House Rule Vrs. Flavor Rule (Readinng this might change your life! Well, not really.) [Archive] - Wizards Community

House Rule Vrs. Flavor Rule (Readinng this might change your life! Well, not really.) [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Shinryouga
01-05-05, 02:45 PM Just my opinion, flawed as it may be, but I think a lot of the confusion and misdirected banter/anger/commentary on these boards regarding house rules and whether a game mechanic is "broken" could be eliminated in one easy step: clarification of optional rules.

Define the difference between "House Rule" and "Flavor Rule".

In my group, we have come to use House Rule to refer to anything that we have collectively decided is in need of fixing, modification, etc, due to either a game balance or a logical inconsistency. Cleric turning, natural healing, charisma penalties; these have been House Ruled in my group.

Flavor Rules are when we change something not because it "needs" changing, but because we feel it could be more fun, better, more realistic to us. A house rule is going to be used in every game run at that "house". A flavor rule is more campaign specific. An example is my group's spell point system we currently use. While it is fast becoming a house rule, we refer to it as flavor because we generated it out of our opinions on how magic works in that particular game world.

I've noticed that a lot of times people's house rules get chewed up and spit out because the reader assumes they mean it to "fix" something. If the reader feels that something isn't "broken" they tear apart the house rule. But if said rule was generated for "flavor" purposes, it needs no justification, outside of common sense rules regarding balance and the like.

I post this for one purpose only: to try to stem the tide of unpleasantry and disrespect I see ebbing in and out of these forums. I personally feel that D&D players (the good ones, that is) are and should be some of the most open minded, well-spoken, and respectful people out there (my group is at least, but I'm lucky). How can you play a game involving interspecies cooperation, redemption of villains, and tight knit camraderie without having those traits? I refuse to disrespect another player or DM unless they are being actively malicious or stunningly idiotic. Being inexperienced with the rules or simply being young is NOT a valid justification for the treatment I have had occasion to witness on these forums.

Just my two coppers worth.
Shinryouga
Jagyr Ebonwood
01-05-05, 03:21 PM I agree with you.

However, I must admit that some people think up "Flavor Rules" with no regard for the rest of the rules. They think something should be a certain way, so they make it that way. This is, of course, every DM's right, but one should consider the impact of one rule change on the rest of the game.

I think it would be better to advise people to give their group's reason(s) for a specific house rule when they post it.

For example;

"1) Fighters have access to cantrips like 1st level sorcerors."
Bad!

"1) Fighters have access to cantrips as if they were 1st level sorcerors because our campaign is set in a very high magic world where everyone has a modicum of magical power"
Better!

Of course this house rule needs a lot of balancing factors, but it is an example.

There's my 2cp, for a total of 4cp.
evangelion1010
01-06-05, 12:06 AM Geez...keep this adding 2 cp up, and someone can hire a pesant for a year....

I'll agree that D&D fans should be among the most open minded people around... afterall, we do get fun out of imangining a world and characters which we control in that world. Generally imangination signifies intelligence, and generally intelligence means less fighting.

Imanginations also lead to opinions though... and those 2 cp quickly add up i'm afraid...especially when people put in their 2 pp worth of negative comments.

I'll third the opinion that house rules are meant to prevent unbalanced situations from occuring, and flavor rules deal more with how you envision the world.

Argueably, house rules shouldn't be necessary...everything should be perfectly balanced.... :rofl:

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Shinryouga 01-05-05, 02:45 PM	Just my opinion, flawed as it may be, but I think a lot of the confusion and misdirected banter/anger/commentary on these boards regarding house rules and whether a game mechanic is "broken" could be eliminated in one easy step: clarification of optional rules. Define the difference between "House Rule" and "Flavor Rule". In my group, we have come to use House Rule to refer to anything that we have collectively decided is in need of fixing, modification, etc, due to either a game balance or a logical inconsistency. Cleric turning, natural healing, charisma penalties; these have been House Ruled in my group. Flavor Rules are when we change something not because it "needs" changing, but because we feel it could be more fun, better, more realistic to us. A house rule is going to be used in every game run at that "house". A flavor rule is more campaign specific. An example is my group's spell point system we currently use. While it is fast becoming a house rule, we refer to it as flavor because we generated it out of our opinions on how magic works in that particular game world. I've noticed that a lot of times people's house rules get chewed up and spit out because the reader assumes they mean it to "fix" something. If the reader feels that something isn't "broken" they tear apart the house rule. But if said rule was generated for "flavor" purposes, it needs no justification, outside of common sense rules regarding balance and the like. I post this for one purpose only: to try to stem the tide of unpleasantry and disrespect I see ebbing in and out of these forums. I personally feel that D&D players (the good ones, that is) are and should be some of the most open minded, well-spoken, and respectful people out there (my group is at least, but I'm lucky). How can you play a game involving interspecies cooperation, redemption of villains, and tight knit camraderie without having those traits? I refuse to disrespect another player or DM unless they are being actively malicious or stunningly idiotic. Being inexperienced with the rules or simply being young is NOT a valid justification for the treatment I have had occasion to witness on these forums. Just my two coppers worth. Shinryouga
Jagyr Ebonwood 01-05-05, 03:21 PM	I agree with you. However, I must admit that some people think up "Flavor Rules" with no regard for the rest of the rules. They think something should be a certain way, so they make it that way. This is, of course, every DM's right, but one should consider the impact of one rule change on the rest of the game. I think it would be better to advise people to give their group's reason(s) for a specific house rule when they post it. For example; "1) Fighters have access to cantrips like 1st level sorcerors." Bad! "1) Fighters have access to cantrips as if they were 1st level sorcerors because our campaign is set in a very high magic world where everyone has a modicum of magical power" Better! Of course this house rule needs a lot of balancing factors, but it is an example. There's my 2cp, for a total of 4cp.
evangelion1010 01-06-05, 12:06 AM	Geez...keep this adding 2 cp up, and someone can hire a pesant for a year.... I'll agree that D&D fans should be among the most open minded people around... afterall, we do get fun out of imangining a world and characters which we control in that world. Generally imangination signifies intelligence, and generally intelligence means less fighting. Imanginations also lead to opinions though... and those 2 cp quickly add up i'm afraid...especially when people put in their 2 pp worth of negative comments. I'll third the opinion that house rules are meant to prevent unbalanced situations from occuring, and flavor rules deal more with how you envision the world. Argueably, house rules shouldn't be necessary...everything should be perfectly balanced.... :rofl: