Home-brewing Rules

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

The options don't quite fit for me.

I thought I pretty much covered most of the options, I'm sorry my poll isn't perfect so for this one as well we'll go with a +/- 3% for errors.

As a DM, I house-rule sparingly. I'll almost never run strictly RAW, because there's usually something I really don't like (or want to change for flavour reasons). However, I have found that house rules tend to gum up the works, even house rules intended to simplify things. So, I use them sparingly.

I'm the same way, but I feel as a player-centric DM that I need to allow the players to have some input on house-rules that change things, especially significant mechanical changes that may alter the game.

As a player, I don't mind if the DM uses RAW, house rules heavily, or even completely rewrites the system, provided he tells me. I expect to be told about changes to the rules before I create my character, and I really dislike it if the rules subsequently change. But that's about communication, rather than the specifics of the rules themselves.

Yep, I need to know ahead of time. I would completely understand as a player myself. The thing I ask myself if a DM decided to DM-fiat a whole rule-set and basically change the game I thought I was going to be playing is if I want to actually be playing in that game that now becomes another animal that can be changed at the whim of the DM to suit his/her style.

(Oh, and incidentally, this applies both the house rules and also the use of supplements. As a DM I find that too many supplements make the game worse, and as a player I like to know up-front what is and is not included.)

I have done it both ways with all the supplements and limiting them. As a DM it's much harder to keep track of what could essentially be broken or overpowered in a game. As a player with too many options I feel that it takes away from the actual playing and enjoying of the game. I was constantly looking up things from 15 different splat books to try to optimize my stuff instead of immersing myself in the story.

 

[Wombat]

RAW? Meh. I look upon all rules sets as jumping off points; the idea is to have the rules fit the setting, not the setting fit the rules. As such, I tinker quite a bit with the rules. Ask my old players -- my D20 rules only bore a passing resemblance with D&D by the end and we were all happy.

I have added house rules to almost every single game I have run, although the crunchier rules sets tended to require more house rules than the lighter sets. I usually talked to my players about the changes ahead of time, except at the beginning of a campaign where I would lay down the law first ("Hi! Here are the rules I am changing for this campaign!"); later stuff tended to be tweak-by-committee, but only once (that I remember, at least) was one of my house rules altered back to RAW.

As a player, I have no problem with the GM changing rules either. Anything changed up-front (before the campaign begins) I consider GM prerogative; after that, I prefer to have at least some request for permission, and I usually give that permission.

Rules should be a starting point, not a straightjacket.

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

Your poll is too biased for me to answer.

Not sure what you mean by this, as I am asking a question for discussion being something that we have probably all experienced. I didn't think I portrayed a sense of bias in the asking of the question as it wasn't me who was effected by the small example that I placed in the original post. I was an observer and I didn't even pipe up about it because I felt it was something that we should have looked up right then and there and then the DM could have decided what to rule instead of thinking he knew the rule and then having to reverse himself at a later time.

House rules are the opposite of DM fiat. In fact, going by the RAW frequently will require more DM fiat than producing a codified set of house rules because inevitably situations will arise in which the RAW is vague or can be interpretted differently by two different people (or by the same person on two different occassions!). The house ruler typically will explicitly state what the rule is in those cases and stick with it, often before they come up in play, thereby eshewing DM fiat.

I have to disagree with you here, my thought on the matter is that RAW is fodder for rules lawyers and their ilk. I feel that DM fiat is more along the lines of "I can change any rules I like, whenever I like, however I like and if the table doesn't like it they can go play somewhere else." Following RAW and interpreting them is part of the DM's job so that everyone is on the same page throughout the game.

Generally speaking, most people don't consider selecting the system or even which optional rules of that system to worth speaking about as 'DM fiat'. Rather, while no system is entirely free of DM fiat, its generally only when its clear that the outcome of a proposition depends unpredictably on DM fait rather than upon known rules that we speak of DM fiat. DM fiat is particularly spoken about when we are discussing the DM's role as arbitrator, and not that of the DMs role of game planner.

