What level of house rules are you comfortable with?

[Henry]

What level of house rules are you comfortable with, as a Player? What level of house rules would turn you away from a game? Is there one particular house rule that would turn you away?

Quasqueton

Any level, from NO house rules, to "you role-play super-intelligent monkeys and must simulate all communication to the DM through sign language and nit-picking."

You got a game? I'll play it (as long as it's not or does not look like F.A.T.A.L.)

 

[Yeoman]

I prefer to play in games without house rules. I like the system as it is, and I don't really trust people's house rules anymore. Far too many bad experiences over the years.

 

[the Jester]

I'll try anything once. Usually three times before I actually give up on it, actually.

 

[Snapdragyn]

I at least like to see some of the supplements included. Beyond that, it really depends on the rule(s). For example, I'm currently in one campaign that is using the variant facing rules from UA. I can now quite confidently say that I will NEVER enter any group which uses this rule (though I'm not leaving my current group over it); it is a perfect example of cascading consequences. Backstab severely hampered (any intelligent foe can simply rotate to force the rogue to move & lose full-attack, even if completely surrounded), cleave nerfed (due to the penalties for attacking into flank or rear), great cleave nerfed (see cleave), combat reflexes nerfed (see cleave)... & this is only what we've found by 4th level (great cleave & combat reflexes became obvious when the cleave nerfage popped up).

Writing it out, I guess the thing for me is I'm fine with rules that add things (like most of the sups material), provide a small boost (like HD minimums), or clarify things (can't think of an example from my games). I'm very leery of added complexity because I've seen (admittedly from a single experience) how badly that can muck things up.

 

[jmucchiello]

That requires a lot of trust and IMO works better in rules lite systems-- I might try that with you in an OD&D game FREX but not with most of my local GM's running 3.x

Actually when I ran such a game, the back end game system was a slightly modified HERO system game. Not rules light at all. I just translated what the player said he was attempting into the HERO framework of actions and if it didn't fit, I fudged it. The heaviness of the system is not important. Trust is.

 

[HellHound]

I don't care. I'm comfortable with any level of house rules, I've played in several games that used a house system, and so on. My close friend runs Star Wars with the Riddle of Steel system and a metric truck-load of house rules.

 

[Pseudonym]

I prefer an ammount of house rules that can be condensed to a one page handout. As others have said, I prefer house rules that reflect the setting rather than perceived deficiencies in the mechanics as most of the time mechanical issues which others find absolutly abhorrent I have no problem with.

That being said, I have a threshold at "Am I still playing X?" If I get invited to play 3.5 D&D and the house rules make it feel like Storyteller or Amber I am going to walk. Not that I am opposed to other systems, but too often mechanics based house rules feel like a bait-and-switch.

 

[Pants]

Personally, I could probably deal with a few pages of clearly explained house rules, though there'd have to be a good reason to have them.

Let me add an addendum to that. I could most likely handle more pages of house-rules if most of the rules consisted of added classes, removed classes, changed classes, or otherwise didn't rewrite the core system behind the game. If a person handed me a 50 page binder full of classes available, classes not available, new races, a tweaked magic system (everyone and their mother seemingly has one of these ), or other small details, I could probably handle it (assuming the DM knows his rules and could answer questions on the fly).

However, if someone handed me a 50 page binder full of house rules that completely changed the combat chapter, the skill system, and the leveling up process, I'd be much more wary.

As a DM, I try to use as few house rules as possible, namely because my players game to have fun, not to relearn a new set of rules for every campaign we play.

 

[Hawkshadow]

I can't resist tinkering with rules

I really enjoy playing in games where I get to try out new rules variants.

However, I like to be very cautious about actually introducing new house rules into games I'm running. Most of the house rules I've introduced into my current game take the form of "you can use the thing-a-ma-bob listed in this book in place of the one listed in that book."

I do, however, currently have a secret 47 page document containing all the house rules I'm considering. From that document I've introduced 2 pages of rules over the past 6 months or so.

 

[Aus_Snow]

However it is quite arrogant from a DM to believe that he's so smart to have figured out all the game's problems and a better solution than experienced designers...

OK, let's say there's a DM out there who has that uber-smartness thing going for them. Just one, even. Why would they be arrogant for perceiving flaws which others might not have, and doing something about them for their own games?

In reality though, I don't think it's got anything to do with either intelligence or arrogance - at least, not necessarily. It's a matter of personal taste in substance and/or style. That's all.

Edit --- The following quote perfectly describes my perspective on house-rules (and RPGs in general):

You got a game? I'll play it (as long as it's not or does not look like F.A.T.A.L.)