In my group, every campaign has some sort of house rule list. These usually include the following types of house rules:
1) Limiting/banning/changing certain things that we don't like about Pathfinder. These are usually minor and don't affect a whole lot, play-wise or campaign-wise. They basically come from certain situations we don't like, such as our "No Leadership" or "Favored Class Bonuses are available to any race of that class".
2) Adding interesting things: for instance I created a separate list of Races and Origins, that has players to choose one race and one origin. I essentially took races such as Aasimar and Tiefling and made them Angelic and Fiendish origins, allowing people to play Elvish Tieflings or Dwarf Aasimars. Basically, this option adds some interesting stuff to the game. Sometimes it does make the PCs a little more powerful, but generally adds enough interest to be worth the slight power bump.
3) Drastically changing things to create a brand new world: sometimes this can be drastic as completely removing the spellcasting system and using Materia-based system based on the Materia in FFVII. Obviously, this changes a LOT, but depending on the system or the campaign, can make a whole lot of sense. Other times it can be something more like "The campaign exists in the modern times so guns and stuff exists".
For 1 and 2, my group just has a page given to everyone with a list of the rules being changed or added. If anyone questions, they are free to ask why, but generally we accept them unless they just screw over something too badly [which does happen, intended consequences]. When this happens, we try to work out how to fix the situation.
For 3, there is a page of information regarding the changes. Like a paragraph or two explaining the type of campaign [modern campaign, zombiepocalypse campaign, exploration type campaign] followed by details of what rules or whatnot is affected by this change.
Generally, the best thing I've found is to be upfront with everything, give the players the required information as they start their characters and be open with them if they have complaints or suggestions. [Legitimate complaints, not just stupid, foolish things like 'why can't I have x ability because without it I don't deal as much damage].
Also, I would make sure that whatever changes I'm making - ignoring banning broken stuff - don't detract from the fun of the game.
The most important thing I see is writing any and all houserules down so you can look them up, either for reference or (most importantly) for new players.
One game I am playing had house-rules only written down shortly after I made my PC but shortly before the next new player came in.
That resulted in the newer player getting all the hr but me only knowing some (I had not gotten the text yet.) and thus my PC violated some hr I did not know about and had a backstory at odds with part of the general flavour of the world.
That lead to other players and the GM being annoyed with me without any fault on my part.
Second: If you set house-rules don't be the one ignoring other people's houserules in other games.
In one of our game the allowed books are set and several spells are available to certain important NPCs.
In another game, where we alternate GMing but have set allowed books, too this player (GM in the other game) wanted to build a new pc and insisted on playing a psiker despite ultimate psionics not being on the list and despite the current GM asking them not to. As about the same time a player build a new PC in his game and was told: no to some spells because they are not from the allowed books and/or from the special list of spells only his NPCs can have.
House rules should be kept simple and written down. Ideally they should fit on a single page or less. If you want to include custom races or prestige classes, those can go on a separate page. Your players should be able to read the sheet and understand the changes to the rules without any further explanation. Anything more has left the realm of house rules and you have ventured into the realm of rewriting the game system. You should be very careful about changing core mechanics this can have a lot of unintended consequences.
House rules should be used to set the tone of the campaign so the most important thing is to make sure that the players want to play in the type of campaign you are running. Just because you think running a low magic campaign would be fun does not mean your players want to play in that type of campaign.
House rules should be implemented before the game begins and remain for the campaign. This is not to say that you cannot add or change thing if you need to, but this should be kept at a minimum. They should also apply to both PC’s and NPC’s.
To summarize earlier posts (and agree with them)
1-Write them down and have them accessible right from the start
2-Try to be a little flexible, if you restrict TOO much, you might lose players.
3-If you decide to change the rules mid-game, allow people to rebuild/tweak their characters accordingly.
I've been using extensive house rules for years (like the Draconomicon, awesome book, but NOT Pathfinder material), it can really make the game feel personal, so I encourage it.
Happy gaming, your players are lucky to have a GM who cares enough to put this much thought into things!
An important subset of house rules is house rulings. All those weird corner cases and unresolved FAQ issues, write down how you rule on those so that you stay consistent.
I'm going to encourage you to move from 'my house rules' to 'our house rules'.
