1. When / if torches ever go out
2. Any specifics about how light behaves. (such as where it casts shadows assuming it even does cast shadows and whether it penetrates glass or even open air windows).
3. How gravity behaves if at all
4. Whether there is a frictional force. (useful for moving and climbing and such...)
5. Whether rain can fall fast enough to hurt a player on impact.
I mean pretty much anything we take forgranted about how the world works can be included here. These commonly encountered "things" are things the game doesn't list any rules for. And yet it's amazing how every D&D player never even questions whether these things are rules and all end up playing more or less the same way in regards to these "things common to the game".
By the way, anyone want to add anything to the list feel free.
FrogReaver wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Well, yes. Water is wet, and the sky is blue, and bears eat in the woods, with the usual subsequent consequences at the other end.
The rules don't cover those topics. They give us lots of structures useful for sorting out the exact details of adventurers, having adventures. Also, adventurers doing more mundane tasks sometimes, mainly as preparation for more adventures.
5E has no rules for whether there's a sun, which rises in the morning, crosses the sky, and sets in the evening. Also no rules on whether that's what really happens, or whether actually the world rotates, thus causing the illusion of a rising and setting sun. You totally can call "gotcha", if you find that satisfying. (I say those are setting-dependent rulings.)
How is this a helpful observation to other players and DMs?
Riley37 wrote:
Torches can burn for as long as you want them to. You could stick to the rules and have them go out after an hour, or you could simply ignore it completely, and have them last for as long as the players use them each session. Are these really things that need to be spelled out?
Imaculata wrote:
From the inside of a black hole, the whole universe is invisible....does that mean we get advantage to attack the darkness? Does the universe have Danger sense?
Obvious Troll is obvious...
Don't forget to bring your "I can't tell when this thing should go out" torches!
Riley37 wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Hamsterkill wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Hamsterkill wrote:
As has been pointed out pretty clearly by just about everyone else, no-one wants or expects a rulebook that is thousands of pages long, which is what it would require to fully explain nearly every conceivable scenario. To 'assume' certain things about the rules is absolutely, definitively NOT the same as making a houserule. The term houserule literally derives from the notion of changing an existing rule to suit the 'house' or in this case 'table'. We know exactly how things like friction work in D&D, exactly the same as they do on Earth in real life - why do we know this to be true? Because if it wasn't then there would be additional notes on it to state that it is not true. That's not a houseruling by any reasonable definition, that's following the rules as written and as intended.
So we know for a fact that gravity exists in D&D like it does on Earth, not because we're making it up but because the absence of any contrary rulings is 'definitive evidence' of it, again this is not a houserule. A houserule would specifically be if you were to state that gravity DOES NOT exist, because that would clearly go against the implied existence of said gravity. However we do need to know how to translate the existence of gravity into something measurable for the purposes of calculating falling damage in relation to a fairly abstract concept like HP. As a result now (and ONLY NOW) we do actually need words in the form of a rule to express falling damage.
In short this thread was answered/resolved near the outset and while of course a GM could/should make up whatever rules suit their table/players/style to insist that some of the things discussed on this thread are houserules is factually inaccurate. I think the OP's faulty premise is that any ruling or decision that is not RAW must by definition be a houserule, unfortunately this is 100% definitively untrue because it oversimplifies the reality beyond any reasonable standard.
Though it does seem he kind of started this thread to poke fun at those who misuse the term houserule as demonstrated by:
"they view houserules as any thing added to or taken from the rules. It's this definition this observation is useful for. Because those that use this definition are soo blind that they can't see the 100's of ways they add to and take away from the rules. "
The problem is his own definition is equally inaccurate and flawed, and I feel that whatever point the OP was trying to make was buried after his reply to Lawrencehoy, which if you read it objectively was unfairly hostile - whether by intent or careless choice of words.
NAD212000uk wrote:
"Playing without gravity would not be a houserule. It's simply setting-dependent like any number of physical properties. Filling in the blanks are not houserules."
