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

[an_idol_mind]

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.

My house rules usually come about in a similar way. They're either things that remove rules that the players don't like, like the various penalties for multiclassing, or they eliminate parts of the rules that I forget to enforce anyway, like arcane spell failure for light armor.

 

[Emirikol]

House rules really aren't technically "options" from the DMG or UA are they? Aren't those just "rule options?" That is, things that have been playtested and are balanced?

House rules are tweaks to existing rules to replace the original rule. E.g. using a d30 for attack instead of a d20.

House rules seem like the "crazy scientist" whereas "Rule Options" such as those from the DMG or UA, are just "different."

jh

..

 

[Greg K]

House rules really aren't technically "options" from the DMG or UA are they? Aren't those just "rule options?" That is, things that have been playtested and are balanced?

House rules are tweaks to existing rules to replace the original rule. E.g. using a d30 for attack instead of a d20.

House rules seem like the "crazy scientist" whereas "Rule Options" such as those from the DMG or UA, are just "different."

jh

..

I consider house rules to include any rule that alters the default method of play assumed by the core rules as you need to notify players that the changes exist. Thus, I include the use of rules options, rules replacements, rules deletions, and rules additons to all be house rules regardless of the source- the exception being rules alterations that are part of a published setting as anyone owning the setting can come into your game and expect such rules to be the standard unless told otherwise.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

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.

While D&D may not fit the game you want to play, if you want easy access to lots of players you're stuck with it. I think this is why so many people play heavily houserules D&D rather than a better game. (Better in that it better fits their personal test)

 

[carmachu]

Nothing wrong with house rules: everyone's table is different, in what books are allowed, what rules are allowed, or whatever. So long as it works for you , great.


I cant say I'm a fan of RAW. I've dealt with it before in Wargaming, and too many times it causes problems.

 

[TheNovaLord]

Problem we had as a group

We been playing what we thought was correct (as RAW if you like)rules in 3.5 since it came out and a few months ago two other people joined us (they didnt know each other before hand but were both LG players for example)

seems we had been using 'house rules' without knowing it on a few minor things (well maybe 6 or 7 things) all this time!!

We are all highly academic guys (scientists n engineers) and we were still reading it wrong!

JOhnD

 

[Maggan]

Just to get a grip on "house rules".

If I'm using a variant spell casting system from e.g. Codex Mysterium in my D&D game, is this a house rule?

What I'm thinking is that most people won't view it as a house rule, and so this might explain why people have fewer house rules; they have more published options to chose from to fit into their games.

If a variant spell casting system from a third party publisher is indeed "house rules", then I don't really know.

We had a few house rules to AD&D 1st, but for 3.5 I know more about what will and won't work than when I was 15.

So fewer house rules in pursuit of that elusive "realism" that drove me a good 22 years ago.

/M