For DMs only: how much you delight in House Rules?

[Desdichado]

I would much prefer to play a game (any game) with no house rules at all. House rules complicate the game.

That's a generalization you simply cannot make (the second one quoted, not the first! ) House rules may very well uncomplicate the game; in my case, I certainly think so.

 

[dreaded_beast]

when it is done NOT for campaign issues but because you don't like the RULE...

I find this statement intriguing. Could you elaborate a little more on your meaning? It sounds along the lines of what I wanted to get accross in an earlier thread, but was unable to ariculate.

 

[RuminDange]

House rules set the favor in my opinion.
As it is running 3.0E but borrowing ideas from 3.5 from the SRD, no way my group are myself is spending another $90 apiece to get the new books when what we have works just fine.
Most of my house rules deal with development of characters and changes to existing prestige classes to fit my world or creation of specialized ones.
Others just deal with little annoying things in the rules here or there or adding to stuff to make it more gritty (critical hit and fumble charts, massive damage variant, etc. Although no WP/VP yet.)

I cannot resist tinkering with the rules. I use a hybrid roll/point buy for abilities, I have my own rules for handling ECL races, I've house ruled the wizard and druid (I'd houseruled over half the classes before, but it made it too hard to use suplements), I've got house rules on massive damage, coming back from the dead, casting multiple spells in a round, ritual magic, armor, whips, targetting area effect spells, and meditation. I'm on my third rewrite of the psionics rules. I've changed the spell lists around and houseruled a score of spells. I've got house rules on xp for magic items, and the alignment of permanent magic items.

I'd agree that that just about sums up my house rules areas for the most part. Suprizing how a good portion of stuff in UA is stuff I was already doing to some degree or another.

RD

 

[Nighthawk]

When I am the gm, I like to use house rules, but only with the input and participation of the players (i.e. I am not the only one making the decision). They are detailed and provided in a document available to everyone. As a player, I am unconcerned with them except for one thing: if they are used, write them down! Otherwise, house rules become cluttered and messy.

 

[s/LaSH]

About a dozen or so big changes, I guess. I'll rule-of-thumb anything in sight, of course, but I count that as situational improvisation or world-building rather than specific house rules.

 

[Blue_Kryptonite]

We don't actually use the majority of the rules. So I suppose that counts as heavily house-ruling. There are at least twenty actual rules in the book I'll never bother to bring into play.

 

[Wormwood]

When I'm the DM: House Rules are necessary and important.

When someone else is DM: House rules are ill-considered and needless.

 

[Deadguy]

When I'm the DM: House Rules are necessary and important.

When someone else is DM: House rules are ill-considered and needless.

Funny, isn't, Wormwood, how other DMs just fail to match up to 'your' standards!

With D&D3, strangely I can't help thinking that it's the openness of the rules that gets to both DMs and Players. DMs like the openness, since it's relatively easy (if not always wise) to adjust things to produce a particular game flavour. Or what we imagine is a particular game flavour... until the full ramifications of our House Rules become clear and we realise we've made a boo-boo!

From the Player's perspective I find myself saying 'gimme back my rules-given choices!' It's easy to forgot Rule Zero when you can't choose the race you want, or the feat, or the Prestige Class, or get the equipment that your character concept 'absolutely needs'!

Oddly, much of the discussion I read of House Rules in 3e seems to relate to limiting options. Now I fully understand why, indeed the writers themselves recognised this by discussing how you can adjust the rules to recreate a 1e feel. But it's different to earlier editions, where most House Rules tend to be along the lines of adding extra options: e.g. removing or expanding racial level limits, altering multi-classing, adding new classes, etc. Of course the Complete X series and then Players Options did alter this somewhat, but the gist seems right, IMX.

Errmmmm... the trouble with posting late at night is you can't recall what your point is! I guess I am saying that, yes, DMs tend to like House Rules a lot more than the Players do, and that 3e seems to breed a different general tenor of House Rule than maybe earlier editions did.

 

[spider_minion]

My house-rulesing is to the point where the game no longer resembles D&D anymore.

I took Big Eyes, Small Mouths d20, redesigned about half the attributes to make them a little less crazy, added an armor as damage reduction system, gave defense bonuses to classes, expanded the energy point mechanic, reworked the equipment list, designed 24 new classes with many custom abilties, and used all this as the basis for a Planescape campaign.

I've really gotten tired with standard-issue D&D 3e, having played it once or twice a week since it was released, but the system is great to tinker with and the OGL has expanded my gaming horizons like nothing else.

 

[Liolel]

Only one real house rule but its a big one. A whole complete 20 level class the swashbuckler. Still needs a little polishing sometime. I made it up myself because I didn't like any of the versions I had seen.