about.

I do not want another 400 page rule book. But I feel that the following should be included at a minimum:

1. Full combat rules (biggest point of contention between players and DM's)
2. Full racial and class stats
3. Full explanation of spell casting and spell descriptions (full ones not... same as spell Y except as noted above)
4. Base common monsters
5. Base selection of Magic Items
6. Solid alignment explanation/description

The above items are the minimum on what is necessary to keep the basic disagreements out of a game. Anything beyond that helps fill out a game in depth. But a good set of rules that cover 95% of the characters (realistic) actions, will make the game run smoother and faster. Because everyone is on the same page and running with it.

[Black Dougal]

The above items are the minimum on what is necessary to keep the basic disagreements out of a game. Anything beyond that helps fill out a game in depth. But a good set of rules that cover 95% of the characters (realistic) actions, will make the game run smoother and faster. Because everyone is on the same page and running with it.

My experience has been the opposite.

The games which I have played in (and this is comparing Mentzer Basic D&D, 2e AD&D, Castles & Crusades, and 3e/Pathfinder as well as other non-D&Dish games). Is that the more rules there are the slower the game runs and the more arguments there are at the table over the rules. Playing Pathfinder is fun, but when my group gets into combat I end up spending the time between my turns flipping through the rulebook trying to see how, or if, I can perform the action which I want for my next turn. At that point I am no longer paying attention to the game. I have had more rule arguments with 3e/Pathfinder than any other game system. They have also been some of the most heated gaming arguments I have ever had. I have found in my own gaming experience that the more rules there are the less often people are on the same page.

I have had better luck in simpler systems where the GM/DM is able to say "here is how that works in my game". People spend less time arguing over the proper interpretation of the rules and more time roleplaying.

Again, this is just my experience. I understand that your experience is different. YMMV definitely applies.

[joela]

I do not want another 400 page rule book. But I feel that the following should be included at a minimum:

1. Full combat rules (biggest point of contention between players and DM's)
2. Full racial and class stats
3. Full explanation of spell casting and spell descriptions (full ones not... same as spell Y except as noted above)
4. Base common monsters
5. Base selection of Magic Items
6. Solid alignment explanation/description

The above items are the minimum on what is necessary to keep the basic disagreements out of a game.

If DCC RPG contains all the above, I'll probably pass on it. I already have plenty of games that fulfill those niches (and how!). There's a reason I started looking at C&C and OSR stuff.

[Fullerton]

My experience has been the opposite.

I agree.

My players are so much more engaged in the imagination of the situation in my 1e campaign than they were in my 3e campaign. There's less rules discussion, generally faster resolution, more stuff done in a session, more freedom for the players to try "out of the box" ideas, and more freedom for me to resolve actions in a way that best fits the situation (instead feeling pushed toward using a way that best fits the universal mechanic).

And as a bonus, the "stuff done" ends up being less about the mechanics and more about things that would actually make sense to somebody that had no background in rpgs.

[smathis]

Hmm. Well, I'm asking for stuff because I know it's in Appendix N and because I know players WILL try to use it in a looser system.

For example, my current group never EVER attempted to grapple anything in 4e. Didn't try any stunts either... despite all that whatchamacallit about p. 42 in the DMG. Same group in a B/X based system... Trying grappling within the first two sessions. Then doing it on a fairly regular basis every 4 encounters or so. Stunting almost every encounter.

A looser system means the game will play faster. And, IME, it means players will try crazier ****. In 4e, I'll drop my "Storm of Swords" on the Giant Spider. In B/X, I'm trying to jump on its back, hang on for dear life and plunge a knife into its eyes.

I think DCC has Stunting covered. Or else I would've asked about that too.

But I'm still lobbying for "attack with intent to restrain" and "lose a combat without dying - a.k.a. getting knocked out, taken prisoner". Mainly because I know that's coming up within the first four sessions of play. And I also feel that both situations have always been back-burner considerations that received crappy support precisely BECAUSE no one had the foresight to stand up on the chair and say "Hey, guys! People are going to do this. How are we going to handle it?"

Call it rules bloat if you want. But I think if Joseph and Harley are able to consider both of those issues now and try a few things out. Then DCC could have really elegant mechanics for them that are well-integrated into the existing system -- for the first time in ANY iteration of D&D. In short, thinking about it now prevents us from having to work around it later or grousing about how much it sucks.

And, again, I don't think either of those items deserve even a set of rules of their own. Just a place in the existing framework. "You wanna grapple? Okay. Roll this. It's just like doing ____________ only you have to roll _____________ and ____________ happens".

