What makes us House Rule?

[Wik]

You ever notice how certain games attract house rules more readily than other? Everyone house rules monopoly, but how many people house rule Risk? (I know I've house-ruled both, but this isn't really a common practice, is it?)

And the same goes with D&D. I've been buying the moldvay BECMI books, and realized that if I were ever running it, I'd be using some house rules - and then realized that the game sort of encourages this anyways. And yet other editions of D&D were less kind towards house ruling... 4e, for example, is a little bit more difficult to house rule (not that you can't...)

So, I house rule every edition of D&D, which I'm sure isn't that unusual. But then, I'd never house rule Shadowrun (even though I should, since the game's rules are too insanely complex for me). And that goes for Earthdawn, the d6 system (hard to houserule a game that's presented as being only half complete, REQUIRING GM rules decisions, though), and WFRP. I'm pretty sure that were I to play Savage Worlds for any length of time, I'd throw in a few house rules, but not to the extent I went with most editions of D&D.

So, am I crazy in thinking that certain games are just more open for house ruling than others? And why is this? I don't think, for example, that a heavily house ruled game means that the original system was "broken"... but then, I've been wrong before...

 

[Elric]

So, am I crazy in thinking that certain games are just more open for house ruling than others? And why is this? I don't think, for example, that a heavily house ruled game means that the original system was "broken"... but then, I've been wrong before...

Sometimes a system being house-ruled more is a sign that's it's better, not worse.

For example, my 3.X D&D group didn't like tracking XP. So we did away with it and players gained levels when appropriate. However, since XP was involved in magic item creation and the casting of certain spells, this caused some other difficulties that had to be addressed.

In 4e, XP doesn't matter for any mechanic besides levelling, so it is easier to drop it entirely (except for its use behind the scenes in planning encounter budgets). From our perspective, this aspect of 4e would be an improvement, and would also be more likely to be house-ruled.

 

[Lanefan]

In my case, I house-rule either out of common sense (e.g. where something would just not work in reality as the rules think it would; the 4e commoner-to-1st-level h.p. jump is one such) or out of an attempt to make the game more playable and-or fun (e.g. ditching weapon type vs. armour type in 1e).

That, and tinkering can be fun.

Lanefan

 

[blargney the second]

When I'm DMing a given campaign, I like to set up the house rules before the first die is ever rolled. I'll sit down with the players to find out what kind of game they want, then we'll come up with house rules to help make the game's tone match what we're all looking for. Ideally I prefer to have few rules that are easy to remember and easy to implement, while having a significant impact on tone. Biggest bang for the buck, as it were.

The biggest thing I try to avoid doing is to change house rules once the game is started. I find it tends to create moving targets for the players. House rules can easily become an obstacle to enjoyment, either in quantity or in frequency of modification.
-blarg

 

[Jack99]

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

Or maybe we just want a slightly different experience than the one the base game provides...

 

[Umbran]

You ever notice how certain games attract house rules more readily than other? Everyone house rules monopoly, but how many people house rule Risk? (I know I've house-ruled both, but this isn't really a common practice, is it?)

Yes, I think it is a common practice, which rather weakens your point. The practice of having house rules stands far wider than RPGs - it is something done by humans to games, in general.

 

[delericho]

You ever notice how certain games attract house rules more readily than other? Everyone house rules monopoly, but how many people house rule Risk?

Ah, but...

1) Is Monopoly not many times more popular than Risk?

2) How many people actually read the rules for Monopoly? How many just have them explained to them as "here's how we play", and so unconsciously absorb whatever the local house rules are, not realising that they're not playing by RAW?

3) Doesn't Risk have a much more in-built 'competitive' edge (where Monopoly is a more 'social' game)? That being the case, does the game not require a much more strict adherence to a set of solid and consistent rules across places and locations for tournament play?

4) Don't the vast majority of Monopoly house rules make the game worse?

So, am I crazy in thinking that certain games are just more open for house ruling than others?

No. Pre-3e versions of D&D were a lot more open to house ruling. In the case of 3e, the tightly-integrated ruleset makes house ruling harder - change one thing and there is likely to be a cascade of other changes elsewhere. In the case of 4e, the sheer utility of the DDI (which cannot, and likely will never be able to be, house-ruled) strongly discourages big changes.

Also, it is considerably easier to house rule a system you are very familiar with than one you play only occasionally (or, at least, to do it well).

And why is this?

Of late, I have concluded that any benefits that are gained by the use of House Rules are generally undone by the complexity of ensuring the players are all familiar with them. Even very simple house rules can cause problems in this regard. (And, actually, the same thing is true of rules from supplements - which are pretty much just 'official' house rules anyway.)

As a result of this, my inclination is now to restrict my house rules to no more than a handful of very simple and easily-understood rules (such as "ignore favoured classes"). The current house rule document for my Eberron campaign stands at six pages, but that is mostly filled with examples. Even so, I have found that it has caused a couple of problems; in hindsight, I would have been better just going with RAW, I think.

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

Well, I am smarter and understand the game better than the designers...

 

[Nightson]

I'd just like to say that I find houseruling 4e to suit the game style that me and my players desire to be easy, sure you run into issues of it not being DDI compatible, but if you're letting that stop you it might not have been a very necessary houserule.

The way 4e is designed, the assumptions and framework of the system are very apparent which makes making changes easier imo.

 

[Beginning of the End]

No. Pre-3e versions of D&D were a lot more open to house ruling. In the case of 3e, the tightly-integrated ruleset makes house ruling harder - change one thing and there is likely to be a cascade of other changes elsewhere.

I would disagree with that: Making a change in pre-3E versions of the game was just as likely to have a cascade effect throughout the balance of the system.

The difference was that pre-3E versions of the game weren't particularly well balanced to begin with. So shifting the game from one unbalanced state to a different unbalanced state just wasn't particularly noticeable.

The distinction here is subtle, but important.

 

[Coldwyn]

I come up with house rules when the mechanics don´t fit my imagination, which is quite often the case with races and class features.
Also, if players present me a build they want to play, I create a coherent class from the diferent parts the player decided upon.
But most of the time, I dismiss my own house-rules again before use for fear of the endless chain of upcoming changes with new published material.