The "expectation" of house rules

[scourger]

Here's my experience in a nutshell:

more houserules = more problems.

Without getting into a multitude of examples, I think it boils down to what constitutes the common understanding of the game. Anyone can see a published rule in a book and accept it (although reluctantly at times). An RPG house rule often only exists in the mind of the DM. Even a DM's "published" house rules are not as easily accepted. I think there's just something magical about something being published and "official".

To continue the MOnopoly example, I've long likened Free Parking money to RPG HRs. I prefer to play RAW, but I've happily played many games with Free Parking. I just want to know beforehand about it, and I better not be the only one who can't hit that jackpot.

Another example is football. Professional players expect games to be called accoring to current NFL rules. Not college. Not high school. Not sand lot. Not what the ref thinks "should" happen or "how it's always worked".

 

[The Shaman]

You are engaged in a debate concerning the effects of removing the flat-footed conditions of the game and you don't recall how uncanny dodge works? I'm thinking you aren't really up to speed on the whole issue in that case.

Not all of the class abilities from D&D make their way into d20 Modern, but the mechanics for surprise and flat-footedness remain the same.

That seems to be because you don't seem to think that any reduction in the usefulness of various feats, class abilities, and so forth has any impact unless their usefulness is completely negated. In these cases, the various game elements in question are significantly changed in impact, which is a significant realingment in the nature of the game and how it plays.

No, I just don't think the impact is as dramatic and pervasive as you do, based on my experiences as both a player and a GM.

 

[Hussar]

^ Well, (shock ) I disagree there.

By changing the flat footed rules, I can no longer ambush the party with rogues. Well, I can, but, the damage they can do is nowhere near as threatening as before. With the flat footed rules, I could fire a crossbow from a hiding place, move and hide again with a -20 penalty. If my rogue is good enough or has some situational modifiers like darkness or heavy undergrowth, I could do this several times before the party had any idea of where my bad guy was. And, that rogue presents a very credible threat to the party since his sneak attack damage is pretty significant. Also, the rogue has fairly decent chances of hitting any non-heavy armored target since those targets are denied a dex bonus.

By nerfing the flat footed rules, the only way my thieves gang can do any significant damage is to mob the party and get into melee combat. You cannot flank with missile weapons. Now, unless I greatly outnumber the party, I'm only going to flank a couple of PC's, and if the PC's are smart and move into a box shape, I cannot flank any of them. A thieves gang is now pretty much a minor annoyance to a party since they cannot hit anything with a good AC and, even if they do hit, their damage is so minimal that they might as well be wizards. Add to that the fact that the party fighters are now in their element with combat weak bad guys standing toe to toe with them and I'm pretty much gifting the party with a victory.

How's that for a dramatic and pervasive impact? I just finished a long term urban campaign where thieves guilds featured regularly. The primary opponent was typically a rogue. This rule would completely destroy my campaign. I'd say that that's pretty dramatic and pervasive.

 

[Sledge]

mmmmm Cthuluopoly.... gonna have to play that one right away.

But I have to say that 1 house rules should be expected because everyone misses things. Some times its the designers being unable to predict everything that will come up in every game. Other times its the players not seeing or understanding the rules clearly. Since this will happen it puts us into an obligation to treat the rules as fluid and always be open minded with them.

 

[Storm Raven]

No, I just don't think the impact is as dramatic and pervasive as you do, based on my experiences as both a player and a GM.

Then I have to question the extent of your experiences as a player and GM. Altering a rule that has impacts on multiple feats, several class abilities, and changes the nature of all combats, including essentially eliminating one of the major drawbacks of being surprised cannot reasonably be described as anything but pervasive and dramatic unless you are playing in a campaign in which combat is markedly deemphasized compared to the typical D&D game.

 

[Jonny Nexus]

I've been playing monopoly for 20 years easily, and have NEVER READ THIS RULE. I can't believe I've never seen it, yet in a net search, there it is, plain as day. JN, thank you! My wife and I may be playing more Monopoly, now, between other games.

You'll have to tell us how it went. I've never managed to play that rule, because when I try to explain it to people they just won't have it.

 

[Jonny Nexus]

Yeah, I played Monopoly for the first time in 10+ years a few weeks ago. When we reread the rules to refresh our memory, we saw this rule that we never knew of. It was so unusual to how we've always played that we, as a group, decided to ignore it. It's not that we didn't/don't like it, it's just so completely "out of left field" that we didn't know what to think about it.

Quasqueton

It's like I said: there's a kind of cultural shared rules, and so this rule seems wrong to everyone.

 

[Falkus]

I can't stand house rules due to very bad experiences with them.