How many House rules are too many?

[Desdichado]

I tend to tweak a lot of things aorund character creation. This class doesn't exist, here's an alternative class, here's homebrew races, etc. But that only comes into play relatively infrequently, and you can refer to all of the pertinent houserules at one go when they're relevant. I tend not to mind lots of houserules there. Because I really don't like the feel of a lot of D&Disms (particularly related to how magic works in D&D) I often have very drastic changes there too. But again; that's more around character definition than anything else.

For rules that come up session after session--ongoing rules, I tend to prefer few enough that I don't have to bother having them printed out next to me while playing. Fairly short and sweet and easy to remember if they're going to come up every time we play.

I also occasionally add subsystems. A Sanity mechanic, for example, is a popular one for me, because I tend to focus on fantasy horror type themes and tone. Some chase scene rules are critical to me, because I like chase scenes and my version of D&D doesn't really have any good rules for that in its core ruleset. I don't have a real guideline here other than whatever "feels" right. If you're adding too many subsystems, you're probably not getting much benefit from them. I try to keep it to two or three significant subsystems at a time tops. Actually, chase mechanics and sanity--that's about it for what I normally use.

That said, although I'm a fan of modifying things to tweak to my taste, I also find that it's a hassle to document all the changes I've made. Recently I decided to chuck all my changes to D&D and migrate the system to one of the already in print d20 Modern campaign models. This way, I only need to have a very small set up houserules--I can describe them in a paragraph or two tops.

 

[Gilladian]

Things that "make the campaign world" like races and classes - I have a moderate amount of. 3 new races, 1 race removed, 1 race altered substantially and 1 tweaked; 1 class removed (but it was optional anyway), and one alternate class version.

Gods/domains are redone but there are no rule changes.

I have a list of allowed feats, which is pretty huge, and of allowed spells, again, pretty huge. I have rules about how and when the PCs can access these spells, but it takes 2 sentences to express those rules.

Skills - I have my own added languages skill instead of just giving languages, but it only really comes into effect during character creation.

Edit - how many pages is this? I have no idea; it's on my wiki and when players want the info, they go there and read it.

Other - my campaign runs on a silver standard. Just say "silver" instead of "gold" and you've got it.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I have a hard time saying that anything is too many house rules. My only question is whether or not the rules themselves are good. If you have to spend a bunch of extra time during play, or if the rule is abused or if it produces outcomes that don't make sense, then it's not a good one. For house rules, the only quality control you have is yourself, so you have to be careful.

I have a stable set of players, but even if I was trying to recruit players, I wouldn't worry about having too many house rules. If they're coming to my table, they need to be ready to play my game, including my rules.

For reference, my 3.X hybrid has so many variants from different sources and rewrites it is barely recognizable.

 

[Dykstrav]

I think that the house rules should be discussed with your players before play begins, and you should take their opinions into consideration. (Not necessarily do everything the way they want, but at least consider it.) I think that a game doesn't "belong" to the GM more than the players, and I want people to play a game that they enjoy.

Maybe they hate the idea of house rules and want to play the game by the rules-as-written. Maybe they love the ideas you have and eagerly devour your home rules document. I've found that most groups fall somewhere in the middle: most of the groups that I've GMed either love the house rules or are indifferent to them. There are two caveats, however.

1) Write your house rules down into a document and hand it out before you use them. In my experience, people that dislike house rules really don't dislike the rule so much as having it suddenly sprung on them in the middle of play.

2) Be prepared to change your house rules as the campaign progresses, and make it clear that you reserve the right to make such changes.

I've included my house rules document from my current Pathfinder game (set in Greyhawk) as an example of what I do. This is the 4th version, I highlight the newest material so it's easy to see what's changed.

When I run a game set in my homebrew, I usually go with the rules as written (at least for people's first campaigns there). I want them to focus on the setting and the narrative on their first time through more than variant rules, it's just a personal preference.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I find that when you have a lot of related house rules that a little bit of willingness to examine their main purposes and diverge from modeling the existing system can radically simplify and shrink them.

We tried to run a very specialized, modified gestalt version of Arcana Evolved, that required over 4 pages of detailed notes on character customization, some of it quite involved. Then when we stepped back and thought about it from the big picture, we realized that we could get over 90% of what we wanted in one short paragraph: "You must take one side of the gestalt as single class. On the other side, you cannot take the same class twice in a row."

Like a flash, all the special rules for prestige classes, getting well-rounded characters without sacrificing power, etc. fell into place. The handful of exceptions that weren't covered we decided to simply put into the social contract, and not worry about detailed rules (I.e. everyone expected to have some combat, some magic, and some skills, don't overspecialize feats for powergaming.) Worked great, and was easy to remember. Hardest part was finding a good character sheet to support it.

That's the most extreme example I have, and easiest to explain, but I've seen the principle in my house rules over and over.

 

[Janx]

I don't like radically modifying the game such that you might as well print out your own custom rule book to replace the standard ones.

I generally only have house rules to fix what is truly broken (like using Rich Burlew's Diplomacy instead of the SRD).

keeping it short is valuable. Makes it easier to remember the exceptions to the main rules.

Presently, the only house rules I have are the diplomacy change, and a change on acruing SP and spending them, such that SP from multi-classing is pooled and not restricted for cross-class purchasing. This makes managing PC by spreadsheet simpler.

 

[SkredlitheOgre]

I think in my Pathfinder group, we have maybe...3 house rules? Maybe a couple more. This is what I can remember.

1) Character creation: all standard "adventuring gear" (backpack, bedroll, tent, etc.) is already owned, so they don't need to buy that stuff.

2) Flanking is when two characters are fighting the same enemy. They don't necessarily need to be on opposite sides.

3) The Monk does not have the -2 penalty for fighting with both hands, so for Flurry of Blows, it's level + Strength bonus is your attack bonus.

I think that's it. I know we do the usual thing of 'I can't remember the exact ruling, so here's my ruling for now and I'll look up the real ruling later,' but that doesn't count. I might remember more later. But three is certainly not too many.

 

[kitsune9]

How many house rules are enough for your group, how many are too many?

Thing is, I don't want to drive off would-be players by altering the system too significantly or having Too Many New Rules. Further, I don't want Rules Lag, people forgetting too many/having to relearn things due to the system.

This is pretty much my reason to play RAW; however, I like to add thematic rules for the particular campaign.

In a Kingdoms of Kalamar campaign, I wanted to emphasize belonging to factions and guilds and did write up for them.

In my current campaign, the Carrion Crown AP, I wanted to ensure that when the players deal with an insular people, they have negatives to boot with their Diplomacy checks. Death is permanent, but everyone starts out with 3x their hp and gets a "fate point". I have a "sibling rule" in which a relative can claim their fallen relative's body and effects and adventure with the group.

 

[Lwaxy]

Some of the games are heavily modified, basically their own game because magic works very different. Others stick mostly to the RAW. Generally, the more players/PCs are in a game, the less houserules I have so I'm sure everyone remembers them.

 

[Viking Bastard]

I don't write them down. When I have too many to easily recall off the top of my head, that's too many.

I *do* write them down, but I agree with this nonetheless.

Though, it's less a question of quantity and more about quality. If it's not more intuitive than the regular rules, it's not gonna get added to the game. I've found that you don't really need to write down intuitive rules (but I do it anyway, just in case).