Worst REAL house rules you've used

[Resileaf]

I thought it would reflect the oppressive nature of the 40k universe

Isn't it the most common rule in Warhammer Fantasy that stats and class are rolled randomly on character creation?

[Quertus]

Isn't it the most common rule in Warhammer Fantasy that stats and class are rolled randomly on character creation?

That's certainly been my experience.

[Anonymouswizard]

Isn't it the most common rule in Warhammer Fantasy that stats and class are rolled randomly on character creation?

Yep, again in Dark Heresy (no point buy option available), although by Rogue Trader picking your Homeworld and Career became standard practice.

[lightningcat]

I thought it would reflect the oppressive nature of the 40k universe

Every time that I have played Dark Heresy I have random rolled characters, and they have all been a lot of fun, although not always long lasting. The first was a feral world guardsman with the mutation that made him bigger and stronger. He one-shotted a orc with a sledgehammer, and then used morse code to comunicate with someone on the other side of a bulkhead. Random rolls can be fun as long as you go into them not expecting anything. But not every game should use them.

[LordCdrMilitant]

Yep, again in Dark Heresy (no point buy option available), although by Rogue Trader picking your Homeworld and Career became standard practice.

There is a point buy option in DH2e, it's like 60 points to distribute to raise scores above 25.

That said, the general variance between having a high stat and having a low stat doesn't make rolled stats a serious concern. You'll be able to buy 25 points of characteristic advances, 30 points of skill bonus [+ more from Talents], and for combat stats, many, if not most, attacks will have quite a lot of bonuses.


Compared to D&D or Traveller, the general variance in capability between having a high stat and a low stat from rolled-in-order stats isn't a big deal. Of course, you shouldn't be playing Traveller if you're going to have an issue with random stats and classes!


Speaking of contentious houserules; I houseruled away the 10 corruption mutation in my Black Crusade game, and I'm considering removing more. I will also almost certainly be assigning mutations at GM's choice when they get them. One of my players thinks this is too few, though, so we have discussions. I've been considering using 30/50/70/80/90 as the track, to end-load the mutations at the high end, so they'll either add trouble when the party nears victory or hasten their demise when they're dying [or, more probably, both]. I'd rather not have their arms explode into tentacles early in the game, because that will severely hinder their ability to operate their cell.

[Vknight]

Yeah no there is not or if it is the 2nd edition one is probably some garbage like 60 points all stats start at 0. Meaning it will never work out well.

Mutations and Corruption is all over the place.

My personal experience.

For Mutants & Masterminds
All major bad guys have luck control so you know they can 1per round force a re-roll on your attacks or there own saves just cause

Optional Gestalt
Seriously played a game where the gm said game built around not gestalt but allowed it. So in walks me with a cleric/wizard comapred to the rogue, vigilante, and paladin/ranger yeah gestalt not great but making it optional hurt

[Resileaf]

So seeing everyone's seering hatred for fumbles, I'm going to try something in my future games. From now on, mooks will not be able to crit (natural 20s can still hit though), but will be able to fumble (nat 1 + confirming for miss), while named enemies and the players will not fumble, but will be able to crit. Would such a house rule be welcome in your tables?

[PhoenixPhyre]

So seeing everyone's seering hatred for fumbles, I'm going to try something in my future games. From now on, mooks will not be able to crit (natural 20s can still hit though), but will be able to fumble (nat 1 + confirming for miss), while named enemies and the players will not fumble, but will be able to crit. Would such a house rule be welcome in your tables?

For me, this depends on the genre. In a more pulpy or comedic genre (like superheroes, etc) where there's a clear "mook vs important" distinction, it's great. In a more "realistic" genre, not so much because it forces a mechanical distinction down to the fiction layer. But overall, it's much better than fumbles for everyone.

[LordCdrMilitant]

Yeah no there is not or if it is the 2nd edition one is probably some garbage like 60 points all stats start at 0. Meaning it will never work out well.

Mutations and Corruption is all over the place.

It's 60 points to spend raising stats above 25. If it's a - stat, you raise it from 20, if it's a + stat, you raise it from 30. No stat may be raised above 40. It's on page 31 of the 2E DH rulebook.

Deathwatch [1e] has points buy rules on page 26. It's spend 100 points between the stats, stats start at 30, and cannot be bought above 50.


