A scale for house rules

The discussion on whether house rules are expected in RPGs (and other games) brings up another, tangential topic: Is there a rule change/addition/removal that is considered less than a house rule.

For instance, back in AD&D1, no group I ever played in used the weapon speed factors. No one ever mentioned this "oversight" as a house rule. We just all turned a "blind-eye" to them without ever even mentioning them. This was true in several, unrelated, groups.

A lot of AD&D1 and AD&D2 groups hand-waved away the level limits for demi-humans. Sometimes this was mentioned at the beginning of a game, but sometimes it wasn't mentioned until it came up in game (when a demi-human PC reached the limit).

In D&D3, many people let the Dodge feat apply to all opponents. The times I've seen this rule instituted, it was done sort of off-the-cuff, to hand-wave away an annoying aspect of the game because no one (Players or DM) could ever remember to announce the Dodge target.

In all editions of the game, some folks don't worry about encumbrance. I've never seen this mentioned as a house rule, it is just something never mentioned by the DM.

I was playing in a D&D3.5 game when we encountered a darkness spell for the first time (in that campaign), and we learned the spell was house ruled back to the complete darkness of 3.0. None of us Players skipped a beat or complained about the "surprise" house rule. We just virtually nodded and kept on playing.

I've heard of some games where the paladin's warhorse can stay with the paladin once summoned, instead of the summon-each-day rules of D&D3.5. (This is an option up to the Player's choice.) Is this worthy of being called out as a house rule in a house rule document? Or is this something that can just be mentioned to a paladin's Player when the time comes?

Then there is a rule I use in my game that I think I may be the only one who has this: full plate and half plate armor can be "stripped down" to just a "chain shirt equivalent" for wearing while sleeping or in a city. Is this something worth listing in a house rules document, or is this just something the DM and Players accept with a nod. Is it worth calling a "house rule"?

Also, I let clubs and quarterstaves do non-lethal damage with no attack penalty. It fits with the idea of constables and press gangs using such items to subdue folks without lethal damage. Is this something that should be mentioned in a house rules doc? Or is this something that can just be mentioned when the situation comes up in game (if it ever comes up)?

I have a house rules document (maybe 10 rules) on a Web site for my game, and half the "house rules" are like I'm mentioning above -- something that may never affect a Player's character or choices in a game, but that technically are a change from the core RAW.

What should we call house rules that are so minor or universal among groups that a Player may never notice it is a house rule?

And on the flip side of the coin, what should we call house rules that are so major and drastic that it really changes the game as a whole?

Should *any* change, minor or major, be just called "house rule"? Or should we have a scale?

Quasqueton

I'm one who uses several "minor" house rules (as well as several major ones, but thats for another discussion).

Dodge as a flat +1 to AC: most people forget to assign the modifire, this goes double for me as a DM (for my NPCs). Plus its makes the Dodge feat something useful to take, not just a steping stone to Spring Attack.

Weapon Finesse as a weapon property not a feat: A small buff to rogues and archery based rangers.

ignoring encumberance (in most circumstances): I'm not going to ask every character to keep a tally of each foot of rope, each sling stone, ect.

not keeping track of zero cost spell components: Honestly, I dont think I've ever been in a game where this "house rule" isnt in effect.

Though the above examples are clearly house rules, and thus should be stated at the begining of the campaign, I dont find them that major.

A major house rule would be: Armor as DR, point based magic system, ect...

Warning: this may not be true contribution to the thread. I may be blathering.

I'm increasingly becoming a bigger fan of approaching pen and paper RPGs as if they were computer RPGs. When I tell this to folks, I usually get a lot of derision and snide remarks about fed-ex quests and no roleplay. But that's not what I mean. I mean that adjustments and conditions in RPGs should apply to the character or NPC alone.

The dodge feat is an example. The RAW, as Quasqueton noted, says that you have to pick one opponent as often as once a turn to apply a penalty to hit the character. In a computer game, this would mean that every six seconds you could click on a new opponent and apply a debuf to that opponent that would affect only your character. That's a lot for a computer to keep track of to say nothing of a human. The global +1 dodge bonus means that the character applies a buff to himself. That's much easier and it doesn't even have to be applied in combat, it only has to be figured in whenever there's an armor class change.

Attacks of Opporunity are another example. IF an opponent passes through your range AND that travel meets a list of conditions THEN you may make your attack. An alternate way to handle it would be to apply a condition on a character to say if the character is actively defending himself or not. If he is, then take a movement penalty, if he is not then take an armor class penalty. The changes are noted on the character sheet and AoO are dropped. Less bookkeeping. Now there is a loss of "realism" but I personally think that ship sailed long ago when we started playing a game that assumed a 20' lizard could open up a flamethrower on me and I would casually react to that by deducting an appropriate number of hit points instead of ... you know ... acting like I was on fire.

