As a player, how do you react to house rules? Your options are:
1. I don't like them! The game is fine as it is; tinkering with it does more damage than good. The more you change D&D, the more it becomes another game.
2. It depends on the house rules themselves. If there are only a few and/or simple house rules, I'll give the game a go.
3. It depends on the DM. If the DM requires house rules to run a fun game, fine by me.
4. House rules are great! They can fix problems with the game and/or add flavor to a campaign. In fact, the composition of D&D itelf is the result of an evolution of house rules.
5. Other. Please explain briefly.
4. House rules are great...
I rediscovered D&D because of a DM that had used house rules to take the game to new levels I had never experienced as a player using RAW.
I react to house rules depending on their quality. As a DM who plays sometimes I can understand how a DM might want to say no to an overpowered class or race or ban a certain item or spell. If the house rule doesn't make sense and is idiotic I generally try to find out the reason behind the rule and if the reason is a poor one I try to talk the DM out of it.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
2. House rules should be limited in scope, address holes in the rules (e.g., hit points, raising the dead, replacement characters), and should be as easy or easier to adjudicate in play than the core rules. A house rule that merely adds flavor at the cost of complexity, bookkeeping, or balance is to be rejected. House rules must be written and not ad hoc.
2. House rules have to be judged by the individual rule. Most of them should be simple and help to bring around a better vision of the campaign world or address an issue that most of the group has with a certain rule (I only require wizards to give up one school when specializing, for example). Some "house rules" may simply be written/stated enforcements of options expressed in the DMG (such as "Only PHB races allowed" or something).
I and others I know have tinkered with ideas for increasing the complexity of the game to achieve greater "realism," and luckily we typically forget to write the rule down and it vanishes. I've found that increasing "realism" often just comes down to relating a better description of the result of a die roll.
|
|
I and others I know have tinkered with ideas for increasing the complexity of the game to achieve greater "realism," and luckily we typically forget to write the rule down and it vanishes. I've found that increasing "realism" often just comes down to relating a better description of the result of a die roll.
So wait a minute, none of you use rules for caloric intake like the guy in Cryptonomicon?
I too would have to go with option 2, though in addition to depending on the rule, I'd expand that to include rules that depend on the context of the game in general. For example, there was a thread about banning PvP in game on the boards a few months ago. Having been a member of a group that is obsessed with PvP to the point of harming the fun of other players, I can sympathize with such a rule even though I've never actually implemented one.
I'd have to go with 2 & 3.
It depends on which rules are being tinkered with and whether or not I feel the DM is capable of handling the alterations. In general house rules make things easier to play, but a DM that doesn't grap the original rule very well might have a house rule that's worse. I homebrew and house rule a fair amount for the sake of playability and game balance. People who don't like the house rules don't have to play and I hold myself to that same thought/standard in other people's games.
number 2. It depends on the DM. A good Dm can have volumes of house rules as long as it's fun.
House Rules must break the Usually Chain.
House rules Usually make the game more complex, which Usually makes the game take longer to adjucate, which Usually lessens the fun of the game for participants.
If the chain is broken by a house rule, its probably a good one. One of mine: adding a characters fort save mod to the -10 death threshold. That way the first level fighter dies at about -14, while the mage still worries when -10 approaches. Helps prevent high level insta-death from hits the character could normally shrug off (-20 to 40 when the character has 150 hp normally).
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
House Rules must break the Usually Chain.
House rules Usually make the game more complex, which Usually makes the game take longer to adjucate, which Usually lessens the fun of the game for participants.
If the chain is broken by a house rule, its probably a good one. One of mine: adding a characters fort save mod to the -10 death threshold. That way the first level fighter dies at about -14, while the mage still worries when -10 approaches. Helps prevent high level insta-death from hits the character could normally shrug off (-20 to 40 when the character has 150 hp normally).
