What makes us House Rule?

[Lanefan]

I think there is a difference between houserule-ing and making stuff up.

If you add intoxication rules for a game that doesn't have them, you're making stuff up.

If you say that in your D&D game, PCs get max HP for the first 5 levels, then you're houserule-ing.

It's the same thing. Whether you add a rule [intoxication], change a rule [hit points], or remove a rule [weapon speed]; you've still changed the rules. By definition, it's all houseruling.

Keep in mind also that if your game is to have any internal consistency at all, the stuff you make up on the fly pretty much has to become part of the rules then and there (either that, or you as DM are somewhat obligated to explain why it doesn't; even if such explanation consists of "I screwed it up and have since re-thought, here's the revised rule that we'll use instead from here on.").

Lanefan

 

[jdrakeh]

I usually employed house rules for one of two reasons:

1. To add common sense to a rule set that lacked it.
2. To excise complexity from a rule set that didn't need it.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I think there is a difference between houserule-ing and making stuff up.

If you add intoxication rules for a game that doesn't have them, you're making stuff up.

If you say that in your D&D game, PCs get max HP for the first 5 levels, then you're houserule-ing.

Then again, if you can't be bothered to know the rules, maybe you're just lazy...

If the intoxication rules I create for my game are applied consistantly in that game then they are house rules.

There are reasons other than being unfamiliar with rules, to create house rules. Perhaps, after reading and playing with existing rules your group finds them unsatisfactory in some way and decides to change them. This is far from lazy. It would be lazy in these cases to to accept lame rules because you didn't want to put in the effort to change them.

 

[Raven Crowking]

In essence, house rules derive from dissatisfaction. The sense that "this could be better".

Indeed, house rules are driven by the same impetus as new editions. Well, excpet for the financial motive, of course.... We look at a ruleset and say "If only...." or "Why not...." or "I'd really like...." and, rather than just mope about the rules as they are, we change them.


RC

 

[Umbran]

We look at a ruleset and say "If only...." or "Why not...." or "I'd really like...." and, rather than just mope about the rules as they are, we change them.

Heck, as often as not, I suspect we look at a ruleset and say, "What if...?" Humans fiddle with stuff. It is what we do.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I take it you agree with me, then, in my agreement with Plane Sailing.

 

[Psion]

We think we are smarter and understand the game better than the designers?

Well...

Seriously, I certainly understand what I and my group want more than they do. And a game is written to some big assumed heap center of mass within a theoretical target audience. Given that I'm rarely quite at that center of mass and implicit corporate attitudes and designer prejudices tend to miss that center of mass anyways, some fine tuning is often required to get what I want out of a game.

 

[Psion]

No it doesn't, and no there isn't.

Although I will agree that the baseless fear of those mysterious "cascading changes" seemed to have discouraged a lot of folks from houseruling.

Indeed.

I find the fact that 3e worked from a consistent baseline made it pretty trivial to houserule. You just plug into that baseline.

If you hate the baseline to begin with, though, then your problem might be too big to simply houserule.

 

[Janx]

I usually employed house rules for one of two reasons:

1. To add common sense to a rule set that lacked it.
2. To excise complexity from a rule set that didn't need it.

Pretty much the same here.

Since somebody else quibbled over the definition of "common sense", I might replace that with "rule that didn't make sense or was far from realistic"

I might also differentiate between "campaign rules changes" and "general rules changes". I have house rules for "how I run D&D" in any game I run. That's different from a specific campaign I might be running that has its own unique "world rules"

Generally, my house rules are intended to fix something I think is broken or to clarify something.

My house rules document generally details how I run my game, what I expect from players (any meta-game rules included) and then actual rules changes I might have from the RAW.

My 2e rules document was larger than my 3e document. In point of fact, I can't even think of what I changed in 3e, other than clarifying some stuff.

In 2e, I dropped spell memorization (making casters easier and more powerfule and adding variety to the spells used). I changed the rate of fire for missile weapons to be DEX based (bows were 2 per round in the RAW, I used DEX/6 rounded up).

When 3e came out, PCs got more attacks and the round was 6 seconds, not 1 minute, so the ROF rule wasn't justifiable. The Sorcerer changed the value of spell memorization, so to "support" the new class, we didn't carry over the no-memorization rule.

In that example, I modified the ROF for bows, because 2e D&D rounds were 1 minute, and it was unrealistic that an archer could only fire (and use up inventory) 2 rounds per minute. My change wasn't drastic, but it did make a high dex char feel better..

I dropped memorization, to simplify spell-casting and open up more options for players. Otherwise, PCs had long lists of spells that they never cast in adventures. Changing the rule increased the creative solutions seen at the table.

In 3e, I was pretty satisified with the design, so I didn't feel the need to tweak any rules. At most, I adopted Rich Burlew's fix for social skills, as he illustrated a design flaw that could be abused and his solution made sense and was simple.

One thing to reiterate is that I always have a house rules document that I start up for any RPG I play. Basically I try to capture any deviations we may come up with, so players aren't surprised. I also use the first section of it to outline how I run my game. In short, the document is the foundation of the player handout. I make sure I have something to give the player, so they know before hand how my game works.

This includes declaring how I expect players to behave at the game, and how we resolve rules disputes, contradictions and changes.

Its often surprising to find groups that don't do that. What's not surprising is to hear of those same groups having problems.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

I think there is a difference between houserule-ing and making stuff up.

If you add intoxication rules for a game that doesn't have them, you're making stuff up.

If you say that in your D&D game, PCs get max HP for the first 5 levels, then you're houserule-ing.

Then again, if you can't be bothered to know the rules, maybe you're just lazy...

Ummm, houserules are by definition "made up'. That includes adding new subsystems into a game (like intoxication in D&D), as well as tweaking existing rules for whatever reasons gamers tweak rules. And it can include an on-the-fly ruling when the official isn't known.

Sometimes I just don't know the rule, since I'm apparently lazy. Being lazy, I might forget to jot down the damage & duration of the special gimble(Ex) attack of a Slithy Tove. And so, being lazy & not wanting to interrupt the flow of the game, I make a quick "houserule", with the caveat that the official rule takes precedence when I learn the correct ruling before the next session that the PCs encounter slithy toves. Because of course, as a lazy gamer, I take notes every session in order to prep for the next one so they all smoothly.