EyeontheMountain
First Post
A player in one of my games asked the question quoted at the top and I replied with the section below. What is the line for you? How do you feel about my breakdown in to the three areas?
> First from a non rules centered guy what is the difference between
> interpretation and house rule.
It is a fine line.
I see three versions
1. An interpretation
2. A house rule for game 'feel'
3. A house rule to change something the DM doesn't like
To me an interpretation is where there is not a clear rule, or the
situation is not handled well in the D&D rule set. This could be setting
the DC for a nonstandard use of a skill, or deciding on the fly how
something works. A good example is Shapechangers (Werewolf and such)
They are one kind of monster that was left off the Knowledge skills
tables in the PHB. Obviously they should be on there, but is it nature,
local or even arcane? I could make a good argument for all three. But
the DM needs to decide. To me this kind of thing is clearly not a house
rule.
House Rule for game feel.
Most of you on this list is a member of the Scaled Empire game I just
started up. In that game I restricted Stone to Flesh and Break
Enchantment because I have major sub-plot involving ways to turn people
back from statues into human beings. And I definitely do not want some
yahoo running around changing them back like taking a walk in
the park. So they are restricted. Same as saying players
cannot play races, classes or take feats because they do not fit the
world or the DM doesn't own the book. These can be annoying to players,
depending on what is taken out.
House rules due to DM dislike
To me these are th most problematical, as the DM can easily run wild by
banning this, that and those over there. Or even worse by changing
things wildly. This can be unbalancing and can make the game confusing.
On the other hand sometimes the DM just doesn't want to deal with a
problem, or considers its downsides too much. I routinely ban; CN
alignment, Monks, warlocks, 3.5 power attack, spiked chains,
Wraithstrike, Natural Spell, among other game features. I either don't
like the ability, or the effect it has on the game.
On the other other hand (See, told you I was not human!) it has been my
experience that players rarely complain about house rules that make them
more powerful. Like in this game you get an 84 buy for stats (crazy
high), a bonus feat (nice), Action points (life-savers) and two extra
class skills (nice versatility) but I hear no complaints about these
clear House Rules.
Sorry for the bit of a rant, this is a bit of a pet peeve with me.
> First from a non rules centered guy what is the difference between
> interpretation and house rule.
It is a fine line.
I see three versions
1. An interpretation
2. A house rule for game 'feel'
3. A house rule to change something the DM doesn't like
To me an interpretation is where there is not a clear rule, or the
situation is not handled well in the D&D rule set. This could be setting
the DC for a nonstandard use of a skill, or deciding on the fly how
something works. A good example is Shapechangers (Werewolf and such)
They are one kind of monster that was left off the Knowledge skills
tables in the PHB. Obviously they should be on there, but is it nature,
local or even arcane? I could make a good argument for all three. But
the DM needs to decide. To me this kind of thing is clearly not a house
rule.
House Rule for game feel.
Most of you on this list is a member of the Scaled Empire game I just
started up. In that game I restricted Stone to Flesh and Break
Enchantment because I have major sub-plot involving ways to turn people
back from statues into human beings. And I definitely do not want some
yahoo running around changing them back like taking a walk in
the park. So they are restricted. Same as saying players
cannot play races, classes or take feats because they do not fit the
world or the DM doesn't own the book. These can be annoying to players,
depending on what is taken out.
House rules due to DM dislike
To me these are th most problematical, as the DM can easily run wild by
banning this, that and those over there. Or even worse by changing
things wildly. This can be unbalancing and can make the game confusing.
On the other hand sometimes the DM just doesn't want to deal with a
problem, or considers its downsides too much. I routinely ban; CN
alignment, Monks, warlocks, 3.5 power attack, spiked chains,
Wraithstrike, Natural Spell, among other game features. I either don't
like the ability, or the effect it has on the game.
On the other other hand (See, told you I was not human!) it has been my
experience that players rarely complain about house rules that make them
more powerful. Like in this game you get an 84 buy for stats (crazy
high), a bonus feat (nice), Action points (life-savers) and two extra
class skills (nice versatility) but I hear no complaints about these
clear House Rules.
Sorry for the bit of a rant, this is a bit of a pet peeve with me.
