What makes a house rule a house rule?

[stoutstien]

Few days ago this came up while on a tangent about multiclassing being a net positive as far as optional rules go. It lead to the point where the terms houserule, homebrew, variant, and optional became unclear. Just wanted to put a finger on the pulse as far as the actual division of these terms(if any) people have.
Some general background from the printed material.

Pg 5-6 of PHB- how to play. Often referenced as the description of rule 0 for 5e. Disregarding the slippery slope argument this is base of the totality of DM role/responsibility.

various locations within PHB-green blocks with variant rules. Starting with the variant human that is referencing a optional rule set found later we have the framework of how and why the publisher provided them. It is slightly confusing because they use the same green block format for non-descriptive variants that you could possibly play and also just sidebar lore.

Pg 124-125 of phb -inspiration. Referencing this because it is a optional rule that a DM can use that is not formatted in the same way as feat or multi-classing yet is strangely treated as a "lesser" optional rule.

Pg 163 PHB- customization options. The optional rules that are seen as the "standard" for games (going as far as they are standardized in most organized play) even if they are repeatedly referenced as optional. They even go as far as repeating this five times in a single paragraph at the beginning of the chapter.

Moving on to the DMG you have a book basically stocked entirely with option and variant rules for DMs to utilize. It can be oddly confusing seeing how the entire book is for workshopping yet they have a chapter specifically labeled as such.

This along side the MM make up the core rules. This is a definitive term that is pointed out in some of the later material.

After that you have the everything/ setting books that are seen as a mix of standard/moderate levels of optional. Do I do want to specifically call out a section in chapter 4 of Tasha's under game customization because it is the first time they actually define House Rules while directly referencing the DMG and chapter 9 with it as such.



Based on all this information we can form a baseline for the terminology we all like to use. Variant, optional and house rules are used interchangeably by the publisher without any inherent level of seniority. This tracks with other subjects in which they use interchangeably like NPC and monster (seriously they are the same for wizard).

That leaves the final term, homebrew. It only directly used a handful of times throughout all published material and they only do so in the most plain text form as a reference for an unestablished setting or one that is making use of part of an established one in isolation. Only time I've seen it used outside of a setting book is once in Tasha in the group Patron section. Since purchasing beyond there is another reference where within their site it is used as a term for house rules that are formatted to emulate published material.


Thoughts? Concerns? Complaints?

[LudicSavant]

Few days ago this came up while on a tangent about multiclassing being a net positive as far as optional rules go. It lead to the point where the terms houserule, homebrew, variant, and optional became unclear. Just wanted to put a finger on the pulse as far as the actual division of these terms(if any) people have.
Some general background from the printed material.

Pg 5-6 of PHB- how to play. Often referenced as the description of rule 0 for 5e. Disregarding the slippery slope argument this is base of the totality of DM role/responsibility.

various locations within PHB-green blocks with variant rules. Starting with the variant human that is referencing a optional rule set found later we have the framework of how and why the publisher provided them. It is slightly confusing because they use the same green block format for non-descriptive variants that you could possibly play and also just sidebar lore.

Pg 124-125 of phb -inspiration. Referencing this because it is a optional rule that a DM can use that is not formatted in the same way as feat or multi-classing yet is strangely treated as a "lesser" optional rule.

Pg 163 PHB- customization options. The optional rules that are seen as the "standard" for games (going as far as they are standardized in most organized play) even if they are repeatedly referenced as optional. They even go as far as repeating this five times in a single paragraph at the beginning of the chapter.

Moving on to the DMG you have a book basically stocked entirely with option and variant rules for DMs to utilize. It can be oddly confusing seeing how the entire book is for workshopping yet they have a chapter specifically labeled as such.

This along side the MM make up the core rules. This is a definitive term that is pointed out in some of the later material.

After that you have the everything/ setting books that are seen as a mix of standard/moderate levels of optional. Do I do want to specifically call out a section in chapter 4 of Tasha's under game customization because it is the first time they actually define House Rules while directly referencing the DMG and chapter 9 with it as such.



Based on all this information we can form a baseline for the terminology we all like to use. Variant, optional and house rules are used interchangeably by the publisher without any inherent level of seniority. This tracks with other subjects in which they use interchangeably like NPC and monster (seriously they are the same for wizard).

That leaves the final term, homebrew. It only directly used a handful of times throughout all published material and they only do so in the most plain text form as a reference for an unestablished setting or one that is making use of part of an established one in isolation. Only time I've seen it used outside of a setting book is once in Tasha in the group Patron section. Since purchasing beyond there is another reference where within their site it is used as a term for house rules that are formatted to emulate published material.


