For Players: How do you feel about House Rules?

[Kichwas]

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

Yep.

I've long ago learned that it's better to not play at all than play want you don't like.

That said, I tend to be the organizing force in my gaming circles, and can usually dictate the format even in games I play in rather than run, so this is rarely an issue. It only really comes up in those rare times when I try out someone else's group to sample some new RPG, a DM I've been hearing good things about, or something like that.

On the house rules section of my website I mostly have items declaring such things as my refusal to fudge. In other words, not actual rules changes. The closest thing I have to a house rule at present is giving out 'story based XP awards' for writing journals and using the DMG point buy system. Those are really just using official variants, but they could be seen as house rules by some.

That said, nothing about actual play is changed in my game - though I do bring in additional items from published d20 sources, such as the Ritual skill from Relics and Rituals (which I don't consider House Rules - they don't change the way the core system works).

 

[Doc_Klueless]

I dislike houserules. They are not game breakers for me, but they do come close depending on the severity of the houserules. Minor tweaks that add to the flavor of the GM's world/style of play are fine. Changing the rules to the game I've come to the table expecting to play just 'cause the GM doesn't like it, isn't. The gaming experience had best be above average to exceptional or I won't be back. I came to play D&D. Not Billy Joe Bob's D&D-like thesbian experiment.

Since I almost exclusively DM, I abide by those same rules when I run a game. Fact is, my only house rule is the adding of 2 Skill Points per level to all classes (I like skills).

 

[Ace]

Yep.

I've long ago learned that it's better to not play at all than play want you don't like.

And well I respect that opinion!

and to tell you the truth I am pretty much the same way I now refuse to play anything I don't like whether its system, background, GM, campaign anything. In fact I have declined the last 3 games I was invited to.

I also don't play with non reciprocal GM's or players --i.e If they won't bend and play what I like when its my turn to GM (I am used to a rotation) I won't game with them period --

Of course this kind of cuts into my gaming but ah well-- I now play L5R cards on the weekend instead and when I need an RPG fix hit the boards

Okay sorry about going off topic there

The reason for my puzzlement is that with all of the 3rd party support for out there its like having books of house rules on tap. Also house ruling D&D has been ubiquous across editions -- 1e,2e,3x it really doesn't matter everyone house ruled something

 

[LostWorldsMike]

I use the following rules for introducing house rules to the game.

Hmmm... A house rule for introducing house rules. I like it.

 

[Kichwas]

Well I have the largest d20 collection of anyone I personally know, and almost all of it is allowed in my games.

That said, I draw a disctinction between things that add new options to the game and things that change existing methods of game play. Those elements that change game play are what I don't desire, especially when they come from unpublished sources. In that regard it becomes something of an emotive decision (rather than fully rational) - my preference of published over hand written in a day when anyone can publish...

A more complex area for me comes with variants, and I have mixed feelings here. SOmething published which changes game play is something I will be very conservative about adopting if it impacts the way the players play the game. On the other hand if it's entirely on my end as a GM then I may be more likely to adopt it in. An example being the way they handle determining wandering monsters in Dungeoncraft and Cityworks - basing it off of survival checks made in secret rather than a pure chance percentage. That's entirely on my end of the game and I'm more likely to consider it than I am (for example) something that changes the way players make to hit rolls.

 

[Count Arioch the 28t]

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.

You should play in my game. One player wanted to play a thief acrobat (Song and Silence) I said "That's too weak, let me fix it.

I increased SA progression, gave it 6 SP per level, and gave it monk abilities (Unarmed striek, flurry of blows, Ki strike, AC bonus, and as a special treat, Slow fall increases as if he added levels of monk.)

 

[Desdichado]

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.

I've seen stuff houseruled to make PCs more powerful, and I liked that less than the other way around, frankly. Although I'm a player and a DM, I have no problem with house rules as long as they don't clutter up gameplay. I've never noticed the "trend" you're describing above.

 

[Zappo]

I have nothing against house rules in principle. However, I don't use any of them.
That's because I like house rules that have a reason to exist, and I've seen far too many DMs change stuff "just because" and end up with horrible messes. I like house rules that exist to add a specific flavor to a campaign, and I like house rules that fix obvious problems in the system (ie, save for half in 3.0 harm). I don't like house rules that exist because the DM believes that he can do better in five minutes of thinking than what the designers did in one year of playtesting.

 

[tauton_ikhnos]

Zappo, what about designers who believe they can balance something for specific group in 1 yr better than GM who had group for 3 yrs?

In one year of playtesting, for example, designers never realized that 3.0 Haste is not broken... for OUR group. Five minutes of thinking, I brought 3 yrs experience that designers did not have to bear on the problem, house ruled haste back to 3.0.

Do I think I did better job of balancing rules for my group than designers did? Damn straight.

 

[Will]

I have a few houserules, but I tend to be leery about them in other games. I like to know them up front, and generally dislike any actual change of rules.

How XP are rewarded and a few larger scale concerns don't bother me so much. For example, a common houserule amongst friends is 'wealth level just floats around standard.' This is somewhat like a genre houserule. It works out roughly to the same as the default system, but means you don't have to hire an accountant to track treasure. I know some people like that sort of thing, but it makes me weep tears, frankly.

The problem is, a lot of people make houserules and have no concept of what consequences such a houserule would make. And, frankly, I don't trust most people to have good judgement with houserules. Around here, people flat out disallowed monks as 'too powerful' in 3.0. I was astonished... but whatever, didn't want to play one. But then you hit others, like someone who instituted a spell point system somewhat like what UA has. And which most of the players considered rather broken.

As it turned out, surprise surprise, clerics were horrendously powerful.

Sort of rambling. In short, a few tight, agreed on houserules are inevitable, IMO. A game should be tailored to tastes, which are highly varied. But people should be very very conservative about changes, because a game system like D&D is complex. Changes can propogate and do weird things.