Do You Use Your RPG Rules as Written?

[Turanil]

Do You Use Your RPG Rules as Written?

Except for a couple of minor aspects, I usually keep the rules as written. But I tend to add additional homebrew stuff (new classes, new feats, etc.). Of course, it also depends on the game.

 

[Glyfair]

The poll doesn't ask if you use ALL the rules as written. The way it's set up, both 'yes' and 'no' would be valid answers for most people. So the poll results don't mean much.

I tend to agree that the question is uncanningly vague, perhaps even intentionally so.

What is "your RPG rules"?

Yes, I do use RPG rules as written. Yes, I do have house rules. Yes, I do occasionally make up a rule on the fly rather than look it up (and, about as often, I'll look up one I don't remember).

 

[EricNoah]

I add new material, and I change existing material. I try to avoid huge changes that trickle down too far into the rules, though I've experimented with such.

 

[Roadkill101]

Never, I've yet to find a published rpg system where I didn't make at least one minor change to the ruleset.

 

[Gold Roger]

I decided to stick to RAW as closely as possible.

The reason is simple: the system works. It may not emulate classical fantasy that well, but happily I'm not really in it for classical fantasy, but for a fun time.

I can give a new player the book and say "That's the rules" it's accessible and easy. If I meet someone and talk about the game we've got a good point of reference. If I introduce an expirienced player he knows exactly what to expect with RAW.

That said I'm not afraid of DM calls. I don't like rules referencing at the table will do a "quick and dirty" resolution if game would otherwise slow down. I'll tinker with Monsters and I definitely add my own rules.

I'll also change around class features and such to accomodate player's wishes. But I won't touch basic rules and I won't force players to do it my way.

 

[Arnwyn]

A game with no House Rules at all? That has to be the extreme minority.

Agreed - especially if you hear some of the interpretations of RAW over in the Rules Forum...

 

[The Thayan Menace]

True Dat ....

So the poll results don't mean much.

Agreed; this smells like fallout from a dispute.

-Samir

 

[Shemeska]

Not at all.

Though I tend to ignore rules or gloss over them more so than rewrite them when it comes to houseruling.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

No... I am a tinkerer. I love to tear a gaming system apart and see what I can make it do. I literally cannot help it. For instance, when D&D 3.0 first came out, I told my group that we should run it for a while as is before we go screwing around with it, that way we could see what things it does really well, and what things it could use some massaging on. Well... My group was agreeable to that idea and that's what we did... We ran D&D 3.0 pretty well untouched for... I don't know... maybe a year. And by that time I was raring to get at the thing, tear it apart and see what it would look like when I put it back together again. The emergence of other d20 games has, if possible made my tendancy to do this even worse. The plethora of similar rule-sets has given me the opportunity to look at tons of alternate takes on the same themes, and all with an air of officiality that you just don't get with net-published house rules.

Anyway... uh. I voted "no"

Later
silver

 

[TheAuldGrump]

My house rules tend to be tweaks here and there rather than whole-sale systemic changes, so I would say yes, pretty much.

No, going by the way the question is written as soon as you change one thing you are not playing the game as written.

Once again I feel that Mark has put in too few options.

The Auld Grump