Home-brewing Rules

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

Guess I'm doing another poll, but this one stems from a long discussion we had at the table the other night regarding rules (in our case Pathfinder). I ask this not as just a PF game, but any edition of any system. I'd like to get general feedback and see what everyone thinks about home-brewing of rules.

I'll try to summarize our discussion:
A few weeks ago our paladin refused to climb down a cliff because he had a large chance of falling to his death even with no enemies around as per what the DM interpreted the RAW to be. He felt that he could "take a 10" and just climb down slowly, but didn't do it at the time because of the DM's call at the time. We revisited the rule and the DM looked it up a bit later and stated that he was wrong and the paladin should have been able to take a 10 on the climb down so that he wouldn't fall to his death. [Okay, cool he was wrong and admitted it later on after a bit of discussion and re-reading the rule].

This past weekend we started to discuss again the merits of RAW vs Home-brewing of rules and this is where I wanted to get the opinions of the community and how they feel about the types of situations that happen in our table-top gaming hobby.

Our DM's opinion is that he's trying to really get into Pathfinder and will not stray from the rules at all if a situation is covered in the rules, he stated that the 500-page book is sort of a contract between player and DM stating that they will all abide by the rules within and that if he home-brewed or DM-fiat'd rules that'd be breaking his contract with his players. He said that with 500+ pages, that every situation would be covered, even if loosely, within the rulebook(s).

My question I pose is this:

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 - personally - have no problems with home-brewing rules if everyone at the table agrees to it and is comfortable with it. I do it often in my own campaigns and felt that some things could be done in our current campaign which would be home-brewed might fix some of the things we don't like.

I look forward to everybody's comments and lets keep it clean.

Trav

 

[Nagol]

Rather than extensive homebreew, I prefer to choose a rule set that does what I want for the campiagn I plan to run. That said, there are times where the preferred game system is close, but doesn't quite match what I want.

I will homebrew to make the rule set more closely match the genre I'm trying to emulate, my vision of the campaign world, and address specific rules I find problematic for play.

All house rules (that affect player choice) are disclosed pre-play in the campaign write up. I won't introduce new ones without group consensus. I look at the campaign expectations as a social contract amongst the group and will only adjust it if the group agrees.

 

[was]

as a player and a dm i feel that all house rules should be discussed and consensus reached..preferably prior to the campaign

 

[Oryan77]

*sigh* another imperfect poll.

Just kidding, I just wanted to say that since someone always has to reply with "but what about this other choice!?!?"

As DM, I prefer to get player input on a house rule in case they might make me realize I'm making a terrible mistake or they just wouldn't enjoy the rule. So I voted to ask the players first.

But at the end of the day, if I want to use a rule, I will. So I also voted that the DM is God.

As a Player, I voted that the DM is God. I have no problem with that and I prefer it that way. I wonder if I'll be the only vote for that.

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

*sigh* another imperfect poll.

Just kidding, I just wanted to say that since someone always has to reply with "but what about this other choice!?!?"

As DM, I prefer to get player input on a house rule in case they might make me realize I'm making a terrible mistake or they just wouldn't enjoy the rule. So I voted to ask the players first.

But at the end of the day, if I want to use a rule, I will. So I also voted that the DM is God.

As a Player, I voted that the DM is God. I have no problem with that and I prefer it that way. I wonder if I'll be the only vote for that.

Yeah *sighs as well* I know, there aren't any perfect polls, we'll have to go with a +/- 3% on this one to try to get as accurate as possible.

I was curious who would go with the DM is god options

 

[nedjer]

It's always going to be necessary to house rule occasionally, as there's always going to be a player who can manipulate a magic item to game breaking effect

 

[Ahnehnois]

The rules exist to serve the needs of the group. I have no problem rewriting major rules elements if I think it makes the game better, and allowing them to build up over time makes it easier to learn. I try to solicit player opinions on these things, even put things up for a vote if I feel it's appropriate, but I decide.

I'd be a hypocrite if I objected from a player's perspective.

 

[prosfilaes]

As a player, I get a little tired of all the random rules changes, especially when they aren't all codified up front.

 

[Dice4Hire]

I think there is a big area between house ruling and RAW, so I would go with RAI. Mostly I follow the RAW and do not make changes from left field, but I do interpret the rules to make a better game, including nixing some tricks and optimization cheese at the table.

But I do not house rule, which to me means adding a lot of things or outright changing how things work in the rules.

As player, I expect the DM to do so, also.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Sort of an academic point: I'd draw a distinction between DM Fiat and a House Rule.

To my mind, a House Rule is a rule, just a new or changed rule: Everyone roll max HP for first level is a House Rule.

DM Fiat is more of a spur-of-the-moment judgement call.

I am very in favor of the former, the latter is a little less.