Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 5812111" data-attributes="member: 8461">I'm not saying that you cannot do such a thing, I just think that it's going the long way around to try and take a shortcut.I want to also take a moment to clarify that I'm not against house rules per se; I just find that they tend to come up only when the rules have failed to deliver on something that somebody wants the game to do - it's that failure that I frown upon. (That and the fact that I have seen some ill-conceived house rules that ended up doing more harm than good.)I recognize that it's somewhat inevitable that such instances will occur, since no game can possibly include rules for everything - I just think that if the people playing the game don't have unreasonable* expectations for what the game can offer them, and if some areas of differentation are so small that a fluff-text change can fix them, then you ideally wouldn't need a house rule at all.Also, I make one distinction that I suspect most others don't - I don't consider removing existing material from the game rules to be a house rule (e.g. if you say that there are no sorcerers in your game, and disallow the class). Why do I not see that as a house rule? Because to me, a house rule has to constitute a deliberate addition of some sort of new rules (e.g. a mechanical effect); there has to be something new that's interacting with the rest of the game.I don't expect that most people will agree with me on that, but as I said, it's a fine (and somewhat artificial) distinction.*a loaded term if ever there was one, I know.</blockquote>

Verification