Does the DC = damage suffered below -10? (e.g., DC 14 Fort save when at -14 hp)
|
Does the DC = damage suffered below -10? (e.g., DC 14 Fort save when at -14 hp)House Rules must break the Usually Chain.
House rules Usually make the game more complex, which Usually makes the game take longer to adjucate, which Usually lessens the fun of the game for participants.
If the chain is broken by a house rule, its probably a good one. One of mine: adding a characters fort save mod to the -10 death threshold. That way the first level fighter dies at about -14, while the mage still worries when -10 approaches. Helps prevent high level insta-death from hits the character could normally shrug off (-20 to 40 when the character has 150 hp normally).
I think he was saying your fort save modifier+ -10 equals death. So if you have a fort save of +5 without con bonus or other modifiers you die at -15.
I go with a combo of 1 and 2. I have had some bad experiences with house rules and I think alot of DMs feel they HAVE to make them as a left-over thought from 2nd edition.
I think the game is great as-is, but if a houserule makes sense and looks to be made to increase fun, I am down with it.
Anything else is unacceptable to me.
FH
|
|
Does the DC = damage suffered below -10? (e.g., DC 14 Fort save when at -14 hp)
I don't think the Bard was saying that you have to make a Fort save upon going below -10 hp. Instead, you just get your Fort save modifier as extra hp before death. So if I have a Fort save of +8, I die at -18, no roll required. I've heard of similar rules where you die at the negative value of your Con score, which I think is also a good way of doing it.
I like house rules if there is a reason and the reason can be accurately explained!
i.e no willy nilly House rules just because something bugs said house rule creator.
I use a few myself, from campaign to campaign.
Currently we use;
-10hp deathdoor + con bonus before "Death".
characters can use an action point to re-roll HP when gaining a new level, unlimited # of action points can be used this way, subject to amoutn player has.
All classes have "Profession" as a class skill.
4d6 take highest 3, roll 7 times, assign to stats.
I am good with them, have yet to find a house rule that I just despised and couldnt tolerate; I just look at it like it is a different world where things work differently; s'all good.
my house rules:
the gm takes bribes - all of my players take advantage of this rule; this is the "it's a party rule"; our game should have a sort of party atmosphere where people bring stuff to share with one another- if you beer the gm; I promise you will not die in that gaming session, of course, some of my players have found out that some things are much more interesting than being dead.
pc's max first 3 levels of hps; have the option of rolling and if they dont like their hps roll when they level they can take my unseen hp roll - my pcs all love this rule and use it a lot.
roll up character; 4 dice, reroll 1's; take best 3; make two columns take best of two. This makes heroes with most stats around 14 and 15; some bit higher; mabye one or so lower - well they all like to have bonuses; noone has complained and they have all started doing this in their games too so I think they are good with it.
10 bonus points of skills to be spent on background development like crafts, music, professions and other things your character learned growing up; list to be ok'ed by the gm. (general rule of no more than 2pts in any one skill)- everyone likes it; especially the peeps with only 2+int skills per level.
The gm will show you any monster as written for the adventure, but if I do; you will get no exps for that part of the adventure. I do not use any monster as written, but adapt them all for my campaign and ensure that the cr is correct and the pcs get the value for the mob; only once did a pc ask to see this; I showed him the paper; he agreed i wasnt "cheating" never happened again in the 20+ years of my gming. - pc's think it is fair as anyone, like a new player, who grumbles about it gets peer pressured by the pcs to talk to me about it in private as to not ruin it for them. I dont really know about like or dislike, but they think its fair and will tell any new player that i do not use mobs out of the book; oh; also, looking at a monster manual is forbidden during the game without gm permission; the gm does not want to waste time argueing about what a mob can or cannot do.
Gm gets to hide his rolls; if you want me to roll in front of you I will, but then your stuck with that roll (I am an ureasonably high roller by chance; dont know why) - my pc's know how I roll in every game where I play or need lucky rolss to be sucessful and roll out in the open and they dont want to see them either and they know i am ignoring a lot of crits and extra hits if I am rolling hot in favor of the story. This rule is to have fun; not have the gm kill of the pcs needlessly.
