The "expectation" of house rules

[wingsandsword]

I expect that it will be a [current edition] game with no house rules that takes place in a Greyhawk-like world

This in it's own way I see as a problem.

D&D != Greyhawk. D&D is not a setting, it is a rules system with some genre and setting-related presumptions built in.

Earlier editions presumed you could run a variety of worlds and styles that would all be "D&D", be it asian, seafaring/pirate, pseudo-historic, or even worlds like Dark Sun, Spelljammer, Planescape or Ravenloft which challenged many of what people now assume are inviolate aspects of D&D.

Almost any fantasy game set in a pre-industrial setting that has magic, monsters and adventures is D&D of some kind, if it uses the Player's Handbook (or equivalent, in any edition) as its core. Setting and edition are parameters applied to D&D.

D&D is supposed to be a roleplaying game, the rules are there to help play out your character and the adventures he has, it's not supposed to be a glorified board game where the rules are more important than what is going on in the game setting. If house rules help depict the setting, and especially if they are well documented and well written, then almost any house rule is appropriate.

My D&D games may have a lot of divergence from the established rules in lots of little way (and a few not so little ways), but I'm always very mindful of making sure that my house rules are well documented, every player knows about them, and at the outset of the campaign (or any time there is a substantial change to the rules) discussing it with the group as to what house rules they may have a problem with or would like to propose.

 

[DragonLancer]

I can see the need for house rules and a need for players to be aware of them before they sit down to create their character. However, it gets silly when theres pages and pages of house rules.

My group has the following:

1. Skill checks. A natural 1 on the dice is always a failure.
2. Skill checks. A natural 20 on the dice is always a success except where the rules say otherwise (example being a non-rogue searching for traps).
3. Combat. There are no fumbles. A natural 1 is simpley a miss.
4. Combat. A roll to see if a critical occurs only if you crit a creature of a size larger than your character.

#1 & #2 came about because the players felt more comfortable with is, #2 especially.
#3 was implemented because the group realised that the better a combatant became the greater the odds that he could fumble which didn't make much sense to them.
#4 was made to keep combat flowing easier, and save on unnessecary dice rolls. Plus a couple of the players were often annoyed when their nat 20 failed to confirm a critical.

 

[Altalazar]

Houserules are built into the game. As soon as they published a single supplement beyond the Core rules, then pretty much by definition, it was houserules for all games - the first houserule being whether or not that supplement could be used for that game.

 

[ARandomGod]

4. Combat. A roll to see if a critical occurs only if you crit a creature of a size larger than your character.

#4 was made to keep combat flowing easier, and save on unnessecary dice rolls. Plus a couple of the players were often annoyed when their nat 20 failed to confirm a critical.

And here at first I thought you meant that it had to be a size larger for you to GET that crit in the first place. And that one I liked. I'd also be ok with an auto-confirm of a crit on a creature a size larger than you are. (It's vital organs are so big, how can you miss? Hitting a dragon in the eye is like hitting the side of a barn.)

Smaller creatures you don't need the crit. Sized as you and you usually don't need it, at least not as often. Bigger than you and that crit is important!

 

[ThirdWizard]

3. Combat. There are no fumbles. A natural 1 is simpley a miss.

'Tis not a House Rule, friend.

And, I have no problem with changing/adding House Rules outside of sessions, so long as they are well thought out and don't overly adversely affect a PC. I just like to know about them up front.

 

[Ry]

I do think house rules are very common, but the best campaigns limit those rules to something that can be read in 5 minutes, like a single double-sided page. Once I saw that suggested somewhere, and I try to use that as a guideline for my campaigns. Of course, this is for house rules players are party to - the shortcuts and support materials I use on the DM's side are allowed to be more extensive, because I'm the one who uses them anyway.

 

[Ry]

TO bring fumbles in, but not make them as stupid, we house ruled that you have to confirm a fumble (fail again) just like you confirm a critical hit (succeed again). Makes it far less likely to just happen to proficient warriors, for example.

 

[The Shaman]

Anyone playing 3.5 is playing a house-ruled version of 3.0...

 

[Hussar]

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.

And that's very true and probably, IMHO, the best way to handle any rules changes. Doing it in the middle of the game is, again IMO, worse than spending the five minutes to look up a rule. Particularly if there is a chance of PC death. I'd much rather be able to say that Father Generic bought it due to the RAW than because my own little quirky decision resulted in his decapitation. That way that players can't point the finger at me for the death.

 

[genshou]

Anyone playing 3.5 is playing a house-ruled version of 3.0...

Drat, The Shaman beat me to it!