Actually, to an extent you are both correct and incorrect depending on the context. If you choose to play in ANY SETTING where gravity doesn't exist then you are completely right; you have envisioned a world/setting/scenario where gravity doesn't exist in the firstplace so you do not need to houserule it out of existence. However I do not know of any D&D settings where gravity isn't implied to exist, and the implication coupled with the lack of contrary evidence tells us that it does exist. So to intentionally contradict the intended implication that gravity functions in those worlds as it does in ours IS and WOULD technically constitute a houserule, because you are deliberately and consciously subverting an intended universal rule/law by saying 'I know gravity is supposed to exist but in my table I'm changing things so that it does not'.
So the long and short of it is this; to have a setting without gravity is ABSOLUTELY not a houserule, however to remove gravity altogether from say FR would be a houserule. (It is also worth noting before someone points that gravity isn't a universal constant in our galaxy - that it is likewise implied in FR or other settings that gravity would function differently within say a blackhole, but that's only because the rules of the game or the setting don't specify anything differently so the game designers once more intend for us to use real world, relatable psyics until we're told otherwise).
Please understand, I'm not trying to be contrary or anything. Playing the game/houseruling things differently is fun and valid. I just wish/hope we could all reach more of a universal consensus on what these terms actually mean and it's important that when/if we do - we actually arrive at the correct definition. 
AndrewJO wrote:
Bowl movements & urination.
How often does each race need to go?
What's the DC to hold it?
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
mellored wrote:
Even within FR there are places with no gravity. The Ethereal Plane, for instance, if I'm not mistaken. And it's fairly simple to remove gravity from anywhere by simply narratively saying "magic" and I wouldn't consider that a houserule, either.
It's a bit of a semantic argument, though. If you say, "we're playing in FR but without gravity", that's simply a setting definition, rather than houserule to me. By saying that, you are essentially creating a setting that is like FR in all respects but the existence of gravity.
Tempest_Stormwind wrote:
Sorry again I'm not trying to be contrary, I just don't really understand how this can be less than a cut and dry issue. Maybe I should take a break from this thread for a bit lol.
"Even within FR there are places with no gravity. The Ethereal Plane, for instance, if I'm not mistaken. And it's fairly simple to remove gravity from anywhere by simply narratively saying "magic" and I wouldn't consider that a houserule, either."
In this example, if you visit a place within the FR setting where there is no gravity then that would not be a houserule since it is stated that gravity does not exist there - putting gravity into that location WOULD be a houserule because you are taking something that is either clearly stated or is absolutely implied as canon and changing it. It's when you deliberately act against an rule, implied or stated, that you stray into the realms of houseruling - house ruling is deliberate deviation from a rule. There are also times/examples of where something is not stated or strongly/definitively implied where making a decision is definitely not a houserule, but rather a ruling or interpretation of the rules.
"It's a bit of a semantic argument, though. If you say, "we're playing in FR but without gravity", that's simply a setting definition, rather than houserule to me. By saying that, you are essentially creating a setting that is like FR in all respects but the existence of gravity."
I guess it is a bit of a semantic/pedantic point to be fair but saying we're playing in FR but without gravity becomes one of two things and it sort of becomes about definition at that point - you're either saying we ARE playing in FR but we're choosing not to use gravity - that IS a houserule by fact, whether you choose to recognise that fact or not. Or you are saying we are playing in a virtually identical world except this one does not feature gravity and, for all intents and purposes, that technically is not a houserule because like you say you are creating a setting that is like FR in all respects but the existence of gravity.
Glad to be able to have this conversation without it resorting to name calling and ad hominem though. I'm a writer by profession so I'm obsessed by the power of language and its nuances, I get that the distinction is a very subtle one, but it's also important.
NAD212000uk wrote:
Hey OoftaMeg, I essentially agree with everything you said. Though when you say:
"But even if you were in a plane where gravity was not in effect, it doesn't necessarily follow that gravity doesn't exist. Gravity is just not applicable in the current setting or environment. Just like there is no noticeable gravity on the ISS."
You're again, completely correct - but just to be 100% clear though it doesn't necessarily follow that gravity doesn't exist - it is conceivably possible that this is the case. This is a universe with literal Gods so they could absolutely align worlds/dimensions side-by-side where in one gravity works one way, one where it works another, and one where it literally does not function as a concept.