Thoughts? Concerns? Complaints?

From Merriam-Webster, the definition is quite straightforward:


House Rule
a rule (as in a game) that applies only among a certain group or in a certain place.

Any rule made at your table (rather than coming from a source outside of your table/DM) is a house rule.

[stoutstien]

From Merriam-Webster, the definition is quite straightforward:



Any rule made at your table (rather than coming from a source outside of your table/DM) is a house rule.

Yep then 5e went out of its way to describe printed options as house rules which muddled up the water all nice like.

The overall Point (I think been a long day) is any verbage here isn't necessary important as far as trying to decide what take president. The system is supposed to support a lot of tinkering and actively encourage tables to do so.

[JonBeowulf]

They screwed up when the added the term "house rule" in Tasha's. A house rule is something that is not in any official material or UA and either changes a rule, removes a rule, or adds a rule. "No Genasi characters in this campaign" would be a house rule. "No Variant Human characters in this campaign" technically wouldn't be a house rule because it's an optional rule.

Personally, I add clarifications to confusing RAW/RAI issues and a list of optional rules in effect to my house rule section in Session 0. So I'd add the VHuman thing above as a house rule just to keep everything in one place. Technically incorrect but I have bigger things to worry about.

[stoutstien]

They screwed up when the added the term "house rule" in Tasha's. A house rule is something that is not in any official material or UA and either changes a rule, removes a rule, or adds a rule. "No Genasi characters in this campaign" would be a house rule. "No Variant Human characters in this campaign" technically wouldn't be a house rule because it's an optional rule.

Personally, I add clarifications to confusing RAW/RAI issues and a list of optional rules in effect to my house rule section in Session 0. So I'd add the VHuman thing above as a house rule just to keep everything in one place. Technically incorrect but I have bigger things to worry about.

Not disagreeing or agreeing because it's not the point of this thread but for curiosity's sake do you consider 5e an opt in or opt out system? I'm generally curious in the plethora of DM mentalities and philosophies that exist.

[LibraryOgre]

*Homebrew creates a thing... a class, a race, a monster, a feat, a spell.

*A "ruling" clarifies something that is unclear. Can a Paladin's smite spells apply to their steeds? Answer unclear, it's up to the DM. (I'm not going to argue the semantics if it's actually unclear; it's an example)

*A houserule alters an established rule, or creates a new one. It may be "you get a feat AND an ASI" or "halberds can do slashing or piercing damage". Those rules aren't things that are unclear in the system, but this particular table does them differently.

*Now, a variant is more or less a suggested houserule... "Gritty Realism" is a variant. Multiclassing and Feats are, technically, variants. In this case, "variant human" would be a houserule that changes what "human" means, mechanically, as a character.

[Sigreid]

From Merriam-Webster, the definition is quite straightforward:



Any rule made at your table (rather than coming from a source outside of your table/DM) is a house rule.

Eh, a house rule can be copied from another table and I think it often is. Thing is, i's use is table specific, really only differing from an optional rule in not being devised and documented in official rules.

[EggKookoo]

To me the vagueness comes in when the DM works out which ability score to use when there's no printed example. You try to get into the super exclusive artisan club by showing off your handmade canvas gloves with inlaid mithril. That could use Charisma, Dexterity, or Intelligence (or maybe other abilities if the player describes actions that relate to those). When the DM finally determines one, was that a house rule? Or just RAW application of the DM's overall role as adjudicator?

If a table ruling overrides a printed rule, it's certainly a house rule (I would think). If it fills in a blank spot not addressed by any official rule, I dunno? Maybe?

[OldTrees1]

Homebrew:
Content (including rules or systems) created outside of the official product.

House rule:
A rule/ruling that applies in a limited scope (this playgroup or even smaller scope like this campaign or this session).

Example: JNAProductions made a Chameleon base class on giantitp. My group ruled that base class was allowed in a particular campaign. My group had a house rule that allowed a particular homebrew.


Variant/Optional rule:
The game supports the rule being on and supports the rule being off. This could be official support (see 5E feat variant rule) or unofficial support (for example homebrew rules about a faction building system).

Example: My group likes level by level multiclassing, so we houserule the official multiclassing variant rules are enabled for the campaign.

I will note most of the official rules are optional rules (based on the "game supports the rule being off" criteria). You still have the power to disable a rule when there is no support for its absence, but the term is more about whether the game breaks rather than whether you have power.