Perhaps you misunderstood me with the DM fiat option. Again, the DM fiat option was meant to be more along the lines of the DM being the sole decision maker regardless of what the RAW stated, even if it was perfectly clear, and for example he changes it without even talking to the players about it because "that's the way he likes to do it, he's the DM and he is the god of the world."

If the DM is an arbitrator, then he's the one in charge of making the final call on a rule. I don't think this is DM fiat at all especially in a grey-area that could be ruled on in a few different ways and the players bring to the table their opinions on the matter, the DM can rule in favor the player if the argument is sound or if he thinks it's a silly thing he can rule the way he interpreted it. This is the DM's job, and not "dm fiat" to me, this is the way that games are ran.

Moreover, most people use terms like 'using RAW' and 'using splatbooks' and 'house rules'. For example, and DM may (rightly IMO) feel that they are playing RAW and selecting and using splatbooks to include in the campaign. A stack of books is still RAW even if some of them are third party. RAW does not mean 'core only' or SRD only. 'House rules' on the other hand may very from the equivalent to a home brewed splatbook to explicitly over turning the RAW.

This is open for individual interpretation. Some DM's/Players thing that anything in print is RAW, including core, splat, & SRD. Some DM's/players think that 3rd party splats are junk and akin to RAW changers that break the game. I've seen it both ways so I won't say who is right or wrong. To me house rules change the core rules and "official" splat books with significant differences that would fundamentally change a mechanic. I agree that depending on the group some house rules can be a lot like splat books or they can completely change the game.

I suspect that a 500 page rulebook will not in fact cover every situation, and in fact will only cover a very tiny number of situations. It will only appear to cover a large percentage of the situations encountered, if and only if the players of the game treat the rules as a description of the limits of what they are able to accomplish and never offer a proposition not covered by the rules.

Oh I definitely agree that 500 pages of a book will not cover every situation that ever arises. That is why there are grey areas and why some games seem to need some home-brewing of rules that cover things that don't seem to be covered in the RAW, my thinking on this is if there is something that is even loosely covered in the RAW that it should be taken into consideration before a DM decides what to do.

This rules bias in the player proposition, that is, the player feels that whatever is not permitted by the rules is prohibited generally lies at the root of the sense that the RAW is situation spanning in even a loose sense. And typically, what it results in is not player empowerment, but player disempowerment in as much as the DM is effectively prohibiting everything not covered by the rules. It's the RPG as chess, with a limited set of allowed moves that the player can propose in any circumstance, and anything not one of those rules has either no effect on the game or is met with 'No'.

Guess this comes down to the table and the individual players/DM. I've never experienced anything like this in my decade+ of gaming, but I'm sure it has happened to others. I have always felt as a player and a DM that if something is covered in the RAW that's the way it should be done, if something is not covered or if it is a grey-area, that's the time the DM needs to get involved and decide what should be done. If it's a grey-area, the DM is being a judge, referee, or arbiter. If it's not covered in the RAW at all, even loosely, then that needs to be made a house-rule (whether by dm-fiat or dm/player discussion) as long as it is something that is followed by everyone as if it was a RAW.

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

RAW? Meh. I look upon all rules sets as jumping off points; the idea is to have the rules fit the setting, not the setting fit the rules. As such, I tinker quite a bit with the rules. Ask my old players -- my D20 rules only bore a passing resemblance with D&D by the end and we were all happy.

I feel that is every table's prerogative. If you want to change the RAW to suit your own style or game that's cool. Sounds almost like a completely new game at the point you guys are at with your game. As long as everyone is having fun that's awesome.

I have added house rules to almost every single game I have run, although the crunchier rules sets tended to require more house rules than the lighter sets. I usually talked to my players about the changes ahead of time, except at the beginning of a campaign where I would lay down the law first ("Hi! Here are the rules I am changing for this campaign!"); later stuff tended to be tweak-by-committee, but only once (that I remember, at least) was one of my house rules altered back to RAW.

I have to say that I have probably done the same thing, after playing each edition I have things that I want to change and I lay them out beforehand to the players that I've done away with such and such RAW and in place we go with _________. After the game starts, that's the time I would discuss with players and have done so, getting feedback on something I want to change and I've allowed myself to be overruled a few times when I thought something was broken and the players didn't like the idea, I decided not to go ahead and implement it. To me this is about having fun at the table and a small tweak of the rules for me is not worth players not having fun.

