What's your preferred 'weight' of house rules?

[machfront]

I ask because frankly I feel sort of weird when there's more than a handful of short sentences. But recently I've noticed I've had some 'creep' in my house rules.
It's probably well on preposterous to the crew at this board, especially with as many of you that either have no issue building a whole game all your own with the 3LBBs as the base or picking and choosing from 4 or 5 booklets total (perhaps more).

I'm uncertain why I feel this way but it seems wrong somehow to change great swaths of the game. This is probably due to do many fairly similar iterations of D&D. Not just D&D but old-school D&D itself when one counts retro-clones as well.

I also am unsure as to how or why I've allowed the rules creep or felt it necessary but I'll guess it may be due to being exposed to so very many good ideas from the clones, other folks house rules and sparks from forum discussions and blogs. Curse you all!

I spent the better part of two weeks trying to pare down a Holmes house rule sheet to make certain it was no more than a single page as it felt like too much to go beyond that for a game that's less than 50 pages total (even accounting for the fact that there are no rules for advancement beyond level 3, so the ref sheet by Zenopus I was using already accounted for one page and another three pages of a level or two more of spells).


It's actually sort of rare I'd even set down the house rules in black and white because before now the extent of my house rules was to cross out one or two little things in the books themselves and replace it with a small note (like changing the thief's HD from d4 to d6 in B/X for example).

So here I am after all these decades setting down documents and trying to compare just how much I'd change between OD&D, S&W:WB, Delving Deeper and Full Metal Plate Mail with the intent that once I've determined, I'll go with the game I have to change the least. That makes logical sense...but then outside of this sphere I'd probably pick my Holmes + five or six pages over my B/X + half a page of house rules...ssoooo......


I suppose I'd like to hear your methods and measures and preferences, quirks and personal prejudices even for house rules.
How do you decide when you can't decide between versions (for those times that two or more call to you for purposes of this or that campaign idea or because...just because...)?


I wish to apologize for the 'burst transmission'. Every time I'd like to discuss something I find it difficult to set it down in a reasonable and measured brief. I find I'm always writing as if I'm babbling to you all across the table at a diner. Best I can do I'm afraid.

[Scott Anderson]

Write as much as you need to. That goes for your post and for the house rules docs. I write everything down because I am too dumb to remember it all. So: new game born. I betcha a lot of folks keep their house rules in their heads.

[machfront]

I can't be sure but I think I may actually be sub-consciously attempting to 'set all the switches' for each iteration to be just so and then deciding on the resulting games. Maybe that's why I'm going over all of them and setting down my preferences for house rules for all and not committing until I do so.
You'd think I'd know what I was doing before I do it though it seems I do not. Very odd.

[Scott Anderson]

Sometimes, you have to work through the process before you know what the result will be. Respect your own gut feelings on that. Read, make notes, write, revise. Or, don't- do it your way.

This is not tournament d&d, this is pretending to be elves, throwing some dice, and making up stuff that you think might be fun. Have fun. Work and think things through at your own pace. I'm really eager to hear about what you come up with.

[tetramorph]

machfront, thanks for starting this thread. I think there is a broad spectrum represented on these boards.

Some would go for the "one page limit" approach (or less!).

Others write their own clone.

In my opinion, it is all still 0e, in some way or another. I do not believe it is possible to play 0e without house rules unless you are someone like @gronanofsimmerya who actually has an on-going living tradition of having played within the "rulings" that forged the "rules." The rest of us have to make rulings. Period. And it is fun.

Personally, I have been having fun striking what seems like a kind of "middle way" to me. Instead of either the minimalism of a one-page only document, or the maximalism of my own full-blown retroclone, I have been going for what I like to call a "retro supplement." What I mean is that I am providing a 0e compatible supplement to my campaign world, as GH and BM did for EGG and Arneson. So, my "page limit" is quite a bit less than a full blown retroclone, but quite a bit more than a one-pager. My document is currently about 50 pgs in digest format -- like some of the other supplements. I have pretty much replaced M&M except in its principles, but my document could not be run without M&T and U&WA. I don't need the other supplements b/c what I liked from them I incorporated into my own retro-supplement.

