Does anyone actually use house rules?

[Tequila Sunrise]

Every time I try to run a game with house rules, something goes wrong. For example I recently started a group of gamers in NYC--the idea was to get a few of us together, play a monthly game and maybe go bar hopping every once in a while. We met up at a restaurant and a few of us pitched ideas for games that we'd like to run. I told everyone that I was considering running a goofy OotS type game and I got the most number of 'thumbs ups' from all the game ideas. Later that week I declared that each potential DM should write up a short blurb on the game they wanted to run including playstyle and any important house rules. I described my game as "lighthearted and rules-loose" and followed up with a link to my house rules because I don't like to catch players off guard with several "oh, I house ruled that!" None of the other prospective DMs wrote anything about the games they wanted to run, but lo and behold when I tallied the votes my game was at the bottom of everyone's list!

It makes me disapointed but the only conclusion I can draw is that my house rules turned everybody off to my game. I love to DM but there are a few things about the game that I just can't accept as-are when I have direct control over them. My house rules are not strange or restrictive by any stretch of the imagination and yet they seem to repulse players at every turn. Does this happen to anyone else?

 

[Nifft]

My experience with NYC gamers is that they're often too busy to do extra-curricular activities.

But to answer your question: yes, people actually use House Rules.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Arkhandus]

......I'd just say that my moderately-house-rules-heavy Rhunaria campaign has ran for over a year without problems, and my slightly-house-ruled Oriental Adventures/Rokugan campaign ran for over a year also without problems before that.

The latter only ended because of too many players' schedules changing, no longer allowing us all to meet on the same day for gaming (thus the start of the Rhunaria campaign some months later, with a mostly-new group).

I expect the Rhunaria campaign to go on to epic levels probably, though it'll likely take another year or two (sometimes we can only meet once or twice a month rather than our usual 1/week; so the campaign has actually lasted more like a year and a half or two years, but actual play has been more like a year-long 1/week game). And I hope to get my Rokugan campaign started back up someday, if enough folks can find the time for it again.

 

[Arkhandus]

Also: I'd agree with Nifft about NYC, hehe. Maybe if you lived somewhere else it would be less of a problem. Or maybe you should start up a game over OpenRPG or another virtual tabletop program?

Merely making a trip to the game location in NYC is probably time-consuming and/or bothersome for some folks.

 

[DreamChaser]

And, honestly, you created a ton of house rules--many of which appear to fix peeves you may have with the game but not one other person at the table may have actually been all that concerned about--and dropped them all at once. They don't appear to be campaign related but rather "things I don't like about 3e that you have to not like too to play in my game."

I have pretty much stopped trying to do this kind of house rule without working through it with an established group where I discuss it with them first. A new group generally starts from the core books and goes from there.

For example, I loathe...
-- half-races as separate races
-- the "giant" type (they are just large or bigger humanoids...the only reason the type exists is so that ogres are immune to charm person)
-- elves taking 100 years to mature
-- paladins as a base class
-- barbarians as a class at all
-- the lack of flavor of the sorcerer class
-- the randomness of ability score generation (but I also dislike point buy)

I could continue this list but when I start a new game with a new group, all of these generally stay in place.

Also, I can't help but notice that while many areas of your house rules do increase the power of the characters (all the best features from multiclassing, for example) they perhaps do so too much. While other areas (your ability score generation method) seem punitive (because the highest possible score is 16).

On the other hand, I have an entire handbook dedicated to one of my campaigns, an Oriental Adventures type campaign called Sasauri (which is loosely a combination of the Tsurunani Empire from the Riftwar books and Rokugun). This includes a huge number of house rules, but they are all internally consistent to the campaign setting...

For example,
-- Only 3 races (human, with multiple clans; hengeyokai; and naga, greensnake) all of which work out to a basic ECL of +1
-- a required feat (from a list) for clan humans as their bonus
-- bonus ranks in Knowledge (nobility)
-- no clerics, druids, paladins, rangers, or sorcerers (class list = barbarian (even though I hate the class), bard, fighter (not samurai cause I think the class in CW sucks), monk, ninja, rogue (yes both), shaman (spirit shaman), shugenja, witch (warlock), wizard (wu-jen, which is not the wu-jen of CAr but instead are wizards with 1 of 3 specializations)
-- specific list of weapons, armor, and enchantments for said equipment.

I did start a game with this campaign, including new players. In this case, however, the fact that the handbook laid it all out AND demonstrated the cultural logic for the changes (paladins don't really make sense), it was all well received.

Just my thoughts. Sorry your suggestions didn't fly.

