[Ari Marmell's blog] To House Rule or Not to House Rule

[Desdichado]

I don't play 4e, but one of its clear selling points to me is that the rule system does not vary much from table to table. Its "everything is core" philosophy, reliance of some on the CB, and minimal 3pp options, keep everyone on the same playing field. Very similar in my opinion and experience to the original DDM game.

Do you wander much from table to table?

I mean, not to derail the discussion, but I'm curious why this is a selling point. Surely the only table that matters where you game, right? If I have houserules at my table, how is that a bad thing for you?

 

[billd91]

Because even in 3.0 the majority of PRC's were published in player oriented books, so while they may have started in the DMG... they were placed in player-centric books as opposed to DM centric books thus opening them up as a player resource. This is actually the exact opposite of what I am proposing.

I disagree with your interpretation of the materials, that the follow-up splat books were oriented toward either the player or the DM. They were general thematic books following the model of the 2e handbooks and I doubt it would have made any economic sense to break them up into player-oriented and DM-oriented books.

 

[MrMyth]

@MrMyth: Ok, here's something I'd be curious to ask people... The Scales of War backgrounds are in the CB... and have been almost universally called out as unbalanced (against each other and against the later backgrounds, though I feel they are certainly interesting and quirky in their own way.)... yet they haven't been removed and haven't been changed. Personally in my campaigns they just aren't allowed (unless I decide to specifically use some or all of them)... but I mean does everyone else allow their players to select them? If not how do DM's stop their players from taking them since there is usually such a problem with this?

They are around in my current game. The DM who ran it before me just asked people not take backgrounds unless they were genuinely appropriate, and most people went with that. Outside of that, I've just focused on the backgrounds themselves - if someone takes the "Chosen by Destiny" background to get extra hp, they might also find themselves called out to fulfill their destiny in character.

Honestly, I've got dozens of house rules I've considered using - I'm not completely satisfied with the balance of the game, and could easily draw up a list of changes I'd make if I had my way. But none of those changes are truly necessary - I know that I can absolutely allow the SoW backgrounds, and Expertise, and anything from Dragon magazine, and the game won't break. Characters might be a little stronger than normal, but the discrepancy isn't game changing, and that is what I applaud about the system.

As to profitability, sheesh with the DDI giving almost everything away, IMO, this (and fluff) might be one of the few types of books that may still be profitable, since even if they did make the rules available in the CB (and they wouldn't necessarily have to since they're not "official")... the advice and ramifications would still only be in the book and many would probably want that advice and guidance.

Maybe so. But I think it is easy to proclaim that, and hard to know for sure. I suspect WotC is in a much better place to make that judgement - they do a good bit of research to figure out what products people want. If such a product would really have a solid audience, than I wouldn't be surprised if we do indeed see it eventually.

 

[MrMyth]

Do you wander much from table to table?

I mean, not to derail the discussion, but I'm curious why this is a selling point. Surely the only table that matters where you game, right? If I have houserules at my table, how is that a bad thing for you?

We've got 3 or 4 DMs that rotate amidst our group. Having unified rules makes things a lot easier.

We also participate in the RPGA. Again, having a guarantee on how things work from table to table is very useful.

Now, someone else's game using house rules doesn't impact ours at all, of course. But the more things WotC releases that actively require the DM to say 'yes' or 'no', and the more the playing experience starts automatically changing from one moment to the next.

 

[.5 Elf]

I am curious, if a guy wants to make a rogue with powers from PHB and Martial Power, you won't let them build it out in the CB? Why is that?

Sorry I was out of town a bit, I tried to respond from my smartphone but the forum kept eating the post before I could hit send.

I have a few reasons why I don't allow CB at my table.

I don't want laptops at my game table. Not saying they are a bad thing, or good thing but I feel they break immersion just a bit more than I like. Things like DDI and CB encourage laptop play to me. Call me a Luddite if you will, but I yearn for a simpler time. The good old days when pencils, paper, books, and dice still held sway.

Lack of support for Houserules. I houserule to a very very large extent and if you used CB you have a bunch of changes you have to make to the finished product anyhow.

I use non standard char sheets. True we could just transcribe them once done using CB but why bother?

I limit source / splat books and I don't want to tempt the players with options I don't allow at my table. Sort of the way people referred to how 3 and 3.5's glut of "official" source material encouraged players to wheedle the DM to allow game breaking stuff at their table.

