Are GM creations "house rules"?

[Gargoyle]

IMO, a house rule is a game mechanic in addition to, or that conflicts with the RAW. Monsters, spells, etc aren't new game mechanics, they are content just like a description of your campaign world, that uses the game mechanics from the RAW. New monsters, magic items and spells could have the same impact as a house rule though, particularly spells. So if you are being conservative with house rules, I would think you should also be careful about adding new content.

However, the question I have for you, is what does it matter? Does it really benefit your table to run without house rules for an arbitrary amount of time before making changes?

I can see running one or two sessions with the RAW to get a feel for a new edition, but some house rules are so simple and have such little impact on the game that I don't think waiting is a good idea in all cases. And many house rules have an impact on character generation, which typically takes place only when you first start.

For instance, I have one house rule already with 5e: The RAW is you either choose to roll ability scores or use the array, while point buy is presented as a variant. I allow my players to roll for ability scores, but if they don't like their rolls they can use the default array. The effect of it is they have a chance to get exceptionally high or low ability scores, but still have the option of taking the standard array of numbers if they perceive their rolls as not fun. The DM's guide will likely have more options, perhaps even presenting the same house rule I'm using as a variant; but for now, this is technically a house rule.

It's a simple house rule that I bet a lot of people use without even thinking of it as a house rule. It can result in more powerful PC's on average, but while there is an impact, I don't think it's a huge one because it still doesn't violate bounded accuracy or change the mechanics of the game.

OTOH, a house rule like "You can increase ability scores past 20" would do just that. It's the sort of rule that I would avoid, and I'm guessing is the sort of thing you're seeking to avoid too. My thinking is that these type of rules are pretty easy to avoid if you wish to do so. The question to ask is "Does this rule directly violate something in the RAW, or is it just adding or modifying the rules in some way?" If it seems like a direct contradiction, it may not be a good house rule to add right away. Of course, even if the answer is no, it might still not be a good house rule and may have unforeseen implications; I agree it is wise to be conservative.

But I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. If a house rule is simple and doesn't make 5e into something it's not, but it makes your life easier and the game more fun, I'd go ahead and implement it, perhaps on a trial basis. Or at least, not be too rigid with the 1 year idea. I've noticed that with every edition of D&D, there are just some house rules that make too much sense not to use right away, and I don't see the point of living with a rule you don't like for an entire year just because it's official.

As an aside and a PSA: I'd also type up your house rules, preferably on a single sheet of paper, and hand it out to the players. I usually DM, but there is nothing I detest more as a player than discovering while I play that something I want to do won't work because of the DM's unwritten house rules.

 

[Celebrim]

I don't think there is really any argument on this front.

I do. I think that way because I've seen it argued differently. Things are more ambiguous in 3e because the item creation rules bless custom magic items, and the monster creation rules bless custom monsters, but even then I've seen wide disagreement over what was 'by the rules as written'.

For example, in 3e on these forums I've been accused of breaking the rules as written for:

a) Not having a range of encounter levels that exactly matches the suggested range and frequency of encounters in the DMG.
b) Having NPCs that don't obey wealth by level.
c) Not strictly adhering to the recommended wealth by level for PCs. For example, I've had it asserted to me that if I hid treasure so that there was a possibility it might not be found, then I was breaking the 3rd edition rules as written.
d) Any number of other things in the DMG that I read as 'guidelines' and they read as 'rules', or where they see no difference between a guideline and a rul.

In 1e I had disagreements with players if I had a monster that didn't exactly conform to the stat block in the MM. One player in particular believed he had a reasonable expectation that a monster of a certain appearance or verbal description conformed exactly to the MM entry, in every aspect including number encountered and so forth, and if it didn't I was as a DM breaking rules and cheating and should have announced any changes in the MM stat blocks prior to introducing them. You may consider that ludicrous, but I've seen variations on that in 3e as well. For example, I've had players on the forums upset that I asserted that a DM could create 3e monsters that broke the monster creation rules in terms of BAB, skill points, intelligence (animals with greater than 2 intelligence), number of feats and so forth. They weren't even happy with the idea of describing this in the entry as a racial bonus or unique racial feature, on the grounds that the game designers had clearly expected monsters to fall into certain ranges and it was wrong to have them fall outside them.

People have vastly different expectations about how the game 'works'.

 

[the Jester]

However, the question I have for you, is what does it matter? Does it really benefit your table to run without house rules for an arbitrary amount of time before making changes?

Personally, with a very few exceptions, I prefer to run a new edition by RAW for quite a while before I start house ruling. It lets me get to know the system and kind of feel out the designers' intentions on things. Also, rules systems usually feature interlocking parts that you might not expect to interact as they do, and house rules sometimes inadvertently mess with non-obvious balancing mechanisms and the like.

YMMV, and despite all this, I always directly import at least one of my house rules into every game (colorful critical hits).

 

[Evenglare]

[MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] if we define rules as what is written in the books then look at your examples......