Furthermore I will note usually the word "variant" is used for optional rules that are expected to be toggled based on group. Backgrounds are technically an optional rule, and thus a variant. However WotC did not explicitly label it as a variant because they did not expect many would disable backgrounds.

[stoutstien]

*Homebrew creates a thing... a class, a race, a monster, a feat, a spell.

*A "ruling" clarifies something that is unclear. Can a Paladin's smite spells apply to their steeds? Answer unclear, it's up to the DM. (I'm not going to argue the semantics if it's actually unclear; it's an example)

*A houserule alters an established rule, or creates a new one. It may be "you get a feat AND an ASI" or "halberds can do slashing or piercing damage". Those rules aren't things that are unclear in the system, but this particular table does them differently.

*Now, a variant is more or less a suggested houserule... "Gritty Realism" is a variant. Multiclassing and Feats are, technically, variants. In this case, "variant human" would be a houserule that changes what "human" means, mechanically, as a character.

Just for clarification what do you consider the option class features in say Tasha's(Extended spell list)? Also the artificer which is (sort of) consider core(ish).

[OldTrees1]

Not disagreeing or agreeing because it's not the point of this thread but for curiosity's sake do you consider 5e an opt in or opt out system? I'm generally curious in the plethora of DM mentalities and philosophies that exist.

5E is a default salad next to a salad bar. It already has a bowl and some ingredients. However you can take the time and effort to adjust the salad before you head to your table.

Some variants are opt in. Some variants are opt out. Some rules have no support for being off. Some rules are not printed and need to be homebrewed before there is support to turn them on.



For a more concrete example:
Backgrounds are a variant rule that is opt out.
Feats/Multiclassing are variant rules that are opt in. However it seems it is popular to opt in. (I know I like allowing them)
Sanity system is opt in.

[stoutstien]

5E is a default salad next to a salad bar. It already has a bowl and some ingredients. However you can take the time and effort to adjust the salad before you head to your table.

Some variants are opt in. Some variants are opt out. Some rules have no support for being off. Some rules are not printed and need to be homebrewed before there is support to turn them on.



For a more concrete example:
Backgrounds are a variant rule that is opt out.
Feats/Multiclassing are variant rules that are opt in. However it seems it is popular to opt in. (I know I like allowing them)
Sanity system is opt in.

Are background optional or just the pregenerated ones with the customizing one being the poorly formated base option? First I've heard them refered to as optional in this way.

[JonBeowulf]

Not disagreeing or agreeing because it's not the point of this thread but for curiosity's sake do you consider 5e an opt in or opt out system? I'm generally curious in the plethora of DM mentalities and philosophies that exist.

I treat my games as "opt out". If I don't say something isn't allowed or is done differently, then it's allowed or is done per the rules. It's easier to start with everything then pick out the bits you don't like than it is to start with nothing and add the bits you like.

[Kane0]

When its a rule that applies at one house but not necessarily another.

So technically, they all are.

[PhoenixPhyre]

When its a rule that applies at one house but not necessarily another.

So technically, they all are.

Exactly. The only real rules are the ones actually played by. And those are all different (or contain differences). Whether something is an official rule or not only matters for talking about the game, not playing it. And talking about the game doesn't, in the end, matter at all.

[stoutstien]

Exactly. The only real rules are the ones actually played by. And those are all different (or contain differences). Whether something is an official rule or not only matters for talking about the game, not playing it. And talking about the game doesn't, in the end, matter at all.

Well yes it it's nice to have some understanding of the actual terms in play seeing how some( like I) don't see any difference where other might have a specific view of variants vs house rule.

[LibraryOgre]

Just for clarification what do you consider the option class features in say Tasha's(Extended spell list)? Also the artificer which is (sort of) consider core(ish).

Optional class features would be variants... changes to an existing rule that a given group can implement or not. Something like the artificer is simply new content... you're not creating a rule (except any specific to the class), you're not changing a rule, and its official, so it's not homebrew.

[OldTrees1]

Are background optional or just the pregenerated ones with the customizing one being the poorly formated base option? First I've heard them refered to as optional in this way.
The entire "add a pregen/custom background to your character" is an optional opt out system the GM can turn off if they want to for a campaign. Yes, backgrounds are optional as per the definition I provided. D&D is designed to be customizable both explicitly (explicit variants) and implicitly (Paladins are optional, some campaigns will not allow Paladins).


Variant/Optional rule:
The game supports the rule being on and supports the rule being off.

Consider hypothetically running a campaign where the characters did not have backgrounds. The game continues to work just fine.

