Do you like/dislike houserules in general?
How do you come up with houserules? Do you read the game and decide before playing it that it needs some fixes, and implemant them from the start? Or do you houserule as the campaign unfolds, starting with the rules as written and fixing whatever goes wrong when it goes?
Do you houserule the game on your own, as a GM, or does everyone have a say as to what the final houserule is going to be? Do you impose them at the game table, or do you put them for a vote?
Anything else you'd like to mention about your way of houseruling a game?
(http://enrill.net/images/forump/houserules.gif)
Shrug. I neither like nor dislike them on the whole. Individually, however, is another matter. Some are, of course, great. Others, ones instituted to punish player choices, I'm not so fond of.
And they can get out of hand. When someone's binder of house rules is thicker than the actual rulebook, I think it's time to take a step back and look at the situation.
Seanchai
If the HR makes sense I usualy have no issues...particularly if it expedites game play without adversely effecting the feel of the game. If a house-rule slows the game for more "realistic" (usualy drawing me out of immersion or what-not) play I am not so keen on it...or if it mirrors the GM's understanding of how something works without them having any experience or study to back thier opinions up.
I always play the game as writ first to make sure I get a good basic grasp of the flow of play before suggesting any changes.
I only house-rule by consensus.I appreciate the input and learn allot about group expectations that way. I will defer to the other players if they seem to have a better understanding of the rule/situation in question.
Funny cartoon Ben.!
:D
Let me see. Currently I am running Icons. I'm running pretty straight but I've had to tweak some stuff concerning Aspects. Specifically as I know my group aren't comfortable with Compelled Aspects so I've toned "aspect" of the system way down. Consequently, to make up for the resulting Fate Points shortfall (technically, Determination Points) I've changed things so that Fate Points refresh each in-game day rather than between sessions. This has the additional advantage in that it helps slow down the pace of the game to something that feels more natural.
There are other things I'd consider changing, but I'm holding fire for now. They are not really that important.
For Gamma World, on the other hand, I've got lots of house rules. I think that's an example of I run because I like the setting but don't much care for the rules. So really the house rules are there to twist the game into something it was never meant to be. So sue me.
Bottom line, any house ruling I do is a pondered choice. And in these enlightened days, when I prepare to run a new game, I research it, hit the forums, ask questions and make the most of the collective wisdom out there.
Quote from: Benoist;408673Do you like/dislike houserules in general?
I'm cool with them. I'm a strong proponent of RPGs as toolboxes.
QuoteHow do you come up with houserules? Do you read the game and decide before playing it that it needs some fixes, and implemant them from the start? Or do you houserule as the campaign unfolds, starting with the rules as written and fixing whatever goes wrong when it goes?
I play the game as RAW until I find something that is not covered or works badly. Then we agree on a ruling to solve that, and write it down on a Gdoc available to everyone. The houserule becomes an official rule.
QuoteDo you houserule the game on your own, as a GM, or does everyone have a say as to what the final houserule is going to be? Do you impose them at the game table, or do you put them for a vote?
I discuss it with my crew, but they usually don't care too much, and trust me. Anyway, they are always warned in advance.
Quote from: Seanchai;408694Others, ones instituted to punish player choices, I'm not so fond of.
I agree on this.
QuoteAnd they can get out of hand. When someone's binder of house rules is thicker than the actual rulebook, I think it's time to take a step back and look at the situation.
Yes, of course. That is why I find myself increasingly pruning my collection, and trying to emulate as many games and settings as possible with a few trusted systems.
Quote from: Benoist;408673Do you like/dislike houserules in general?
It's not a matter of like/dislike. I consider house rules necessary for almost any RPG to adapt it to the specific style of a particular group of players and the needs of a specific campaign world. I even house rule games I've written to adapt them to the preferred play style of the group currently playing them and the specifics of the campaign world I'm currently using.
Let me take the extreme position.
Systems are toolsets and at the same time the physics engine of a setting. In Hardisson's recent LotR thread, many of us have analyzed what elements a system would need to have to actually represent the setting. And without anyone having a stake in a particular game, the requirements seem pretty specific. As they should.
Writing the individual, creative flufff of a setting is relatively useless without the right physics engine, and then calibrating and adjusting that physics engine to enable the more unique parts of the setting to shine.
The ruleset adjustments are also the fusion point between the setting and the type of game you want to play in the setting.
And we also need, as is per usual, to reference Vreeg's First Law of Setting Design.
"Make sure the ruleset you are using matches the setting and game you want to play, because the setting and game WILL eventually match the system."
