I like to house rule. Usually there's an aspect of an RPG that bugs me, or I think I can do better.
But lately I've been thinking. I ran 2nd edition a while ago, and had a few pages of house rules. This did create some confusion at the table over what the book said and my house rules.
So I've been much more reluctant to use house rules, so as everyone at the table is on the same page (pun time) over what the rules are.

What say you?

When I was an active gamer there was almost always some variety of house rule in play; I don't remember anyone objecting to any of them, since most of the ones I saw were generally there at player request in the first place to make things more enjoyable for the players.

I think for me the things that would make a "house rule" a flag would be along the following lines:

- If it was something the GM had decided to impose himself, rather than at player request, especially if it didn't have a lot of history of effective use, or the GM showed disinclination to explain his reasons for it or take constructive feedback about it.

- If it was aimed primarily at restricting, nerfing or prohibiting particular player choices, rather than expanding options or adding flexibility. Even when I agree that particular players have a habit of making game-disruptive choices and may need to be reined in, I prefer doing that by talking outside the game rather than enforcing rules within it.

Generally I find the potential problems of house rules can be forestalled by enough communication beforehand, though I appreciate that this is sometimes more difficult than it may seem.

I firmly believe that most RPGs have too much crunch, and too many rules.

I don't want running a game, or playing a game to feel like working at a job.  I want it to be fun and relaxing.  It's a game.

So yes, I love house rules that simplify gameplay.

I have the personality type that loves house rules.  I love everything about them:  Imagining them, designing them, testing them, etc.  I'm also fairly certain that most games (or at least most of my games) are better off with minimal house rules.  So everything I do with house rules is trying to work around that internal conflict.

If the house rules are extensive, then there is a good chance that either the system being used is the wrong fit for the game or maybe even that the needed system doesn't exist.  Sometimes, you've got that particular campaign idea and house rules will get you there.  However, I've been much happier (and my players too) now that I've channeled my, um, excessive house rule efforts into my own system design.  It's not just about me and limiting house rules in our other systems, either.  The players are much happier to deal with "my rules" in a system I'm writing and testing because the rules are more likely to fit--being designed for that game specifically.

The 80/20 rule and not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good applies to house rules, too.  I can't count the number of times that I've written a page of house rules to handle every little edge case, saw that it was way too much and too convoluted, mulled it over a little, and discovered that I could get 80% of what I wanted with 20% of the rules--with more clarity, too.  Actually, it's usually closer to 90/10.  I had one case where 2 pages of house rules got chunked for 2 sentences--and it turned out the few edges that were no longer covered never arose in play.

The best house rules are the ones that refine and distill a series of rulings that occurred in play.  You know you've got a reason for them, and there is solid chance that the accumulated rulings have picked up some baggage.  Such house rules don't need to cover everything, either--they merely need to make it easier and clearer how later rulings will go.

I'll be much more likely to make house rules to change something for a campaign than to change the system itself.  The campaign may have certain limits that we all agreed to.  A few house rules to drive that home doesn't hurt.  If you don't get them exactly right, well, there is the next campaign or even tweak the rules this time.  Example:  Deciding that orcs are a playable race this campaign is substantially less intrusive than deciding that orcs are a playable race for all games that you run.  Plus, that kind of thing ideally is a setting/campaign detail, not a rules detail.

Conversely, if I'm changing the system rules for all games, then that demands a certain amount of thought and testing.  My replacement for cyclic initiative has gone through several refinements and very much works for the way I run games. 

System changes should be limited.  When I now run a campaign with an existing system such as D&D, I limit myself to no more than one page of system house rules.  Usually, I'm going for half a page or less, in simple declarative language.  That's enough that players can easily remember it during play.  The campaign/setting rules can be more extensive in part because you don't need to remember them all the time during play--just look them up when they matter. 

I rarely hesitate to house rule away a rule I don't like and have never really played many games RAW in my life. When playing D&D in particular I've never kept track of spell memorization, for example. All casters in my campaign have always been "spontaneous casters" since before 3e and Sorcerers existed (I started DMing around 1991, with 2e). I hated that rule both, conceptually and in terms of practicality (too cumbersome, and too much bookkeeping), so I've always refused to use it.

I always tell players ahead of time that I tend to heavily house rule, to mitigate false expectations. One thing I would often do during my 2e days in particular (in order to forestall rules lawyer types) was to point at the PHB and tell players that in my campaign everything that was written in that book are SUGGESTIONS, and not to expect anything that the rules said to necessarily apply in my game.

I have gone a little too far in my house ruling a couple of times, though. I used to heavily modify and add a lot of "kewl" options and features to my 2e game, to the point that it became unwieldy and unbalanced, particularly since I failed to apply a lot of these options to monsters as well (at least for a time), so I had to walk it back a little at one point. I've tried to keep the house ruling to a minimum the last few times I've played, though, I'm currently cooking up my own d20 derived system, so that might go out the window next time I get a chance to play. 

Sometimes I  prefer to take a framework and do my thing like with Whitebox or C&C and modding the beejeesus out of it for the style/tone of the "campaign".  I also "13th Aged" 4E Essentials for quick ToTM play, making lots of simplifications and removing/changing things.

On the opposite extreme,  I  also love to run WB by the book. Or if it's a new game system I'm learning, I resist the desire to tinker until I see how things work.

I like house rules that streamline things and cut out bloat, and I don't mind ditching rules that the group isnt feeling. At some point I also think that if you deviate too far from the way it was intended to be played then you are better off playing a different game.


