(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.
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.
