The "expectation" of house rules

[Quasqueton]

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

Do I understand that house rules were an exception to you in the past? Or am I mis-understanding?

Take out the word "now" from my statement.

Quasqueton

 

[nethervoid]

Well for me, personally, I am setting up some house rules for my homebrew based on how it seems that newer versions of the game are moving towards powergaming instead of roleplaying. It's hard for me to understand why someone would want to powergame in a PnP setting instead of just playing an MMORPG. The rewards are much more tangible in a video game, where quests are specifically set up with powergaming in mind.

So my house rules are a bit severe, but they're mainly to limit the number crunching, and focus more on roleplaying the character, and investigating the world and current quest. A couple to merge the character creation with my homebrew world: no monks, but adding another class or two (if I can balance them enough).

RPG = roleplaying game, which to me means rules and numbers are second priority to roleplay and world exploration. I wouldn't call RPGs wargames; I would probably refer to wargames as real-time strategy games, which really have nothing to do with roleplaying. Warcraft comes to mind. That's a wargame. Axis and Allies is obviously another wargame. I wouldn't call Morrowind a wargame, or any of the roleplay Neverwinter Nights servers, wargames. (well maybe a couple on the latter)

I never talked much to other DnDers when I was playing way back in the day of, I think, ver 2, but I never felt like DnD was a powergamer thing or a wargame. We always played it as more of an exploration thing. Find the traps, figure out the puzzles, kill the bad guy, save the day. Sure we did a little min/maxing, but we NEVER had paladins, that I'm aware of. Nobody could roll the proper stats to make one. But that's what made them so cool, cause they were rare.

Anyway, I digress.

 

[delericho]

Yep, I always expect them

As a DM, there are a couple of house rules I always use (in D&D). I don't think I've ever run any role-playing game totally without house rules. I do, however, try to keep the list of house rules short, and ensure the players are aware of them before the characters are created. (Plus, I am willing to negotiate with my players regarding house rules.)

As a player, I expect to see house rules. I also expect to not be made aware of them before the game begins. I'm afraid I don't have a lot of faith in the ability of other DMs to communicate such things. (And, yes, I consider a failure to communicate house rules up front to be a sign of bad DMing.)

One of the main reasons I use house rules is for flavour purposes. If I'm running an epic (flavoured) high fantasy epic, it makes sense to use 32-point buy and some variation of Action Points. If I'm running a gritty cyberpunk game, it makes sense to use some form of low hit-point variation. Most other types of game don't have this sort of creative aspect, where the flavour of one game can and should be quite different from that of another. Where a changed flavour is desired, a few house rules can be a huge help in achieving the goal.

 

[el-remmen]

The D&D game (of any edition) is generally the game people are most familiar with, from the die-hard rules-lawyer that can quote page numbers, to the casual gamer that just wants to roll some dice and kill stuff - to the emotive actor, who used to play D&D and moved on to other "rules lite" games. . .

So, when I run a fantasy game I am going to use the rule set that most people know somehting about the core way in which it works and then tweak it to fit my setting and the story-telling aspects I try to emphasize.

 

[Pseudonym]

In previous editions, house rules were not only not exceptions, they were expected

I recall having a dog-eared PHB and a milk crate full of 3 ring binders containing all the house rules for a particular campaign. Ah the joys of OAD&D.

Even in 3.5, unless I am at a con, I expect that there will be house rules. As others have said, I prefer them up front and summarized, and I expect them to make sense; if not immediatly to me, then I hope there is at least some internal consistancy to them and that the DM can explain why things have been changed.

When I run I have a few minor house rules that I present with a handout at character creation.

 

[KenM]

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?"

 

[FireLance]

Here's another question I'd like to throw into the mix:
Do you think that fewer people are inclined to play D&D (and RPGs in general) because house rules are so prevalent? Would more people want to play the game if they can be 99% sure of what the rules will be, like Chess or Monopoly?

 

[Dog Moon]

House rules are just something groups tend to use to fix things they dislike. I remember when 3e first came out. We had no house rules whatsoever. We went by the book on everything. House rules appeared because of something happening of which the group dislikes.

Example: A house rule in my group is that Find the Path doesn't exist. Sure it may be fine in other groups, but the one occurrance it was used when we were traveling through the Return to the Tome of Horrors. Find the Path got us to the end super freakin' easy. From then on, though we could have modified it or w/e, we didn't. We just made a house rule that the spell didn't exist. I assume similar things occur in other groups.

I do expect more house rules from a home brewn campaign as well, though the house rules should probably help define the world and make it more interesting. Greyhawk may not need houserules, but a campaign based in a post-apocalyptic world in which the vast majority of the pantheon was destroyed should probably have houserules to further show this as being true. Divine magic may be harder to come by now, or weaker, for example.

As for FireLance's question, I'd take a game where maybe 90-95% of the rules are exact and never change. If you start making too many houserules, that means too much to know and too many begins to mess with the structure of the game. If you took Monopoly and for fun made a variant Choice and Community Chest deck of cards, that could be fun. If you changed the rules so that after 1d6 turns Cthulhu appears on a random square and begins chasing you around and every 1d3 turns a random are is destroyed, so it cannot be purchased or even landed on, then you've changed the fundamentals of the game and made it not worth playing.

From what I've seen, house rules tend to help in make a few things easier and makes things more interesting, so I'd go along with them unless I have to read a 100 page book of house rules [or some other exorbitant amount of rules].

 

[The Shaman]

If you took Monopoly and for fun made a variant Choice and Community Chest deck of cards, that could be fun. If you changed the rules so that after 1d6 turns Cthulhu appears on a random square and begins chasing you around and every 1d3 turns a random are is destroyed, so it cannot be purchased or even landed on, then you've changed the fundamentals of the game and made it not worth playing.

Speak for yourself - I'd play that version in a heartbeat.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I much prefer games without house rules, and for those that have them I prefer that the rules are only setting-specific rules for things like character generation, as well as addressing what additional sources may be used. I much prefer being able to pick up the PHB and know what to expect from the game. I've found that the less a game deviates from the baseline (all else being equal and assuming a competent DM), the more I enjoy the game, because it matches my expectations and I can spend more attention on playing and enjoying the game, and less attention on keeping track of new rules or deviations from what I know.

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.