I learned this approach by imitation. As I've mentioned in other places on this board, I got back into RPGaming and 0e in particular through austinjimm's Planet Eris campaign (goggle around to find). His house rules document is also what I would call a "retro-supplement." It is awesome. I still use it and play with those guys when I get wind of a game they are running. And it has hugely influenced my own document.

Hope that helps towards your OP.

[Scott Anderson]

Let me now direct you to look at the Iron Falcon home page. Specifically, Chris has provided a "campaign check list" where a referee can quickly note for players his house rule choices. ironfalconrpg.com

It's a little too inside-baseball for me. But it's a great take on the codification of house rules. Maybe it can spur your thinking.

[dukeofchutney]

i have a google doc of house rules. I use S&W white box as my basis because I like d6s and a clean starting point but then i throw bits of S&W complete or other rule sets and some of my own ideas on top. Some of it remember, but there are somethings i need to keep a note of.


edit:

docs.google.com/document/d/1gEfgIUmxhAbrv-3EoBAmBezsjzf-QN4KuVmFTx0I6P0/edit?usp=sharing

Heres my cheat sheet. Its a bit of a mess as its both to remind me of some pretty basic stuff and act as a clarification sheet for players of how i run the rules. Most of my changes are to add a bit of setting detail where i want it and too buff lower level characters a bit as my players are all modern weaklings.

[monk]

Mar 27, 2015 8:40:51 GMT -6 tetramorph said:

In my opinion, it is all still 0e, in some way or another. I do not believe it is possible to play 0e without house rules unless you are someone like @gronanofsimmerya who actually has an on-going living tradition of having played within the "rulings" that forged the "rules." The rest of us have to make rulings. Period. And it is fun.

This!

Mar 27, 2015 8:40:51 GMT -6 tetramorph said:

Personally, I have been having fun striking what seems like a kind of "middle way" to me. Instead of either the minimalism of a one-page only document, or the maximalism of my own full-blown retroclone, I have been going for what I like to call a "retro supplement." What I mean is that I am providing a 0e compatible supplement to my campaign world, as GH and BM did for EGG and Arneson.

And this!

This is the best way to do OD&D in my opinion. Some people will have lots of pages in their supplements, others only a few. There's no right way to play, or "purer" way. Arneson's manner of play isn't less OD&D because he gave MUs fireballs or something.

So, if I got to play in your campaign, I'd hope you were playing with all the houserules you needed to make the game the way you wanted it be.

[Koren n'Rhys]

Cool topic, machfront. Personally, I find it most fun to build a "retro-supplement" as tetramorph is suggesting, but it never seems to get finished if you go that route. There are a few out there (or maybe they've disappeared by now) that are great examples. I have two in particular I like - the previously mentioned Planet Eris and Outland by Jeremy Deram, not to mention Jason Vey's amazing Age of Conan. But that really goes towards a new game more than a houserule booklet, IMO.

Now, there's a distinct difference between any of those, and a one or two page sheet with a handful of house rules. The supplements are just that - a full-blown attempt to detail an authors home campaign setting, with all the tweaks and changes to the rules that make it unique. In contrast, your one-pager is just a handful of notes to document rules tweaks so that you can consistently apply them and not rely on memory. It also gives the players a reference of the changes you use at your table.

I absolutely agree that these things can quickly grow out of control. There are so many cool ideas out there that you start to add them here or there and it blossoms into something big. Start adding pages of new spells and there you are. It's easy to step over the line between house-rule tweaks and additional content.

[monk]

For me, the tough part isn't the high number of house rules, but being consistent with a set of them. The only time my players start to get weary of house ruling is when I repeatedly change things mid-campaign. I don't do that anymore. hehe

[Deleted]

If you don't count monsters, spells and treasure as house rules and I don't, then I only use about a half page of house rules in most of my campaigns. However; if my vision of the game (like my one campaign) needs 20 or 30 pages then so be it.

[talysman]

I prefer a light approach. Again, that's if you don't count monsters, treasure, and the like as house rules, and you probably shouldn't. I'd also say that prep methods, like wandering monster tables or random wilderness locations or treasure tables, shouldn't count. And that's the bulk of the stuff I write.

