[Ari Marmell's blog] To House Rule or Not to House Rule

[mach1.9pants]

I am not discussing balancing I am discussing house rules. You can house rule for anything not just balance. Your original question was 'At what point does allowing an "expansion" book or "official accessory" into your campaign become a "house rule"' and I answered it badly. EDIT: my answer was not specific enough, sorry.

IMO if it is an official and core product, not allowing it is a house rule (3E = 3 core books; 4E = a lot more books!). If it is an official yet not core book, then letting it in your campaign is optional, and therefore either letting it in or not is a house rule.

"So now, to PRESERVE balance in 4E (which was the point of NOT "house ruling" in Ari's original article) we need to "House Rule" to NOT allow an accessory product? " yes that is correct, if you are disallowing a CORE product that is a house rule, whether it is balanced or not. In the first go at skill challenges WotC got it totally wrong, the math was the worst I have seen in a pro RPG product in the last dozen years! However it was in the DMG and if you changed the numbers you are house ruling, balance does not come into it.

I am in no way saying that you have to stick to what ever is published but as soon as you start banning or modifying CORE (and the definition of core is the creators/publishers/etc) then you are house ruling, IMO.

Does that make better sense? In 3E letting in Bof9S classes is a house rule, it is not CORE. In 4E banning the PHB2 classes is a house rule (4E PHB2 is a CORE product). However IMO in 4E using the 'no magic items' optional rule in the DMG2 is a house rule because it is presented as an optional rule not the standard.

Apologies if I thought you didn't get my point, I thought you were saying that I thought the 3E splat books etc were CORE, which they are not.

 

[Desdichado]

Funny. We are playing and running Pathfinder to escape the power creep in 3.5.

Funny. We are playing and running 3.5 (in part) to avoid the power creep of Pathfinder.

More to the point, the game balance in 3.5 is incompatible with adventure material written that does not incorporate said dozens of splat books.

What adventure material? Unless you were playing some really bizarre and esoteric adventure material that I've never even heard of, much less seen, adventure material didn't even assume any splat books were in play, much less dozens.

But the problem of power creep in 3.5 with respect to published adventure material is objectively true. That's what I'm talkin 'bout Willis.

Oh, it's objective, is it? There's data to back up this assertion?

Let's see it. I'm all ears.

So - is that a House Rule that allows those books in -- or is it my House Rule that doesn't? If I want to allow some of the Spell Compendium, but not all of it (Orb spells, goodbye), is that a House Rule or not?

Who cares what label you assign to it? I asked why you're so hung up on the label, and rather than answer, you just asked yet again if it's a house rule or not. Sure, it's a house rule. Who cares?

That's my point: once you get to that stage when it comes to accessories, you are setting sail for the Land of House Rules, like it or not...

That's a completely nonsensical assertion. You certainly aren't there, "whether you like it or not." If you don't like to be there, then don't make any houserules. You certainly don't have to. You even said so yourself earlier in this same post I'm replying to. Get everyone on the same page about accessories in play.

 

[bagger245]

Sorry I don't buy it, and my current Sword & Sorcery Campaign based on the Ancient Greece doesn't buy it either.

I'm pretty sure Jason, Hercules, Perseus, Paris, and Achilles lived in a supernatural superhero world of their own. I have no problem integrating all of that and more into my game.

So maybe it's preconceptions that are causing the problem. You see 4e as a Manga Superhero game, I don't and don't treat it as such. So it works fine for me and my group.

The heroes you listed are demi-gods in literature. So of course 4e works fine for that style.

 

[Nightson]

Funny. We are playing and running Pathfinder to escape the power creep in 3.5.

Mystic Theurge? Can't seem to find it.

Check on page 387

 

[D'karr]

The heroes you listed are demi-gods in literature. So of course 4e works fine for that style.

Jason & Paris were demigods? That's a new one for me. The fact that they are in literature and that I can have a swords & sorcery game that emulates that literature was my point.

Something that was claimed as impossible.

Close but no cigar...

 

[Orius]

I never did a lot of serious houseruling. The closest I came was compiling NWPs and kits in the late 2e days, and adapting all the NWPs in non-PHB/Skills and Powers sources to the Player's option rules. I thought the PO NWP system was superior to the standard one, and I wanted to use it instead. Also, I wanted to complile all those kits from the complete series and Dragon and such, merge the redundant ones (like all the Noble/Peasant/Pirate/Swashbuckler/etc. variations that were all basically the same), and adapt them to the PO approach.

I dropped that when 3e came out. First, I switched completely to 3e, and secondly, 3e's skill system was a lot like what I wanted to do, but much more streamlined and easier for me to work with. You know those Knowledge/Craft/Profession/etc skills in 3e? In 2e they were all seperate, individual proficiencies. The skills in 3e kept things simpler and less complex, and as a result I never finished what I was working on and threw the notes out.

So the answer is to interlink the blogs and the forums more? That helps - thanks! It's fairly easy to output the data in all manner of ways - it's just a case of what would annoy people and what wouldn't.