As a player, I have no problem with the GM changing rules either. Anything changed up-front (before the campaign begins) I consider GM prerogative; after that, I prefer to have at least some request for permission, and I usually give that permission.

Rules should be a starting point, not a straightjacket.

Same here, I like to know ahead of time what I'm jumping into. As a player, I like to be able to give feedback to a DM if he wants to change something after we've started playing. I don't care for a game-changing rule being put in place ala DM fiat right in the middle of a game, without prior discussion. This would ruin my fun in the game and it would have me not trusting that particular DM/

Well there are a few rules I'd say need to be placed in a straightjacket and to me those would be along the lines of player cheating, but that can be handled outside of the game as well.

 

[Celebrim]

Not sure what you mean by this...

Sorry. Pet peeve of mine. I really dislike polls that are worded in such a way that they try to tell you what to think about the answer. I know you were probably just trying to make your poll wording exciting, but it really reduces the value of the poll as data because you aren't sure from an answer what agreement or disagreement you intended to measure. You clearly didn't do it deliberately, but a lot of poll designers do deliberately do this in order to engineer the answers that they want.

Take for example:

"I am GOD and what I say goes, DM-fiat is the way to go!"

Break it down as follows:
A = I am God!
B = What I say goes!
C = DM-fiat is the way to go!

Now, I can agree or disagree with this statement in many combinations. A doesn't imply or require B or C, and C doesn't imply or require acceptance of A or B. So someone might look at this and think 'A, B, C' and someone might think 'Not A, Not B, C'. Depending on how the person weights their agreement or disagreement with "I am God!" and "DM-fiat is the way to go!", they might decide not to choose this even though they agree, "DM-fiat is the way to go!" This is particularly true because, "The DM is God!" and "What I say goes!" are particularly provocative claims where a person's acceptance or lack of acceptance of the statements depends in no small part on the emotions such statements engender in the reader.

And what's worse, what you are nominally trying to measure is the acceptance of "I prefer to use house rules", a proposition that appears no where in the selection. A person might accept the proposition "I prefer to use house rules", while rejecting all of the propositions "The DM is God!", "What I say goes!" and "DM fiat is the way to go!". In fact, I'm particularly cognizant of this failing of the poll, because by and large I fall into this category.

Perhaps you misunderstood me with the DM fiat option. Again, the DM fiat option was meant to be more along the lines of the DM being the sole decision maker regardless of what the RAW stated, even if it was perfectly clear, and for example he changes it without even talking to the players about it because "that's the way he likes to do it, he's the DM and he is the god of the world."

I understood. That would be a pretty extreme form of DM fiat, but its hardly required for fiat to be present.

If the DM is an arbitrator, then he's the one in charge of making the final call on a rule. I don't think this is DM fiat at all...

Err... I don't know how to answer that. In legal terminology, fiat is an arbitrary decree or pronouncement by someone having the authority to decide and enforce the law. Here, they are arbitrary in the sense that the rules are hitherto silent in the matter and so there can be no knowing what the law is until the authority has spoken. In the extreme case, that of authoritarianism, the law is always effectively silent because the ruler or rulers has the power to change the law at any time and for any reason. However, you don't have to be an extreme to be 'fiat', and I dare say that limiting the discussion solely to the extreme would be non-productive, sense the extreme is likely to be so rare that arguing from such would probably constitute a straw man.

Fiat is very closely associated with the notion of 'discretion'. That is to say, to the extent that the arbitrer has freedom to interpret the law or to decide when or how the law applies, or to issue exception, then you have fiat.

This is the DM's job, and not "dm fiat" to me, this is the way that games are ran.

Yes, as I said, by fiat. The question is not whether some amount of dm fiat is involved, but to what degree. The RAW's silence on the matter leaves much room for fiat. Because the law is silent on the matter, it leaves much room for "rules lawyers" to go before the arbitrator and plead the case for the interpretation that they prefer. Hense, house rules often elimentate the need for DM fiat, and the tendency towards rules lawyering that comes with it.

