Why are house rules bad? Why are people proud of having few house rules?

Chainsaw Mage

First Post

• Oct 7, 2006

• #1

Just a thought that kept popping up the more I read some of the recent threads on previous editions of D&D. People kept saying things like "When we played AD&D 2e we had ten pages of house rules and now we only have two house rules on the back of a post-it note."

I'm curious: where did this aversion to house ruling come from? I encounter this a lot these days, it seems. Back in the Good Old Days (TM) we enjoyed house rules, and each DM that I knew prided himself in his little collection of personalized guidelines for the game. "You can take my house rules when you pry them from my cold, dead hands!" we would say.

Today it seems that more and more people are shunning house rules, and it is common to read things like, "I've got hardly any house rules!" as if this is a good thing.

Perhaps, in addition to encouraging a proliferation of rules-lawyering, the thorough and complex nature of D&D 3.5's rules are also discouraging DMs from tinkering with the rules to make the game more to their liking.

 

log in or register to remove this ad

EyeontheMountain

First Post

• Oct 8, 2006

• #2

Well, in my face to face, we use quite a few house rules, and ignore other parts of the rules to make for a better game. For us it makes he game a lot more fun to not memorize spells, use hero chips, play gestalt, ignore sundering and tripping(for the most part) and modify grappling pretty heavily. Plus we outright ban 3-4 base classes, a few weapons, and several spells and feats.

But that is just the three of us.

For my online games (Yahoogroups) I really WANT to do so, but there is a lot of resistance on the part of the players. RAW this and RAW that, with the attitude you described before.

Frankly, I find it all terribly annoying. Especially as these types are the ones who want to run ragged all over the DM's world, pulling out stuff like the mineral warrior template, or the 346th version of elves. Basically they wantto use RAW as a stick with which to 'beat' the game.

I like house rules, and I think they can add a lot to the game. We could really sue some more open-minded players, I do think.

 

B

Barak

First Post

• Oct 8, 2006

• #3

It's not about house rules being bad, it's about games that require house rules to sorta work decently being bad.

 

Crothian

First Post

• Oct 8, 2006

• #4

I use house rules when needed for what ever reason. Nothing bad about them in general. But I do see a lot of house rules that are not well thought out.

 

Doug McCrae

Legend

• Oct 8, 2006

• #5

Fewer house rules are evidence that 3rd ed is better than previous editions, that's why people are mentioning it.

 

MoogleEmpMog

First Post

• Oct 8, 2006

• #6

Because it's generally better to find a game that does what you want, rather than trying to force a game to be something it's not?

Extensive houserules to old versions of AD&D were, IMX, either due its not exceptionally well for most anything, or due to players and DMs trying to use AD&D for things AD&D had no reason to be good for, such as anything other than D&D.

 

Numion

First Post

• Oct 8, 2006

• #7

House rules are a PITA. I have some, but so few that I never bothered to write em out.

 

W

wayne62682

First Post

• Oct 8, 2006

• #8

Because most houserules change too much in the game... my own (now former) group's DM would houserule a ton of things that he percieved as being "wrong" with D&D.. like the way Wizards cast spells, giving humans bonus feats quicker than other races, and things of that nature. Mind you they weren't BAD house rules, but I dislike house rules for the simple reason that it makes it that much harder to create and plan out characters.

 

Gargoyle

Adventurer

• Oct 8, 2006

• #9

Fewer house rules have a couple of advantages.

- It's easier for new players to join the campaign.
- Fewer house rules means fewer bad house rules, and bad house rules can take away from a good game instead of adding to it.

As far as pride goes, I think some are proud they play with fewer house rules because they feel good about their campaigns, and just like the way it plays for them. Maybe they feel some peer pressure to add house rules and are proud that they've resisted that pressure. I don't know.

Personally I try to keep the number of house rules down to a page or so, but being a tinkerer I tend to have more house rules than that. But I don't really worry about the length of those rules as much as their quality.

I think the important thing is documenting house rules so players know where you stand and trying not to change rules too much once the campaign starts.

 

Psion

Adventurer

• Oct 8, 2006

• #10

I see house rules as being in two categories:

Ones that fix the game and ones that adapt it to your taste/campaign.

The latter are no shame.