I used backgrounds as an example to also highlight the difference between variant/optional systems and systems officially named variants. I did this to explain why the word "variant" was not spammed everywhere it could be technically applicable.


PS:
Although, despite backgrounds being technically optional, I don't expect anyone will play 5E without backgrounds. What would be gained?

[PhoenixPhyre]

The entire "add a pregen/custom background to your character" is an optional opt out system the GM can turn off if they want to for a campaign. Yes, backgrounds are optional as per the definition I provided. D&D is designed to be customizable both explicitly (explicit variants) and implicitly (Paladins are optional, some campaigns will not allow Paladins).



Consider hypothetically running a campaign where the characters did not have backgrounds. The game continues to work just fine.

I used backgrounds as an example to also highlight the difference between variant/optional systems and systems officially named variants. I did this to explain why the word "variant" was not spammed everywhere it could be technically applicable.


PS:
Although, despite backgrounds being technically optional, I don't expect anyone will play 5E without backgrounds. What would be gained?

Under that definition, every piece of content is optional. Including attack rolls.

[OldTrees1]

Under that definition, every piece of content is optional. Including attack rolls.

1) There are plenty of rules that the game does not support being off. If removing a rule breaks the game, then it is not an optional rule, until you find/make homebrew to fix the breakage. (Your example of "now the attack action's resolution is undefined" falls in this category)
2) There are plenty of rules the game does not support being on, until you find/make homebrew for that rule. Then it becomes optional.

For everything else, without any additional steps needed, that rule is optional.

However if your main point was "D&D is intended as a highly customizable game with a dynamic rule set controlled by the playgroup" then yes.

[TyGuy]

Regardless of how those terms may get used or misused, they all seem plainly self explanatory.

[animorte]

The better question may be, what's the difference between the house rule and homebrew?

Both modify the game to some degree. Perhaps one is only applicable to your house (or table) and the other is a modification that may exist only during one game or many, at any number of tables.

[OldTrees1]

The better question may be, what's the difference between the house rule and homebrew?

Both modify the game to some degree. Perhaps one is only applicable to your house (or table) and the other is a modification that may exist only during one game or many, at any number of tables.


Homebrew:
Content (including rules or systems) created outside of the official product.

House rule:
A rule/ruling that applies in a limited scope (this playgroup or even smaller scope like this campaign or this session).

A house rule is limited in scope but can reference 1st party content:
A playgroup could have a house rule that they use the flanking variant from the DMG.

Homebrew on the other hand is non 1st party content. This usually means including it in a campaign involves the playgroup making a house rule:
A person could author a Knockback feat. As long as it is not released in an official 1st party product, then it is homebrew.
A playgroup could have a house rule allowing the homebrewed Knockback feat.

[Kane0]

The better question may be, what's the difference between the house rule and homebrew?

Both modify the game to some degree. Perhaps one is only applicable to your house (or table) and the other is a modification that may exist only during one game or many, at any number of tables.

A houserule is typically a (simple) modification to an existing item in the rulseset.

Homebrew is typically content created in addition to the existing ruleset, and is often greater in scope than individual items.

Changing a published feat would be a houserule. Making a new feat would be homebrew. Changing the HP a class gets would be a houserule, introducing a stamina mechanic for a class would be homebrew.
The line blurs in many cases where both terms would be valid, such as changing a published feat by adding a stamina mechanic.

[Telok]

Not disagreeing or agreeing because it's not the point of this thread but for curiosity's sake do you consider 5e an opt in or opt out system? I'm generally curious in the plethora of DM mentalities and philosophies that exist.

My experience is its been opt out for multiclass, subclass, feats, spells, and magic items. Then opt in for everything else. Outside the PH classes & races (not including vhuman), all wotc book subclasses, all wotc feats, all wotc spells, and the basic set of magic items everything is DM opt in. Not table opt in, DM opt in (short of someone sweet talking the DM into something specific).

So I've seen games go no feats, or no multiclass, or no <list of non-core spells>. An occasional one-off unusual race, or an artificers allowed game. But nobody has ever said any of the rules or variants in the DMG were available for players or in play, except a couple I know tried the gritty rest variant for a bit.

[MrStabby]

Well it's hard to talk about what phrases mean without talking about what people mean by them.

Not that this should be the major implication, but 'houserule' can sometimes be intended as a derogatory term to describe a DM ruling that a player doesn't appreciate and was unexpected. It is a subjective matter as to whether there is some doubt or gap in some parts of the rules - reasonably so (and with the work that people have put in trying to enforce some kind of sense of things like hiding and darkness you can see why there are some surprises).

