The "expectation" of house rules

[Mark CMG]

Are house rules now an "expectation" rather than an exception?

Not in my experience.

 

[diaglo]

In my experience the current edition cuts down the need for house rules -- I've got a few notebooks full of them from my 1E days -- but YMMV.

i've got a notebook full of them for the story hour in my sig.

 

[The_Universe]

I don't expect any particular house rule, though most groups I've encountered have their own special way of dealing with natural 1's and natural 20's (for D20 based systems). I do, on the other hand, expect that a long-standing group will have customized the game in some small way. If it's too much (or not to my liking) I generally just look elsewhere.

 

[ARandomGod]

This is an interesting post that I thought worthy of a discussion of its own. I've bolded the part that particularly stood out to me.

Are RPGs truly unique in how often [and sometimes drastically] the rules are changed (house rules) from the core rule book? Are house rules now an "expectation" rather than an exception?

Quasqueton

It kind of depends how lawful a game you're talking about. If it's a game that doesn't go into extreme detail about the rules, has some rules outlined and that's it ... in that case I would not expect so many house rules (because the GM is free to make up a majority of spot decisions).

However in a game like 3.X, if someone were to claim to play pure Rules As Written I'd walk all over the GM. I know the rules pretty well (not as well as many on this board, but well enough), and I've got a mind built to create world's and laws. As such I also have one designed to see loopholes in rules. And to top all that off I frequent this board. So I would BE the loophole king.

Or, to put it differently, I think that there are a lot of problems with the rules as written, many areas that are more fun for me if they're ironed out and explained better, sometimes just changed. If a GM ever claimed to follow the rules straight up, I'd feel obligated to use those rules straight to my advantage.

And, on a different light... I see RPG's as a collection of rules guidelines. This is not a completed game, it can't be. Rulesbooks are a collection of suggestions to help the GM build a consentual fantasy. As such someone without the imagination to alter/change the landscape occasionally doesn't (in my opinion) have the imagination to PLAY the game, much less run it.

 

[Dog Moon]

Originally posted by The Shaman
Speak for yourself - I'd play that version in a heartbeat.

Okay, so maybe you would and maybe it could be cool. But what if I had said BARNEY instead of Cthulhu? Would you be so willing to play THEN? Eh, eh? I didn't think so.

 

[ARandomGod]

I expect all deviances to be acknowleged before the first session.

No problem. I always announce myself as a deviant right away... er... umm.. Wait, what was the question again?

 

[KenM]

Speaking of Monoply, any else remember the episode of CHEERS where 4 of them play it? Each player had they're own house rules. It was pretty funny.

 

[Jackelope King]

No problem whatsoever with house rules, so long as everyone's on the same page. The aforementioned natural 1s and natural 20s, for instance, are a perfect example. I don't care if the DM provides me with a nice, typed document explaining all the house rules he'll use (though it's a great show of DM effort, and I always like to do this for my players), so long as I know in advance how the game works for that group.

I certainly prefer the house rules to be somewhat balanced (unlike a group I played with that said that each point of your Dexterity modifier granted you an extra attack, and you could full attack as a standard action... never seen so many rogues before in my life), and if they're not I hope that the DM and the group will consider revising the rule after discussing it before or after (not during) the game. If not, I can usually grin and bear it, but if it becomes too much, I'll bow out of the group. I've only had this happen once.

I'm more interested in playing a fun game than arguing at the table, but I've had too many bad experiences with DM fiat to enjoy a game where the DM is on a different page rules-wise than the players. And I always cringe when the DM tosses a brand new rule out in the middle of combat.

 

[Umbran]

Are RPGs truly unique in how often [and sometimes drastically] the rules are changed (house rules) from the core rule book?

No, not really. After all, how do you figure new games come into existance?

The game we now call chess is only one from a line of literally dozens, perhaps hundreds, of variations from the Middle Ages and Renaissance. In fact, the game we know is an agglomerationof a few of those variations turned into a single game. Each one of those variatiosn had to start with someone saying, "Maybe this would be more fun/interesting/challenging..."

Similar for card games - perhaps especially for card games. Hoyle lists boatloads of variations, again, each had to come from somebody. And, if I recall correctly the term "table rules" or "house rules" originally comes from cards, not from RPGs.

Right on down to the games of youth, like stickball. Did everybody in your neighborhood play whiffleball exactly the same way? Heck no. Everybody had their own little variations.

 

[Buttercup]

Most of the RPG's I have played as an ongoing game, not at a con, have some kind of house rules. Whenever I go into a new game one of the first things I ask is "what are the house rules?"

The problem with that unless the DM has encountered every possible permutaiton, he or she can't always know what *all* the house rules are going to be. For instance, in my campaign we've run across stuff that we didn't like, talked about it after the session, and come to consensus about how we're going to handle it in the future.

My players do me the favor of showing up for my game because they think I'm giving them a fun time. I mean to continue that, and if a rule is hindering that, out the rule goes. I realize this wouldn't work with all groups, but it works for us.