All notes passed between players get read by the gm. - they think it is fair and reasonable; you never know when someone or something is using telepathy or sense motive or stuff like that.
The D20 feats book is outlawed. - many complaints about this, but there are many feats I just think are to much and havent thought about enough to incorporate all this into my game.
If your going to be absent; you must tell me at least several hours in advance or I will not change the adventure and the party will be stuck with the problems designed with your input in mind though they may get more exps if the cr goes up. - they think it is polite as well as fair; they dont like someone being absent any more than I do, they dont like it, but feel it is fair to me because I do a lot of work on my game preparing things and it will really screw things up that dont have an easy fix. hehe I showed a guy how to gm and what I do to prepare and he was like OMG dude! but then, now he runs a great game.
oh, and instead of -10 for death; your con stat negative before death. - pc's like this a lot though it almost never happens.
10 bonus points of skills to be spent on background development like crafts, music, professions and other things your character learned growing up; list to be ok'ed by the gm. (general rule of no more than 2pts in any one skill)- everyone likes it; especially the peeps with only 2+int skills per level.
Hmm, interesting idea, I might take it to use (possibly setting up limit of 2 ranks).
When I play 1st level HPs are always maxed, and after that rolls of 1 are rerolled.
I do support house rules and sometimes make them as necessary. I do my best to be fair though...some of them are "from now on", some last only during the current campaign.
Hrm. I'd have to say two and three.
Like Fakey, I've had a lot of problems with house rules- in fact the only reason why I bought the 2nd ed Player's Handbook was because house rules were confusing me and I needed to get a look at the book- and boy was I surprised! Still, I have a few house rules of my own that I love to use and my players like them too. Look for them in my published campaign setting, which will come out sometime before 2012.
10 bonus points of skills to be spent on background development like crafts, music, professions and other things your character learned growing up; list to be ok'ed by the gm. (general rule of no more than 2pts in any one skill)- everyone likes it; especially the peeps with only 2+int skills per level.
I did something similar this last game, but did 4 bonus points at 1st level and then everyone gets an extra 2 skill points per level. It just allows for player to have more varied skills and actually buy a few cross-class skills.
As far as house rules, I'm fine with them usually. I worry when it's an attempt to add realism to a fantasy game. Too many people don't realize how some of the rule just need to be the way they are for game balance even if they are not historically correct or perfectly realistic.
5. All of the Above.
First, (#4) house rules can be great. 3rd edition has been a monumental improvement over previous editions, but there are still occasional glitches in the official rules. A good house rule can fix such glitches, but (#2) that depends on the house rule itself. As a general rule, the fewer house rules, the better. (#1) The more you tinker with the system, the more likely you will create glitches of your own and/or have unintended consequences. But ultimately, (#3) if the DM insists on a particular house rule, it's fine by me. If I really hate the rule, I'll try to convince the DM to change it, but I'd rather play than DM myself, so if I have to accept it in order to get to play instead of DM, I'll suck it up.
|
Two, three, and four. House rules are great when they're carefully designed. This takes a GM that actually understands what he's doing when tinkering.
I'll note that I give WotC designers only an easily rebuttable presumption of competence in this regard (since all the WotC splatbooks are optional, any use of the rules therefrom is necessarily house ruling).
Great responses so far! I'm glad so many are chiming in, but I know there's more of you out there who have an opinion. So don't hesitate to give it, even if you only want to choose 1, 2, 3, or 4 and leave out the explaination!
