What makes us House Rule?

[Umbran]

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

This is often said, but I think it is overstated.

If, upon first having someone try to jump across a chasm, I have them roll a dex check, and the next time I have them roll strength..

Or, if at one time to avoid intoxication I have them make a Con check, and another time a Fortitude saving throw...

The world is not going to end, and my campaign will not suddenly have dogs and cats living together, total chaos.

Heck, take the superhero genre for an example - the literature on which the game is based is full of conflicts and self contradictions. But somehow, they mange just fine. It seems to me a bit of irregularity might even be called for to stay in genre in such a game...

 

[Janx]

This is often said, but I think it is overstated.

If, upon first having someone try to jump across a chasm, I have them roll a dex check, and the next time I have them roll strength..

Or, if at one time to avoid intoxication I have them make a Con check, and another time a Fortitude saving throw...

The world is not going to end, and my campaign will not suddenly have dogs and cats living together, total chaos.

Heck, take the superhero genre for an example - the literature on which the game is based is full of conflicts and self contradictions. But somehow, they mange just fine. It seems to me a bit of irregularity might even be called for to stay in genre in such a game...

that's an excellent point. When you view the narrative of the story, how things were resolved don't matter.

The players who complain about "inconsistent" rulings are usually the rules lawyers, who are angling for an advantage by manipulating the rules.

Sure, it's nice to always use the rule the right way every time. But is it really critical? So long as the ruling used was fair and reasonably modeled the situation, that should be enough.

 

[Pig Champion]

I hate rules or rather I hate to be bogged down by too much of them and so I like to run a rules lite version of any RPG. Alas this of course runs into problems with certain scenarios and requires a quick on the spot decision (if I don't feel like consulting the big book) and so in the spirit of continuity, we keep the fledgling house rule.

Then a few sessions later that rule might no longer work as another variable has come into play with in the previous scenario, so again I put forth my opinion, it get's discussed and we move on with a new rule.

It's apart of any game that lives and evolves from week to week with your group.

 

[Lanefan]

that's an excellent point. When you view the narrative of the story, how things were resolved don't matter.

The players who complain about "inconsistent" rulings are usually the rules lawyers, who are angling for an advantage by manipulating the rules.

Sure, it's nice to always use the rule the right way every time. But is it really critical? So long as the ruling used was fair and reasonably modeled the situation, that should be enough.

Fair enough, if the ruling is either quite minor (e.g. what determines level of intoxication) or likely not to come up again until everyone involved has long since forgotten the first ruling (e.g. rules for melee combat and movement on top of a slowly-deflating zeppelin). But if it's something that's likely to repeat, and-or may be significant in saving/ending the life or career of a character, then I for one would like to see it be consistent. The most common example of this sort of thing comes from unforeseen spell and-or item interactions....

Lanefan

 

[Umbran]

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

I think you guys have part of it. But I don't think it is all dissatisfaction, and wanting to make things better. I think there's a strong component of simple curiosity.

I don't need to be dissatisfied to play with a new house rule. All I need is to wonder enough how the new rule will function.

 

[amethal]

I don't need to be dissatisfied to play with a new house rule. All I need is to wonder enough how the new rule will function.

I tend to do this as well.

In my current campaign, we are using the wands variant Monte Cook suggested in Dungeon a Day - don't bother counting charges on wands, just roll d% every time you use it; get 01 or 02 and it is out of charges.

I thought it might encourage people to use their wands more (since 98% of the time this was cost free), and add a little bit of tension to each use. It also makes one less thing to keep track of.

What I didn't expect was for the players to carry on recording the number of times they used the wands, to see if they could beat 50!

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think you guys have part of it. But I don't think it is all dissatisfaction, and wanting to make things better. I think there's a strong component of simple curiosity.

I don't need to be dissatisfied to play with a new house rule. All I need is to wonder enough how the new rule will function.

Well, then, we are in agreement.

I think a lot of house rules come about due to "If only...." and "What if....". Sometimes dissatisfaction doesn't mean an existing rule sucks, it just means that the existing rule doesn't capture the flavour you want for a particular setting.

