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

[cignus_pfaccari]

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.

Crothian's last sentence, in a nutshell, is my issue as well. A lot of the house rules I've seen fix a problem that isn't even there.

Plus, Gargoyle also has a point; the more house rules you have to explain to someone, the bigger pain it is to get new people.

Brad

 

[Oryan77]

I'm wondering why you think it's bad when a group doesn't have house rules. I would think a person would be relieved by joining a group with very few house rules.

I have a couple, but it's nothing big. They're pretty standard house rules. I actually feel more confident now that I don't use as many house rules as I did in the past. Things just seem smoother. I've played with a lot of players and one thing is always the same...players love to argue with the DM. And if the players aren't arguing; they are questioning the DM's rulings by automatically grabbing the PHB to double check his ruling. When you throw house rules into the mix, it usually seems to make the players argue with you more.

Also, when new players join the group, they usually have a funny look on their face when you explain a house rule. Most of the time their reaction seemed to be, "uhm....ok...but...." and they'd try telling me why I shouldn't have that house rule. I'm sure this happens to most DM's when they get new players. Not having house rules saves me a lot of hassle

 

[Cedric]

I never mind trying out a group that has a lot of house rules. To my thinking it assures me of two things...

1. The GM takes a lot of ownership of his game (wants to make it his, personalize it). This is a sign of dedication to me and is a check in the GMs favor.

2. Shows imagination and a willingness to look beyond what's written in the book to try to make the game run more smoothly or to personalize it to a flavor the GM desires.

Now, once I start figuring out what those House Rules are, I might say thanks, but no thanks. But just the having of house rules is fine, and in the instances I noted above, encouraged.

 

[Chainsaw Mage]

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

Good point.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

Yup. In the past, me not playing with GMs who had alot of house rules added up to the same reason that you don't have your average armchair quarterback in the NFL.

I like dedication in a GM.

I don't like airbag punditry.

The current group I play with has some house rules. They're okay. They had a good reason for them ... they like to play it that way better. Mostly they added skill points to all of the classes and added d20Modern style Starting Occupations because they prefer a more skill-intensive game ... cool with me. Good fun.

--fje

 

[Graf]

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.

Because it is.

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.

This actually explains why most house rules suck.
Because 90% of the time it's basically a DM power trip.

DM's "tinkering" with the rules is one of the hallmarks of a game that isn't going to be very fun to play.

The rules are an agreed framework, like a social contract, between all parties.
And there are so many different optional rules, variant systems and so on that you're hardly straightjacketed.

Good DMs tinker by making cool stories, fun NPCs and DMing.
Bad DMs tinker by making lots of tichy little changes to the world usually because they aren't decent storytellers.

My opinion of course. If a group discusses it and decides to change something that's different. But the biggest problem you see with DnD is DMs who don't understand that it's mostly about storytelling and arbitration.

 

[Emirikol]

I used to be a house rule junkie (not because I sucked as the previoius poster notes), but because I just found it fun to tinker with the rules.

Now I have very few house rules (because 3.5 makes sense as a game now) and they are there just because they are things I've enjoyed as a player over the years.

Things like:
a, Fumbles that can be criticals if you choose to destroy your weapon
b. No cross-class skill rank penalties
c. Elements of the specific world that modify some element of race/class/magic whatever
d. "The -9 max damage rule"

There are other things that DM's really DO need to put down for their game that are PSEUDO-HOUSE-RULES:
1. Ability score gen method
2. Method for determining hp's each level
3. Any cultural changes to the races, classes you use
4. Banned/encouraged prestige or new core classes
5. Which books are acceptable for spells/feats/etc.
6. Which god's you're using

Personally, I see DMs who take the time to write this stuff down on half a sheet of paper and who hand them out to the players (or put them on their YAHOOGROUP) to be competant DM's. Now, I agree that DM's who have 15 or 50 pages of stupid little tweaks to the 3.5 system to be absolutely something that isn't acceptable. "HEy look, it's Beurocracy the RPG!"

If you can't keep your major rule changes to 2-3 pages, you are maybe trying too hard to make a 'perfect game.' Your pseudohouserules can be any length because those things are just for reference IMHO. Most players don't read all that stuff anyways..and there's nothing worse than burying your house rule inside of a pseudo house rule where nobody can find it. Put your house rules where people can see them.



jh




..

 

[pawsplay]

House rules, themselves, are good when they're good, and bad when they're bad. They are just rules.

Now, reasons to avoid house rules would be 1) consistency of play style, if you plan on playing outside your group, 2) ease of including supplemental materials, 3) not having to worry quite as much about "testing beta code on live servers."

 

[Aus_Snow]

where did this aversion to house ruling come from?

Every GM I've ever known has house ruled every system they've ever run. That hasn't changed in recent times, and isn't about to change, I'm pretty sure.

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.

This hasn't changed one bit from where I'm standing, as I said.

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.

It's been my experience that many people are very glad/proud of their often growing house rules, and widely seek encouragement, comments, input.

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.

Not in the slightest, apparently. Every single D&D/d20/OGL forum I've seen or posted at has had house rules discussions and content in abundance, relative to the total posts on all topics.


Where there is a negative view adopted and expressed, I think it's often due to the fairly widespread assumption that a game system designed by a team of veterans, and thoroughly playtested, cannot possibly be anything but harmed by some random roleplayer just strolling in and rearranging the thing.


Also, pawsplay's second point in the above post is not only a popular perspective, but completely true. This is an important one.

 

[Cadfan]

Some house rules are created by DMs who feel that the original rules are in some way poorly written. The problem with these rules is that the DM who writes them is usually less skilled than the people who wrote the original rules, and the results suck even worse.

Other house rules are created by DMs who intend to add flavor to their campaign world. The problem with these rules is that most DMs who do this go overboard. Example of a good rule: "This is a military campaign based around the siege of a large, urban city. Make appropriate characters, so, like, no druids and stuff." Example of a bad rule: "I've banned druids and clerics because they are broken and they don't fit my campaign world because I don't think that divine spells should be memorized. Someone had better play a bard or favored soul or you'll all die, and that will teach you. I've banned fighters because I think they're weak and no hero in my campaign world would suck that much. Sorcerors are banned because arcane magic should be memorized from books. No rangers or paladins because pets are annoying and I don't like them. Etc. Etc. Blah Blah Blah."

The latter sort of rule seems more common, in my experience.

I've played games with ok house rules, but never more than 3 sentences worth.