The Grackle
First Post
I use a lot of house rules for character generation/advancement (variant classes, BaseDefBonus, different races, etc.), but not many house rules for the gameplay itself.
The slippery slope of house rules. When are there too many?
- Thread starter Quasqueton
- Start date
Zappo
Explorer
Well, it's not a matter of number of house rules for me. One house rule can be too many, if it is the right (wrong?) one. At the same time, a dozen house rules may still be not enough, if the campaign has many strange concepts requiring new mechanics, or if the players do not agree with the fundamental design goals of D&D (playability before realism, for example).
What are house rules?
Rules that override existing rules because the DM thinks his version is better in some aspect.
Or rules that supplement existing rules because the campaign setting or style demands special mechanics?
I don't have any house rule of the first kind. It's not that I think D&D is perfect. However, I consider A: the amount of benefit to the game introduced by the house rule, and B: the hassle of explaining to all players the new rule and why it is important, and C: the problem of figuring out how it interacts with the rest of the game. If A<B+C, the rule is rejected. 3.5 has few problems, and no big ones, so I have no house rules now.
I don't consider the second kind to be house rules. They are just part of the setting.
What are house rules?
Rules that override existing rules because the DM thinks his version is better in some aspect.
Or rules that supplement existing rules because the campaign setting or style demands special mechanics?
I don't have any house rule of the first kind. It's not that I think D&D is perfect. However, I consider A: the amount of benefit to the game introduced by the house rule, and B: the hassle of explaining to all players the new rule and why it is important, and C: the problem of figuring out how it interacts with the rest of the game. If A<B+C, the rule is rejected. 3.5 has few problems, and no big ones, so I have no house rules now.
I don't consider the second kind to be house rules. They are just part of the setting.
Olgar Shiverstone
Legend
House rules for character creation aside (I expect to encounter a few guidelines on what is or is not appropriate to a particular campaign), I like to be able to sit down at a table with a copy of the PHB and play without knowing the house rules. If I can accomplish that and know what's going on, and only very occasionally be told something is slightly different, then the level of house rules is appropriate.
My house rules document is about three pages, but the majority of that is character creation and which rulebooks can be used. Other than that, there are about three house rules:
1. Death occurs at negative Con (instead of -10)
2. Scaling critical hits
3. Hero points
My house rules document is about three pages, but the majority of that is character creation and which rulebooks can be used. Other than that, there are about three house rules:
1. Death occurs at negative Con (instead of -10)
2. Scaling critical hits
3. Hero points
Storyteller01
First Post
So how have you folks dealt with house rules that seem to grow on their own?
For my campaign, the house rules came about from a debate as to why dragons always covet treasure. It eventually spun into a campaign idea with its own rules.
To my players benefit, they seem to enjoy the changes (keeps them guessing), and most of these changes don't effect them (they are centered more towards clerical magic)
For my campaign, the house rules came about from a debate as to why dragons always covet treasure. It eventually spun into a campaign idea with its own rules.
To my players benefit, they seem to enjoy the changes (keeps them guessing), and most of these changes don't effect them (they are centered more towards clerical magic)
cybertalus
First Post
This might be green grass syndrome, but right now if I could find a DM who had no house rules, I'd be begging to join that game. My current DM uses a lot of house rules and a lot of optional rules from all kinds of sources, and I really don't care for it. I just wanna play D&D, not some freaky flesh golem of a system that's been stitched together from a dozen or more different sources.Quasqueton said:
nopantsyet
First Post
cybertalus said:
Flesh golems rule! Especially then most of that flesh is mouth and it is born as a magical parasite that grows to a size where it eats its entire host! And it has a high grapple bonus to boot!
I tend to do a little bit of houseruling. Mostly what I do is try to conceive of cool new rules, then decide I'm better off keeping the original rules. I will use supplemental materials and set certain parameters for a particular campaign, to fit some element of flavor. But that's more a part of the homebrewing than of house-ruling.