System Mastery. This may sound a bit crazy but I find that CB is a bit like calculators and cash registers in that people come to rely on the machine and whatever input they get from it regardless of whether or not it makes sense. I want my players to understand the game at least insofar as their character goes. I am amazed how stupid people become when they let machines do their thinking for them.

Especially odd is the fact that I am a slave to spell-check utilities myself. I think this is from a mild form of dyslexia in my case (runs in my family) but I was never tested. Still I try to proofread after spell checking, not just accept the machine got it all right for me.

 

[Desdichado]

Again, not to derail, but I find this a curious question. See below.

We've got 3 or 4 DMs that rotate amidst our group. Having unified rules makes things a lot easier.

They rotate DMing within the same campaign? Or are they different campaigns? Because that describes my group too, but every GM runs his own game, and yeah, they could use different houserule sets. They could even be using completely different systems altogether.

We also participate in the RPGA. Again, having a guarantee on how things work from table to table is very useful.

Well, the RPGA already had pretty strict guidelines about what was in play and what wasn't during the 2e, 3e and 3.5 eras (at least) , so I don't think that was an issue.

Now, someone else's game using house rules doesn't impact ours at all, of course. But the more things WotC releases that actively require the DM to say 'yes' or 'no', and the more the playing experience starts automatically changing from one moment to the next.

I'll buy that, but I'm curious if you see table to table divergence as a bad thing in and of itself. Because I don't, and I like having options to choose from. To me, that's a good thing in and of itself, and table to table divergence is something that I don't care about one way or another.

 

[MrMyth]

They rotate DMing within the same campaign? Or are they different campaigns? Because that describes my group too, but every GM runs his own game, and yeah, they could use different houserule sets. They could even be using completely different systems altogether.

Often running seperate campaigns, but some event of overlap. In recent years, for example, one DM ran H1 (Keep on the Shadowfell) and then another DM ran H2 (Thunderspire Labyrinth) and then I ran H3 (Pyramid of Shadows) with most characters remaining the same between the adventures. This was partly just to give everyone a chance to get adjusted to 4E, so wasn't our usual style, but still played out fine.

Following this, one of the DMs stepped up with his home campaign, which ran basically through all of the Heroic and Paragon tiers. I then took over and continued it into the Epic tier (to give the PCs a chance to explore epic 4E). While I continued to use my friends setting, since the game moved more into epic planar elements, it felt like a solid split - but still, about half the characters remained the same, and there continued to be callbacks and other elements to earlier in the campaign.

And we generally each had some slight differences in house rules and play styles - but as long as we were open about those, there was no problem. None were extreme enough to cause any noticable changes in the characters themselves.

Well, the RPGA already had pretty strict guidelines about what was in play and what wasn't during the 2e, 3e and 3.5 eras (at least) , so I don't think that was an issue.

Except that in and of itself was a problem - someone who was used to their home game, joining the RPGA, suddenly had a lot of changes to deal with, rules being altered for balance in a living environment, different approaches to levelling and treasure and more. Now, some of that still remains, but to an immensely smaller degree. Which I've found makes it a much more accessible environment to newer players and casual players - and I think that is a very good thing.

I'll buy that, but I'm curious if you see table to table divergence as a bad thing in and of itself. Because I don't, and I like having options to choose from. To me, that's a good thing in and of itself, and table to table divergence is something that I don't care about one way or another.

It's a tough question to tackle. I think D&D's ability to support vastly different playstyles and games is one of its strengths. At the same time, I think having the default be a shared experience has a lot of advantages. Which is why I'm a fan of DMGs presenting house rules that help different playstyles (such as inherent bonuses and alternate treasure rewards), along with continuing in the core rules to push the boundaries and incorporate more diverse elements (as with hybrids and themes).

But at the same time, I don't want a book of magic items that are completely out of balance with the rest of the system. Even with big warnings to use them at DM discretion, I think that is starting to walk down a very dangerous path.

Instead, I want more artifacts and other items that already somewhat fill that role, but do have decent DM advice and support on how to move them in and out of the campaign. And I'd really prefer that was the approach taken with any item along those lines.

 

[Nifft]

Because that describes my group too, but every GM runs his own game, and yeah, they could use different houserule sets. They could even be using completely different systems altogether.

