I know communication and consent from all parties is key to this. I just feel like it is the starting point "foundation" for proper homebrewing for everyone to enjoy and that there is an etiquette for creating homebrew stuff right.What are other pieces of etiquette there are when it comes to making homebrew for wargames and TTRPGs so all parties enjoy themselves?What are ways of making sure the homebrewing is fair and most likely to be accepted and fun to play with and against in wargames/TTRPGs?
If the playgroup understands game math (a big ask), crunching the numbers of how it meshes with the intended use-case and compares to existing options near that is good to split the burden of balance implications.
>>97914775For TTRPGs, the GM decides what is and isn't allowed. This is non-negotiable.
>>97914775Generally in wargaming if you want to play a homebrew unit, you let your opponent do as well and communication is key.Especially when it is for casual games and not tournaments.
>>97914775Agree with all other players what rules you're using before the game.If it's not simple to describe and remember, write it down. If it's a multi-session game, write it down anyway.Homebrew is not required to be fair or anything else; the whole point is that you can do what the fuck you like.
>>97915282Nope.A true GAME master runs the GAME according to its rules impartially and with as little personal bias as possible.If you aren't going to run a GAME, don't call it a GAME.
>>97916210Yep, and I as the GAME MASTER decide the rules of the GAME at the table where I run the GAME. It's got nothing to do with being impartial. I run the kind of GAME I want with the rules I want because I am the MASTER of the GAME.
>>97920916It's fine for you to admit you enjoy freeform, but you have to understand it's not a game just because you enjoy it.
>>97916210>>97921723Retard. The statement isn’t that the GM decides everything by pulling it out of his ass, but that the GM is the ultimate arbiter of what homebrew rules will and will not be added to the game.
>>97914775>What are other pieces of etiquette there are when it comes to making homebrew for wargames and TTRPGs so all parties enjoy themselves?Don't try to introduce it to a group you have not played at least, let's say, six sessions with.>>97915282Correct.>>97916210Incorrect.
>>97921798Nobody said anything about homebrew.In fact, since TTRPGs have ultimate modularity, and it is a common expectation to either add what you want or rewrite what you don't like, it's a given that every table will have its own homebrew version of a decided game; homebrew is the bare minimum, and doesn't require mention.So, in order to remain a game, the rules that were decided on (again, BASE + HOMEBREW for the retard with no reading comprehension and inference ability) must be run impartially and with as little personal bias as possible.Run the game consistently to what was agreed upon, or don't call it a game, and don't call yourself a GM.
>>97921723You don't get to decide what is and isn't a game, retard. As long as there are rules and the outcome of it is decided by luck it falls under the legal definition of a game. The exact rules used are irrelevant to if it is or is not a game. Yes, this means something as simple as flipping a coin can be a game.Besides, when I'm running a GAME that I CREATED, I get to decide what the rules are wholesale. It's my game. They're my rules. Nothing you say can change that.>>97922079>Nobody said anything about homebrew.Okay Chat GPT.>must be run impartially and with as little personal bias as possible.Nope, that isn't in the definition of what a game is, therefore you are factually incorrect.
>>97922591>As long as there are rules and the outcome of it is decided by luck it falls under the legal definition of a game.I mean now we're just getting silly. Your overall point is correct and the other anon is a moron, but this is ridiculous.The definition of a "game" is actually a richly and deeply studied problem in epistemology. It's a perennial debate because there is no "legal definition" of a game. Defining what is and is not a "game" appears to be an intractable philosophical problem. Much like what makes something "religion," defining what makes something a "game" has had entire philosophical treastises written about it and there is no widely-agreed answer to the question.
>>97914775Clarity is the key. Be sure everyone is in the same page and thing should be fine.
>>97922634No, there is a textbook definition of a game. In the dictionary. There are rules, and it relies on luck, which falls within that definition, thus it is a game.
>>97922922Not that this is relevant but it's a fun topic, so let's dive in!That's... not what dictionaries are. Dictionaries are collections of common usages of words. They have no authority of any kind, which is why there's more than one of them and why they're constantly revised. Dictionaries can answer "how do people commonly use a word?" They cannot answer "what is the intrinsic meaning of a word?" because, of course, words have no intrinsic meaning.Ludology is an entire field of study (also called "Game Studies"). It combines sociology, psychology, philosophy and history to try to understand what makes something a game and trace the history and concepts of games. Trying to figure out what makes something a game is fascinating and incredibly difficult to do. Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations states that it's impossible to authoritatively define what a "game" is because nominalism, for instance.Take a definition from Dictionary.com, for example:>a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their own amusement or for that of spectators.Under that definition, Solitaire isn't a game. There's only one player. There's no skill involed. The only chance is in the deal--once that's done, chance is out the window. And it's not exactly for the amusement of spectators. Is that a game? Or take stock trading. That's got defined rules, involves skill and chance and endurance, has two or more players, and is absolutely watched closely on cable news where results are broadcast for entertainment. Is that a game?
>>97914775>What are other pieces of etiquette there are when it comes to making homebrew for wargames and TTRPGs so all parties enjoy themselves?Wargames homebrew I've done was either between friends mucking about in our teens having no idea what we were doing and occasionally making something busted but not being too concerned about it beyond nerdy kid huffs and apologies, or being more involved with running narrative campaign play much later in life, which is more or less a refined version of that to be honest. >have a clear idea and understanding of the rules >run the idea past whoever else in the group has that >help your mates edit and work on their ideas too >test it out and communicate about it>if its busted apologize and sort it out >remember the game has to be fun no matter how much whatever this one thing seems unrealistic or whatever don't let your autism tank it for everyone >remember its just a game and you can start the scenario over or redesign it if it goes that far sideways Being able to email each other ideas and roll them around for a few weeks before getting to try much is a bummer because we're adults and there's less time for games but it is helpful to get the ideas written down and work on them with notes. I tend to write in rulebooks and use the blank pages at the back for an index if it gets extensive. TTRPG homebrewing is a lot less socially complex in terms of conversations but I purposefully avoid games where I have to organize redesigning classes or curating which splatbooks players can use in favour of fairly focused games that are easy to modify a bit or don't need it at all because of the heavy narrative play style.
>>97923869>Clear understanding of the rules>run idea>help mates edit and work>test it out>communicationThis is all good.Granted if it is for wargames is it best to cannibalize rules from existing model stats with minor tweaks as a good starting point?
>>97922079>Nobody said anything about homebrewRead the first post of the thread, then read it again.
>>97929434I would say its a good starting point. Maybe comparing to whatever the game's baseline average unit is and trying to make sure you don't accidentally end up with a unit that is better in all cases without appropriate costs.
>>97922922>There are rules, and it relies on luck,chess, checkers, and soccer are games despite the lack of randomness. Your definition is flawed
>>97930373Humans.
>>97929592>appropriate costsNow that's something I didn't consider.Using Warhammers as a starting point, how does one 'calculate' how much a homebrew should cost points wise?
>>97932219... what have you been considering? Like what actual homebrew rules changes or units or things have you thought about trying out for what game? Take an average unit, an above average unit and a below average unit and compare their stats, abilities and cost. There's likely some sort of more formulaic approach but doing this with a few different armies and seeing how your homebrew compares should give you a feel for it.
>>97933009>Like what actual homebrew rules changes or units or things have you thought about trying out for what game?I meant like points cost for every unit.This not only applies to 40k but also other wargames that use point costs per unit(s) and model(s).I just want to know what the general rule of thumb is for figuring out how much a homebrew unit would cost points wise.
>>97935416Read the next line and do that anon. I get you're really bored but it works better if you bring things back to the conversation like actual examples of what you're doing.
