What level of house rules are you comfortable with?
Li Shenron
Legend
Quasqueton said:
If they are intended for the campaign setting, I have no problems with any of them.
This refers for instance to HR such as: "Only races allowed are X, Y and Z", "All wizards in this world uses this variant...", "No spiked chain for sale". Whether I like the idea or not, as long as it is a SETTING matter I accept it.
On the other hand, HR which change the mechanics "in order to fix it" are 99% of the time unnecessary. I'm fine with a limited number of them, as long as it doesn't actually make it more difficult to play (in which case they aren't even really worth). However it is quite arrogant from a DM to believe that he's so smart to have figured out all the game's problems and a better solution than experienced designers...
jmucchiello
Hero
I've run that game. Character Sheets consisted of the character's name, a list of his possessions, a character background, and whatever notes the player took about the running storyline. Great stuff. Not really D&D though.diaglo said:
KB9JMQ
First Post
Well I like the game as is and think it works just fine as is.
So I am mostly comfortable with minor tweaks only.
I can live with some setting changes (no elves in this world) as long as I don't think the rules are being changed.
I would be very uncomfortable with a document of House Rules of any size that needed printed out, mostly because it would be confusing and would slow down the game everytime I had to look up a HR when I am already familiar with the base game.
So I am mostly comfortable with minor tweaks only.
I can live with some setting changes (no elves in this world) as long as I don't think the rules are being changed.
I would be very uncomfortable with a document of House Rules of any size that needed printed out, mostly because it would be confusing and would slow down the game everytime I had to look up a HR when I am already familiar with the base game.
sniffles
First Post
I agree with Thanee, and somewhat with Zappo. The house rules shouldn't be too extensive or complex, and they should have a good reason for existing.
I would be very turned off by someone who had a large volume of printed house rules. At that point you might as well call it a homebrew.
My biggest peeve regarding house rules is when they differ from GM to GM. That may sound like a silly complaint, but I play with the same group of people every week, and almost everyone in the group GMs some of the time. Most of them use the same house rules from one campaign to another, but we have one GM - a very good GM, mind you - who loves other peoples' house rules but generally runs his game RAW. I find that really frustrating. :\
I would be very turned off by someone who had a large volume of printed house rules. At that point you might as well call it a homebrew.
My biggest peeve regarding house rules is when they differ from GM to GM. That may sound like a silly complaint, but I play with the same group of people every week, and almost everyone in the group GMs some of the time. Most of them use the same house rules from one campaign to another, but we have one GM - a very good GM, mind you - who loves other peoples' house rules but generally runs his game RAW. I find that really frustrating. :\
IronWolf
blank
I am not a big fan of a lot of house rules. I like for a new player to drop into our game and be able to play without the need to read through a document of tweaks we have made. Because of that I try to avoid them where possible.
A lot of this probably stems from the fact I played in a game where there were a lot of house rules. Several of which didn't make a lot of sense (no stabilization checks was one of them I think). They also used the random charts from one of the realy old Dragons for critical hits and fumbles *and* a 20 was a critical hit and a 1 was a critical miss, not just threats. In that case the rules seemed to make little sense.
If I were to play in another game with a lot of house rules I would hope there were at least good reasons for the house rules and that they were actually adding to the game.
A lot of this probably stems from the fact I played in a game where there were a lot of house rules. Several of which didn't make a lot of sense (no stabilization checks was one of them I think). They also used the random charts from one of the realy old Dragons for critical hits and fumbles *and* a 20 was a critical hit and a 1 was a critical miss, not just threats. In that case the rules seemed to make little sense.
If I were to play in another game with a lot of house rules I would hope there were at least good reasons for the house rules and that they were actually adding to the game.
Emiricol
Registered User
Quasqueton said:
This is my max level of house rules comfort. Anything much more than that and I'll find another game or group. I usually find that major house rules fix what ain't broke, or break further what was only marginal to begin with. Rarely do major house rules (in my experience) add much to the game except more complexity.
Similar Threads
