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

[el-remmen]

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.

I hate to QFT, but you know. . .QFT.

 

[carmachu]

Nothing wrong with house rules, in and of themselves. But they can be good ones, or stupid ones....its built to taste.

if I dont like'em, I move on...its really kinda simple.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

IMHO House rules, to some degree, are a neccesity....but only for one of two reasons:

1> Improving a mechanic that has issues due to either poor wording or bad interaction with other rules... fer instance Monk and INA... and by 'improving' I mean making it easier in play.

2> Provide the right 'feel' for the campaign... fer instance fear/morale checks in Ravenloft, better diplomancy rules for games involving court intrigue, etc..

The being said there are alot of bad house rules and I prefer to play/run games that have a minimum of extra stuff tacked onto the system.

I have a folder full of potential house rules, most of which will never actually see play but I enjoy the intellectual challenge in designing them.

 

[Fishbone]

The less tweaking the better.
After about two pages worth of "fixes" I think a DM/ref/storyteller/Gamemaster should think real hard if this is the system for them. There seems to be too many egomaniacs houseruling damn near entire systems away nowadays.

 

[Greg K]

I have a lot of houserules and am proud of it. that said, nearly all of my houserules are are comprised of the following:
a. options I use from the DMG
b. options I use from Unearthed Arcana
c. a few options from Sean Reynolds website
d. books that will and will not be used.
e. a list of acceptable or unnacceptable material (e.g., classes, feats, spells, prcs) from books that I will allow.

 

[drothgery]

I'm definitely in the fewer-house-rules-are-better camp.

- It's a good thing if GMs don't feel many house rules are needed -- that means they think the game's well-designed to begin with.

- Fewer house rules means you have a better idea if new material is going to work in your campaign.

- Fewer house rules make it easier for new players to join the game.

... and in the game I play in, the only house rule is a critical fumble system (natural 1, followed by a failed confirm-critical-esque roll draws an AoO).

 

[an_idol_mind]

I like designing worlds. I like playing games. I do not like writing rules. The fewer house rules I write for a system, the more I can focus on other aspects of DMing that I enjoy. I don't take particular pride in having few house rules, but I'd prefer to keep things simple on my end by not using too many.

 

[WayneLigon]

I'm curious: where did this aversion to house ruling come from? 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

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.

There's no aversion to them. There's little or no need for them. I have house rules which usually change from campaign to campaign because all my house rules are flavor-based; usually they revolve around the absence of specific spells, what abilities races have, or some other means of invoking a particular mindset or aspect of the world I'm building.

In 1e and 2e, the house rules were there - almost had to be there - to (1) make up for some stunning hole in the rules (hand-to-hand combat in 1E, just as a first-thought-in-my-mind example) or (2) to add something the rules did poorly, such as skills. The sad, inadequate too-little-too-late non-weapon proficiencies, for example, or (3) ignore something the rules did, but did in such a manner as to make using the rule an exercise in tedium (weapon speeds, for example).

 

[ZSutherland]

I'm pretty middle of the road. I'm a DM who's interested in game design, so I tinker with rules, but I try to do so in very gradual steps, get lots of feedback, and am not afraid to admit a mistake. I also discuss it with my players beforehand. Most of my rules-tinkering house-rules stem from complaints my players have with the RAW. They resulting rules, once we get one we all agree works for us, probably wouldn't work for anyone else, but they suit us. The other types of rules are just things to make my life easier as the DM. We're currently playing AE, and played a long AU game shortly after it's initial release. I banned the Oathsworn, not because it's a bad class, but because their constant need to be under an oath and working towards its completion doesn't mesh with our playstyle. I told the players upfront that the class was unavailable and why. I also ignored the suggestion that all kobolds are the offspring of mojh and relatively rare, because how much fun can you have with low-level characters w/o kobolds?

Basically, I don't have a problem with house-rules in general. However, there are some advantages to running without them, such as a more portable game skill. I've never encountered two groups that played 2e the same way, so it speaks well of 3.x that we can all discuss it w/o having reams of house-rules explained to us, and we can move from game to game w/o having to "re-learn" how to play.

 

[Glyfair]

I'm curious: where did this aversion to house ruling come from?

I've never had an aversion to house rules in general. I do have an aversion to a large amount of house rules, and always have. I also have found that, at least during the AD&D days, that I had an aversion to most house rules.

The first case, large amounts of house rules, is a matter of practicality. In essence, when you have 10 pages of house rules, you are asking the players to play with a 10 page supplement that only you use. If you have an enclosed group (don't play much outside the group, don't have guests to the group), then house rules are fine. The further you go beyond that, the more it complicates matters.

The second case, certain rules I have problems with, varies. I agree with a previous comment that a lot of the house rules from DMs I've seen have seemed to be power trips. They are usually accompanied by "do it my way or hit the highway" comments, and rarely have strong player support (occasionally they favor a specific player, who is the dominant player in a group).

In other situations, the house rules are poorly thought out. They are often cause more problems than the rules they replaced did.

Still, in my experience house rules aren't usually bad. But, when you find a group with a large amount of house rules, there are usuallly major issues in the rules or the group. It doesn't have to be that way, but it usually is.