How to make House Rules fun. (Now with Beer!)

[javcs]

'Markably amusing.

Both de oridinal und de tran'lashun.

I think I'ma use some of these in my next campaign . . . or introduce some of them in the middle.

 

[Lela]

Nono, Lela has this Scare effect on many people

Says the guy with the eye patch to the innocent pair of boxers.

'Markably amusing.

Both de oridinal und de tran'lashun.

I think I'ma use some of these in my next campaign . . . or introduce some of them in the middle.

Some of them are godsends. Personally, I think he went a little overboard on the character history part, but he's really trying to add some depth to his game. Which is totally understandable.

One of my favorites is alignment. Personally, I don't write it down and try to ignore it's existance--paying attention only when Detect X or Magic Circle (or whatever) comes up.

Others like to write it down and use it as a guideline. All's fair, as far as I'm concerned. But I think it's always been important for the DM to be able to change it (based on character 'istry ). Problem seems to come in when the player feels like he's being controlled. As if changing their alignment forces them to change their actions.

It's not true of course. But the feeling is real. Having it expressed to the players beforehand can help avoid the argument (and incessant explanations) about whether you're Neutral or Lawful.

Might not so much be a House Rule as a means of cutting off problems. It's another reason that, when I DM, I decide if someone's affected by Blasphemy when it's cast. As long as I tell them there's no AL beforehand and fairly affect their characters. Never had an argument that way.

Anyway, to each his own (the debate will continue forever). Spelling things out seems to help.

 

[Darklone]

Says the guy with the eye patch to the innocent pair of boxers.

Hey, it's been a long time since I scared children with my looks!

Uhm... yesterday.

Houserules are important. What I like about yours: Most are about how the game starts. Mine usually consist of a loooooong list of minor rules changes. Which aren't important since I apply the rules usually without the players having to care about.

 

[Lela]

Well, I'm usually the rules lawyer in my games, though I try to only speak up when the DM asks. Or when I'm asking him for interpretation. The book says this but I'm wondering about this.

I like to go mostly RAW, with a few miner changes. Whether or not I agree with something in the book, I usually keep it there because I trust that the designers have a balance reason. If not, no foul. If so, I've just prevented another problem.

I have a friend who basically redoes the whole system for every game he's in. To each his own of course. I just couldn't handle it.