We could have fun filling in the blanks to stir up Joseph's creativity.

Grappling, It's just like doing calculus only you have to roll a d12 and nothing happens!

Crying Uncle, It's just like doing tai chi only you have to roll a steak knife and wild, uninhibited sex happens!

Personally, I'm liking that Cry Uncle rule already!

[Black Dougal]

But I'm still lobbying for "attack with intent to restrain" and "lose a combat without dying - a.k.a. getting knocked out, taken prisoner". Mainly because I know that's coming up within the first four sessions of play. And I also feel that both situations have always been back-burner considerations that received crappy support precisely BECAUSE no one had the foresight to stand up on the chair and say "Hey, guys! People are going to do this. How are we going to handle it?"

Call it rules bloat if you want. But I think if Joseph and Harley are able to consider both of those issues now and try a few things out. Then DCC could have really elegant mechanics for them that are well-integrated into the existing system -- for the first time in ANY iteration of D&D. In short, thinking about it now prevents us from having to work around it later or grousing about how much it sucks.

Please, lobby for it. I am not in any way trying to say that you shouldn't. I wanted to bring up another possibility that is only partially related to your grappling thread. Grappling rules aren't necessarily rules bloat either. If it fits in well and doesn't add too much to the overall heft of the rules, then great. I am not against the addition of grappling rules to the game. I just meant to use the grappling thread and the DR thread as context.

I also don't think that every situation, or even 90% of all situations should be accounted for in the rules. Flexibility is important trying to account for every situation severely reduces flexibility.

Houserules were an important part of OSR games. They shouldn't get lost.

[Black Dougal]

Grappling, It's just like doing calculus only you have to roll a d12 and nothing happens!

Crying Uncle, It's just like doing tai chi only you have to roll a steak knife and wild, uninhibited sex happens!

Personally, I'm liking that Cry Uncle rule already!

LOLz.

[smathis]

I also don't think that every situation, or even 90% of all situations should be accounted for in the rules. Flexibility is important trying to account for every situation severely reduces flexibility.

Houserules were an important part of OSR games. They shouldn't get lost.

I think we're in complete agreement here. On both points. I keep thinking back to the flexibility of the Marvel FASERIP system and how we could do so many things with that one funky chart. A really flexible core mechanic (which I think DCC kinda sorta has) should be able to handle lots of things.

And some house rules are just awesome, both in terms of elegance and what they relate at the table. Dutch Courage and Shields Shall Be Splintered, I'm looking at you!!!

[smathis]

Grappling, It's just like doing calculus only you have to roll a d12 and nothing happens!

Crying Uncle, It's just like doing tai chi only you have to roll a steak knife and wild, uninhibited sex happens!

Personally, I'm liking that Cry Uncle rule already!

LOLz.

You laugh now but watch those actually make it into DCC.

The first one just to spite me. "Here lies smathis' Grappling crap that he whinged about for a decade. Roll a d12. Then... uh... wait til your next turn".

The second would put pressure on the hobby to go more co-ed with gaming groups. Well, most of 'em anyway. Ugh. No. Well, a fair number of them.

And it might get us back on 20/20 for being all "satanic" and stuff. Man, those were the days! My immortal soul has never felt so jeopardized.

[goodmangames]

I ran an ongoing 3.5 campaign for a couple years, followed, interspersed, and preceded with lots of one-shots. The main campaign eventually was published as DragonMech, and the one-shots included playtesting various DCC modules, including DCC #13: Crypt of the Devil Lich, our first tournament module...one of my all-time favorite sessions. Ah, the memories! But what I remember most about several years of playing under the 3.5 rules was how much they drove me crazy. I felt like I'd never needed to reference the rules as much in prior editions. I was lucky that my group was a bunch of old friends that did not include any rules lawyers, so I frequently simplified the rules in play.

That basic idea evolved into my approach on rules design, which is, "If I have to reference anything, the rule sucks!" I try to keep it to really simple "roll vs. Strength" type ideas that I can easily remember in play. It slows down the game and ruins the flow when you have to flip to page 42 and figure out steps A, B, C, and D for the next maneuver.

I personally think one of the coolest parts of the OSR is the preponderance of house rules: there are quite a few OSR bloggers out there who maintain their own house rules documents, linked to their blogs, and you can find many neat variations on the core D&D rules.

I think the beauty of this thread demonstrates the ideas. Between the grappling thread and this one, there are already a half-dozen great ideas for how to handle grappling (as well as a couple other situations).