Anyway, in an attempt to bring this back on topic, how would I weigh house rules? With a scale. I've seen house rules that could easily be their own 32 page books. If the house rules go "thump" when you drop them on a table, you have a lot of house rules.

I believe that anything that changes from the RAW is a house rule. As a player, I expect to be told of these before I make a character for that game. (Yes, even the most minor ones - because even though your groups, for example, ignored weapon speed - all the groups I ever played with did indeed use it. I never assume.) As a GM, I have a document that explains the house rules that gets handed to the players.

However... a house rule document shouldn't be more than a few pages. If you have one that is almost as big as the game book - make your own system.

Quasqueton said:

Should *any* change, minor or major, be just called "house rule"? Or should we have a scale?

Quasqueton

Click to expand...

As long as the players and the DM are all on the same page, who cares?

I find there are at least two different categories of House Rules:

1) Rules you have knowingly changed that you have explained to your group

2) Rules you or your group have unknowingly changed, or at least interpreted collectively in a different manner from other groups

Now I am a great believer in bending the rules to fit the campaign. The RAW is great for playing D&D; since I don't play D&D, but am quite happy to use the D20 rules, I often come up with quite an extensive list of House Rules. Sometimes these are rules that are quite easy to identify (All spells of Type X are not available, these new weapons have these stats, the Blah character class is out but we will use the Blah-2 version from Book X, etc.); others are much more specific, sort of like the "Dodge gives +1AC when flatfooted" variety, therefor require a little more thought and knowledge.

Other rules changes may end up occuring at the table -- "by tradition" rules. Sometimes the group is aware that they have changed the rules, other times they forget that they have altered or interpreted anything at all.

In my own games there are a goodly number of House Rules. By using them I have the rules more closely conform to the setting I have created. I think in many ways this is why, in the opposited direction, Eberron has taken off as well as it has -- it is a setting that perfectly conforms to the RAW. I rarely play any game without some change, but I never conciously change rules if the players are upset/going to be upset by this. I try to be up front with the process and the players are happy when I am. Still, talking with other gaming groups we sometimes find we have interpreted something in a different way, or have slowly altered a rule over time.

D20 has too many rules to KNOW. You can get the gist of them very easily. You can learn several others. Few people, however, are going to memorize the bulk of material from the PHB and the DMG. As such, there is constant consulting of rules. If, conversely, your group has a good steady grasp of the generalities and you decide not to look something up because the game is moving well, so be it.

The point of the game is to have fun.

Personally, I have never had fun having arguments about rules minutiae.

Something I always toyed with in relation to

a) The rules checklist in the back of 3.5 Unearthed Arcana
b) Templates for creatures
c) The "spooky location templates" in the current Dungeon

Is the idea of "campaign templates" - so you have your core D&D rules as shown in the PHB, and another book, the Campaign Builders Guide or something, that has a bunch of templates that fit in, around and over the existing rules to modify the feel of the game as you wish - this is where you could slot in some insanity rules for a horror game, some firearms rules for a renaissance game, etc ... D&D pretty much allows you to do this, in a sort of broad, unfocused way, but it would be great to tie this all together, so that each element was interlinked like feats and skills for a PC, so that, for instance, adding the sanity loss template to a game gives certain compensations and balancing effects to the suite of options a player in the campaign could choose from.

Tangential, yes, but cool? Maybe.

Should *any* change, minor or major, be just called "house rule"? Or should we have a scale?

Click to expand...

Houserule is houserule, whether it's minor or major. But yes, the distinction indeed exists, and there are many houserules that become "customs" among players of the game. It's just part of the hobby, and it's to be expected, since a role-playing game cannot be defined solely on RAW (since it is a social game based on imagination and near-infinite variations, i.e. adventures/campaigns, something between the wargame and improvised roleplaying that makes it unique compared to, say, Monopoly).

BiggusGeekus said:

Now there is a loss of "realism" but I personally think that ship sailed long ago when we started playing a game that assumed a 20' lizard could open up a flamethrower on me and I would casually react to that by deducting an appropriate number of hit points instead of ... you know ... acting like I was on fire.

Click to expand...

I'm so tempted to put this in my sig, if it wasn't that it would make my sig too long...

Quasqueton said:

Should *any* change, minor or major, be just called "house rule"? Or should we have a scale?

Click to expand...

I'd say any deviation from the RAW is a house rule, regardless of how major or minor a change it is. For example in my games I add Con mod to how far negative you can go before you die eg. a 14 Con means you can go to -12 before you snuff it. It's a minor change, but never the less a house rule.