3, I guess. I try a LOT of house rules provisionally as DM, get the players' input, and then either adopt them or abandon them after we've playtested them a few times. My favorite players are the ones who don't chafe at being guinea pigs; they just like to play the game. Most players like knowing that their input will ultimately shape the game; it also helps a LOT that rigid-minded, dogmatic people tend not to get along with me, and hence tend not to play in my campaigns. Ones we've kept: no multiclassing xp penalty; no x-class skills. Ones we've rejected: too numerous to mention.
As a player, how do you react to house rules?
Usually a mix of 1 through 4. I tend to lean toward 1, meaning the three core books, to keep things simple. 2 and 3 sort of go hand-in-hand for me; the house rules should be kept to a minimum, but if the DM uses them to make the game more fun, then I don't mind. 4 in part, because the reason for the house rule is the determining factor; if it's a good reason, then I'm for it, if it's a poor reason, then I'm against it.
I often DM, so I know how much house rules can add to or detract from a game on both sides of the table.
Mostly 2-- house rules should be few, and ideally written down. I do like to look at specific parts of the game and ask if WotC designed something in for reasons that conflict my goals. (Current character death rules are a big divergence for me. Action points and the like can be a patch...)
I don't like house rules that come from GM ignorance, or perpetuating old 1/2e thinking.
For a specific world, I'm OK with more house rules to convey a flavor. (For example: if Eberron were a homebrew, it'd be a LOT of house rules. New races, artificers and NPC classes, action points, dragon marks, etc. Because they're thought out and written down, and because they do a good job of capturing the feel of the world, I'd be OK with them as house rules.)
Just to clarify -
In the title of this thread, unless "PC" is short for "Politically Correct" reactions to house rules, I think the OP means "Player reactions to house rules." PC and Player designations are not synonomous...
It's a confusing title to be sure.
As ever,
ACE
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Personally, I'd say I'm pretty much a 3-4 person. I house rule pretty heavily and make a lot of judgements on the fly. When I'm in someone else's game, all I ask for is that their house rules make sense and that they inform me of them BEFORE I commit to an action that is affected by them (or at least allow me to 'go back' to rethink the action if the rules do not function as I would be accustomed to them).
4. House rules are great...
I rediscovered D&D because of a DM that had used house rules to take the game to new levels I had never experienced as a player using RAW.
Now you made me curious...
There's a saying (attributed to Picasso, I think) that applies to D&D: If you intend on breaking the rules, it's still important to learn them well first, so that you know how to break them.
Snake, house rules are good, but only if you use them well.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
As RPG rules go, a game's Rules-as-Written have some obvious advantages:
1) On the whole, they were written by one or more people whom other people are willing to employ as game designers, and might begin with the presumption of competency.
2) They're the rules that we players might reference, and might find familiar.
Neither of these is an absolute. There's also one disadvantage to the Rules-as-Written:
1) The game designers don't know you; they don't know us, your players; and they don't know our group's style.
Easy example: let's say we're all up for a mercantile D&D campaign, trying to amass wealth by plying trade routes. The RAW don't address this deeply, and the rules that do address it seem arbitrary and counter to fun play. So you need house rules to deal with situations the campaign will encounter.
More complex example: let's say that in our group, we all like chaos and drama in our games. Changing rules so that the encounters are more random --perhaps with extended critical and fumble tables, or re-rolling initiative every round -- would be good rules for us, but not necessarily for other parties.
Jonathan: That's what I heard most often from my college writing professor. I got so sick of her saying that, but it's true! Your vote would be...2?
Chris: Very true, also. So, your vote would be...5?
Keep voting, folks! Sometime this weekend, I'm going to tally up the votes for my own purposes...and possibly post them if anyone else is interested.
There's a saying (attributed to Picasso, I think) that applies to D&D: If you intend on breaking the rules, it's still important to learn them well first, so that you know how to break them.
Snake, house rules are good, but only if you use them well.
He was talking about my playing. :o)
I didn't RTFM until after I'd been playing a year or more. By then, I'd been playing by a mix of core & house rules that didn't seem out of the ordinary so now I know the rules & how to work around them or bend them w/o breaking them (too badly).
