[poll] Discussion: Should CeBeGia Use House Rules?

[Ishmayl-Retired]

This is a re-enactment of srdragon's thread...

[CYMRO]

I say, Yes.  Definitely.

 :( broken polls.

[Túrin]

No, let's stick with core only.

While everybody can do what he likes for his own campaign settings, to me a campaign setting should be about the world and the stories it has to tell. Houserules are completely at the purview of the DM, and it makes no sense tying them to a campaign setting in advance. See nastynate's thread on this topic.

[Numinous]

I say no.  

I had a beautiful argument as to why, but it was removed with the creation of the new thread.  Something about me using the setting or something...

[Poseptune]

I say no. *insert what Turin said, with bigger words*

[claypigeons]

I'm going to have to give a huge and resounding "Maybe."

It really depends on what you consider a house rule to be. For some settings, psionics are the main magic, and arcane casting classes have no place. This would be a house rule to some. The reverse is also true.

Now, some settings require a flavor change to a class without actually changing it. This, again, could be a house rule to some people.

It really falls to the creator of the setting and then to the mindset of the DM as to how they want to handle classes, races and mechanics (and with them, house rules).

[CYMRO]

To me, the biggest problem with sticking with Core is Vancian magic.

[brainface]

To me, the biggest problem with sticking with Core is Vancian magic.

like[/i] vancian magic, so if ran a game, I'd put it in. Cymro apparently would take it out. I don't think anyone would leave in something they hate / take out something they really like in the game just because it's an "official" part of the setting.

[brainface]

How hard would it be to do "modular" house rules. As in, maybe we assume core, write up things without too much mechanical detail, and have sections like "Playing in Cebegia using Xathan's magic point system" "Using psychic warriors as Imperial Knights" or whatever.

(Or, alternatively, writing things up under house rules and having a "Using Regular Paladins as Imperial Knights" section.)

[Túrin]

@ CYMRO : But you are perfectly capable of taking it out without Cebegia being specifically designed for it. As a simple example: if someone uses the "critical misses" variant rule from the DMG or some homebrewed variant of it, and then decides to play a game in Eberron, does he feel obliged to drop his critical misses rule just because Eberron doesn't call out it uses that rule (or, more accurately, that its designers prefer that variant rule, which is completely personal preference and really has nothing to do with the setting itself).

Regarding brainface's comments of modular house rules: I think DMs will usually be creative enough to think up that kind of stuff themselves (in the example from the previous paragraph, the DM would simply apply the critical misses rule he knows and likes to his Eberron campaign), though if someone were to post that he likes a certain rule and it seems incompatible with Cebegia, we can certainly put our combined creative power to come up with a solution. It just seems unnecessary at this point, is my two cents.

Túrin