Heavy mutation just isn't something I want in most of my games, so I don't award a lot of corruption. However, corruption vs. infamy is important in Black Crusade, so I was thinking of just reducing mutation incidence.

[Lord Torath]

So seeing everyone's seering hatred for fumbles, I'm going to try something in my future games. From now on, mooks will not be able to crit (natural 20s can still hit though), but will be able to fumble (nat 1 + confirming for miss), while named enemies and the players will not fumble, but will be able to crit. Would such a house rule be welcome in your tables?

At first I thought you said MONKS instead of mooks, and I found myself wondering how you could possibly think that monks were overpowered enough to need to be able to fumble. Pity the poor monk, with multiple chances to fumble each round, but no chance for a critical hit!

[Resileaf]

At first I thought you said MONKS instead of mooks, and I found myself wondering how you could possibly think that monks were overpowered enough to need to be able to fumble. Pity the poor monk, with multiple chances to fumble each round, but no chance for a critical hit!

Well really, it's only logical that the monk would have multiple chances to fumble when he keeps hitting people with his fists. Without protection either! Really, he should feel lucky he only has a 5% chance on attack to sprain his wrists.

[GreatWyrmGold]

At first I thought you said MONKS instead of mooks, and I found myself wondering how you could possibly think that monks were overpowered enough to need to be able to fumble. Pity the poor monk, with multiple chances to fumble each round, but no chance for a critical hit!

Honestly, I'm surprised they only have a 5% chance to fumble after spending all their lives inside, singing hymns and copying books.

[Ken Murikumo]

At first I thought you said MONKS instead of mooks, and I found myself wondering how you could possibly think that monks were overpowered enough to need to be able to fumble. Pity the poor monk, with multiple chances to fumble each round, but no chance for a critical hit!

Monks ARE overpowered! They get more attacks, better unarmed damage, and have all good saves! Why would you never want to be a monk!


For a sizable period of time my group used a quasi-houserule that massive-damage threshold is equal to your constitution score. We played in a d20 modern campaign (where IIRC that was a normal rule to make guns more lethal). Eventually we migrated to Pathfinder but that rule carried over. Doing more than 18 damage isn't terribly hard, so almost every combat at least 1 PC would go down. Some GMs have wet dreams about this happening, but ultimately it's really boring. Getting removed from a 2 hour combat session on the first round really sucks, especially when there is no more healing to go around because the "rule" would devour any means of restoring HP.

Luckily we (I) ditched the rule after a few campaigns and suggested we do 50 damage or half the characters total HP, whichever is greater. Also, they don't die, but instead drop to -1 and begin bleeding out. So far it's worked out great, no PCs have gone down, and when they dispatch an uninjured enemy with a single crit, the social energy for the table increases.

[MesiDoomstalker]

In a Pokemon game, had a GM who wanted more 'realism'. Such efforts were things like;

• Center's cost money
• Death was very present (the poorly mathed system was at least half to blame). The only way to avoid accidentally killing in a friendly bout was to intentionally take a -1 penalty to avoid crits. Not this didn't prevent deaths, it just prevented "Oh no, I critted and knocked your mon into Dead range by accident"
• Pokemon didn't evolve when they reached X level. They evolved when they reached X level and some arbitrary other requirement for the mon. The main one was Beldum having to (violently) absorb large mass of metal via magnetism so strong it gets stuck to the ground as it tries to pull the earth's magnetic core into its body.
• Not a houserule so much as a worldbuilding blunder; the distance between cities was immense and filled with hyper aggressive wild pokemon. It was 4,000 miles between Saffron City and Lavender Town

[Luccan]

In a Pokemon game, had a GM who wanted more 'realism'. Such efforts were things like;

• Center's cost money
• Death was very present (the poorly mathed system was at least half to blame). The only way to avoid accidentally killing in a friendly bout was to intentionally take a -1 penalty to avoid crits. Not this didn't prevent deaths, it just prevented "Oh no, I critted and knocked your mon into Dead range by accident"
• Pokemon didn't evolve when they reached X level. They evolved when they reached X level and some arbitrary other requirement for the mon. The main one was Beldum having to (violently) absorb large mass of metal via magnetism so strong it gets stuck to the ground as it tries to pull the earth's magnetic core into its body.
• Not a houserule so much as a worldbuilding blunder; the distance between cities was immense and filled with hyper aggressive wild pokemon. It was 4,000 miles between Saffron City and Lavender Town

A Pokemon game? Fine, but it can't be Pokemon.