But it is absolutely true that some house rules are designed just to see what happens, or for the pure joy of designing them!


RC

 

[ExploderWizard]

This is often said, but I think it is overstated.

If, upon first having someone try to jump across a chasm, I have them roll a dex check, and the next time I have them roll strength..

Or, if at one time to avoid intoxication I have them make a Con check, and another time a Fortitude saving throw...

The world is not going to end, and my campaign will not suddenly have dogs and cats living together, total chaos.

Heck, take the superhero genre for an example - the literature on which the game is based is full of conflicts and self contradictions. But somehow, they mange just fine. It seems to me a bit of irregularity might even be called for to stay in genre in such a game...

I agree. Not every situation needs to be resolved by some established formula. Long before skill systems were part of D&D a good DM made situational resolution calls that made sense at that particular moment.

For example if the party were being chased by a beastie that would probably kill them (and the party suspects as much) and ends up in a dead end corridor with a stuck trapdoor the DM might decide that an adrenaline surge might allow the fighter to combine his STR and CON attributes into a check to get the door open perhaps at the cost of a few HP due to the strain.

This doesn't mean that every stuck door can be tackled that way from now on. The fear of certain doom was a catalyst for that effort which might happen again at some point but not on demand.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I agree. Not every situation needs to be resolved by some established formula. Long before skill systems were part of D&D a good DM made situational resolution calls that made sense at that particular moment.

For example if the party were being chased by a beastie that would probably kill them (and the party suspects as much) and ends up in a dead end corridor with a stuck trapdoor the DM might decide that an adrenaline surge might allow the fighter to combine his STR and CON attributes into a check to get the door open perhaps at the cost of a few HP due to the strain.

This doesn't mean that every stuck door can be tackled that way from now on. The fear of certain doom was a catalyst for that effort which might happen again at some point but not on demand.

Not only that, but if you do not make situational rulings, all that can happen within a given situation can automatically happen during any other like situation.

As a quick example, in a cave system with a damp, sloping floor, as the GM I am allowed to say that there is an X chance per round of slipping, and these are the results. In another situation, I am allowed to call for a Balance check. In still a third situation, I am allowed to call for a Reflexes save. This may, or may not, be tied into unusual features of the area.

Part of the GM's job, IMHO, is to decide within a given encounter area "What could happen? What would be fun? What would be interesting?" Each encounter area can have its own rules based on the answers to those questions.

The rules may have no provisions for a horse going lame, but a horse going lame may appear on the encounter tables when crossing Armadillo Plains, due to the many armadillo holes in the ground.

Likewise, a specific staircase can have a 1 in 6 chance that anyone travelling on it for the first time will trip (check until a trip occurs). The effects of the trip are X. Characters can prevent or modify these effects with Y.

One pit might be avoidable with a Reflexes save, DC 15. Another might require a Reflexes save, DC 50, to get to the edge in time, because it is a bigger pit. In both cases, the GM may offer the players a choice between a Reflexes save to avoid falling, or an Acrobatics check to reduce damage. Paying attention to the description is needed to guess which is more likely to be effective.

Sometimes the "bad thing" that happens may be a "good thing" in disguise. Falling means that the PC sees a crack in the stair which conceals....something.

Situational rulings allow anything to happen in a game. They also require the players to interact with the setting as setting, rather than just as a rules structure. Both of these are, IMHO, very, very good things.

YMMV.


RC

 

[cattoy]

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

The reason that they are not the same is that making stuff up (when there is no existing rule to cover what you are adding) does not interfere or interact with the game system in the same way as houseruling.

When you make stuff up, you are adding things outside of the game system. If what you are adding does not interact with established elements of the game system, your impact and any unforseen consequences are limited.

When you houserule, you are affecting elements of the game system. You have no way (unless you are a genius of game design) of knowing what other elements of the game system will be affected and in what ways when you change something that is already covered by the rules.

It's like changing a variable in a complicated program. You don't know what you have done until you run the code and maybe it blows up in your face.

If you add a variable and only use it once and in one way, you have a much better idea of what you have done to the program.