28th Have you ever regretted allowing an optional rule or house rule into the game?

Brian: “Talents”. Can’t stand any rules that are “one-offs” are turn into crutches that underpin the entire character.

Peter: The extended character background options from RoCoI particularly the Skill at Arms and Skill at Magic. These are prime examples of where a single (un)lucky dice roll can complerely change a character. There is no balancing factor and no relationship between the result of the dice roll and the initial character concept.

One Reply to “28th Have you ever regretted allowing an optional rule or house rule into the game?”

  1. Peter: I think the “Skill at Arms/Magic” was what I was thinking of–not sure if they are talents, background options etc. These are perfect examples of unnecessary rule work-arounds (rules for rules) and I’ve seen comments from people on using these to build a great character. I find it incredibly ironic how people push back on “No Profession” and then embrace optional rules that clearly dismantle the whole point of professions.
    On a similar vein, I find it confounding when people argue “balance” and then cite professions, rules and spells that were featured in later editions of the Companions that were never really tested, are very unbalanced and don’t really fit into the RM ecosystem.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Comments Protected by WP-SpamShield Spam Plugin