[Knaight]

In a Pokemon game, had a GM who wanted more 'realism'. Such efforts were things like;

• Center's cost money
• Death was very present (the poorly mathed system was at least half to blame). The only way to avoid accidentally killing in a friendly bout was to intentionally take a -1 penalty to avoid crits. Not this didn't prevent deaths, it just prevented "Oh no, I critted and knocked your mon into Dead range by accident"
• Pokemon didn't evolve when they reached X level. They evolved when they reached X level and some arbitrary other requirement for the mon. The main one was Beldum having to (violently) absorb large mass of metal via magnetism so strong it gets stuck to the ground as it tries to pull the earth's magnetic core into its body.
• Not a houserule so much as a worldbuilding blunder; the distance between cities was immense and filled with hyper aggressive wild pokemon. It was 4,000 miles between Saffron City and Lavender Town

Some of these work for the setting, but the worldbuilding is just so terrible. That was clearly never an entire massive continent, and shouldn't be treated as one, and that makes it less realistic*.

*Or for a word better suited than "realistic", "naturalistic". Pokemon as fictional ecosystem with all the predation and starvation that involves? Interesting. Barely populating a setting that's been so developed that omnidomestication is a thing and people are trying to do comprehensive lists of the local ecology? Less interesting.

[Anonymouswizard]

In a Pokemon game, had a GM who wanted more 'realism'. Such efforts were things like;

• Center's cost money
• Death was very present (the poorly mathed system was at least half to blame). The only way to avoid accidentally killing in a friendly bout was to intentionally take a -1 penalty to avoid crits. Not this didn't prevent deaths, it just prevented "Oh no, I critted and knocked your mon into Dead range by accident"
• Pokemon didn't evolve when they reached X level. They evolved when they reached X level and some arbitrary other requirement for the mon. The main one was Beldum having to (violently) absorb large mass of metal via magnetism so strong it gets stuck to the ground as it tries to pull the earth's magnetic core into its body.
• Not a houserule so much as a worldbuilding blunder; the distance between cities was immense and filled with hyper aggressive wild pokemon. It was 4,000 miles between Saffron City and Lavender Town

That's not realism, that's the GM running Shin Megami Tensei and you not noticing!

For the record, it's very easy to justify Pokémon Centres being free at point of delivery. Countries with socialist healthcare do it with human medicine, which is much more complex than the care Pokémon Centres are shown to give (which IIRC involves sticking the pokéballs in a machine). While we've yet to see a national government in a Pokémon game they probably exist, and as such can fund centres from taxes.

[Knaight]

For the record, it's very easy to justify Pokémon Centres being free at point of delivery. Countries with socialist healthcare do it with human medicine, which is much more complex than the care Pokémon Centres are shown to give (which IIRC involves sticking the pokéballs in a machine). While we've yet to see a national government in a Pokémon game they probably exist, and as such can fund centres from taxes.

I'm not sure I'd call it more complex - the pokemon universe is full of super tech, built on a basis of flagrant violations of conservation of energy. The point of delivery treatment seems pretty straightforward, but that machine is a whole different matter.

[Anonymouswizard]

I'm not sure I'd call it more complex - the pokemon universe is full of super tech, built on a basis of flagrant violations of conservation of energy. The point of delivery treatment seems pretty straightforward, but that machine is a whole different matter.

True, but we also have massive staff savings compared to our hospitals (I think you could pull it off easily with 8 permanent staff, as long as they're willing to cover for each other's minor illnesses, with the occasional hire for long term absences, probably better to go with 10-20 in practice), so we can't day for sure how expensive it would be. My point was that it's so easy to justify, and Pokémon are so important, that having them not be free is a massive, massive blunder. Unless there's since easy alternative to them, of course, but in that case you'll find players just doing that instead of using the centre.

[Arbane]

That's not realism, that's the GM running Shin Megami Tensei and you not noticing!

They're the same game, anyway.