For player handouts, I believe in superlight house rules. Certainly no more than a page. Part of that, though, has to do with the number one player-directed house rule at my table: "If you want a custom class, race, ability, or whatever, we can talk, but you cannot ask for specific mechanics." You want to be a berserker? We'll figure something out. You want a +5 against certain opponents. No. Has nothing to do with power or balance, it has to do with avoiding system-level thinking at the table. Almost all mechanics are meant for the GM. It's behind-the-scenes stuff. And because it's behind the scenes, it might actually change from time to time, so I might not even have a written-down rule anywhere, just a general principle in my head.

Because I write down so few house rules, anyways, I prefer reusing existing rules as much as possible. So, I do a lot of stuff with the standard reaction roll table. Much easier to say "Oh, mixing random potions should have different unexpected effects, I guess I'll use a reaction roll and wing it." Or do the same thing with weather, political unrest, or a bunch of other things.

[Deleted]

Mar 27, 2015 12:52:37 GMT -6 talysman said:

I prefer a light approach. Again, that's if you don't count monsters, treasure, and the like as house rules, and you probably shouldn't. I'd also say that prep methods, like wandering monster tables or random wilderness locations or treasure tables, shouldn't count. And that's the bulk of the stuff I write.

For player handouts, I believe in superlight house rules. Certainly no more than a page. Part of that, though, has to do with the number one player-directed house rule at my table: "If you want a custom class, race, ability, or whatever, we can talk, but you cannot ask for specific mechanics." You want to be a berserker? We'll figure something out. You want a +5 against certain opponents. No. Has nothing to do with power or balance, it has to do with avoiding system-level thinking at the table. Almost all mechanics are meant for the GM. It's behind-the-scenes stuff. And because it's behind the scenes, it might actually change from time to time, so I might not even have a written-down rule anywhere, just a general principle in my head.

Because I write down so few house rules, anyways, I prefer reusing existing rules as much as possible. So, I do a lot of stuff with the standard reaction roll table. Much easier to say "Oh, mixing random potions should have different unexpected effects, I guess I'll use a reaction roll and wing it." Or do the same thing with weather, political unrest, or a bunch of other things.

That is pretty much how I do it! I think we could enjoy each others games. Bolded in the quote for truth.

[machfront]

Wow.
I've read through the responses about three times already and I still am unsure how to respond. Rest assured your responses are worth their weight in gold to me, though.

It's weird. I've never even thought of making my own supplement. I think when I'd looked over a few others my mind must have been in the 'gear' of "...in addition to all three (or more) OD&D booklets", but now I see how easily I could replace M&M itself and be done, really.
More work than I'd bet I could commit to, but now it's on my radar as a future possibility. Something to consider. So very odd I didn't consider it. Not that it would change a great deal but it's such a sensible idea it almost floors me. I could essentially rewrite M&M and add a 3LBB-appropriate thief and my few house rules and do some minor house-cleaning and I wouldn't have to worry about anything else. Print it out and team it up with M&T and W&UA in a nice box and BAM.

I wonder if I'd ever have the patience to actually do it.


I think it was a good experience trying to expand Holmes to a full game the way I'd prefer and keep the changes to rules to a single page (outside of the sheets to expand spells and character advancement). It actually kept me honest to being 'Holmesian' (and OD&D itself to a point). That is, clear and concise. Restricting myself as such I was easily able to see where there were things I didn't need and where I could trim descriptions/presentations and still attempt to have at least a modicum of flavor (at least insomuch as a writer of my poor caliber could muster).

Thank you so much for your thoughts.

[Deleted]

I prefer to take away rules instead of adding them. The players don't need to know the rules. The referee exists to make rulings as needed. Keeps things simple and fast.

[monk]

Mar 29, 2015 1:53:59 GMT -6 @droll said:

I prefer to take away rules instead of adding them.

I often think there are exactly two types of people. Those, like you, who would rather ignore rules than add new ones; and those who would rather start with only a few rules and add any they see a need for. It's like two different temperament poles. There should be a Myers-Briggs just for your DMing personality type. I think this explains why some people say, "The DMG is the best gaming book ever!" and others are like, "Ugh, it's like a boulder on my back!"