I think homebrew is much simpler in that I think for a given piece of content more peopme would be in agreement about what it is. Whether it's a feat or a race or on the DM side a monster or a spell enemies use, its usually seen as a bigger departure than 'House rules' but also seems (in my experience) to be less controversial. People expect DMs to use enemies not in the MM, they expect to face cool new abilities.

Optional rules just seem to be a matter of culture. If you play with groups that default to allowing feats then you might think not using that optional rule is actually the departure from a standard. Same with flanking or climbing on a larger creature. Each group will endow their preferred optional rules with some special kind of cannonical status and claim it is somehow 'natural' but the others are more 'optional'.

[Greywander]

Few days ago this came up while on a tangent about multiclassing being a net positive as far as optional rules go. It lead to the point where the terms houserule, homebrew, variant, and optional became unclear. Just wanted to put a finger on the pulse as far as the actual division of these terms(if any) people have.
Here's my take:

Variant
An alternative for something that exists in the standard rules. (Optional rules might also have variants.)

Optional
An optional rule that can be used in addition to the standard rules. Unlike the variant rule, it's not replacing anything.

Homebrew
Any unofficial or 3rd party content.

Some people might further distinguish between paid professional 3rd party content and free hobbyist homebrew. Given that some hobbyists are selling their homebrew, this distinction has become a bit blurry.

House Rule
A given table's configuration of which variants, optional rules, and homebrew are permitted or being used at that table.

Ruling
A one-off situation where the DM has to resolve a situation for which a rule does not exist. This can develop into homebrew if the DM decides that the ruling will be used to resolve similar situations in the future.

Edit:
If a rule is unclear and there are multiple possible interpretations, then each interpretation could be considered a sort of variant of the rule in question. A ruling may be required if the unclear rule isn't addressed ahead of time, which would then become a house rule regarding which variant interpretation is being used.

[Psyren]

From Merriam-Webster, the definition is quite straightforward:



Any rule made at your table (rather than coming from a source outside of your table/DM) is a house rule.


*Homebrew creates a thing... a class, a race, a monster, a feat, a spell.

*A "ruling" clarifies something that is unclear. Can a Paladin's smite spells apply to their steeds? Answer unclear, it's up to the DM. (I'm not going to argue the semantics if it's actually unclear; it's an example)

*A houserule alters an established rule, or creates a new one. It may be "you get a feat AND an ASI" or "halberds can do slashing or piercing damage". Those rules aren't things that are unclear in the system, but this particular table does them differently.

*Now, a variant is more or less a suggested houserule... "Gritty Realism" is a variant. Multiclassing and Feats are, technically, variants. In this case, "variant human" would be a houserule that changes what "human" means, mechanically, as a character.

I'm with these two, Mark Hall in particular. It's not a complicated question, rather arguments about it largely stem from people who want to weaponize the term to dismiss someone else's rulings or suggestions.

[Demonslayer666]

Here's my take:

Variant
An alternative for something that exists in the standard rules. (Optional rules might also have variants.)

Optional
An optional rule that can be used in addition to the standard rules. Unlike the variant rule, it's not replacing anything.

Homebrew
Any unofficial or 3rd party content.

Some people might further distinguish between paid professional 3rd party content and free hobbyist homebrew. Given that some hobbyists are selling their homebrew, this distinction has become a bit blurry.

House Rule
A given table's configuration of which variants, optional rules, and homebrew are permitted or being used at that table.

Ruling
A one-off situation where the DM has to resolve a situation for which a rule does not exist. This can develop into homebrew if the DM decides that the ruling will be used to resolve similar situations in the future.
...

I was going to post, but this says exactly what I was going to say. I'd also like to add the homebrew and houserule have been used interchangeably. A house rule isn't just which options and variants you use, but also the custom ones.

[Greywander]

I was going to post, but this says exactly what I was going to say. I'd also like to add the homebrew and houserule have been used interchangeably. A house rule isn't just which options and variants you use, but also the custom ones.
Yeah, they're often interchangeable, but here I wanted to draw a distinction, albeit mostly a technical/semantic distinction. The homebrew is the actual content, the houserule is the decision whether or not that content is being used.

There are also some other points where we could argue semantics. For example, is variant human a variant rule or an optional rule? What about monstrous races from Volo's, as those are entirely new races? Or tiefling variants, which very much modify the base tiefling while variant human is closer to a complete replacement? Wouldn't all of these simply be extra race options? Are extra race options considered variants or optional content, or does it depend on the race?