So, the true test of what I'll go with will be when I end up in a grapple-intensive game. I'll write up some rules...then be in the game...and whatever slightly distorted recollection of those rules comes to mind, that's what I'll go with! We'll see what it ends up being. So far I have already pared down the rules of DCC RPG in a couple places where I wrote something that sounded cool, started playing, wound up doing something else in play, and realized that's way better than what I wrote originally. The best rule is not what sounds cool, but what plays well, and sometimes the only way to figure it out is to get into a game.

That's a long-winded way of saying I love the spirit of this thread! And when my own house rules break through into my game, they'll either be really cool and I'll try to find some elegant mechanics to include (like the spell system and Mighty Deed of Arms, both of which I really like)...or, if I can't find anything sufficiently distinctive, I'll go with the "roll vs. Strength!" type approach. Either way, keep the ideas coming. At the very least, these threads provide a great menu of ideas for alternative approaches.

Andy, you'll be at GaryCon, right? Somehow I have a feeling that you will attempt to grapple something if we end up gaming together. I guess I have a deadline for coming up with a good grapple rule...

[goodmangames]

Dutch Courage and Shields Shall Be Splintered, I'm looking at you!!!

Shields Shall Be Splintered is a great house rule! I have a "short list" of "other people's house rules I want to include in DCC RPG" and that one's on it...

[Black Dougal]

I ran an ongoing 3.5 campaign for a couple years, followed, interspersed, and preceded with lots of one-shots. The main campaign eventually was published as DragonMech, and the one-shots included playtesting various DCC modules, including DCC #13: Crypt of the Devil Lich, our first tournament module...one of my all-time favorite sessions. Ah, the memories! But what I remember most about several years of playing under the 3.5 rules was how much they drove me crazy. I felt like I'd never needed to reference the rules as much in prior editions. I was lucky that my group was a bunch of old friends that did not include any rules lawyers, so I frequently simplified the rules in play.

That basic idea evolved into my approach on rules design, which is, "If I have to reference anything, the rule sucks!" I try to keep it to really simple "roll vs. Strength" type ideas that I can easily remember in play. It slows down the game and ruins the flow when you have to flip to page 42 and figure out steps A, B, C, and D for the next maneuver.

I personally think one of the coolest parts of the OSR is the preponderance of house rules: there are quite a few OSR bloggers out there who maintain their own house rules documents, linked to their blogs, and you can find many neat variations on the core D&D rules.

I think the beauty of this thread demonstrates the ideas. Between the grappling thread and this one, there are already a half-dozen great ideas for how to handle grappling (as well as a couple other situations).

So, the true test of what I'll go with will be when I end up in a grapple-intensive game. I'll write up some rules...then be in the game...and whatever slightly distorted recollection of those rules comes to mind, that's what I'll go with! We'll see what it ends up being. So far I have already pared down the rules of DCC RPG in a couple places where I wrote something that sounded cool, started playing, wound up doing something else in play, and realized that's way better than what I wrote originally. The best rule is not what sounds cool, but what plays well, and sometimes the only way to figure it out is to get into a game.

That's a long-winded way of saying I love the spirit of this thread! And when my own house rules break through into my game, they'll either be really cool and I'll try to find some elegant mechanics to include (like the spell system and Mighty Deed of Arms, both of which I really like)...or, if I can't find anything sufficiently distinctive, I'll go with the "roll vs. Strength!" type approach. Either way, keep the ideas coming. At the very least, these threads provide a great menu of ideas for alternative approaches.

Andy, you'll be at GaryCon, right? Somehow I have a feeling that you will attempt to grapple something if we end up gaming together. I guess I have a deadline for coming up with a good grapple rule...

I really like the "Free Whack" rule. It sounds like a better Attack of Opportunity. I look forward to asking future DMs "Can I have a Free Whack?".

[JediOre]

Then as it gets closer to the dragon, which is battling the group just below, he tries to lasso the dragon's head as he zips past! Hoping that it will pull its head to the side at the least (so that he can leap off and mount the dragon right behind the head), and maybe derail the car and pull the dragon's head down to the ground w/ the cart allowing the rest of the party a free attack as the dragon untangles itself.

Complex? Sure... Pretty creative? Heck yes! I completely free ran it. I didn't want to drain the vibe and waste time on thinking about what type of feats, or skills or whatever were going to come into play. I asked for a simple to hit roll w/ the rope and a dex check as he leaped off the cart.

Anyway, I LOVE that kind of thing. And this guy comes up w/ stuff like that all the time. He's as out-of-the-box a thinker as I've come across.

And THAT is what the game should be all about! Not "what does the rules say" but, "what are the possibilities." And the possibilities should only be limited by the player's imagination.