To encapsulate, unless you are playing in the exact setting a ruleset was designed for, with the exact type of game the setting creator envisioned...a lack of houserules will cause a less optimal game experience.
For me, there's two sets of house rules; one set to adapt the system to the specifics of the setting and another to fix holes in the rules. For the former, I give the players a brief description to see if it is interesting to them, then write the whole set of mods. For the latter, we make amends as holes appear and go with everyone thinks is fair.
Example: Suppose that I want elves to be natural magic users but humans treat it as a science - humans studied what elves do naturally and tried to replicate it. I might use or create a sorcerer class for elves only and then allow only humans to be wizards. I didn't do this because I think the magic rules sucked, I did it because I wanted to alter the base assumption for a setting. This house rule would be only for this setting and not every time we use this system.
Now suppose a wizard wants to cast a fireball into a golem's mouth and the rules don't really cover if it can be placed that exactly or the effects of a fireball within a creature. We'd make up something on the spot and try to remember if it ever comes up again.
I find simpler rules systems more amenable to the former but have more of the latter. As long as you don't have anyone trying to beat the system, I'm ok with that.
My approach is "don't sweat it too much, it's just a game." If something doesn't work out you can always amend.
I usually run a system RAW enough to get a feel for how the rules work in play.
Then there are times when I've written so many house rules I might as well be making up my own system.
As long as they bring something functional/useful/enjoyable to the game I'm pretty fine with them.
This is my MO, taken from the other thread:
Quote from: Aos;408474One of the things I try to do as i make my changes is keep things more or less compatible with D&D raw. I also try to avoid adding new systems and shit when I can just tweak what is already there. When viewed as malleable tools, D&D systems can be altered in ways that will create whole new options and possibilities. If you keep things modular, which is yet another, and perhaps the most important of my design goals, you can use one option and leave the rest. For example there is no reason you can't use my character species options and ignore my hit point rules or task resolution rules- and you can use none of my options and still use my critter list (or the standard by the book monsters).
You can click the link in my sig and it will take you to a stupid place with lots of stupid things. Some house rule stuff is near the top of the page on the right.
Quote from: Benoist;408673Do you like/dislike houserules in general?
I love them when they add enjoyment to my experience of the game.
As the Tyrant of Fun, I demand house rules add more fun.
Quote from: Benoist;408673How do you come up with houserules?
Ouija boards and blood orgies.
Quote from: Benoist;408673Do you read the game and decide before playing it that it needs some fixes, and implemant them from the start? Or do you houserule as the campaign unfolds, starting with the rules as written and fixing whatever goes wrong when it goes?
I like to do sample chargen / combats with a new game before I run it with players. If something seems wonky there, I make a note to watch it in the actual gameplay 'cuz it does happen that something reads weird and then plays great. But if something is obviously not making sense to me, then it gets changed prior to play. Most of the time, I give RAW a chance.
Quote from: Benoist;408673Do you houserule the game on your own, as a GM, or does everyone have a say as to what the final houserule is going to be? Do you impose them at the game table, or do you put them for a vote?
I would wear a Viking hat if I didn't already have horns growing from my skull.
Lots of my houserules are behind-the-scenes stuff that the players may never see. If its a player affecting house-rule, then I watch to see it in play and if it adds FUN then its good.
Like when I dropped the "self" requirement for lots of D&D spells. You want to cast Levitate on the dwarf? Go for it. It made the players happy and they didn't mind it when the enemy casters did the same.
I'm incapable of reading a rule set without a dizen houserules popping into my head...I just can't do it.
I usually give a system the benefit of the doubt and run it by the book rules at first, but eventually every game that I run has a bevy of houserules...some better than others.
I dislike houserules in general. Especially if the house rules have unintended consequences.
I'm open to houserules, in fact I think it's pretty normal to introduce them in the course of play. I'm also comfortable playing a game where the GM just tells me when & what to roll, so it's only a problem if I already know a game with a lot of crunch and I expect it to be played that way. Then I could get annoyed if the GM handwaved a lot of the rules, especially if it went against the spirit of the book. And it'd be almost as much of a pain if there were voluminous houserules, but I've never seen that.
Best reasons to house rules:
You know your players better than original game designer.
Even proffessional game designers get it wrong, surprisingly often.
Best reasons not to house rule:
Law of unintented consequences - you can fixe x but what is it's impact on y and z?
GM blind spot - that thing you think is really so very cool, just isn't.
I am particularly susceptible to GM blind spots as my tastes can be a little quirky.
(http://basicinstructions.net/storage/2007-11-21-07-houserules.gif?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1259162820426)