Do Adjustments To Core RAW Often Meet With Resistance In Your RPGing Group?

[frankthedm]

RPGA Weath Standards

what are those?

 

[Henry]

We don't have this problem 90% of the time in our campaigns; each GM knows that when it's their turn again, they can change rules as they see fit. Players will only make a fuss if the proposed change is just too far-reaching; for instance, all fighters lose bonus feats and have a poor BAB increase; magic doesn't work here, but there are plenty of creatures running around with DR 20/magic; or something similar. Mostly, other than the occasional feigned complaint, we're fine with a GM's house-rules, because the GM is still looking out for us to have fun.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Yes. When 3E first came out, we made lots of house rules and got burned pretty bad with our bad decision making. Then we switched to pure RAW and things got much better. We must not be great designers. Now, because of this, my Players are very resistant to house rules as a whole. We've got less than 15 current changes to the RAW. I'm thinking by the time the next campaign starts, we might be willing to tweak a few more things, though.

 

[JustaPlayer]

Not changes to RAW per se, but when our DM changes them one time then tries to use them as RAW the next time. The key to any rules change is consistency.

 

[EricNoah]

Significant changes, yes -- and with good reason. Everyone really needs to be on board and willing to do good record-keeping (print out house rules documents etc.) in order for it to work smoothly. I expect a little bit of a hard sell.

 

[3d6]

No. Which is good, because I like tinkering with the rules. At one time, I had a 25-page house rules document, although I've pared that back to a single page (for obvious reasons).

 

[The Shaman]

Some changes I discuss with the players in advance - others I just make unilaterally. I encourage feedback at all times. I have about two pages of house rules for both d20 Modern and Traveller and I can only think of one instance where the players did not support a rule change when it was presented to them for comment.

So, I'd call that a "no."

 

[buzzard]

Heck, most of my players don't know the rules well enough to notice when I do change something. They just like chewing the fat, rolling dice, and making off color jokes. D&D is something of an adjunct.

buzzard

 

[Psion]

Nope.

Good change, bad change... I'm the guy with the screen.

(Apologies to Ash...)

 

[Dragonbait]

We've never tried to make sweeping changes, but minor stuff is normally accepted, especially if I bring it up (i'm the defacto GM).
For instance, my group likes the new negative hp system presented in Aracana Unearthed/Evolved that I introduced.
Other minor things might be max hp up to a certain level. Intimidate can sometimes be Strength-based rather than Charisma-based. Little things like that. I suppose if I made sweeping changes, as long as I was specific and had reasons why I made the changes, it would be accepted.