Fiddling about with rules

[Leman (Andy)]

I have a regular opponent who cannot resist the temptation of messing about with rules even after only one or two games. TBH he's a bit big headed about his "ability to understand how a games mechanism works" and therefore how he can improve on it. I, on the other hand am a great proponent of the well-worn phrase "if it ain't broke don't fix it." As a result I find the constant tinkering a bit bloody annoying. Anyone else come across this 'problem.'

[Smiley Miley 66]

I agree if they are not broken don't fix them !
If you don't like the rules write your own, get involved sensibly with the playtesting (and keep it simple,quick and easy and in keeping with the rest of the rules) or buy another set of rules.
RFCM are set up for an evenings game on the kitchen table, with a flowing mechanism, unfortunately you (myself included) can lose as well. Thats Life !!!

[martin goddard]

A downside of modern publishing is that there are many many sets of rules out there. This means it s hard enough to find an opponent who will play the same set. Add to this, that they might have changed it around a bit, adds to the difficulty in finding opponents?
one thought might be t write to the rules author and ask nicely why a mechanism is as it is. It might be for (1) game balance, (2)historical reason or an (3) encouragement to fight in the restricted way of that period.

eg from RFCM
(1)Defenders losing bases in order to reduce their force size.
(2) In Civil war battles a double 1 will reduce ammunition supply. This is because the troops in the ACW frequently shot off all their ammo in short order.
(3) In Wrath of the Vikings the unit is punished for not having a second rank. This is because thin shield-walls were prone to being smashed.

[Leslie BT]

Yes I have played where my opponent had started to rewrite them before we had finished the game.

[Radar]

Yes I have played where my opponent had started to rewrite them before we had finished the game.

That's just rude!

[Sean Clark]

I have met several people like this. Most notably when playing Bloody Barons he oreferred the pip system from DBM as he thought this reflected the period better and spent a week typing up his own amendment.

He showed them to me for the next game hoping i would immedilately adopt them as best practice. I thanked him, said I'd read them, but would he mind playing the rules as written for that nights game...and then never spoke of his 'amendments'  again.

[mellis1644]

It's a long tradition of this hobby that people customize the rules to be their own...after all this is where the concept came from. There is no 'divine word of the author' IMO which makes things perfect.

But as mentioned there are limits and play balance etc.and all the aspects which Martin mention's but we all have our opinions as well. So are things perfect - likely not but generally games are set for how an author wanted them. If you all don't like them then you will likely play other rules...

Mostly for me though if I do this it's minor tweaks and play balance is still important. For example, we have a house rules here and there which make us feel happier with the rules. RoF is one where we force sacking the baggage by pursing cavalry on a roll for example, as it seems inconsistent with the history that this was in any commanders absolute control to decide. So a roll to see if the units do this and if not then follow the rules as written, which seemed 'better suited' to how we wanted the games.

[Leman (Andy)]

I have met several people like this. Most notably when playing Bloody Barons he oreferred the pip system from DBM as he thought this reflected the period better and spent a week typing up his own amendment.

He showed them to me for the next game hoping i would immedilately adopt them as best practice. I thanked him, said I'd read them, but would he mind playing the rules as written for that nights game...and then never spoke of his 'amendments'  again.

That seems a perfect way of dealing with such skulduggery.