Does anyone actually use house rules?

[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.

 

[Knight-of-Roses]

I use house rules in my campaign as well, quite successfully.

There are about two pages of them and over half are setting specific changes and the rest are designed to give the players more options.

 

[jdrakeh]

I have never met, in more than fifteen years of roleplaying as a hobbyist, anybody who plays without house rules (I've met several people who claim to not use house rules, though upon anything resembling close inspection, those claims always fall apart rather quickly).

 

[Infiniti2000]

I have never met, in more than fifteen years of roleplaying as a hobbyist, anybody who plays without house rules (I've met several people who claim to not use house rules, though upon anything resembling close inspection, those claims always fall apart rather quickly).

Exactly. There are a number of rules situations where it would be "impossible" for someone to claim they are not using a houserule.

In any case, I also use a number of houserules, but they are about protecting the balance of the game and the campaign world. A huge set of houserules like that linked in the first post would put me off a lot because it changes the game drastically, and for reasons having nothing to do with what I feel is entirely within the purview of the DM. In other words, people want to get together to play D&D, not something else. You should have perhaps billed it as a d20 game based loosely on D&D.

 

[Griffith Dragonlake]

You should have perhaps billed it as a d20 game based loosely on D&D.

This might be the key. It's one thing to develop new races, classes, skills, feats, equipment, spells, magic items, monsters, and deities. It's another thing to state which WotC optional rules or variants are used (or a reputable 3rd party). And still another to state how you've changed the d20 core or engine. The latter is what tells you whether it's a collection of house rules or a new d20 (or OGL) game.

Also, back in the OD&D days every referee houseruled their games and it was expected. However I noticed that with successive editions, the expectations and/or tolerance for house rules seemed to have decreased. I've had a number of “if it ain't broke don't fix it” discussions in my DM career and the frequency and passion have definitely been greater with 3x than it was with previous editions.

Having said that, I've also noticed a willingness amongst some players to try out some d20/OGL games e.g. Conan RPG and Iron Heroes. So maybe your results might be different if you pitch your campaign as a d20 or OGL game.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Yes.



That is to say, far too many. Most likely. Oh well.

 

[The Green Adam]

First and foremost I feel I must represent as a native New Yorker, veteran GM and all-around major league house rules fan. Now granted, I'm not a big fan of rules heavy games in general and most of my house rules are designed to make things run smoother, faster and more cinematically. One could say, my house rules are there to simplify and lighten the regular rules.

AD

 

[Herobizkit]

House rules are used all over the place in my campaigns, both the ones I run and the ones I play in. In most cases, the House Rules are generally variant rules from the Unearthed Arcana, or some random 3rd party thing that Looks Neat and we try it for a little while.

The list of optional rules that the OP had written totally turned me off; I probably wouldn't have enjoyed playing under such stipulations. I like options, not limitations, in my campaign worlds.