Anyway, the long and short of it is I completely agree with you on all points. To be honest I agree with 90% of everyone on this thread, it's just a few instances where people are claiming that definitively defined terms are subjective and that all opinions are equally valid that gets my goat sometimes. Anyhoo, I'm out, take care folks.
I will agree that the basic rules of physics can be overridden - and frequently are by magic. However if the player's general understanding of how the world works is overridden in a manner not spelled out in the book, they should be spelled out in the setting description.
In other words, if there is no gravity on the plane of existance where the PCs are located you probably need to tell them and explain what's going on or at least what they are experiencing.
How magic interacts with the real world when it's not specifically spelled out is another question, and something that frequently is left up to the DM.
@OoftraMeg, I wish they had a +1 or Like option on here so I could simply agree with a point instead of needing to respond - makes it feel like a rebuttle/counter-point/attempt at getting the last word most of the time. Anyway, I completely agree with your post.
I think Oofta gets the point. I don't think the rest of you do.
For example: Take a real world activity like a torch being able to be put out by water.
Now in D&D there are no rules stating a torch can be put out by water. There are no rules saying a torch cannot be put out by water.
Most people default to their natural understanding that torches in D&D will function similiar to torches in the real world without a rule otherwise. That's a great assumption. It's how most of us play. So if you submerge a torch in water it goes out. Simple enough!
But that's not a RAW rule. It's an additional rule no matter whether it comes from common sense or setting or whatnot.
Most people take their common sense real world behavior assumptions to be the default and so call anything that doesn't match their assumptions there "houserules" (barring a rule explicitly overriding it). So when they encounter something that goes agaisnt what they feel is the default using common sense they call that a houserule.
The problem is that there is really no differnece between what they call a houserule and the things they don't.
In our example they would call it a houserule that a submerged torch doesn't go out. But they would not call it a houserule that a submerged torch goes out. That's where the issue is. Objectively, the rules are silent on this issue. Anything that gets added at this point is going beyond the Rules as Written. However the common sense approach gets taken not only as the better rule approach, but as equivalent with RAW.
So when they claim that what I suggest is a houserule I always go back to thinking... isn't 99% of the things you have happen in your game just as much of a houserule as what you claim I am housruling?
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Hamsterkill wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
The true question should be, "do threads like these actually help anyone?" If someone sees merit in this "discussion", all well and good, but I don't see how anyone could. You all just circle around the same stuff over and over with nothing coming of it. Agree to disagree, then move on to play nerd games in whatever fashion fits you best.
Macv12 wrote:
1. When in doubt the DM decides.
2. Even if you as the player don't understand how something works, you can always tell the DM that your character wants to recall how it works and the DM will tell you (maybe it requires an ability check).
3. You should play because you are having fun, not because you want to obey rules.
lawrencehoy wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
There are always going to be arguments that devolve down to semantics and that at the end of the day don't really matter. In other cases, how we interpret the ruleset can matter.
I have a different definition of house rule than some people. Like the dictionary (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/house%20rule) I define a house rule as something fairly unique to my table that overrides the rules as printed in the book. If all elves in my campaign can shoot laser beams from their eyes, it's a house rule.
Gravity is not a house rule because it (and a bazillion other things we take for granted) are enforced in virtually every campaign unless specifically stated otherwise. There are rules on what happens when you fall, there are no rules that state why you fall.
I've never really seen any of these discussions matter much outside of these forums. Occasionally things will come up in organized play but most people accept that different DMs will have their own style and their own way of interpreting the world.
I start with an assumption of the real world where magic works (and overrides reality frequently) and build from there. So gravity works like normal, bows in game work like real world bows, I can make a judgement call on whether you can cast a spell with somatic components while holding a greataxe based on my experience with axes in real life. A hat is still a hat.
If my judgement of how something would work in the real world is not specifically contradicted by the rules, I use the real world as a base assumption. At some level, I don't see how you can claim to run a game that doesn't ultimately rely on a foundation in reality.
That may not work for everyone.
Orethalion wrote:
Hamsterkill wrote:
Hamsterkill wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Hamsterkill wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Hamsterkill wrote:
Hamsterkill wrote:
You're all posting in a troll thread.
