For Players: How do you feel about House Rules?

[dreaded_beast]

I'm not sure if this question has already been asked, but I came up with this question after reading a previous thread asking how many House Rules DMs use.

In my opinion, I believe players generally have a "negative" view of House Rules. From my experience, House Rules tend to "fix" a "broken" rule/ability/spell etc.: basically a "nerf". This is a very broad and general statement, but I think almost all players dislike having their abilities "nerfed".

Rarely have I seen a House Rule that has been brought up that actually "strengthens" the player, instead of "weakening" a player.

Most of the time I hear, "that ability is TOO strong, let me fix it." This usually in terms of what the PCs abilities are.

I almost never hear, "that ability is TOO weak, let me fix it." However when I do hear this, it is usually for the abilities of NPCs.

I can understand wanting to maintain "balance" within a game (whatever that may mean for you and your group), but I have always held the opinion that a DM doesn't necesarrily need to "nerf" abilities to "balance" a game. I feel that the DM, just like the players, have many options already within the game itself to make sure things are "balanced"

However, on the flip-side, if something is House Ruled in favor of the PCs, that means that the NPCs can use against the PCs as well.

 

[Shallown]

My players like several of my house rules. I give everyone 2 extra skill points becuase my game is skill intensive and cross-class skills are often wanted/needed.

And having frustrated players becuase of my style of game is not too smart.
I think the idea to have house rules to strengthen a game or sub-optimal rule set is often overlooked because no one chooses the sub-optimal feats/spels.skills etc. So they aren't on the radar, so to speak.

Later

 

[Kichwas]

I dislike house rules of any kind as either a player or a DM.

As a Player, I'll walk before I play in a game with them, and as a DM I simply do not use any.

It does not matter if they strengthen or weaken PCs or NPCs - I simply don't like the concept of them.

 

[Felix]

I have had mostly bad experiences with house rules. While at the best house rules are mostly cosmetic, at their worst they can be frustrating and a source of anti-fun. Even if the Core Rules have their imperfections, at least they are written down and can be discussed; that is in large part the job of the DM: interpret the rules. Kinda like how the judicial system interprets the law to apply to any particular case. When house rules are introduced, you have another source of Rules, and moreover because the DM has already moved to change the original rules, he is more likely to amend his current house rules.

Basically what I don't like in house rules is the increased possibility of inconsistency. When a DM is inconsistent, anti-fun happens. And while this can happen with the Core Rules, I think it more likely when you introduce House Rules.

That being said, house rules that don't affect the mechanics of the game... awarding "Hero Points" at every level for example... are A-OK by me. They need no adjudication and so it's hard for them to be inconsistent, eh?

 

[Ace]

I dislike house rules of any kind as either a player or a DM.

As a Player, I'll walk before I play in a game with them, and as a DM I simply do not use any.

It does not matter if they strengthen or weaken PCs or NPCs - I simply don't like the concept of them.

Are you serious? You would flat out refuse to play a game with house rules?

I imagine you have a hard time finding a group at least in my area I have never played in a D&D campaign of any edition without house rules-- ever

I may have played a 1 shot or two but everyone has house rules

As a player I don't like Nerf house rules or house rules written by someone who isn't familiar with the system i.e-- they think 3e should work like 2e
but on the whole i enjoy them

As a player (and DM) my favorite is the +2 skill points a level

I am the one who introduced this to our groups and now its universal-- It seems rather popular with all of the players and DM's (save one)

As a player I also like using AU bonus spells per day (it gives bonus cantrips) though no one has dine this and allowing "inate" spell caster bonus spells known based on stats.

As a player I like allowing Cure Light for Sorcerers though this was mixed in popularity with the DM's

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

I don't mind house rules, if I can see the reason behind them.

For example, S'mons game has several house rules, mostly to do with making Raise Dead, Resurrection and so on a little harder - the rules mostly increase the gp cost of casting those spells and reduce the duration during which the body can be raised. Sounds fine to me, that's his choice as a DM and I can see and understand the reasons behind it.

However, if an ability was destroyed simply because using it was effective, then I'd be annoyed.

 

[reiella]

As a DM I like House Rules for adding flavor. Rule 0 handles most of the problematic power issues well enough. Of course, they're mostly written down as well.

As a player, as long as I know them, it's ok with me usually.

 

[DWARF]

I personally love house rules. Most of the time they aren't meant to "nerf" the layers but improve the levels of realism in a game, and occasionally "fix" things.

Some examples of House Rules in the game I'm currently in;
The Dodge feat gives you a flat out +1 to AC, no definining againt who for what round...
Every piece of armor has armor points, which are lost at the same rate you get damage to hit points. If your armor starts taking too much damage, it has to be repaired/replaced or it becomes less effective. Armor repair is usually not a big deal unless you can't get it repaired every 4 or so sessions.
Death is measured against negative Constitution, not negative 10.

Stuff like this just makes for a more interesting game in my opinion. I mean, the rules as presented are great, but everyone likes to play the game differently. Heck, even gambling has various house rules. And when we play board games we often introduce house rules to fix problems and potential abuses in game (you should see how big our booklet of house rules for Axis and Allies has gotten!).

 

[Kae'Yoss]

What kind of question is that? Like house rules? Hate house rules? You don't like or hate them. They just are.

No, actually I think they are necessary. I've seen very little games without any house rule whatsoever.

I do like some house rules, and hate others, though. Those that weaken something just because are rubbish. But there are actually house rules that strengthen the players, or that just change something without affecting power level.

I've seen variations to the death threshold (- Con, or increased by level), changes to 1/20 autoresult (changing to -10/30 - especially in epic games!). I've seen finessable katanas, or weapon finesse without the BAB +1 prerequisite (or weapon finesse for all weapons before 3.5). I've seen sorcerers with eschew materials as bonus feats (or sorcerers with special abilities). They were all good.
And then I've seen a lot of stuff of UA, which isn't house rules per se, but works like house rules, and liked a lot of it, too.

 

[Bauglir]

I don't mind house rules as long as

1. They're halfway sensible.

I remember once reading on here about a GM that house ruled that larger creatures won every fight automatically or something like that, you know, because they're bigger...

2. I know about them in advance

I really really REALLY hate it when a DM springs a house rule that has a fundamental effect on my character AFTER I've made the character up.