Sounds good to me. I could have been the first to post to Ari's blog yesterday, but I didn't because I felt the forums would give me a bigger audience.

Up to and mostly including 2e the rules were presented somewhat as guidelines - OK, here's the system; it's loose, somewhat modular, yet solid enough to withstand some changes: now take it and make it work for you, and have fun. And we did. I'd hazard a guess that among those of us on these boards who play 1e none of us are playing by the exact same rule-set, and so what? Yet we still identify as playing 1e.

With 3e and since came a shift to the rules being presented as Rules, with tinkering (outside of a few limited areas) being at first subtly and later not so subtly discouraged. So the original writer, being used to tinkering all over the place with 2e, had to mostly put away the toolbox. Much of this is due to the 3e (and later) systems being much tighter - unlike earlier systems they played perfectly well as written provided you wanted your game to play that way. If not, the later systems were (are) nowhere near as forgiving of tweaks and changes due to what have been termed "knock-on effects": changing one thing here means something goes sideways there and that in turn causes something over in the corner to explode. And some of it might be a logical business decision: years-later expansions will sell better if everyone's still pretty much using the system as written rather than having tinkered it into unrecognizability.

Well, 1e was also house ruled because players/DM liked some of the rules but not all of it. So they went in and fixed what they didn't like. Same went for 2e. Part of that was because some of the rules were added without thinking about how they affected other rules, so the system at times felt clunky. I remember the term for the late 2e rules was "kludgy".

The design philosophy for the original 3e rules was basically to go into the system and hammer out the various systems and tweak them to work together more smoothly. This is where balance first came in, but from my observations, people house ruled AD&D because they felt that system was unbalanced and they wanted to fix it. So balance may have been far more central to game design from 3e on, but it seems to have long been a concern with players anyway.

This concern about labels: core, official, whatnot... another thing I've never gotten.

Different issue IMO. When WotC labels something "official" or "core", some DMs probably feel it makes it harder for them to control what new material gets used in a campaign. Especially with the "core" label, because sometimes there's a connotation to that that says, "This isn't optional". Early 3e rules didn't feel like that to me, since there was an approach which said, "here's a bunch of stuff a DM can pick from to add to his campaign". However, when 4e releases a whole series of Core Rulebooks, it feels like there's an expectation to some people that the DM will make room for whatever the players want to use in their campaigns, and they don't like that.

 

[MACLARREN]

There are great aspects of all editions of D&D and other RPG's out there in the market today. As someone earlier in this thread has mentioned, I don't know if there is a system that is perfect and we all try to house rule to make the systems for what works in each or our own perspectives. We stick more to the D20 based systems and have even delved in to playing 4e for 2 marathon sessions. We found that that game was not for us, however, we did find certain aspects from 4e that were very good and that did make sense as well.

So with what we wanted, we decided we were going to build what we termed 5e. This went on for about 2 months. Group of 8 solid gamers that all have been playing for at least 20 years and everyone is exceptional players and knows the rules. The debating and starting with no base to build it from, created a lot of unwanted pain so we pulled the plug on it as some peoples opinions felt slighted in the process and took things personally in the design and best for us to do. Good move for us.

So, we played a Conan campaign for about 10 levels until we made a decision to change after ending that campaign. Conan allowed us to develop a feeling of playing that we termed "fast and loose." The rules are there for guidelines and think outside the box and work together to determine how to make something out of the ordinary work. You have to have a lot of trust in the DM to roll with the punches but knowing that rules don't cover it all was a start and DM and players working together i best outcome when the rules fall apart. There was also frustration with 3.5 and 4e magic with our DM and some of the players. In our opinion, spells that always seemed to take away what other classes could do neutered the need for those classes (IE- Knock). We also did not like spells that gave all the answers the easy way. So Conan was a nice fix while we thought about things and we utilized active defense with armor as DR, Parry, Dodge, and AP values for weapons. We all thought we would hate it at first but grew to love it. So, now time to go back to drawing board.

We decide we want to reevaluate, so we determine why not take that which we like from everything we know and form it into the house ruled game we like? We based our new game on 3.5, PF, Trailblazer, Conan and 4e taking parts of each to build it. We also based it in Midnight setting that is modified for a reason that good Clerics do exist with ties to celestial beings that were trapped in the world when Izzy won and the old gods disappeared. Short simple explanation here but way more to it and I run the cleric that is tough as I am always a liability.

So here is what we developed:

Action Points- TB style and yes we were all skeptical here but combat reactions work in play

Classes- TB for most part and we developed a Marshal that is awesome. Ranger has 3 paths-the TB TWF, Archer, Sirmisher (Scout from 3.5) and can I say that Fighter is like a crack cocaine addiction to play and in line.

Skills- PF

Feats- PF but modified due to Armor as DR, etc

Combat- Conan (DR, AP, Active defense, Parry Dodge, weapon values), PF- CMD and CMB for Grapple etc.