For an example of a house rule I think appropriate for 1st edition AD&D is that we altered the rangers +1 damage per level vs giant class opponents to only being able to apply once a round, regardless as to how many attacks hit. It prevents our issue of an 8th level ranger dual wielding forks and doing obscene damage, or haste spells on an elf ranger breaking the game. Likewise free casting for clerics, no material components, hell even using classic D&Ds attribute mods for streamlining is fine by me.


On the other hand (still talking about AD&D here) when you get into the realm of tracking separate damage for different limbs or modifying attributes into new sub groups, or overhauling thief abilties to work more like spells per day, I believe you're better off playing a game better tailored to that experience.

Quote from: deathknight4044 on December 17, 2020, 01:17:16 AMFor an example of a house rule I think appropriate for 1st edition AD&D is that we altered the rangers +1 damage per level vs giant class opponents to only being able to apply once a round, regardless as to how many attacks hit. It prevents our issue of an 8th level ranger dual wielding forks and doing obscene damage, or haste spells on an elf ranger breaking the game. Likewise free casting for clerics, no material components, hell even using classic D&Ds attribute mods for streamlining is fine by me.

How did that break the game more than, say, a fireball? Giant class creatures, with the exception of giants, tend to be weak. Being able to take down mooks, or very rarely shine against a very specific group of more powerful monsters, is hardly game breaking. Especially compared to the power and range of a magic-user, or the general utility of a double specialized fighter with gauntlets of ogre power.

I tend to be leery of house rules because they often seem random and fiddly. (My house rules, on the other hand, are always flawless!)

I am running dnd 3.5 (core only) and pathfinder (all of the core line spaltbooks) and each game has a 20 page document of houserules, which i share with the players before the game. Both games are going well, so I am fine with using houserules.
If I ever run adnd I will propably run it with adventures dark and deep or with a set of houserules from dragonsfoot forum by ken-do-nim.
I think houserules are great, however you should be careful, it is easy to houserule but really the trick is to consider as many of their ramifications as possible. Also you should be open and talk about them with your players if they care to do so, though in my exprience most times they don't.   

I limit myself to one double sided page of house rules for a game, which gets handed out to the Players at the start (and is then promptly forgotten by said same Players). If I need more than that, then I think that I am using the wrong RPG system for that game and try to find one that is a better fit before play begins.

i favor and endorse houserules, what is the whole of the osr if not old dnd plus houserules?

Three points:

1. I generally try to keep them to a minimum, as if I need a massive quantity of house rules I figure that I'm better off playing a different system. (I know of some people basically use "houserules" to get players to play at their table with the promise of D&D and then pull a bait & switch with their homebrew. Homebrew is fine - but a bait & switch isn't.)

2. I do think that having them actually written out and available to the players up-front is very important.

3. The only houserule issue which truly grinds my gears is people who do massive houseruling to systems which they haven't played yet. Tweaking at the periphery is a non-issue, but I've seen people replace main pillars of the system before they try it out - which is obviously not going to be how the system was really designed to be played, and it can often break the mechanics in half.

But - I tend to be a bit on the rules traditionalist side (as opposed to the rules sharks who try to manipulate the rules to their advantage) - so take my opinion with that grain of salt.

Some extra things I want to add:
Houserules is a very generic term. It can mean  anything from rule changes to things like you can't talk strategy when in combat or I roll dice out in the open.
The size of the houserules also depends on the system you are using. You will need much fewer houserules, at least mechanics wise, for b/x dnd compared to lets pathfinder with all splabooks allowed.

If you homebrew your own world then you are going to house rule a few things to make them fit within your vision of your world.   

I have a house rule doc that I keep updated as needed that my players have access to.   Has never been a problem at our table since the majority of the house rules tend to be in the players favor anyway

Quote from: Pat on December 17, 2020, 06:46:29 AM

Quote from: deathknight4044 on December 17, 2020, 01:17:16 AMFor an example of a house rule I think appropriate for 1st edition AD&D is that we altered the rangers +1 damage per level vs giant class opponents to only being able to apply once a round, regardless as to how many attacks hit. It prevents our issue of an 8th level ranger dual wielding forks and doing obscene damage, or haste spells on an elf ranger breaking the game. Likewise free casting for clerics, no material components, hell even using classic D&Ds attribute mods for streamlining is fine by me.

How did that break the game more than, say, a fireball? Giant class creatures, with the exception of giants, tend to be weak. Being able to take down mooks, or very rarely shine against a very specific group of more powerful monsters, is hardly game breaking. Especially compared to the power and range of a magic-user, or the general utility of a double specialized fighter with gauntlets of ogre power.

I tend to be leery of house rules because they often seem random and fiddly. (My house rules, on the other hand, are always flawless!)

Well we dont use the unearthed arcana so the characters aren't as high powered, and also having played and DMd modules with large amounts of giants and trolls I find that ranger ability can go off the rails in a way that just isnt there to all other fighter classes. Especially with dual wielding and/or haste. We did switch between first and second edition quite a bit, so I wasn't married to the way it's done in 1st edition.

If I could remake AD&D though I would probably keep the +1 damage per level as written, give paladins an identical ability vs undead and demons, and then exclusively allow fighters to specialize and double specialize. The way I see it this sets up a trifecta where 2 specialists are highly effective against seperate groups of broad enemy types, and then the fighter is just consistently good against all. I wouldnt try houseruling that in though, as it begins to cross into my threshold of "just play a different game" at that point..