Amount of DnD Tampering you're willing to tolerate...

[Ace]

When i satrted playing DND everybody had house rules so I am used to them by now.

Of all of the Editions 3e needs the least rules adjustments IMO however as I like to run with Wounds/Vitality, Defense instead of AC and an active defense roll (instead of 10+defense roll 2d10+defense) I had to put down a lot of changes.

Those plus my class hacks make DND very diferent in flavor allthough < sigh> the last time I ran <friday for the first time in a long time) I had to use mainly stock rules for the one shot.

 

[SableWyvern]

On the odd occassion that I play a PC, I'm happy to go with whatever the DM wants to do, as long as there's some intelligent thought behind it.

As a DM, I'm running with as few rule changes as possible, mainly because the reason I'm running d&d in the first place is that it's already giving me what I wanted for this particular campaign.

Edit: What I really don't like is when DMs make changes just because they can. I knew one DM who liked to introduce some wierd rule/system change into virtually every campaign he ran. While some of his concepts were potentially ok, ufortunately, the desire to be different outstripped his ability to implement balanced/workable/thoughtful changes.

 

[bondetamp]

If the changes fit the setting, then it is fine with me. I chose the most open / non-purist option as I see no reason to stick to the core rules for the sake of sticking to the core rules.

I also think that one of the reason that D&D sees so much more house rules than most other systems (as far as I can see) is that most other systems follow a specific setting. Some games are also rather open ended, in that many of the rules aren't really rules as much as suggestions.

 

[Zhure]

There are really two different kinds of rules. Campaign rules and game rules.

Campaign rules are designed to enhance the setting, and aren't necessarily mechanically oriented. Blue-eyed people can't be sorcerers. Half-orcs get +2 to Intimidate. These are things that helpd define and differentiate your world from some generic RPG setting. I like campaign rules as long as they're not overdone. Too many lead to confusion, but a few flavor-based rules changes can enhance a game.

Game rule changes usually suck. They're often put into play to redress some unbalance the DM sees, and usually lead down a slippery slope of confusion.

The rule of thumb I use is the 3x5 card. If you can't fit your house rules onto a 3x5 card, you should just write your own system.

Greg

 

[Eosin the Red]

Systems are meant to be modified.

I run a WoT game but use vitality/wounds from SW. I add PrC's that I like and that fit the campaign.

We also run modifed Hero System games and Just for Zhure, we have also built our own system that we often use for generic fantasy.

I haven't played with a group that didn't do some modifing of the rules in nearly a decade. Most of those fall into the Campaign Changes as Zhure mentioned.

 

[UnDfind]

Da rules

I try to keep the mechanics themsleves as close to the way they were written as possible. It's hard sometimes (like D20 Star Wars) when something's skill-based and the characters can easily roll in the high 40s by level 10 if they focus on a skill. I've changed DCs around a bit, but that's about all. New races, feats and skills aren't really bending the rules because they simply supplement them.

I dunno, I guess I'm pretty Lawful when it comes to the rules, but there's just not much to change. It's like when I first read through Alternity rules...those rules makes sense. Why change a good thing?

 

[Ziggy]

Its important to remember that D&D is a game, not a simulation. Thus the mismatch between rules and reality is not necessarily a problem, just simplifications and changes done in order to make the game more playable. Thus changing rules to make the game more realistic is IMHO pretty stupid.

OTOH there are situations the rules don't cover, or even constrain the characters from doing what they want to do. In these instances I have no qualms with changing the rules on the fly, as long as the ruling makes sense both for the GM and the players.

.Ziggy

 

[Tsyr]

Other.

I'll take any amount of changes to flavor, no problem.

I'll take any amount of tampering with DnD that doesn't strip it of the two elements I consider "core" to DnD... class and level based.

 

[novyet]

I don't really mind if the dm decides to change or modify things, if it means everyone has fun, then I'm all for it.

 

[ninthcouncil]

The campaign I'm playing in currently has been very heavily tampered with. For instance, none of us have the faintest idea how magic works, and hadn't seen any evidence till last week that it existed at all. One player stormed out in a huff early on, but from my point of view tampering is fine as long as it's consistent, transparent to the players, and doesn't make the game unplayable. The campaign I'll be running myself soon will be moderately tampered with.

For what it's worth, 3rd is the first flavour of D&D I've played at all since discovering that there were other systems out there about 20 years ago. It's good enough to be usable, but it still has a few aspects that I have problems with, so tampering is inevitable. Anyway, the best games tend to be tailored to a particular world - if you want this from D&D, you're going to have to tamper, otherwise you might as well stay in Greyhawk, and I'd rather not be doing that...