In my group most of us are GMs, and we switch off between vastly different systems.

"[/aside]", -- N

 

[Desdichado]

In my group most of us are GMs, and we switch off between vastly different systems.

That's actually normally the case for us as well. We went from a lengthy 3.5 game (wide open on options, no real restrictions), to a more house-ruled 3.5, to a BRP Cthulhu game. After which we entertained both d20 Star Wars and 4e Shadowrun before those two potential GMs had to bow out of the DM spot due to the anticipation of an unreliable schedule short term. So we went back to wide open 3.5 for the time being.

Which actually makes it sound like we entertain more vastly different systems than we actually implement. That's probably fair.

 

[Jasperak]

Do you wander much from table to table?

I mean, not to derail the discussion, but I'm curious why this is a selling point. Surely the only table that matters where you game, right? If I have house rules at my table, how is that a bad thing for you?

First off, your home game doesn't matter with regards to my point. The only things that matter are the game assumptions that are brought to each individual table, whether they are at home, pick-up games/game days, or conventions. If we gamed together on a regular basis, then I would expect that we would be on the same page concerning house rules. For instance, say one of your house rules was removing healing surges. For me to play I would have to accept that or find another group. Simple as that. Those assumptions are the only effect of house rules that matter.

So you know where I am coming from, my experience with 4e is limited. I played in a 2 month run through KOTS with a DM that I suspect would be a good DM in any system. I also played in 2 game days and one session of a pick up game. I also played three or so rounds with DDM. Concerning 4e, for three different DM I noticed varying styles that did not seem to surface much through the game; meaning I had the same experience playing the game regardless of the DM. Same with DDM. I had experiences that I could rely on that lead me to believe the game would remain consistent whenever I wanted to play 4e.

The major caveat is that these were all public venues using pre-prepared modules and scenarios, so I am aware that my experience may not match yours, other's, or those that play exclusively at home.

But my point is that I think 4e plays in similar manner regardless of the DM's personal style. That is awesome for those that like the game. It makes it something consistent within itself and without regard to differences in DMs or players for that matter.

So back to my example earlier concerning removing healing surges as a house rule. That is a massive rule change that would make a core rule game far different from a house rule game. That rule may work for your group for the style you want to play, but it makes it far more difficult for a player that relies on that assumption to integrate back into a core rule game. Think of how using spell points instead of prepared spell slots from 3e Unearthed Arcana would change game play.

This leads back to what happened with 1e, 2e, and 3e. I think WOTC understands this by making a rule assumption that all rules are core.

As for it being a selling-point, I can only use analogies. My base assumption is that D&D4e is the brand leader in our industry. Think of Coke or Pepsi, they are the soft-drink brand leaders and are consistent regardless of where you go: California, Massachusetts, Texas, or Virginia, you can count on them to be the same. Call of Cthulhu is another example that is within our own industry. Regardless of edition the game is the same. WOW is a great example of this as well. Everybody is playing the same game and drinking the same soda that they are accustomed to.

I believe they have strengthen the brand, because they can advertise what the game is and what to expect. Not so with any of the earlier editions. Pre-3e rules sets were billed as toolboxes. There are too many examples of these games where the addition of house rules and options allowed the DM and players to create the game they wanted, and those would barely resemble the same rule set found at other tables.

I could tell you a story about a younger player I had in a 3e game that had wanted to play an Elven Bladesinger. I wouldn't let him use the version that allowed full spell progression, but I allowed him to choose the version that offered something like four spell-levels of advancement that I would have played in heartbeat. He had a great concept and it was a great class (maybe prestige I cannot remember), but he was playing from a different set of rules assumptions than I was. I was the DM. He continued to play but created another character instead. In my opinion 4e has removed that headache by their assumption that every rule they release is core--implying balanced and fun for play. That to me is a great selling point.

What happens at your table is yours and your player's business, and not for me or anyone else to judge. But don't come to my table expecting some grand house rule that you are used to, that you read in 4e Unearthed Arcana be added to my game. And same in converse, don't expect me to join your table if you have a house rule that runs counter to all of my experience from the core rules.

Hope I have made my original point more clear. This is one of the longest posts I have written (I hate long posts), but hope I have presented my case in a manner in which, while you may not agree, you can see where I am coming from.