"Exceptional" House Rules

Fenes

First Post
(Cross posted from Blog)

DMs are often faced with the question whether or not they should house rule something. That maybe be an entire subsystem like magic, or a rule, like grappling, or something a lot more specific, like the amount of skill points for a class, or the prequisites for a prestige class.

I think that often, DMs are caught in "system thinking", and approach all house rules with the same view - as general, wide spread and lasting changes. That's good when house ruling entire subsystems. If one replaces vancian magic/encounter powers with a drain-based system it affects the whole campaign, maybe the whole setting. Such house rules need to be thought through, and tested for unforeseen consequences.

However, when dealing with the "exceptional" house rules, this may be less than optimal. If a player just wants something changed so he can do something with his character - enter a prestige class or get some daily power from another class without spending the feat - then there's often no need to create a new subsystem for that. Instead one can get good results by treating the wish of the player as exactly what it is - a wish for an exception to the rules without changing the rules.

In such cases, the DM (provided he agrees with the change) has a lot less troubles if he simply allows what's wanted as an exception. If the party fighter's player would want his PC to be able to cast fireball 1/day, then all that's needed is to consider if the results of this exact change are unbalancing or harming the game. One doesn't need to consider other hypothetical changes and their effects if the players understand that just because Bob the fighter (and only this PC, not every fighter) may be able to cast fireball (for whatever fluff reason all are ok with) doesn't mean Jack the Wizard can get healing spells.

I would also advise to run such exceptions by the players of the campaign the PC is in, to see if all are ok with it. It may be prompting similar wishes from the other players, which can be dealt with at the same occasion, and in the end, everyone may be a bit more happy with the game thanks to the added flexibilty, without the DM having to add an entire new house rule that may lead to broken combos and maybe more house rules - since Bill the Better Fighter might be unbalanced by the ability to cast fireball, while Bob wasn't.

So, by treating some exceptions as what they are - exceptions, not general changes of rules - a campaign often can be customised to be more fun without too much work, or too many issues. And without those exceptions, being limited to the specific PCs they were allowed for, carrying over into the next campaign, or to the next PC.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I’ve become big on way of thinking. If a player wants something exceptional, I’ll do my best to accommodate it with a few caveats: (1) You’re going to have to pay for it and expect I’ll err on the side of overcharging. (2) I reserve the right to adjust things on-the-fly. (3) This is no guarantee that any other PC will be allowed the same exceptions. Choose an original exception instead.
 

I'm all for exceptional house rules almost all of the time. Especially if it's fluff over crunch. Something that works for a character is much more important to me than trying to make it system perfect. I also tend to balance EVERYTHING else in the world to higher powers. If I give a PC something OP, my players can usually expect an evening bonus and monsters to get tougher.
 

From experience, I can tell you that although it seems like fun for "a" player to have something really cool and customized for his character that may or may not be totally broken, it really wrecks the future of that particular game.

In fact, that doooooms a campaign and that DM.

Here's how:
Player 1 (plays a fighter) whines to his DM about not being able to have fun within the current rule system so he wants something for his character to do that's totally broken.
Player 2 (also plays a fighter) feels totally cheated because the DM is breaking the rules for one guy, but not for him and obviously not to the same degree..because there's no way to "equal things out in a system" of untested exceptions.
Player 3 (a guy who joins the group later, who plays a fighter): Player 3 finds out that everyone else in the group has their characters in a completely broken and exception-based rule-set that has nothing to do with continuity in a world or campaign logic..it was based completely on one player whining to his DM about not being able to do something totally broken, and the DM waffled.
Players 4-6 (playing wizard, rogue, cleric respectively) realize that only the player who WHINED THE MOST got this broken exception to his character, so obviously they're going to be resentful and this game is DOOMED.

Not a slippery slope, becasue I've seen it happen numerous times.

I've joined games in the middle of situations like that. NO FUN.

I've DMed games where players whined and whined and whined and whined and whined and whined and whined (is that enough whining? evidently not for some players) and whined about not being able to create some fun for himself unless he's the only guy allowed to be the exception to the rules and the DM IS A BAD DM IF HE DOESN'T ALLOW IT.

I've been the DM who's waffled on stuff like that and seen how it destroys campaigns, games and friendships.


Sure, some exceptions are ok..but if it can't be applied to ALL characters, then it shouldn't be done. One player whining to be the exception sounds a lot like the guy who graffiti's his neighbor's fence, but then gripes that his fence got graffiti'ed and that the town is going to crap.


[edit: something I forgot to add: If the DM's world/campaign doesn't have enough fluff/role-playing stuff for the characters to "customize" their characters so that they're whining and crybabying about the rule-set and coveting to be the exception to the rules as a substitute, the campaign is also doomed. In that sense it doesn't matter what a cowardly waffle the DM is on exceptions because he's obviously not presenting an interesting enough game for his players.]

jh
 
Last edited:



I think that often, DMs are caught in "system thinking", and approach all house rules with the same view - as general, wide spread and lasting changes.
I wholeheartedly agree. A lot of DM's seem to think in terms of global rule changes when localized exceptions would work better.

So, by treating some exceptions as what they are - exceptions, not general changes of rules - a campaign often can be customised to be more fun without too much work, or too many issues. And without those exceptions, being limited to the specific PCs they were allowed for, carrying over into the next campaign, or to the next PC.

As I like to say "never make a rule when a ruling will suffice".
 
Last edited:


From experience, I can tell you that although it seems like fun for "a" player to have something really cool and customized for his character that may or may not be totally broken, it really wrecks the future of that particular game.
Well, you could always fix what's broken...

In fact, that doooooms a campaign and that DM.
What can't you just 'patch' the change? Why are you assuming that the broken game element can't be removed or modified?
 

Remove ads

Top