Technically, you could run an RPG entirely without fiat simply by ruling that nothing not covered by the rules was permitted and having rules that handled valid propositions in all valid game states. Some would argue that this would turn the game into something of a board game, as this absence of fiat is typically a feature associated with board games. No one has to ask for a fiat ruling when playing chess or checkers where the rules and acceptable propositions for every possible game state are covered.

This is open for individual interpretation.

Which is what I was trying to point out when I talked about all the different meanings 'RAW' and 'house rules' might carry for someone. Again, this allows your poll to be read in many different ways.

Guess this comes down to the table and the individual players/DM. I've never experienced anything like this in my decade+ of gaming...

I'll take your word for it, but I will say that in my experience most people who have experienced this aren't aware that they are experiencing it. It's only when their group incorporates a new player, or when they change groups, or in particular when you form a new group from wholly inexperienced players that you really get to observe how hidebound by their expectations of play experienced players can be. Including of course, you own.

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

[MENTION=4937]Celebrim[/MENTION] duly noted, you bring up good points and I was trying to be kind of funny at the poll answers, so I can see where someone may not get my sense of humor especially via a text-based forum. The points you brought up will definitely make me think over my future poll questions/answers a bit more so that I can try to get a broader base of people to answer them without having to think it over especially if they are tweener like yourself and some others who feel that they do a few different things in their games. I'm glad you responded and all I can say is as long as you and your table are having fun that's all that really matters. People all have different opinions on what constitutes RAW, allowances of splat, home-brewing, DM fiat, and rules based on consensus, but in the end it's all about enjoying your own game at your own table.

 

[steeldragons]

Just some final thoughts (from me, I mean) on the topic.

It seems from the poll results, that very few people actually engage in "RAW."

As noted elsewhere in this thread, quite astutely, the RAI (Rules As Intended) seem much more popular.

Taking into account the stipulation, by the Great and Powerful Gygax, himself, n the original DMG (I'm sure someone knows the page number off hand, I don't and don't have my book handy), the rules are there to supply guidelines! They are not "intended", as previously mentioned here and other threads, to be "straightjackets."

This is a game after all. And the "Golden Rule"...what it is we all are playing the game for is to have fun.

As such, house-ruling is not only encouraged, but expected.

Yes, "house-ruling" and "DM fiat" are two different things. More on that later (if I remember to come back to it

But the RAW, for original D&D and AD&D at least, are not intended to be used as an "end all, be all."

Now, that said, house-rules (at least in my understanding of them) should only be instituted for a few reasons.

1) It makes things easier and/or faster.

2) It "makes sense" to the DM and the group as a whole. However, as said, again, by Gygax and many a volume after, the DM is the final adjudicator. The "referee", as Shaman (was it?) points out, is in place specifically to make these kinds of calls. But they should be balanced and "fair" to the PCs.

3) Again, it is a game. To be enjoyed by all at the table. The DM shouldn't institute house rules ad hoc. But, "as necessary" to a given situation. And yes, in play, things do arise from time to time that either a) do not have any RAW or b) don't make sense to the situation by following the RAW.

We've all been there (as DMs and/or players):
"What?! How is that possible!?"
"It's in the rules!"
"But it disrupts the game. It doesn't make sense [It shatters immersion.]"
"But it's what the rules say."

In the case of "b", DM fiat is absolutely justified.

"DM fiat" should not be the modus operendi. FUN is the modus operendi.

Sitting "house rules" instituted (those applicable across the board/every session a particular DM sits) should be made clear from the beginning of play, as much as possible.

But it isn't always possible. The BEST DMs/referees out there can not be prepared for every contingency (spells of the same name aside . If a call is necessary that the RAW "don't apply" to a given situation, then they don't. Again, DM=referee and thus, final say.

Having spent much time, recently, watching "European football" (a.k.a. soccer, for my American readers), there are plenty of "calls" that get disputed...but if you don't want a "red card" then you just let it slide. The referee makes their call, and that's the end of it.