I have only one real house rule.
Timeboxer
Explorer
cybertalus said:
I run No House Rules games.
Yes, that's right: No House Rules.
...well, okay, technically speaking I always say that item creation is the way that Monte Cook and Sean K. Reynolds say it is, but I don't really consider that a house rule, per se.
But yes. No House Rules, though WotC rules from various books may be used. I set this limit on myself for a couple of reasons, those being:
A) The game is pretty internally consistent, and I'd rather not make my players remember anything that's not in the book when I can never get them to read the book in the first place.
2) I've played in enough games with lots of house rules and, in at least one case, very stupid house rules. However, I would wager that more than a few people have never played in virgin D&D (including myself -- I just GM it), and I think it's good to get to know the system. Especially if you're new, as most of my players have tended to be.
Plus I'm a rules lawyer, so. In general, I try to be by-the-book; I'm sure I'll run a game with house rules in the future, but I'm content with what I've got at the moment.
re
I have house rule documents that I maintain. I am constantly updating them and sending them to my players via e-mail. They don't seem to mind as long as the rules are reasonable and they have advance warning before play.
I don't think I would like D&D as much without House Rules. I couldn't tailor the game to fit my vision of how certain things should work. I see no reason to play a creative game if I am not being creative with rules and story.
I have house rule documents that I maintain. I am constantly updating them and sending them to my players via e-mail. They don't seem to mind as long as the rules are reasonable and they have advance warning before play.
I don't think I would like D&D as much without House Rules. I couldn't tailor the game to fit my vision of how certain things should work. I see no reason to play a creative game if I am not being creative with rules and story.
ThoughtBubble
First Post
The number of house-rules becomes problematic when the system begins to deform in an inapproprate way. Or when I say it does. Seriously though, I tend to find that I have problems with house-rules mostly when they're unbalancing to the system as a whole, or covering a 'flaw' that doesn't really exsit (ie: Having a special set of checks modified by con for hearing noise while sleeping). Numerically, if it's much more than a couple of pages, then it's too much. I say a couple of pages, because it's easy to fill large amouts of space with "House Rules" if you grab things like errata, or go in depth into how a new system works.
I tend to find that more informal house rules crop up. A typical example is 3.0 haste. For the spellcaster, it essentially became a sort of quiet sentiment of "you don't tempt me to abuse the 2 spells per turn, and I won't". The DM never had to make a rule about it, and we just tried to avoid bringing the situation up.
Myself, I'm a tweaker, but I'm finding more and more of a desire to just leave things alone at the moment.
I tend to find that more informal house rules crop up. A typical example is 3.0 haste. For the spellcaster, it essentially became a sort of quiet sentiment of "you don't tempt me to abuse the 2 spells per turn, and I won't". The DM never had to make a rule about it, and we just tried to avoid bringing the situation up.
Myself, I'm a tweaker, but I'm finding more and more of a desire to just leave things alone at the moment.
Last edited:
SableWyvern
Cruel Despot
I'm with Joshua Dyle on the question raised earlier about who knows what rules are best: the answer is clearly me and my group, when it's our game in question.
The number I use personally varies from system to system and campaign to campaign. ATM, I'm using just a couple in my Lone Wolf game.
For Conan, I've got seven in mind, all fairly minor. Three of those are designed to speed up or streamline play, two are designed to suit setting and style expectations, and two are designed to fix perceived problems with the RAW.
To the original question, any number of house rules is fine in my mind, as long as they are designed and implemented in a thoughtful rather than reckless fashion.
The number I use personally varies from system to system and campaign to campaign. ATM, I'm using just a couple in my Lone Wolf game.
For Conan, I've got seven in mind, all fairly minor. Three of those are designed to speed up or streamline play, two are designed to suit setting and style expectations, and two are designed to fix perceived problems with the RAW.
To the original question, any number of house rules is fine in my mind, as long as they are designed and implemented in a thoughtful rather than reckless fashion.
Similar Threads