Mar 29, 2015 1:53:59 GMT -6 @droll said:

The players don't need to know the rules. The referee exists to make rulings as needed. Keeps things simple and fast.

Testify, brother. That is the truth.

[waysoftheearth]

Mar 29, 2015 1:06:57 GMT -6 machfront said:

I could essentially rewrite M&M and add a 3LBB-appropriate thief and my few house rules and do some minor house-cleaning and I wouldn't have to worry about anything else. Print it out and team it up with M&T and W&UA in a nice box and BAM.

I wonder if I'd ever have the patience to actually do it.

You can get yourself a pretty decent start here

[chicagowiz]

I think for me, it's an evolution of "rules" and "game" that I have. It's always D&D, it's always as light as suits the campaign, but I don't separate "house-rules" and "base rules" - they are just the rules. If you play in my Ultima campaign, it's one approach, if you play in my AD&D, it's another, if you play in my wife's 1:1 campaign, it's a third approach. As we play, the rules may adjust, but at the core, it's a consistent feel.

[scottenkainen]

I have a problem; I am an inveterate rules-tinkerer. With my current campaign, I initially resolved to run Holmes ed. using no more than 1 page of house rules. After a year of running it, though, I'm already up to 3 1/2 pages and thinking of more I should add...

~Scott "-enkainen" Casper

[Scott Anderson]

3 1/2! I write 3 1/2 pages of house rules in the shower evey morning! And then I can't read them because the ink runs.

[machfront]

Mar 31, 2015 11:45:54 GMT -6 scottenkainen said:

I have a problem; I am an inveterate rules-tinkerer. With my current campaign, I initially resolved to run Holmes ed. using no more than 1 page of house rules. After a year of running it, though, I'm already up to 3 1/2 pages and thinking of more I should add...

~Scott "-enkainen" Casper

Oh, gosh! Don't say that! I've been wanting to run a Holmes-centric game with no more than one page of house rules recently.

[Falconer]

My House Rules document started big and proud. Over the years, it has shrunk. I have found that most of my rules were based on “theory and philosophy” or on my precious vision for “my world,” yet these didn’t add up to more fun for the players. While I definitely feel that, as DM, I should be master of the game, and I want to run a game that’s solidly about adventure and not about character building, I’d like to think I have become more sensitive to what my players care about and what makes the game fun for them. What’s more, the game is more fun for ME the more I allow the players’ creative input to shape the game. I’m trying to think of solid examples of what I’m talking about. Take classes. If my house rules document has a definitive list of sanctioned classes, even a permissive one, that’s that. If I don’t have such a definitive list, maybe someone will come up with a unique concept that actually ends up adding a lot of flavor and hilarity to the game. So my baseline is “mere” D&D. Somehow Gygax found (or founded) the center of peoples expectations, and it branches out from there in a million directions.

[Gynsburghe]

I think it is my tinkering temptation to house rule that keeps me reading clone after clone - trying to find that magical system that I feel no need to add to.

I'm in the 'DMG is the best RPG book' camp, more for its ability to make me think about things that I don't daydream on - retainers, disease, the complexities of medieval governments, etc. I fall into the LotFP camp in that I don't feel the need for premade magic items or monsters. I must admit that the cleanliness of rules in the LotFP system is one of the things that really draws me to it. Honestly, I never really considered running B/X style D&D before I read those rules. 30 years, still evolving.

I have no problem with heavily weighted house rules - I played Hackmaster for 10 years after all. I'd rather approach it from a solid supplement front rather than hand scribbled notes as well. I'm a flavor changer, so to speak.

Cool topic.

[tetramorph]

Mar 31, 2015 20:33:30 GMT -6 Falconer said:

My House Rules document started big and proud. Over the years, it has shrunk. I have found that most of my rules were based on “theory and philosophy” or on my precious vision for “my world,” yet these didn’t add up to more fun for the players. While I definitely feel that, as DM, I should be master of the game, and I want to run a game that’s solidly about adventure and not about character building, I’d like to think I have become more sensitive to what my players care about and what makes the game fun for them. What’s more, the game is more fun for ME the more I allow the players’ creative input to shape the game. I’m trying to think of solid examples of what I’m talking about. Take classes. If my house rules document has a definitive list of sanctioned classes, even a permissive one, that’s that. If I don’t have such a definitive list, maybe someone will come up with a unique concept that actually ends up adding a lot of flavor and hilarity to the game. So my baseline is “mere” D&D. Somehow Gygax found (or founded) the center of peoples expectations, and it branches out from there in a million directions.