Is that "houseruling"? No, I wouldn't say it is. But it is "DM fiat"...and it is totally justified.

No one likes to have their character "die"...but it happens. That is (or should be) an accepted realistic possibility of the game.

Death aside, bad things will happen to you in play. They are supposed to! Sometimes they will be overcome...sometimes they won't. If there's no challenge...where's the game? Where's the point in playing?

If one (even me, as a player) always gets their way...because the rules say so, it sounds like a damn boring game to me.

In closing...I suppose I can only add...

"GIVE ME HOUSERULES OR GIVE ME DEATH!!!"

Thank you and good night.
--SD

 

[Traveon Wyvernspur]

Thanks [MENTION=92511]steeldragons[/MENTION] that was another great post by you and I think you succinctly posted what I think as well about how house ruling and DM fiat. I'm a DM and player that likes to discuss things within reason and then make changes according to what the table thinks while in game, prior to starting things need to be said up front. Very simple, everyone understands what is going on/expected, and everyone has fun.

 

[Squire James]

Well, first you have to work out whether homebrewing is a Profession or Craft skill, and then you have to decide what the DC of the check is depending on the quality of drink you are trying to achieve... for instance I'd say Plum Wine good enough to satisfy snooty taste-testers would be at least DC 25!

In short, it is the DM who decides if he's going to attempt homebrewing, or if he's going to go out and buy a 12-pack of Bud. The players will likely tell you if they like it whichever decision you make.

 

[Arkhandus]

I love houserules! (within reason)

I chose the moderate options as they're closest to my opinion.....

I'm all for houserules when they're well-thought-out and presented up-front, so I can decide whether or not I wanna bother with that DM or campaign, since some DMs make rather onerous, severe, or excessive houserules, but others are more reasonable. So long as I know what I'm getting into at the get-go, before I go to the trouble of making a fun PC with a good background (as opposed to finding out afterward that my PC is screwed and will die quickly from a crappy houserule, DM Fiat, or terrible adventure module). I've seen DMs that just slap a houserule or DM's Fiat in a player's face during a game session and totally ruin someone's day with their spontaneous "screw you" rules-change.

Spontaneous rulings on unclear or questionable game-rules are fine as long as they're handled reasonably (as opposed to random, spiteful, or pointless rulings/changes).

As a DM, I try to go by the RAW as much as possible, but do have to make interpretations and rulings on occasion, but I focus on consistency and fairness in those cases, and err on the side of fun whenever it doesn't derail the campaign (I try to run my games kinda seriously and don't want things to devolve into silly randomness or one-upsmanship).

I accept player input whenever I need to make a ruling on the spot, but I'm only willing to discuss/debate a ruling briefly; once the DM has heard the arguments and made his judgment, then that judgment stands and the players should respect the DM's authority as the referee/judge. We don't go to the effort of planning, organizing, preparing, and running campaigns only to have players disrespect us and waste our time. We have to keep the fun of the group and the good of the campaign in mind (at least those of us who aren't jerks or favoritists), not just pander to an individual player's desire to "win" over everyone else. If they want to control how the game is run, they can try DMing their own game and see how it goes.

However, while I follow the RAW for the most part, I've never had qualms about adding custom/houseruled material or tweaking existing material. Like giving Fighters some improvements or making feats like Toughness not suck, or adding new classes/feats/spells/items/monsters. And I change things a bit for some custom settings, like my Aurelia or Rhunaria settings.

But I always present my own houserules up-front at the same time as I'm recruiting players and presenting the character creation guidelines/campaign intro, before any PCs are made. Printed out or provided online in plain text. And I have enough material for different settings (published and homebrew) to run something different if that's what the players want; I don't use the same set of houserules for every campaign (they're specific to the individual setting or the individual campaign).

Also, though I don't often consult players about houserules before a campaign, I'm always open to player input and have often worked with players on any custom material or variants they needed for their character concepts. I work with 'em to integrate their background elements or whatnot into the campaign setting. I like to give players the freedom to use whatever character concept they like so long as it isn't too much of a stretch for the campaign/setting, and I work with them to integrate whatever custom or supplemental rules-material they need to make that concept work.