The slippery slope of house rules. When are there too many?

[Quasqueton]

I have one major house rule [big on flavor, minimal on mechanics (from a Player's point of view)].

I used to have 3 minor house rules [just tweaks to simplify or clarify a problematic rule mechanic or concept]. But I've steadily increased the number of minor house rules to about 12, now. And there are so many more that I think worthy, but I'm really fighting the urge to tweak the game to death.

Every week, I read/hear/come up with a new minor house rule idea that I think is really cool or helpful or fun. But I really don't want a long list of house rules. I would prefer playing D&D "right out of the books", but I'm such a tweaker. It's especially aggravating with minor house rules, because individually they are not much; but after a while, a handful of tweaks becomes a mountain of complicated mechanic changes.

DMs: Do you find it hard to avoid adding new house rules to your game?

[Note: this is not a thread to discuss individual house rules---there is a whole forum for that concept.]

Players: How bothered are you by house rules? Is there a number that would cause you to avoid a campaign?

Quasqueton

 

[Trainz]

There is no such thing as too many house-rules.

Back in 1st Ed, a friend of mine had so many house rules that he basically rewritten D&D. He had to rewrite each individual spells to accomodate that. But, it was balanced and fun.

It doesn't matter how many house-rules you have, as long as the game remains balanced and enjoyable.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

DMs: Do you find it hard to avoid adding new house rules to your game?

Yes. I have too many. Periodically I look through them, with the intention of trying to go "back to the basics," and simply cannot find any in particular I'm unhappy with.

That said, my standard for adding house rules has gradually changed from "oh, that's really cool" all the way to "is living without this house rule really going to bug the hell out of me?"

As a couple of examples where I answered "yes" to that question: (1) My own revamped ranger class, before 3.5 came out. I've since gone "back to book" on the ranger; I still dislike that the class has spells, but it no longer meets my "House Rule Threshold of Annoyance." (2) The lack of an objective mechanism for ensuring PCs don't get screwed on hit point rolls. I've gone through several different house rules on this one; the one I use now (choose to roll, or take the average of the die, rounded up) is not the one I'll use for my next campaign (minimum possible value, depending on HD type).

Players: How bothered are you by house rules? Is there a number that would cause you to avoid a campaign?

There is no set number of house rules that would 'cause me to avoid a campaign. Rather, there are types of house rules that will cause me to avoid a campaign. Two examples are: (1) House rules clearly designed to favor a particular player with a more powerful or effective character. (2) House rules that the DM doesn't realize are house rules; he or she is just screwing up a perfectly fine rule. Don't get me wrong ... if a DM chooses to change a rule, I'll evaluate it fairly, whether I like the rule or not. Similarly, I'm not talking about off-the-cuff decisions made to simply keep the game moving, which, as a DM, I completely understand are necessary (and even desireable). But if the DM is consistently making changes without even understanding the actual rules, it makes my skin crawl, and I'm out of there.

Oh, and in answer to your question: I think the most reliable way to gauge whether you have installed too many house rules is when you find that you cannot remember them. Once your players have to start reminding you of your own house rules, IMO you have too many. (I am, in fact, in that boat right now.)

 

[DungeonmasterCal]

Every week, I read/hear/come up with a new minor house rule idea that I think is really cool or helpful or fun. But I really don't want a long list of house rules. I would prefer playing D&D "right out of the books", but I'm such a tweaker.

I feel your pain.

 

[Samuel Leming]

There is no such thing as too many house-rules.

I agree with Trainz on this. These games are ours to change to need or style as we want.

It is possible to house rule a game to the point where it's no longer D&D though, and that can run against your spoken or unspoken group expectations.

Sam

 

[reveal]

DMs: Do you find it hard to avoid adding new house rules to your game?

At this point, no. In the past, yes. In my current campaign, I have 3 house rules that are pretty standard for my campaigns and 1 new one. I used to have tons but they become too cumbersome. I've come up with 3 that I use in all my campaigns. I'll probably add the new one to that list.

Players: How bothered are you by house rules? Is there a number that would cause you to avoid a campaign?

I'm not bothered by house rules, per se. But if they in way keep me from having fun, I wouldn't want them. And by that, I mean if there were too many, they were just illogical, they were a "cool idea" by the DM that made no sense, or things or that nature.

 

[Piratecat]

My rule is to not have more house rules than you can remember off the top of your head. If I have to be looking at a list of them, I have too many.

 

[EricNoah]

For me it's not so much that I have or don't have house rules, but when I DO have them it's hard to keep track of them and communicate them to the players. Being bound in a published book doesn't make a rule any better, but it does make it more likely that it will be a) found when needed and b) available to all of the players when necessary.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm wary of too much tweaking without a point. Especially if it's just because the DM thinks there's a flaw in D&D that there really isn't. So how they word their house rules will affect if I can accept them. "We like a low-magic game," goes over better than "D&D as it stands is a glorified power-up videogame that is pandering to sixteen year olds, and we've gone back to it's roots and made it more like it was supposed to be."

Small house rules are less dangerous than big ones. Changing the magic system altogether is a little bit scary. Changing the game so it doesn't have gnomes but instead has three categories of dwarves is a bit more okay. Saying "I fixed BAB" is scary. Saying "we do use fractional BAB advancement" is less so.

That said, my house rules will vary with what kind of campaign I run. I shift gears and modes a lot, sticking with a single campaign for only a few months before jumping to another plot in another world. In one campaign it might be a postapocalyptic earth where humans and "mutants" (goblinoids) are the only viable races. In another, maybe I want to focus on the use of peasants, so I'll limit the races and classes available to start with. In another, maybe it's Planescape, so yes, you can bring in that gelatinous cube cleric you've always wanted to play.

 

[Jupp]

To me house rules are like gardens. Lots of houses have a garden..and there are lots of houses....and everbody likes it a bit different....some like it extra different. As long as everybody understands the rules and has fun playing with them there is nothing wrong with house rules. It's a matter of taste I think.