DC

 

[XCorvis]

And, honestly, you created a ton of house rules--many of which appear to fix peeves you may have with the game but not one other person at the table may have actually been all that concerned about--and dropped them all at once.

I have a game with even more house rules than this, but my players like it OK. My house rules are mostly for specific things, like "Tumble is an opposed check" and "everyone gets a bonus skill point". Your house rules in the first paragraph for "attacker always rolls" and "no opposed checks" are about the most sweeping changes you can possibly make to D&D. They come up constantly, nearly every other roll, and for folks who don't see anything wrong with the original system, they seem like arbitrary and annoying changes. They don't change game balance or even flavor, just how the game works.

You could ask your group about your house rules. I bet if you took out those two, there would be more interest.

 

[the Jester]

Yeah, I have a few house rules. We use 'em.

 

[Drowbane]

Does anybody not use Houserules?

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

I use houserules, and haven't had any problems.

Part of the thing is... I don't have as many as you do. I checked out your houserules, and it seems kinda at odds with the "rules loose" that you claim.

I'd also have to say that folks just don't like doing more work than they need to. And having to keep track of houserules is work. One here, or another there, it's no big thing. But to start out having to learn all the different rule exceptions, and have to keep track of them in play? Bleh.

Especially if you're pitching it as an OotS kind of thing. If you compare it to OotS, people are going to be expecting it to _be_ OotS, with the serial numbers filed off. And from what I've read of it, it's pretty grounded in the Rules as Written kind of thing.

Related to that, is the whole rules mastery thing. While some people groove on learning every little rule, its exceptions, and how it interacts with everything else, there's plenty of people (like myself) that only care about rules mastery to the point that we don't have to think about 'em.

I could care less about AoO, grapple, and all that. I tend to avoid making characters that are going to rely on fiddly rules (although I'm trying to get the hang of Tripping with my current d20 Rome character). House rules represent a loss of rules mastery, which means more work. And work is bleh. I've already put in the work I feel like regarding d20, and don't feel like a whole bunch more just because some guy doesn't think Barbarians shouldn't be illiterate for example.

Lastly... there's a trust issue. If these guys don't know you, it's going to be a lot harder to sell 'em on adopting your houserules. My experience has been that if I'm looking to get together and toss some dice and have fun, and some guy hits me right off the bat with houserules? I'm not going to like playing with him. His houserules might be perfectly fine, but I don't know him and I don't know what kind of person he's like. My experience has been that people like that are a lot more controlling and obsessed with the rules than I am, and that just isn't fun for me.

Having a few months of play together, getting to know which person likes to always play females, which one is the ninja, who's the troublemaker, who's going to be worried about the rules, then I'm willing to start thinking about a game with houserules. I know how much fun I'm already having with the group, I have an idea what the GM's style is and how the houserules are going to affect that, and I've got a feel for the other players and whether the changes are going to interact with their styles of play.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Thanks for the input everyone! I just did a little editing on my HRs to make them more player friendly...if I ever DM a 3e game before 4e comes out.

My experience with NYC gamers is that they're often too busy to do extra-curricular activities.

Too busy and often, just plain weird.

And, honestly, you created a ton of house rules--many of which appear to fix peeves you may have with the game but not one other person at the table may have actually been all that concerned about--and dropped them all at once. They don't appear to be campaign related but rather "things I don't like about 3e that you have to not like too to play in my game."

I don't expect others to have the same peeves but I do expect players to go with my rules just like I go with the RAW or different HRs of other DMs when I'm a player. It's really dissapointing to think that so many people are resistant to a set of HRs meant to make the game simpler and less arbitrary. Are people really that resistant to new ideas? This makes me feel like just dropping the game.

Part of the thing is... I don't have as many as you do. I checked out your houserules, and it seems kinda at odds with the "rules loose" that you claim.

I call it 'rules loose' because of my first house rule--the books are guidelines, not rules. I suppose that any addition of rules will likely be viewed as rules heavy though even if they make the game easier. *sigh*

I'd also have to say that folks just don't like doing more work than they need to. And having to keep track of houserules is work. One here, or another there, it's no big thing. But to start out having to learn all the different rule exceptions, and have to keep track of them in play? Bleh.

I've been assuming that others will know that I don't expect them to know all my rules...you know what happens when we assume, don't we Well I went back and made a note that I don't expect anyone to remember my rules but me.

Especially if you're pitching it as an OotS kind of thing. If you compare it to OotS, people are going to be expecting it to _be_ OotS, with the serial numbers filed off. And from what I've read of it, it's pretty grounded in the Rules as Written kind of thing.

Good point. I've been thinking of OotS from just the "make stupid jokes about game mechanics in-character" perspective, but I guess there is that element of RAW weirdness too.