Home-brewing Rules

[The Shaman]

I may have phrased it a bit weirdly, but what I meant was if you have all the various options available from the original rulebooks, official player option books, and other 3rd party splat would you still be going RAW using these sources or still go with home-brewing rules not contained within these resources.

Okay, now I follow your meaning much better.

Most of my house rules are not of the 'change things I don't like about the game' variety; I'm pretty picky about what I'll run, and there are a lot of choices out there, so finding a game I like pretty much as written isn't that hard for the most part.

Rather, my house rules are, more often than not, designed to personalize my campaign, to enhance the connection between the game and the setting, much in the same way I'll glean material from supplements, modules or adventures, or other published materials.

Being the final arbiter of the rules is not about being god, it's about being well-informed and sticking to what you think is the right call as a judge or referee. That's how I've always felt it should be done that the DM is the rules-judge and players can attempt to sway the judge in their favor if they come up with a good argument on a rule that may be in a "grey area."

Sounds right to me.

 

[Greg K]

I chose the DM is God with the understanding that 'fiat' here meant they decide the house rules in play before the game begins and determining new splat book inclusion/exclusion after the game is in session. I do, however, think that the DM should notify the players of the house rules ahead of time.

On the topic of splatbooks/sourcebooks and official rules variants, I consider them optional material and, therefore, their usage to be a house rule. While official, they are not default core rules of play and not everyone uses (or even the same ones) . You have to notify others that they are being used (or even which portions are being used if, selectively, applying variant/optional material from a given source).

 

[Niccodaemus]

The're not so much rules as "guidelines"

What the hell has happened to D&D? OK, I'm an old school fogey, but seriously? This game was always MEANT to be played with "house rules". The fist cardinal rule of D&D is, if you don't like a rule, change it!

The game isn't chess. And it isn't a contest between a DM and the players. They are NOT opponents. The game is interactive storytelling. If a DM changes, warps, vetoes, or obliterates rules at any time, it is his/her discretion and right to do so. Granted, players may get pissed off and leave. But the basic rule of a game world is that characters have very little idea of what is really going on. Mysterious forces at bay, including fate, can reduce a perfect swing with maximum damage to a devastating miss.

I think computerized RPGs have ruined the concept of the game, and taken the adventure out of adventuring. Rules are secondary to RPing. They are there to facilitate, not to dictate.

 

[Hand of Evil]

let my players know and discuss my reasons for doing them. my rules mostly are modifcations or common questions like does a torch/fire cause fear in animals.

 

[jedavis]

Do you ever home-brew rules in your game which has numerous sources of rules, optional rules, and other splat books that offer variations or do you go strictly RAW for all of your games regardless if you feel it may be broken or wrong?

I homebrew all the time, but especially for multi-source games with too much content. The addition of a zillion extra options means that there will almost certainly exist some piece or combination of pieces which is/are broken or just don't make sense. Ergo, homebrewing. I found that my need to homebrew was actually significantly reduced by switching to a lighter system (Mongoose Traveller with no splats) from a heavier one (D&D3.x / Trailblazer, core only). The one time we did have a "players and DM disatisfied with the system, call for homebrews" event with Traveller, we realized that we had been interpreting the rules incorrectly, and no fix was necessary.

But yeah, in general, I like homebrewing. It's fun to take a system and go "What happens if we alter parameter X?", and set the players loose on it. It's just that when you have too many houserules, it starts to become a problem to keep track of / remember / interoperate with new players or different groups ("Oh wait, you guys still use standard caster multiclassing and no combat reactions... urgh, my build is shot.")

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

I homebrew all the time, but especially for multi-source games with too much content. The addition of a zillion extra options means that there will almost certainly exist some piece or combination of pieces which is/are broken or just don't make sense. Ergo, homebrewing. I found that my need to homebrew was actually significantly reduced by switching to a lighter system (Mongoose Traveller with no splats) from a heavier one (D&D3.x / Trailblazer, core only). The one time we did have a "players and DM disatisfied with the system, call for homebrews" event with Traveller, we realized that we had been interpreting the rules incorrectly, and no fix was necessary.

But yeah, in general, I like homebrewing. It's fun to take a system and go "What happens if we alter parameter X?", and set the players loose on it. It's just that when you have too many houserules, it starts to become a problem to keep track of / remember / interoperate with new players or different groups ("Oh wait, you guys still use standard caster multiclassing and no combat reactions... urgh, my build is shot.")

I can definitely see why you do that with some of the rules-heavy stuff out there. As long as your group is in agreement with what you play and how you play it that's all that matters in my opinion. Enjoy your gaming!

 

[SkredlitheOgre]

I went with the 'I Am God' option on both, because I figure that as a 'God' both I as a DM and whoever is DM'ing for me can do what they want, which includes discussing house rules or rules changes with the players.

Personally, if I have to make a ruling in the middle of a session, fine. Done. If I want to make a permanent change to those rules, I'm prefer getting feedback, but honestly have no problem saying 'No splat books' or 'One climb check per climb attempt' kind of thing. One of the rules that I made for my Pathfinder campaign, which I didn't discuss with the players until character creation was that I figure in an adventure world that is seemingly overrun by orcs and hobgoblins on a regular basis, almost everybody will have some kind of adventuring equipment by the time they take their first level, so when you roll how much gold you have at first level, or whatever level you start at, you don't have to buy things like sleeping bags or backpacks or torches/lanterns. All they had to buy were things like weapons and armor.

On the flip side, I have no problem approaching a DM for possible rules changes. Due to some weird wording in the rules of the Monk's unarmed strike and Flurry of Blows, my Monk no longer has the -2 bonus on FoB.

Like others have said, it comes down to communication. If the DM wants to change a rule without discussion, that's their choice. If they want to involve the players, that's their choice as well.

 

[Lanefan]

Seeing as my game system is about 98% homebrew I guess I vote for homebrewing.

As for consultation: it depends what I'm changing or in some cases where the change idea comes from. If it's something that affects the players then I'll usually (but not always) run it out first, mostly in terms of asking "what is stopping me from making this change?". If the change idea comes from one or more players, that guarantees discussion usually starting with "why do I want to change this?". If it's something outside usual player knowledge e.g. changing how some iconic magic items work then there's no discussion at all: it just happens, and they find out about it later if at all.

Far more often I'll run a change idea by other DMs to see what they think of it.

Note that I'm talking about changes made on the fly during a campaign here. Changes made before the campaign starts are simply part of the game, and are written up in that game's blue book.

Lan-"homebrew works for beer too"-efan

 

[saskganesh]

DM fiat with consultation. As long as I have their trust I can do whatever I want. Of course, if I don't have their trust, there is no game. But I also don't want their "consultation" to determine what the rules are ~ so perhaps they can run their own game then ... and let me play in it.