[The Random NPC]

That's not realism, that's the GM running Shin Megami Tensei and you not noticing!

For the record, it's very easy to justify Pokémon Centres being free at point of delivery. Countries with socialist healthcare do it with human medicine, which is much more complex than the care Pokémon Centres are shown to give (which IIRC involves sticking the pokéballs in a machine). While we've yet to see a national government in a Pokémon game they probably exist, and as such can fund centres from taxes.

Don't forget, the Pokémon game that was set in New York didn't have free Centres, because the USA isn't socialized.

[sktarq]

"We are going to play this game strait, no joke or ridiculous added character traits, and have no house rules."

Problem was we were trying to play FATAL (1e I think) (mostly to prove it could be done)

[GreatWyrmGold]

"We are going to play this game strait, no joke or ridiculous added character traits, and have no house rules."

Problem was we were trying to play FATAL (1e I think) (mostly to prove it could be done)

Makes sense to me. If you start houseruling FATAL, you risk turning it from the most infamously terrible pile f garbage masquerading as an RPG into a normal bad RPG. It would be like trying to make a better cut of The Room.

[Knaight]

Makes sense to me. If you start houseruling FATAL, you risk turning it from the most infamously terrible pile f garbage masquerading as an RPG into a normal bad RPG. It would be like trying to make a better cut of The Room.

You'd need some heavy house rules to reach normally bad.

[Anonymouswizard]

You'd need some heavy house rules to reach normally bad.

Well if we cut out the setting information bits, the magic items list, the ritual components table, and the bad philosophy, we're left with bland rules text. From there we just have trio sanitise the character creation rules, the grappling (especially first edition grappling, second edition cleaned it up a bit), the skill list, and a few other bits.

We'll end up with about sixty pages of rules we're using, but it's still technically FATAL.

[JMS]

Well if we cut out the setting information bits, the magic items list, the ritual components table, and the bad philosophy, we're left with bland rules text. From there we just have trio sanitise the character creation rules, the grappling (especially first edition grappling, second edition cleaned it up a bit), the skill list, and a few other bits.

We'll end up with about sixty pages of rules we're using, but it's still technically FATAL.

Or D&D, I think, other than the ritual stuff, and maybe, maybe character creation. (AD&D grapples are weird)

[Anonymouswizard]

Or D&D, I think, other than the ritual stuff, and maybe, maybe character creation. (AD&D grapples are weird)

Oh, FATAL is a fantasy heartbreaker, and a system that would like have been hailed as good or even revolutionary in the 70s or early 80s. As it is the rules are essentially all the worst aspects of D&D, GURPS, and Rolemaster, with a heap more of rather offensive stuff in there.

Now, it's been a while since I read the pdf, but the problem with the grapple rules is

Spoiler

Show

you can RAW accidentally rape your target due to a poorly worded rule

which leads to the conclusion that all sensible ladies have undergarments that consists of full gothic plate.

[The Glyphstone]

Oh, FATAL is a fantasy heartbreaker, and a system that would like have been hailed as good or even revolutionary in the 70s or early 80s. As it is the rules are essentially all the worst aspects of D&D, GURPS, and Rolemaster, with a heap more of rather offensive stuff in there.

Now, it's been a while since I read the pdf, but the problem with the grapple rules is

Spoiler

Show

you can RAW accidentally rape your target due to a poorly worded rule

which leads to the conclusion that all sensible ladies have undergarments that consists of full gothic plate.

It's FATAL. Why would you assume that is a poorly worded rule, and not Working As Intended?

[Anonymouswizard]

It's FATAL. Why would you assume that is a poorly worded rule, and not Working As Intended?

True, but I assume it's a weirdly worded rule because it begins by using the word 'may', before moving into a jumble of words that technically only make the first bit optional. At least here I don't have to solve a quadratic equation.

[vasilidor]

Enemies are now represented with chocolate, whosoever kills the enemy gets the chocolate.
Critical fumbles... do I need to elaborate?
scrying magic is an automatic two way window. always.
true sight can see your mundane hiding rogue even though he is behind the rock that is bigger than him and the castor has no line of sight.
you get seventy points to split between 7 stats (early 3.0 game with a dm who had no idea about the rule changes, after I had just finished reading half the dmg, I was the ugliest wizard ever).