This will greatly increase buy-in, if players can also propose adding or removing things they feel very strongly about.
Does it normally help to state why a house rule is in effect? I know it can range from 'I don't like guns mucking up my fantasy combat' to 'holy @#$% that class is BROKEN' ...
|
Does it normally help to state why a house rule is in effect? I know it can range from 'I don't like guns mucking up my fantasy combat' to 'holy @#$% that class is BROKEN' ...
Sometimes. But everyone knows Gunslingers are broken as crap and there is a large part of the community that just outright bans them for BOTH reasons. I ban them in my games and do not play one because of both reasons.
I have my Set of houserules written down on a google Document I can send to each player. I also add a section of what is expected like Planning out your turn while others are taking theirs...no PvP as it slows down game play and can railroad a campaign with players fighting each other.
I sent the OP a link to my House Rules so he can see an example of an upfront and written down set of rules.
House Rules I insist on are done before the game starts and I try to explain each. A player pulling the endless 'why' will not be playing. That said, I have been forced by irrefutable logic to rescind my prohibition of ALL G*n Monks when I got a 'best solution' on these boards that included making a desired Class a Monk archetype. Defending my choices often (too often) leads to far better Rules and reasons for said Rule.
Player proposed changes are never allowed 'just because'. A proposed change that has good reasons (or worse, good role play potential) gets tossed to the mob and mauled. Of the first 3 offered, two were combined and the third turned up in an archetype a month later, without what I objected too (overly complicated mechanic)!
Players have contributed and expounded upon a number of MY House Rules and tightened my sloppy work immeasurable. Numerous features that are now as innate to the game came from players well ahead of me in their roleplay. I just lean back and compliment them for figuring things out, thing desperately jot down notes for inclusion. Never miss an occasion to shine a player's work and seal it as your own. Alas, all my players are in on the trick and never give me my stolen credit.
Posting changes is well past vital, as most of my players would cheerfully gut me for dropping anything on the night of the game. Yes, they are that serious! As a rule, most 'Rules' are hammered out between games and an often hard fought consensus emerges. I only veto things that dump work on me or pollute my view of the world. Race and Class 'sweetening' is jealously guarded against by the other players. Nobody wants to play Jimmy Olsen.
'Sweetening' refers to a discredited habit of a former 'dm' who played favorites by only allowing 'x' to play 'y' and then layering on the advantages and began diminishing his other players. The worst part is that otherwise, he was a great 'dm'.
Does it normally help to state why a house rule is in effect? I know it can range from 'I don't like guns mucking up my fantasy combat' to 'holy @#$% that class is BROKEN' ...Sometimes. But everyone knows Gunslingers are broken as crap and there is a large part of the community that just outright bans them for BOTH reasons. I ban them in my games and do not play one because of both reasons.
Though this can come with the side effect of encouraging players to debate the house rules if they don't agree with the stated reasoning. After all, opinions can and will vary on what is 'broken.' Though if the group is reasonably mature, any such debate should be handled in a polite and non-disruptive manner.
Does it normally help to state why a house rule is in effect? I know it can range from 'I don't like guns mucking up my fantasy combat' to 'holy @#$% that class is BROKEN' ...
Sometimes, I've seen people say house rules to cover two different ideas. The first is mechanical, and those are house rules, like armor as DR, or wounds and vitality, or using the unchained rogue.
The other idea is that of a defined setting. Setting rules, if you will. So, if you are looking for a campaign that involves pirates on the high seas, a honor-bound knight on horseback doesn't fit. But its not a bad class or character idea in itself, it just doesn't fit this campaign.
The reason I mention it is because the fix is very different. If you dislike how pathfinder guns work, you could use the gun rules from Freeport, or from d20 modern, or wherever. The solution is: find better gun rules. If you object to the concept of a gunslinger in your campaign about st. George and the dragon, the solution is: get a new character concept.
I find explanations help a great deal.
The same is true for heroic vs. dark fantasy, or high vs. low magic, or medieval vs. modern. The more defined the campaign world is, the better the characters can be made to fit. And that's true both mechanically, and from a role-playing perspective. We don't need to know how many people live in the village of northford, we need to know why they are leaving. What's the central conflict driving your story? If I know, I can build a character who has a reason to interact.