ModusPonens wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Hamsterkill wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Hamsterkill wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Hamsterkill wrote:
Hamsterkill wrote:
Could the argument be made that since we are playing with an exceptions-based game, we are participating in a simple game of imagination based upon the laws of reality using the published material simply for exceptions to said laws?
durntaur wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Hamsterkill wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Hamsterkill wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
DarkSphinx wrote:
ezrider23 wrote:
There is one thing that I think is being lost so far: the difference
between rules and rulings.
If an unexpected situation comes up, the DM can look at the context and invoke rules as necessary to solve it, but is also empowered (in AL as well) to alter those rules. For example, if two characters are having a sword fight on the back of a flying dragon, the DM can impose disadvantage on their attacks, due to the hostile environment. They don't have to refer to a rule to do this, they could just make it up because it sounds reasonable.
Or in the case of jumping from one flying thing to another; they could demand an ability check, or they could say "fulfill these conditions which I've made up - get ahead of the dragon, etc. - and you'll succeed automatically." The conditions they had to fulfill aren't explicit in the rules. Same with the mutiny. The DM can eyeball it and make rulings as necessary.
To me, the term "house rule" only has meaning when it refers to an established rule. If the resolution method is situational and affects nothing later on, then it's not a rule. That's a ruling. But if you say "ok, from now on when situation X happens, rule Y will apply," and rule Y doesn't come from RAW, it's a house rule.
To bring this back to gravity. If I say that the world in this campaign has low gravity, that in itself is "fluff," or "context." Not a rule, because it doesn't affect the game yet. If I say that the PCs are visiting from a high-gravity plane, and therefore they can jump extra far, this is a house rule. It's consistent, and it is contrary to an existing rule.
If I say there is no gravity on this plane, I can probably still run the game RAW. In this fiction, the PCs will never take an action that requires the rules for jumping or falling to adjudicate, so they just aren't invoked. This is context; it's not a house rule, any more than not wielding a longsword is a "house rule" because I don't invoke the longsword stat block.
If my character has a phobia of spiders, and takes disadvantage on attack rolls and ability checks while within 15ft of one, that is a house rule. It doesn't defy an existing rule, but it's consistent, it has gameplay ramifications, and it's a rule that doesn't apply to another table.
If my character has a phobia of spiders, and takes disadvantage on a Persuasion check during a particular negotiation because they spotted a spider on the other person's shoulder, that is a ruling. There is no consistent rule that I take disadvantage when spiders are around, it just happened to make sense in this situation to have mechanical consequences for that bit of fluff.
If I say that eating a bunch of goodberries every day makes you fat, and this consequence is achievable by the players, then it's a house rule. The game enumerates the effects of that spell, so adding mechanical effects to it essentially "between the lines" of the existing text is creating a new rule.
If I have a fat Druid who invents a new spell called "Betterberry" that is the same as Goodberry but doesn't make you gain weight, that is homebrew. The existence of a spell isn't a "rule," just the effects of it are. The effects of a non-existent spell aren't touched by the rules, so I don't have to alter or add to them to implement the spell.
(Of note, if the rules say "you choose your spells from the list on page X," then you need a house rule that says your new spell is also available to choose. I don't know what the rules say exactly. If, on the other hand, the rules said "you must choose a race for your character. Here are some races:", you wouldn't need an extra rule to make your homebrewed races available.)
This cuts down on a ton of those situations where something isn't in the rules, yet somehow you don't feel like calling it a "house rule." I think the term is only useful in this context. If you extend "house rule" to refer to anything at all with gameplay ramifications that aren't in the book, then you do need to say that "you fall if you jump off a tower" is a house rule. The term refers to an extremely broad category of things at that point. Seems like it would be much more helpful to separate out a few more terms for the separate categories of things which that term would encompass.