All those things you mentioned
a) Not having a range of encounter levels that exactly matches the suggested range and frequency of encounters in the DMG.
b) Having NPCs that don't obey wealth by level.
c) Not strictly adhering to the recommended wealth by level for PCs. For example, I've had it asserted to me that if I hid treasure so that there was a possibility it might not be found, then I was breaking the 3rd edition rules as written.
d) Any number of other things in the DMG that I read as 'guidelines' and they read as 'rules', or where they see no difference between a guideline and a rul.

A)That's a house rule, it doesn't match the book
B)That's a house rule, it doesn't match the book
C)That's a house rule, it doesn't match the book
D)Unless it's specifically called out as a guideline, it's a rule.

That being said, it doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with how the book is written. If you want to stray from required NPC levels for spells, or use different frequency of encounter ranges or whatever, GREAT! But those are house rules because they break and change the assumptions of the core game which is what is written in the book. If you don't want to use house rules then go by the book, again, end of discussion. I don't know how this is so difficult to understand. If they give rules for creating monsters, you follow those rules to the T if you don't want to use house rules. If you don't agree with those rules and want to change something because you don't think it's balanced or whatever, that doesn't factor in this discussion here at all. I'm not saying house rules are good or bad, but given that OP doesn't want to use any house rules but wants to create his own stuff, he needs to follow the rules as written whether he likes it or not. On a personal factor I think it's a bit extreme and would never do something I blatantly disagreed with, BUT if I wanted to run a game with NO house rules as written then I simply don't have a say in the matter.

 

[Evenglare]

Also I'm going to go ahead and preempt an argument. If you think guidelines ARE house rules, then no you can not make new monsters, items, classes, races etc. Consider this as well, if you think guidelines are house rules and most D&D books state that the books themselves are guidelines then go ahead and find another game because by that definition you can't even think about playing the game without using house rules.

 

[Celebrim]

[MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] if we define rules as what is written in the books then look at your examples......

A)That's a house rule, it doesn't match the book
B)That's a house rule, it doesn't match the book
C)That's a house rule, it doesn't match the book
D)Unless it's specifically called out as a guideline, it's a rule.

The upshot of this viewpoint, is that Kings, Dukes, and other nobles either cannot be anything but the highest level characters in the region (even if boy kings), or else cannot own wealth above that available to a pauper. Thus, if you introduce even as much as a wealthy merchant to your game, it (in your opinion) doesn't match the book and is thus a house rule.

Somehow I think there will be some argument over whether or not the appearance of a wealthy merchant is a house rule.

I don't know how this is so difficult to understand.

Me neither. Even though I find it impossible to understand how people do not see suggested wealth by level as a guideline and not a rule, nonetheless your opinion is one I've repeatedly encountered.

If they give rules for creating monsters, you follow those rules to the T if you don't want to use house rules.

And again, I don't understand how people don't see what by following those rules to the T you can create any monster you can imagine, but there it is yet again.

So my point is that indeed there will be argument over what is a house rule.

If you don't agree with those rules and want to change something because you don't think it's balanced or whatever, that doesn't factor in this discussion here at all. I'm not saying house rules are good or bad, but given that OP doesn't want to use any house rules but wants to create his own stuff, he needs to follow the rules as written whether he likes it or not.

My point is that everyone uses house rules whether they like it or not. Even the idea that suggested wealth by level is a rule is itself a house rule. Moreover, I don't need to see each individual rule called out as a guideline. I consider the game to give a blanket affirmation that all of its rules are only guidelines, and further that anything not explicitly forbidden is permitted - and even the things explicitly forbidden are forbidden with the caveat that the rules shouldn't trump good judgment. Some however believe that everything that is not explicitly permitted is forbidden, that the guidelines are rules, and that the rules are in stone. Those are their house rules.

 

[Celebrim]

you can't even think about playing the game without using house rules.

My point exactly.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I have decided that in giving D&D 5E an honest go for a full year -- meaning, I will endeavor to run it consistently over the next year in an attempt to find out if it is The D&D For Me -- and one of the "rules" I made up for myself was that I would not house rule anything.

You're already in trouble: the 'Rulings not Rules' philosophy assumes that you /will/ house-rule things whenever doing so would make the game better for you. So a RAW 5e game /will/ have house rules.

 

[ExploderWizard]

D&D was created so that you can make up stuff that you think will be fun and share that stuff with your friends through the game. Only stop doing that if you no longer find it fun.

 

[Reynard]

You're already in trouble: the 'Rulings not Rules' philosophy assumes that you /will/ house-rule things whenever doing so would make the game better for you. So a RAW 5e game /will/ have house rules.

First of all, DM judgement calls during play are not house rules.

Second, I guess I wasn't clear by what I meant as "house rules." I was referring to something like increasing the frequency of feats/ability score increases, or changing the dual wielding rules, or any number of examples of tinkering with with the designed rules.

The reason is because it is important, IMO, to understand how the system works before trying to "improve" it. It would be very difficult to fix the death and dying rules, for example, without seeing how they work in practice and interact with the larger rule set.