Spells- PF (descriptions) 4e Templates for simplicity and 4e ideas on save ends spells but not with a 10 or higher, spells that attack require attack and defense rolls, conditions updated and more condition options (Magic Missile still hits without roll) Trailblazer spell lists, spell levels for multiclassing and 10 minute rests to gain back Rote spells. Use encounter (simple), Controlled (goes until extended rest), and ritual spells instead of round or minute durations. Use PF spell descriptions. Heal spells are gone for most part as the 10 minute rest allows you to regain Hp's but no real way to gain them in combat but Armor as DR is counter. No scrying, teleport or easy way to do things. May find ways sometime but not from the get go.

Monsters and DM- 4e philosophy to most degree. They do not follow same rules as us and lots of work to DM in trust here. Ours has always balanced things somehow. Our CR's have always been about 3 levels above what is recommended so he balances things on his own and on the fly. It works for us and we don't know every monster stat or what we are up agains which adds to the fun IMO.

There is way more to it and what is nice is, we have one book compiled with all of our rolls i that is about 225 pages and we only reference it at the table. Played one 3 day session with it and our game has finally come around to the type of game we all enjoy. Lets just say, the fighter will shine at all levels as well as all classes. House ruling has worked for us but may not for you.

 

[Rechan]

Different issue IMO. When WotC labels something "official" or "core", some DMs probably feel it makes it harder for them to control what new material gets used in a campaign. Especially with the "core" label, because sometimes there's a connotation to that that says, "This isn't optional".

Except that the DM could have said "This is not in my game" to anything from the 3e Core too. No spellcasters (or whatever) for instance. No halfings or gnomes. Anything in the 3e core was optional too.

However, when 4e releases a whole series of Core Rulebooks, it feels like there's an expectation to some people that the DM will make room for whatever the players want to use in their campaigns, and they don't like that.

Emphasis mine.

Honestly, I believe a DM should be doing that because that's what the player wants to play. It doesn't matter if it comes from a core or non core or whatever - if the DM's campaign is so inflexible that he won't make room for what a player wants, then I'd have to make a value judgment about that DM. It's the players' campaign too.

The caveat here is that things are omitted for stylistic/tone choices. Sure, a DM saying no to a light hearted prankster gnome in a RAVENLOFT game makes sense because it fits the tone of the game. Or if he thinks it's broken or will disrupt his game, by all means. But if the DM is just excluding or unwilling to make room because either 1) he just doesn't like that Thing, or 2) can't or won't think of a way that fits in his world... that's A Problem with the DM, not the material, IMO.

Almost anything, with enough care, can be slipped into any setting.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Except that the DM could have said "This is not in my game" to anything from the 3e Core too. No spellcasters (or whatever) for instance. No halfings or gnomes. Anything in the 3e core was optional too.

Emphasis mine.

Honestly, I believe a DM should be doing that because that's what the player wants to play. It doesn't matter if it comes from a core or non core or whatever - if the DM's campaign is so inflexible that he won't make room for what a player wants, then I'd have to make a value judgment about that DM.

The caveat here is that things are omitted for stylistic/tone choices. Sure, a DM saying no to a light hearted prankster gnome in a RAVENLOFT game makes sense because it fits the tone of the game. Or if he thinks it's broken or will disrupt his game, by all means. But if the DM is just excluding or unwilling to make room because either 1) he just doesn't like that Thing, or 2) can't or won't think of a way that fits in his world... that's A Problem with the DM, not the material, IMO.

Almost anything, with enough care, can be slipped into any setting.

There are certain things that do just not fit into some settings. It is the responsibility of the players and the DM to be on the same page about what type of game a particular campaign will be.

If the DM suggests running a Hyborean campaign, the players like the idea and then one of them shows up with a warforged paladin, then I don't think the problem is with the DM.

 

[Mark Hope]

I've always seen a distintion between "official" supplements and houserules. I'd say there were three levels at play here: core rules, supplements and house rules. I think it's all down to personal definitions, though - for some folks the inclusion/exclusion of a supplement might be deemed a house rule. For others, it's not. We would always decide on which core rules, supplements and house rules were in use in any game, viewing each separately.

I house rule. A lot. Always have done. And (moreso with the d20 era) I use supplements and 3rd-party material a lot. My current D&D game is Pathfinder for core, with stuff from 3.5, Conan d20, Malhavoc, Necromancer Games, and Green Ronin all thrown into the mix, in addition to a bunch of house rules. It's a glorious mish-mash of stuff that gives us the kind of play experience that we want.

As for Ari's original post, I felt kinda sad for him reading it. I've been there - been worried about whether things are balanced or not - and moved on from it as soon as I started to feel it cramping my creative freedom. The freedom to go wild is part of what makes DMing a joy for me and I'd hate to feel like I had to hold myself to some imagined standard, particularly if that standard made me feel like I couldn't cut loose when I wanted to. Balance has its place, to be sure, but as DMs we need to be able to step out of bounds and fly by the seat of our pants. For me at least, that feeling of "no safety net" is kinda exhilarating. I'd hate to lose it.

I'll echo the poster (forgot who - sorry!) who suggested aiming for a little looser feel in your home games and catching some of that clear air again. Who knows, it might bleed over into your published work, and for the better .