Do you like to "improve" commercial games rules?

[Norm]

I quite like writing my own rules and will put a ton of thought and inventiveness into them;

But,

Other peoples rules and systems, I prefer to play with the rules as written.

In part this feels like a compulsion on my part (i.e. I am not flexible enough to change them), but perhaps I also feel as a rule writer, that often another writer will have done something for a reason that may not be immediately obvious and that changing one thing can unwittingly impact on another.

[Cubs]

If a ruleset is doing MOST of what you want it to do, but there are some annoying omissions (or additions), why would anyone feel obliged not to tinker with it? It's your rules, do what you want, so long as all players enjoy it.

Just one example that pops into my head is Warlord's 'Black Powder', where players were pulling out their hair at the rule that made Napoleonic infantry automatically form square when charged by cavalry. It essentially robbed cavalry of any chance of catching infantry by surprise or mid-formation. A lot of players then house-ruled it so infantry had to pass a roll to form square, some further house-ruled to form square automatically if the cavalry was in sight or more than a single move away when it started the charge, but had to roll if they were caught unawares. A complication for sure, but one that more accurately depicts cavalry vs infantry actions.   

[RobertBruce]

That's interesting observation, because one of the most common arguments I have heard advanced to justify changes it has been:  "In the battle so-and-so, happened this-and-that, but it is impossible to represent with the rules as written."

Then that would indeed present a problem. When this happens, I think it should be handled by a reasonable discussion among all participants as to the relevance and consequences of the missing aspect, hopefully before starting the game. From like-minded souls who get the history and have basic compromise and communication skills, some adjustment or house rule could arise - or not - but the game can go on. This is part of the wargaming experience and can make for some lively historical discussions, and unless the competition aspect is the only reason for playing, I have found that it works. Either side could call a truce for discussion once a game if you want to make it a rule in itself.   RB

[Hobgoblin]

Interesting discussion. I think most games-as-played involve some degree of customisation, whether that's conscious or not.

Two aspects of this strike me as fairly common. First, you get 'improvement' by omission, as a couple of people have said here previously. Aspects of rulesets that are cumbersome or fiddly or unbalanced often get left out. When I was a kid playing Warhammer, we either restricted magic to first-level spells only or banned it altogether - and we all thought the resultant no- or low-magic game better than it would otherwise have been. More recently, lots of people leave out the 3" rule from the Rampant series of games - either because they forget about it or find it too arbitrary.

The second thing is where a gap or ambiguity results in necessary house-ruling. Sometimes that gap may actually exist only in the minds of the players, because they've made assumptions about what the rule is likely to be and have missed what the text actually says. So sometimes you have a widespread house rule that people use without realising that it's not the official game.  I recall an example in Song of Blades and Heroes: quite a few players assumed that the -1 to C for multiple opponents was negated by having an ally in contact with the outnumbering figure. But the designer clarified that his intent was for the outnumbering penalty to apply at all times - so that large and complex melees become much more dangerous.

It's also worth considering the overlap between skirmish games and RPGs; if players have an RPGish mindset, they're more likely to favour an improvised and mutually agreed solution to a problem that isn't covered by the rules. And lots of players do this in games to keep them flowing anyway.

For me, the most common 'improvements' are probably in Hordes of the Things, where we tend to fight to the death even after formal victory conditions are achieved. That can be a lot of fun (the PIPs cost for being out of command simulates demoralisation nicely in any case once a general's been slain). We also fight games with more than 24 AP per command, or a larger table, or no stronghold or assymetric forces - or all of those things.

[SteveBurt]

First rule for me is: play several games with the rules from the book before tinkering! Sometimes rules which seem strange on reading but work well on the tabletop (e.g. the melee rules in Blood & Plunder or Death in the Dark Continent) (and sometimes the reverse), but it normally takes a few games before you are actually playing the rules properly. If there is still an issue, then tinker away (as we did with infantry columns in Lasalle, for instance; as the rules stand you are much better off defending in column than line)

[Elbows]

It's definitely the best to play a bunch of times as-is to see what irons out in the wash so to speak. Some of my friends seem confused when we playtest a game I'm writing because I don't make changes between each game.  You have to see what is simply a fluke and what is a trend or noticeable issue after numerous games, etc.

[katie]

"More recently, lots of people leave out the 3" rule from the Rampant series of games - either because they forget about it or find it too arbitrary."

That got altered in later books to be 1" from friends, 3" from enemy which works better -- particularly on smaller tables. We figure that since LR, DR and PL units are all fairly interchangeable... the rules finesses can be as well.

[voltan]

I don't like to, but often find it happens, usually just to make things simpler or even fun, sometimes ignoring things entirely as they seem a faf or just plain stupid. 40K used to be a bad one for it as the group of us had been playing over so many years the editions kept mixing together, but as we all played the same wrong rules it all worked out in the end.
Bolt action is the one that was most heavily modified, especially after the second edition came out, last time I played it was probably version 1.5 using the bits we liked from each edition. So as examples, we didn't use templates as no one could be bothered to get them, plus I just prefer rolling for the number of hits. And we completely ignored the rubbish that was the vehicle morale hassle, the principle we used was if you're stupid enough to get shot; you're taking pins.

[Aerendar Valandil]

First rule for me is: play several games with the rules from the book before tinkering!

Yes, this is important.

[War Monkey]

Yes, I play with the rules, only after reading and understanding the rules, then playing a dozen or so game to insure I'm understanding  the rules, most of the time to rule only covers  hits and misses, works great in one on one cases, but what about the guy standing  behind the guy, that your shooting at, where do those missed  shots go? This can really change a game up, if your shooting  into a group of people, the missed shot didn't  just stopped  in mid air.
This just one I may add to the game, there's others like the cavalry  charges, yes my infantry have to roll for a square formation, it doesn't  just happen automatically, they still have to hold the line unless another command is given, with reason.
So yes fix only what you feel needs fixing.

[Dentatus]

I tend to write my own rules - which to echo previous posts - spring up from the compost of all the other games I've played/read about/heard of. 

As far as gaming a 'commercial' rule set, it depends. I'm not a tournament player where strict adherence is necessary. When a bunch of us play D&D or Symbaroum or Blood Rage we stick with it as written - Unless we all agree a specific modification or house rule smooths out game play.

Then there's adapting rules to fit our group, campaign, or miniature collections. Don't know if it makes the rules better but it certainly 'improves' the experience for us.

End of the day, this is supposed to be an enjoyable hobby shared with friends. I do whatever is necessary to keep it that way and if that means tweaking something here or shaving a bit there, then I'm fine with it.