I am raising this thread just to say: Falconer, I've only returned to the hobby about 2 yrs now but I am starting to learn your point by experience, finally.

Less really is more. Stripping down and simplifying is better than adding and detailing.

What starts as a simple change here or there can wind up really throwing the game and killing the adventure.

Going forward I am shying away from extra classes (even the thief), shying away from ability bonuses, shying away from stacking.

The game is more fun when the power scale stays fairly low. For crying out loud the biggest monster in M&T, the purple worm, was still 'only' 15HD!

Happily still learning to let go and let 0e.

[Punkrabbitt]

I don't care about how many house rules I have. I made a few tweaks for character creation, but I think that's about it. Mostly I just decide things on an ad hoc basis and write it wherever it is relevant. Daughter wants her character to breathe fire? I don't need a house rule for that, I need a note on the back of her character card that says "Breathes Fire: 20', d6, 1/turn." Is that a house rule? If it is, I have little house rules all over the place.

[idrahil]

I have been thinking of doing away with the thief class and just keeping the thief skills. I've always had a thief lass though and it isn't a problem in my campaign so I might just leave it.

[DungeonDevil]

The 'weight' of the houseruling depends on the intended setting and the necessary tweaking to get it there. E.g. for S&S or High Fantasy, it wouldn't require all that much, while a Pernian, Melnibonean or Barsoomian campaign may need a hella lotta. It's a turnable dial on the RPG console which goes from 1 up to YIKES!

[waysoftheearth]

Mar 31, 2015 20:33:30 GMT -6 Falconer said:

My House Rules document started big and proud. Over the years, it has shrunk. I have found that most of my rules were based on “theory and philosophy” or on my precious vision for “my world,” yet these didn’t add up to more fun for the players. While I definitely feel that, as DM, I should be master of the game, and I want to run a game that’s solidly about adventure and not about character building, I’d like to think I have become more sensitive to what my players care about and what makes the game fun for them. What’s more, the game is more fun for ME the more I allow the players’ creative input to shape the game. I’m trying to think of solid examples of what I’m talking about. Take classes. If my house rules document has a definitive list of sanctioned classes, even a permissive one, that’s that. If I don’t have such a definitive list, maybe someone will come up with a unique concept that actually ends up adding a lot of flavor and hilarity to the game. So my baseline is “mere” D&D. Somehow Gygax found (or founded) the center of peoples expectations, and it branches out from there in a million directions.

Totally agree with this. My experience has been similar; I started out with an insatiable desire to import/write house rules for almost everything but, over the years, I've come to realise that in practice less really is more.

I think the part about allowing players' creative input to shape the game also cuts right to the core of it.

[Finarvyn]

Ideally, zero house rules.

The problem, of course, is that we're all tinkering types. That's a large part of what brings us to gaming in general and OD&D in specific. What I have found over the decades is that most of my OD&D campaigns have some sort of rules tweak to keep it interesting, but that the core of the rules continues to remain the same. For example, I may choose the Chainmail style combat or traditional style combat. Perhaps I'll use Greyhawk hit dice one time, M&M hit dice progression in another. Once I gave my players a spell list without any details so that they had to help decide what each spell could do. Sometimes I use M&M spells only, other times I add in Greyhawk spells as well. Sometimes I might limit access to certain classes. Stuff like that. I'm not sure if those things even count as "house rules" since they usually come from some official source or another, but I find that my players seem to adapt as I let the rules change from campaign to campaign.

It would be interesting to see what folks count as "house rules." Maybe a new thread for these would be fun.

[DungeonDevil]

Jul 18, 2015 5:03:25 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

Ideally, zero house rules.

The problem, of course, is that we're all tinkering types. That's a large part of what brings us to gaming in general and OD&D in specific.

It's the same way with wargamers: "Hey, guys! Let's add national characteristics!" (*lots of groans*)