Noctaem,
How do you reconcile:
"Because it's an exception-based system, when our basic understanding of how the world works (i.e., "a general rule") is contradicted by a rule written in the book (i.e., "a specific rule"), the specific rule wins. That's fundamentally how the game works." (to which you agreed, with a +1, here)
with:
"Fine. Bows in game have nothing to do with bows in real life."
and:
"Are there rules for gravity? The rules say that when you jump up you fall back down. So from that we can extrapolate that there might be gravity within the game. But there's no rules for it and the game itself, in places where it has rules for game elements which would revolve around gravity or even physics as a whole, do not function in any way like the physics or gravity we have in real life. I can shoot an arrow hundreds of feet away and hit a very small target without any real difficulty (which in real life is almost impossible to do, considering that even bullets are affected by these things). I mean the list is endless. So basically you're saying that we should use realism and common sense in an arbitrary way to define the rules in the book. " (which you stated shortly thereafter, here)?
NOTE:There are no rules in the book that state that arrows don't travel in an arc, or that you could shoot to maximum range without enough room to include the necessary arc; nor is it necessarily more difficult in real life, for those trained in the use of bows. The rules leave these things to the DM's adjudication because they cannot cover all situations. Indeed, following the first quote above, with which you agree, there would have to be a "specific rule" stating that an in-game arrow doesn't travel in an arc.
If you agree that "our basic understanding of how the world works" is a "general rule", then you are agreeing that this "basic understanding" (or all the things mentioned in the OP, as well as "bows in the game" and "gravity within the game") is RAW; even if it isn't specifically defined by RAW, it is still written about (in the form of rules that interact with, and sometimes alter, the "general rule" with "specific rules" - or "exceptions to the general rule").
EDIT: Please forgive the fact that my reply is not about the specific post that I replied to; it was just one of the latest post you've made, related to these topics of discussion (RAW, RAI, House Rule).
I feel you're taking each quote out of context. But I'll go over them.
The first quote is from another user, CahPahkah who was trying to answer OoftaMeg who demanded proof that 5e is an exception based system. He was trying to argue that it wasn't. It, of course, is and anyone can check page 4 of the basic rules for proof. What I was giving a +1 to was actually the rules text he quoted to OoftaMeg and his explanation that specific rules in the book circumvent real world stuff. An easy example is archery in 5e vs archery in the real world. It makes no sense whatsoever in DnD from a realism perspective but the rules in the book win over our real world understanding. Which brings me to the next quote.
This was from another discussion, created by OoftaMeg IIRC with regards to the hand crossbow discussions...? Anyway, the snip of text you're linking here is a quote from me trying to make a point that bows in dnd make no sense at all compared to their real life counterparts. Bows in dnd completely ignore physics, gravity, etc.. Even down to how ammunition works. Anyway long story short it's bonkers if you actually look at it. The only things they have in common is the name, the fact that it uses ammunition and that you need to use it 2 handed (or with two limbs anyway as Mellored demonstrated with a linked picture of a man using his foot and mouth). I was trying to point this out to illustrate the point of the first quote you made. DnD is not real life, the rules in the book do not reflect real life. Using the argument "but in real life it works like x" while talking about DnD, to me, isn't even an argument. There's just too many differences and mutually exclusive changes that becomes an incoherent way to explain an argument. Basically you're ignoring all the stuff that doesn't jive in favor of the one you're arguing now.
And yes, Gravity as we know it in real life, does not actually exist in dnd. Instead, the designers have implemented different rules which are not actually linked by the constant of gravity to explain what happens with specific elements related to physics, jumping, falling, etc.. There is no reference to gravity in the book. All we have are the specific rules in the book. And that links to the previous paragraph. We know that in 5e when we jump, we fall back down. That's because the rules actually specify that it happens. We know that falling means we take damage for every unit of distance we fall.
I'm not convinced that CahPahkah stated that all laws of physics and gravity are the general rules we all play by. I think he was specifically talking about the rules in the book which might have a counterpart in real life and how the rules in the book win over the rules in real life. Maybe he can answer that question for us. But personally that's not what I believe. I think the rules in the book are what we use to play. But anyway, let's not start another "can my character breathe?" thread.
Something can't be RAW if it isn't written in the book. You can argue RAI that they meant to have gravity as a constant force within DND, but it then is a completely different constant than the one we have in real life. Personally I don't think they bothered to make their game world work by the laws of physics and the constant of gravity. I think they simply didn't need to and instead made a couple of rules that reflect what they needed to add in to make things work.
