Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Li Shenron" data-source="post: 1393381" data-attributes="member: 1465">Although the topic is clear, I think the question is general enough to go into a General RPG Discussion poll...I have the feeling that basically no one runs a D&amp;D game without at least a few house rules. My opinion is that every DM has his own preferences about some rules he doesn't like, and overrule them even before trying, or otherwise his gaming group had one bad experience on a single thing that seemed to be too good, and the only solution they found was to ban it altogether.But IMHO the rules are not so bad. I have DMed in 3.0 with NO house rules whatsoever and it worked very well. Admittedly, some times it happened that something seemed to be very very cheesy, but luckily (for me) it was the players who simply chose not to cast that spell every time, or not to take that feat every character and so on...Now I am DMing in 3.5 and it's almost the same. For the first time I am using 3 house rules at all, and all of them are to lessen some restriction (in multiclassing, in cross-class skills, in weapon equivalencies), so nothing is really a huge change.I would like to know if there is anyone who normally uses the game as it is... Of course some material that is setting-dependent is from the start chosen by the DM and doesn't necessarily count as a real house rule (such as which races, classes and magic items may or may not be available), therefore I am more interested in changing mechanics or altering existing material (including races, classes, spells, everything) when it is done NOT for campaign issues but because you don't like the RULE...edit: you can vote more than once, e.g. I voted both &quot;none&quot; and &quot;few&quot; because I did both at different times</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Li Shenron, post: 1393381, member: 1465"] Although the topic is clear, I think the question is general enough to go into a General RPG Discussion poll... I have the feeling that basically no one runs a D&D game without at least a few house rules. My opinion is that every DM has his own preferences about some rules he doesn't like, and overrule them even before trying, or otherwise his gaming group had one bad experience on a single thing that seemed to be too good, and the only solution they found was to ban it altogether. But IMHO the rules are not so bad. I have DMed in 3.0 with NO house rules whatsoever and it worked very well. Admittedly, some times it happened that something seemed to be very very cheesy, but luckily (for me) it was the players who simply chose not to cast that spell every time, or not to take that feat every character and so on... Now I am DMing in 3.5 and it's almost the same. For the first time I am using 3 house rules at all, and all of them are to lessen some restriction (in multiclassing, in cross-class skills, in weapon equivalencies), so nothing is really a huge change. I would like to know if there is anyone who normally uses the game as it is... Of course some material that is setting-dependent is from the start chosen by the DM and doesn't necessarily count as a real house rule (such as which races, classes and magic items may or may not be available), therefore I am more interested in changing mechanics or altering existing material (including races, classes, spells, everything) [U]when it is done NOT for campaign issues but because you don't like the RULE...[/U] edit: you can vote more than once, e.g. I voted both "none" and "few" because I did both at different times [/QUOTE]

Verification