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

[Desdichado]

Carpe, I still have a few stumbling blocks to get over though.

1. What is "right" is best decided by the group using the rules. Just because the rules are used more or less as is doesn't mean that the rules are "right", it simply means that they're usable.
2. I don't believe that most groups use the rules exactly as presented anyway; I've yet to ever play in any group in any edition of any RPG that didn't have some houserules.
3. Your theory relies on all of the players to actually design the rules, which they don't do; they simply use them. The initial PHB design team was three individuals; Jonathan Tweet, Skip Williams and Monte Cook. The 3.5 changes were primarily done by Andy Collins, I believe (although I don't have the 3.5 PHB so I'm not sure what the credits say.) Now, to be fair, they had a fairly thorough group of playtesters, as far as I know, but your theory of group accuracy is significantly, if not completely, diminished by the fact that the rules are not agreed upon by the entire population of players, the players just take them and use them and have little (if any) impact on the output. It's interesting to note that in general the 3.5 changes were not changes that the player base had been clamoring for; I think the only changes that can reasonably pass muster there are the improved Ranger class, and a handful of spells like Haste and Harm, whereas the rest are often affectionately (or not) often referred to as the "Andy Collins Houserules" edition. In other words, 3.5 does not really reflect the design principles you espouse.
4. Now granted, your other part, about the unforeseen consequences of a houserule that gets out of hand, is still valid, and presumably 3e was initially playtested sufficiently to root out most of those issues. Interestingly enough, though, I hear a lot more complaints about aspects of the rules as written (3e ranger, haste, harm, etc.) than I do about any house rule issues. I think this is a theoretical problem rather than a real one.

 

[Carpe DM]

JD:

Some great points -- especially point 3, which is that the designers are a smaller group than "all gamers in general," and if that's the case, why defer to one small group over another (i.e., the specific gaming group)?

Overall, I think my theory still works to help us identify when we personally may be incorrect.

[edit: I understand that some changes are purely aesthetic, and there is no "right" or "wrong." But other changes really do impact the playability and enjoyment players get out of the game. So the above dichotomy is simply part of the decision: is it purely aesthetic or not would be the first question to ask in deciding whether to make a change. And, I'll bet few changes are actually purely aesthetic.]

My response to your point 3 would be that I suspect there's a difference between the core rules and the enhancements / supplements / add-ons in that respect. I think the Core Rules both do reflect the ideas of a large number of gamers (shamelessly appropriated by the designers), and reflect greater experience and testing; whereas add-ons represent more personal decisionmaking on their parts. Thus, no reason to trust CJT.

Anecdotally (for whatever, if anything, it's worth), I've found this approach very rewarding. Many times I've raged against a rule, only to stick to the RAW, as above. And I've often been rewarded by seeing that rule work out in very elegant ways.

For example, as I've mentioned before, the fact that you can't overrun on a charge still offends me deeply. But, understanding that people can be of two minds on an issue, I choose to follow the RAW despite my inclination.

best,

Carpe

 

[Psion]

(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.

Just make sure that YOU are the one who has it right.

People in my first 3e group used to refer to my not allowing flanking with ranged weapons at range as "my way of doing things." I had to pull out the book and show them in black and white that you can't flank with a ranged weapon.

 

[der_kluge]

With my new campaign, I wanted to implement so many house rules, that I decided it was no longer feasible for me to even use d20 anymore.

So, I would encourage anyone who feels like they need to house rule d20 to the point to where it's not absurd anymore, maybe it's time to consider an alternative?

 

[Terwox]

Of minor theoretical interest if you accept the CJT:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink
Groups don't necessarily make better decisions, they can prove to be worse. Watergate, the Bay of Pigs, the Challenger explosion, etc, showed symptoms of groupthink -- bad decisions made by a group of experts that could have been better.
Does this apply the the current argument? Well, of course not! I'm just talking.

I try not to use many house rules, and the ones I do use are generally pulled from sources I'd call legit. (I love UA.)
That said, my current game is gestalt and spell points. It fit the current game.
My past game was craft points that used bits of fallen foes instead of gold, used action points, used a flexible alignment system, and other stuff.
For me, I try to do what fits the setting as a necessity, then what fits the players as fun. Reducing work isn't really a big deal, but sometimes you need some extra mechanics.
My current game is spell points and gestalt because it's a new player playing alone, and it's simply easier to deal with spell points, and gestalt is simply for a more effective solo character.
I try to avoid them. I've had way too many bad experiences with tweaker DMs who don't quite understand the system as well as they think they do -- it just makes things more restrictive, or slower, or worthless, in general. I've played hacked-together mismatches of "more customizable" games than d20... but, it wasn't worth the HOURS of game time spent dealing with the changes that we could have actually been PLAYING. Especially frustrating to have a magic system change, and hours of explanation, when we didn't even use it in a session.
yikes. anyway!

 

[Greg K]

Sorry, browser told me that it did not find the page to submit my post

 

[Greg K]

I can't see running any rpg without some house rules, because house rules can give settings thier own flavor. My own DND house are broken down into the following.

I. The use of non core books.
a. Allowed non core books including 3rd party supplements. Unless a non core is marked as ALL, any specific items (e.g., classes, feats, spells, etc.) are listed in appropriate sections.

b. Books from which no content will be allowed

II Campaign Related
1. Races:
a. any changes to core races including availability
b. allowable non-core races

2. Classes:
a. acceptable classes from the PHB, WOTC non-core books (e.g., WOTC's Healer and Swashbuckler) and 3rd party supplements (e.g., Green Ronin's Psychic, Shaman, and Witch).

b. any modifications to base classes in the PHB (e.g., all cleric's and ranger's needing a campaign specfic deity).

c. any class variants (homebrew and from UA) and/or specialist wizards (e.g., specialists from 2e Spells and Magic)

d. For clerics, the deity determines the type of cleric variant (e.g., Divine Defender, cloistered cleric, healer, or a home brew variant) and the cleric's domains.

e. Spell casters are referred to the Magic section to see what spells have banned, added from non-core sources, any setting unique spell lists for a given class or variant.

3 Skills:
a any additional skills (e.g., my current campaign uses the following from d20 Modern: Knowledge (streetwise), Navigation, Research

4 Feats: any new feats. For example my current campaign has added the following:
a. added the brawling, combat Ma, and defensive Ma feats from d20 Modern. b. added MA styles from Blood and Fist

5. Action points

6. Combat variants (if any)

7. Magic Variants
a. variant spell lists for bards, specialist wizards, and various clerics
b. a list of banned spells from PHB
c. a list of allowed spells from non-core books

8. Equipment from non-core sources
a. Armor
b. Weapons


9. Any other house rules.