Macv12 wrote:
I'm not going to bother responding to everything here. I haven't had enough caffeine yet. 
Noctaem wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
I have removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_company_about_codeofconduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Comment button below the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Noctaem wrote:
ezrider23 wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
+1 to what Lawrencehoy said.
I make rulings based on how things work in reality except when it's overridden by the rules in the book. If that doesn't fit the definition of an exception based rules system, I don't know what does.
Other people seem pick and choose when reality applies. In every game I've ever played PCs will fall if they walk off the edge of a cliff* because gravity sucks. So at some point the DM makes a decisions based on reality for at least some rulings. If they did not, the game would not be playable.
*Unless of course there's some supernatural ability to fly or levitate of course.
OoftaMeg wrote:
The concept of gravity is indeed RAW to 5.0 rules. Players Handbook, page 272, description of the spell Reverse Gravity. That which is not anchored to the ground floats, that which is floating is drawn to the ground. Gravity exists as a rule in 5.0, and it works like it does on Earth.
Feel free to carry on with all other points, but gravity as a rule has been proven.
Ruadh128 wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
jonathonhawke wrote:
How can you reverse nothing? A place with no gravity has no gravity to reverse. It stays floating motionless. Cross out the 7th level spell slot and move on.
Ruadh128 wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
The thing that I find most humorous about these threads is that I've never seen these discussions come up at the game table.
People will occasionally ask for clarification on my reasoning and I've had some discussions about rulings on other things that are open to interpretation (stealth rules in particular).
Arguments about a ruling based on a judgement call based on how things work in the real world? None that I recall.
I like Turtles.
My previous response show the relevance of this thread. What does house rules, RAW, RAI, or gravity have to do with this game. How does this thread improve the game? I don't understand the intent of frog reaver starting this thread. Other than trolling. What is it that you need to know in order to play D&D in any edtion. What event in your game made you so upset that you needed to start this thread. I can understand if your DM said that something fell on your character and your character dies. To which you reply, "Well how can you say it does that much damage?" And then he gives you an answer that you disagree with, so you get mad and hop on the forum here to vent your anger. So what is the intent of your post?
Ruadh128 wrote:
DDMTGGeek wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
mellored wrote:
DDMTGGeek wrote:
DDMTGGeek wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
D&D is mediaeval. Gravity hasn't been invented. Things made of Earth and Water want to go down, but that's because they are attracted to their home elements. Things made of air and fire go up, not down. Like the flame on a torch, which is made of fire. It goes up doesn't it? Of course torches go out if you plunge them into water. Or earth. You can put out a torch by burying it in sand, just as well as plunging it into water. This isn't in the rules. It's common sense that players are expected to know.
DDMTGGeek wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
CCS wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
I think the original point of the thread is that a DM made a ruling and a player didn't like it, and the whole "house rule" stigma thing was born.
I've been playing RPGs for 30 years under too many DMs to count and ran a game store for several years, and in all that time the only house rule I objected to was that the characters had to re-roll their hit points every game day. The players revolted (rightfully so) and the DM relented. On the other side, house rules may be necessary. During my game store days (where we had a table in the back for gaming), I've seen a whole lot of nit-picking rules lawyering where the players insisted their characters can defy the laws of physics because what they wanted to do wasn't prohibited in the rules. This would be a case of rules interpretation rather than a DM making a house rule, but the DM had to make one anyway to stop the argument. My favorite was a Jedi character who claimed that shooting Force Lightning into a puddle of water to hurt the guy standing in it shouldn't earn him Dark Side points because he wasn't attacking the person directly. The only time I've seen players complain about house rules was when they couldn't pull off some munchkin behavior (like casting Create Water inside someone to drown them, before the spell was reworded).
The point being that house rules aren't (usually) evil, unless the DM is purposfully screwing with the players in which case the problems with the game are bigger than just house rules. There's nothing wrong with them as long as they're based on common sense and applied to everyone including NPCs (who the heck takes damage from normal rain? Besides the aliens from Signs?). If you really need to know how rain, gravity or light behaves, use wikipedia as another sourcebook.
AndrewJO wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
FrogReaver wrote: