House Rules

Submitted by Liam on 23 November 2006 - 5:49pm. |

Back in "The Day" as we like to think of it, games were written badly.

There, I said it. Controversy in the first sentence.

We did something about it though. We added house rules to the system that made it playable. We tweaked what we didn’t like to make it more suitable for our game and our gaming style. Where we needed too we’d rewrite entire chunks of the system.

That was half the fun.

Nowadays that seems to be too much for some people. Well I say some, I mean most. Really. All I seem to hear is people bitching that this little rule isn’t right or that feat is too powerful. Change it people! They’re only guidelines for gods sake!

I know whats coming next here too. The “Golden Rule” haters. Those who think that it’s some kind of cop out from writing a good game system. Well its not. Fair enough, if you find that you need to change about half of the book then the golden rule is, indeed, a cop-out. However I can say that from personal experience, there is NO SUCH THING AS THE PERFECT SYSTEM! Its never gonna happen, so live with it.

Every game has flaws. Not every rule is going to work for you and your group. There will always be a rule or a skill or an ability or a cost or an exception or something in a system that doesn’t work for you and your group. Change it. Scribble your change down in the margin, or on a bookmark or in a journal entitled “all the niggly things that I have to bitch to Liam about that are wrong with all the games I own that I’ve had to rewrite”. Just don’t show me the whole book and expect me to care coz I probably like half the rules you changed. That’s the way it is.

And that’s basically my point. Games designers are trying to write what they think is the best game they can for the people that they have experience with. (This doesn’t necessarily apply to Indie games. That’s a whole different kettle of fish. This is about Mainstream games, sorry).

If a designer has a different view than most of his audience then the game will fail. If it is similar enough to what the majority think then it’ll at least sell a few copies and there will still be players who sit there and think “You know, I wanna be able to swing a double handed sword with one hand and use a shield but the rules won’t let me even with a penalty”. Make it up. Add a monstrous penalty if that’s what it takes. Tweak the rules to keep everyone happy. Make something up to fill in a gap you’ve found in the system if that’s what it takes to make the game playable for you. Not everyone is gonna need rules for riding Gelatinous Cubes into battle but hey, if it floats your boat then write the rules for it and see what the rest of the group says.

I for one had so many house rules in place after running 1st edition Warhammer Fantasy RolePlay for nearly 20 years, that it would have filled a book nearly as big as the core rulebook. Vampire 2nd edition? Loads of little tweaks. Call of Cthulhu even has a couple of minor additions/changes for longer campaigns. D&D has more than most I’ll admit but that’s just the way it is.

Just because you have to tweak a couple of little things here or add a little something there doesn’t make a game bad. If it means that you all enjoy the game more then all the better. That’s what this is about after all. There is nothing wrong with it, regardless of what other people say. I do it all the time. Every old school gamer I know does it. Hell Lejendary Adventures was just Gygax’s House Rule version of D&D for all intents and purposes. Almost every D20 product is just a bunch of House Rules for your D&D campaign and a lot of them are quite good.

“But what if my change affects something else they bring out later?” then deal with it when it happens. If you spend all your time worrying about that kind of thing then you’ll never get anything done. Its not that big a deal. Change it back if its gonna cause that much of a disagreement when a new rule comes out.

Bottom line. If you don't like it or it doesn't work for you then change it. If that change doesn't work out later then change it back. If you're looking for the perfect system stop because it doesn't exist.

Stop whining and start tweaking so we can all get on with some gaming and start to enjoy ourselves again because frankly thats what this hobby is supposed to be all about.

- Liam

login or register to post comments | printer friendly version
Submitted by Broin on 25 November 2006 - 11:17am.

What is it about chess that means we don't houserule it?

Submitted by Iain on 28 November 2006 - 1:52pm.

I don't mind the golden rule.

I mind using the golden rule as an excuse for not playtesting for balance issues.

"If you don't like something, don't use it" = fine.

"Sorry, we didn't playtest properly so you're going to have to ban half our sample magic items" = bad.

The golden rule doesn't detract from a good system. The golden rule doesn't make a bad system any better.

Actually, the problem is even more pronounced in mechanics-heavy games. In any game where the mechanics are part of the point (rather than just helping you do other things), a) you run into complex balance issues where changing one thing brings the whole system toppling down, and b) your players are likely to hate it if you frequently change your house-rules (and you're going to have to in order to cope with point A.)

Iain

Submitted by Shevy on 3 December 2006 - 11:43pm.

House rules are fine unless you have people in the game who are heavy rules-callers and who play the system because they know it. House rules will just make them angry, or else they'll incorporate them and break them as hard as they can just like the normal rules, because even house rules can be broken.

On the other hand, there's the other kind of house rule, the one, all encompassing house rule: sometimes, just forget the system entirely. I use this one a lot, because there are times when the rules just get in the way. Really makes the Rules Lawyers upset though because it removes their whole reason for playing. Though if someone in your game wants that and you want you

Shevy

Submitted by Liam on 5 December 2006 - 2:00pm.

I would argue that any variant on the basic game is nothing but house rules, and there are plenty of variants. They just happen to be house rules that have become commonly accepted.

- Liam

Be it ever so humble, there's no place like my shop :)

Submitted by Alan Hume on 6 December 2006 - 11:19am.

Good point there Liam,
I totally agree with Shevvy on this one
if you need to just forget the system and the rules entirely, dont know how well this would work as I havent DM'ed in about 20 odd years