So I guess that would be a vote for #2.
I’m split between 1 and 2. Let me explain – I was recently exposed to a game so house ruled that referring to the player’s handbook was a complete waste of time. Unfortunately, the rules that did exist were in the DM’s mind. Worse yet, they essentially made combat lethal enough that a 7th level wizard would be more dangerous fighting with his dagger than he would be casting a spell.
But outside of that, my experience is that a small number of written, agreed upon house rules can enhance the game for everyone.
|
I believe that house rules are fine if used intelligently. In the group I play in, my DM has a couple that I find well thought out and add to game balance. The first, skill points are not based exclusively on INT. At each level a PC gets the standard points for his class then adds a number based on his attribute mods divided by 2. These extra points can only be used for skills with that attribute that relate to it. ie..STR 18= +4 divided by 2= 2 extra skill points that can be only used for ranks in a STR based skill, like swim. It is a tad more realistic (why does intelligence help me jump better), and helps dumber PCs (typically the tanks) keep up.
We have just started to use action points out of Unearthed Arcana. It basically gives you an extra d6 to add to any roll in critical times. We get 5 action points per level. Our PCs can then spend them at times that are more wrought with danger or when facing a big, bad leader. We thought, when discussing whether or not to use them with our DM, that it more accurately represented heroic battles, with the people involved realizing the scope of what they are involved in and rising to the challenge.
The previous paragraph demonstrates what I feel is the most aspect of my DMs house rules, he asks us what we think first, then we discuss. I love that. I love the skill points added for professions and such from above and will run that by him as well.
Not suprisingly I'm pretty solidly 4. I love house rules, providing they add to the flavor of the setting and help things play less like a video game and more like a story. I have absolutely no love or respect for a dumb mechanic, so long as there's an easy way to do the same thing and make for a better story. I just rip 'em out and replace them with something that works better. Nothing prettier than a nice new game mechanic to solve some age old nugget of stupid-logic gummin' up the game.
That said, there's something to be said for game mechanics simply for the sake of game mechanics. I think it's something like...yuck. There's nothing to confuse and irritate a player group like a bunch of bad mechanics that don't fix anything AND aren't in a book or anything so you can never really know them or keep track of whether they're being used consistantly. Bleh!
I vote 4. House Rules are great - the more the merrier.
That said, I must nod toward 3 and even 2. When I DM (which is almost always), my players love the feel of the game/game mechanics. I've never had any of my players express any discontent with the house rules (probably because they're often a "group effort" to create in the first place).
As I said, been playing with the same people for decades, so I (and the other players) trust whoever is DMing (whether it's me or not). We trust each other not to be arbitrary in our rule-making and we're all familiar enough with the RAW that it goes without saying that a new house rule is necessary and not just superfulous.
I'm between 2 and 3. In terms of game mechanics I want a simpler system and house rules should exist only to fix holes in the system or rebalance obvously unbalanced situations. However in terms of look and feel of a then adding things is fine. So I am a lot more open to new classes, prestige classes or unusual items etc. meant to enhance the campaigns look and feel but don't want to deal with completely different falling damage rules that depend on what kind of a surface you land on - even if thats realistic.
I definitly want optional rules recorded. My position might be summed up as core rules should be core rules but if your campaign is all about a world that exits on floating silands in the sky above a world spanning ocean then I'd like the game world to reflect that with different classes and flying ships etc. Essentially I think rules come in two verities. Core rules meant to reflect how things work and flavour rules which are usually specific to a class, race, or object and meant to make one campaign world feel different from another.
Well, this has been interesting. I'm always curious about how other gamers think about the game. So, if anyone is interested the totals are:
1 vote for #1 (actually two combined partials).
A whopping 13 votes for #2. An exact match for all other categories combined!
5.5 votes for #3.
4.5 votes for #4.
And finally 2 votes for #5; "all of the above."