Extent of Houserules?

[Chainsaw]

For me, it probably depends on the system and its design expectations.

After playing in a 4E game for 80+ hours, I'm not sure how easily I could house rule without throwing the game into chaos. Everything seems pretty intricately interwoven and delicately balanced. I'm not sure how much, if any, houseruling is really assumed or expected. So far, it feels more like a take it or leave it set of rules. YMMV.

Back in my days of DM'ing 2E, though, I houseruled a bunch (because I like personalizing settings and mechanics, not because of some big giant flaw I thought I found) and never felt like I was playing with fire or risking some unforeseen disaster. In retrospect, it just seems alot more flexible. Again, YMMV.

Edit: I can certainly see how some people may prefer the former and some people the latter. Obviously I prefer the latter.

 

[Woas]

The only RPG of all the dozen or so I've played ever and had the urge to houserule is Dungeons & Dragons.

 

[Garmorn]

You can see examples of my house rules for d20 Modern here and for Flashing Blades here.

If you look at each, what you'll find is that my house rules fall roughly into the following categories:

• rules for actions not specifically covered in the original game (frex, parachuting for d20 Modern, venality in Flashing Blades)
• expanding on existing rules (frex, skill synergies for d20 Modern, background details for Flashing Blades)
• rules which offer new or revised options for charcters (frex, new and revised skills for both games)
• rules for items or equipment not available in the original rules of the game (frex, mapmaking software for d20 Modern, blunderbusses and galleys for Flashing Blades)
• rules which add color to a specific setting (frex, the Feral starting occupation for a d20 Modern 'Darkest Africa' game I contemplated running, the more historically accurate lists of Royal Army regiments and knightly orders for Flashing Blades)

Here is a major problem with the question from my point of view.

Which of the above are house rules and which are just your setting rules? No one complains about differences in races in published settings but they are listed as house rules in this quote.

I prefer the minimum of house rules but when I think of house rules I think of rules that change who thinks work.

Things that only affect the way the world feels or is shown to the players are setting rules. Changing a race or ability with out affecting the mechanics of the game is setting related. I am fine with that if the changes are suppose to be balanced with all of the rest of the races/classes the same way the originals where.

Extensions are additions like the parachuting rules where an existing mechanic is use to add to the rule base is also fine. Creating a whole new mechanics that conflicts with the base is far less so, and is a house rule not an extension.

 

[Umbran]

I can certainly see the point in an online game. Communication with the remote folks is hard enough as it is.

In general, I regularly have a tweak here or there to the game I'm running - but I suspect that the house rules I use can normally be put on one or two pages.

I'm not a fan of having a whole book of house rules. If the game I'm using needs that much alteration to make it do what I want, then I have probably chosen the wrong underlying engine, and I should look to one of the host of other game out there instead. Pick the right tool for the job, and all that.

Also, I have a sneaking suspicion that a lot of GMs out there have house rules to cover things that are not going to come up often in game. I typically leave uncommon cases out of "house rules" and leave them more to "adjudication at the moment".

 

[Haffrung Helleyes]

House Rules

I always have house rules. At a minimum, there is a list of allowed sources, plus a list of feats, spells , etc. that are banned or altered.

Sometimes, I'm running a game that is going for a certain feel; for example, the 'shipwrecked on a deserted tropical island' game. In that case, I'll often make up rules to support the new setting; for example house rules for potion creation from ingredients found in the jungle, when there isn't a market to go buy stuff.

Ken

 

[Stalker0]

I'm a tinkerer by nature. One of the real joys for me as a DM is not just creating a setting, but getting to put in whatever house rules I want. That is actually as much a part of the DNd experience to me as killing monsters and takin their stuff...at least when I'm DM.

That said, in my experience the best houserules are the simple ones. You can build a brand new totally custom system...but people tended to respond better to systems that are familiar and intuitive enough to pick up quickly.

Further, I talk about houserules a lot more than I implement them. I probably only implement about 10% of the houserules I kick around or discuss on forums.

 

[jdrakeh]

The only RPG of all the dozen or so I've played ever and had the urge to houserule is Dungeons & Dragons.

Actually, now that you mention it, that holds true in my case, as well. I started thinking about it last night and I couldn't recall any RPG other than D&D that I've houseruled.

 

[Jack7]

I can use two analogies for my own situation.

A game (that is to say a game system) to me is like a basic architectural design.

A world to me is my own design, based upon certain aspects of the original, basic archetitecturla draft.

So when designing a world or setting or milieu I take from the original draft whatever is necessary that doesn't in any way interfere with my world. If it does interfere with my world I discard it. So generally speaking I discard far more than I adopt or create. As far as rules go. If I could run any world with two or less pages of rules, and far more imagination, then I would do so.


Then again, a game (that is to say a game system) to me is like the prototype of an invention/schematic.

A world (setting, milieu) to me is my own design, based upon certain aspects of the prototype.

If the prototype is sufficient or useful then I will retain those aspects of the design, and discard anything that is superfluous or of unnecessary complexity. In this way I whittle away or excise or dispose of anything I think unnecessary or likely to promote system friction or to hamper subtlety or fluid action. then point to me is to reduce a system, any system (games included) to the least amount of complexity at which it still operates at peak efficiency. That holds true for science, invention, art, games, mechanics, you name it. Unless there is some ulterior or adjunct or ancillary motive, to me the intention is simplicity of both function and design.

So for the most part I tend to hosuerule by extraction rather than addition.

If I add on it tends to be with compact component-like elements. That I can add in or break off form the underlying structure as necessary or needed. A long time ago I had my fill with complexity when it comes to gaming systems and mental frameworks. I find information and innovation a far more satisfying and flexible way to govern any situation than mere rules (which by very definition and function often tends to suppress rather than advance innovation and information.).

To me role play is far more often suppressed rather than enhanced by rule complications.

So to me the rule about rules is simply this: Any rule that advances and makes the system more flexible and capable is worth retaining, any rule that adds friction or detracts from capability (within the overall operational framework and objective) is expendable. Rules only exist to enhance the functionality of the system, not the system for the functionality of the rules. I am therefore rules skeptical. They have to prove their value to me before I think of them as worthwhile. I do not automatically ascribe to them any real legitimacy.

Originally Posted by Woas
The only RPG of all the dozen or so I've played ever and had the urge to houserule is Dungeons & Dragons.

Actually, now that you mention it, that holds true in my case, as well. I started thinking about it last night and I couldn't recall any RPG other than D&D that I've houseruled.

I won't say that exactly because I generally just take existing game systems as a basis and then develop hybrids from them. But I will say I have done far more changing and alteration and adaptation to D&D than any other RPG.

I'm not sure exactly all that this implies, but it might be a good subject for a separate thread.

 

[Nymrohd]

Depends entirely with who you are playing with. Developing house rules alongside your team who have some experience with RPGs over the course of the campaign is more than fine. Calling people who have only played D&D a few times and handing them small books of house rules is not. If ever they allow the CB to integrate House Rules though, this would change my stance dramatically. Ease of assimilating house rules in play with people not very familiar with the game would be awesome.

 

[Blackbrrd]

My houserule is: No cheesy builds/powers/combo's allowed and don't try to break the system.

For my 4e game I have until further notice disallowed expertise and the defense feats from PHB2. I am going to allow them if I feel the party has problems hitting or getting killed to easily. Have gotten to level 9 without this being an issue at all. If it does become an issue I am going to give the relevant feats away for free.