Worst REAL house rules you've used

[Mike Miller]

In the made up worst house rules thread, the idea was brought up to talk about the worst house rules people have used. So I made this thread! Fortunately for me, unfortunately for this thread, I haven't really had terrible house rules. However, I am certain other people have experienced some things! Discuss!

[Rerem115]

Re-rolling initiative every turn. You think combat takes forever? Add re-drawing the initiative table every turn for a 6 person party, 8 mooks, and a boss to that.

[noob]

Clarifications on how the shrink effect of the rod of wonder works.
No matter which way you pick it is wrong and damage the game.

[16bearswutIdo]

Let me tell you: adding the sanity rules from CoC to a D&D horror campaign sounds like a fun time, but it will result in the deaths of every party member if my experience is anything to mention.

[CharonsHelper]

We did a 3.5 campaign where we borrowed Iron Heroes' armor rules. Instead of adding to AC X amount, all armor added 1dX DR. You thought that Power Attack builds dominated before? >.<

[Frozen_Feet]

In an OSR game, I ignored a rule saying that one treasure can at most give enough experience points for one level up. (Because gold = XP) This, combined with an edition change mid-adventure changing the game from gold standard to a silver standard (so now silver = XP, and one gold is 50 silver), lead to some characters jumping from level 7 to level 16.

[noob]

We did a 3.5 campaign where we borrowed Iron Heroes' armor rules. Instead of adding to AC X amount, all armor added 1dX DR. You thought that Power Attack builds dominated before? >.<

As usual if you use pa one point of armor is approximately like 2 points of damage reduction.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

Me: Alright everyone we're using the Book of Carnal Knowledge for this game.

A game I was in: Repricing everything and then refusing to provide a standard price list leaving players with no idea what fair prices are. Couple this with the DM insisting that haggling be roleplayed. Not a rule, but also OOC mockery for not enjoying/being skilled at haggling.

[Aetis]

In my early days of DMing, I implemented "if you kill the monster, you get the xp for it" houserule.

[Arbane]

In my early days of DMing, I implemented "if you kill the monster, you get the xp for it" houserule.

Any fistfights over killstealing?

One DM I had liked Fumble rules. I remember when one character got a really nice +2 dagger and broke it in the same session.

[LordCdrMilitant]

Illiteracy. In a recent game, I was persuaded by a player that mass literacy was unrealistic, and that literacy should be tied to INT. I implemented it, because I figured it was harmless and would make him happy without really making a mess for the other players. That said, in the end, while it had minimal mechanical effect, the discussions about it and who could and should be able to read wound up taking up more time and more energy than I was or am willing to give.

Also, trade. The party one member of the party [coincidentally the same player above] wanted the party to be a trading company. Nobody else complained, so I put together a function to model sell and buy prices. In the end, I just tossed it out.

Honestly, I think "The GM takes suggestions from players regarding realism" is the houserule that I'm never going to use again.

[Aetis]

Any fistfights over killstealing?

We had angry shouting matches.. I got rid of the rule before people started punching each other.

[SimonMoon6]

Back in the days of first edition AD&D, I implemented the fairly commonly talked about rule of "1 is a fumble (you drop your weapon), 20 is a critical hit for double damage". The crit hits weren't a big deal (though I did think it was odd that if you could only hit on a 20, every hit you made was a critical hit, so I quickly figured out that you needed a "confirmation" roll for crits, long before 3rd edition was a glint in the milkman's eye). But, man, what a comedy of errors it was for every single attack roll of 1 to cause someone to drop their weapon. There was a drow PC (thanks, Unearthed Arcana!) and naturally, he fought with two weapons, with multiple attacks for each hand... there were several combats where he would was constantly dropping both weapons. And he was supposed to be a skilled combatant!

Then, in a palladium game, I didn't understand the rules, so I accidentally created a house rule. The way Iron Man-style armor is supposed to work in the Palladium system (I think) is that if the attacker hits, but doesn't roll high enough, the blow simply glances off the armor; if they hit but roll high enough, the armor takes the damage. (I could be wrong; I never gained any system mastery for Palladium.) Either way, the character in the armor is safe until the armor is smashed to bits. However, I misunderstood and thought it meant that if the attacker rolled low, the armor took the damage, but if the attacker rolled high, the character in the armor took the damage. One poor PC was an Iron Man style character. He took one hit and the guy inside the armor was turned into a bloody pulp... but on the plus side, the armor was still in perfect condition!

[lightningcat]

Any fumble rules in a D&D game. It always ends badly.

[Lord Torath]

Any fumble rules in a D&D game. It always ends badly.

Except for Sameo. Okay, I guess it did still end badly for him, but it was a pretty awesome ending, and it wouldn't have been possible without the DM's House Fumble Rule.

That said, I agree with you about fumbles being a terrible idea.

[Lapak]

Then, in a palladium game, I didn't understand the rules, so I accidentally created a house rule. The way Iron Man-style armor is supposed to work in the Palladium system (I think) is that if the attacker hits, but doesn't roll high enough, the blow simply glances off the armor; if they hit but roll high enough, the armor takes the damage. (I could be wrong; I never gained any system mastery for Palladium.) Either way, the character in the armor is safe until the armor is smashed to bits. However, I misunderstood and thought it meant that if the attacker rolled low, the armor took the damage, but if the attacker rolled high, the character in the armor took the damage. One poor PC was an Iron Man style character. He took one hit and the guy inside the armor was turned into a bloody pulp... but on the plus side, the armor was still in perfect condition!

Nah, you had the general idea. Really low rolls (like <4) are a clean miss, rolls between 4 and the AC damage the armor but leave the character unhurt, rolls over the AC bypass the armor and hit the character. For Palladium in general, at least; I don't recall how the superhero-genre subset worked.

[CharonsHelper]

As usual if you use pa one point of armor is approximately like 2 points of damage reduction.

Then the archer in the group would have been even more hosed than he was.

[Lord Arkon]

Any fumble rules in a D&D game. It always ends badly.

I recently ran a Pathfinder game and used the rule that a roll of '1' was a potential fumble, requiring another d20 roll below the target's AC to confirm. It was meant to be a minor detail; a fumble meant you dropped your weapon and spent a round recovering it, creatures using natural attacks spent a round recovering their balance.

The result was that big monsters trying to fight the party were unaffected, while the PCs occasionally dropped their weapons. But the real fun came in the orc-infested ruins. Big fights with lots of enemies meant every round someone dropped their weapon. Every. Round.

The orcs down-graded themselves from cannon fodder to jokes, despite the hits they did get in, the orc or two who dropped their weapons drained the menace from the rest. The fighter was unfazed, but every other PC ended up fumbling a couple of times. I began to groan at the '1's as it began to feel to me like slapstick comedy.

It was a bad rule and had to be cut.

[Black Jester]

Worst Rule I actually played with: All PCs gain the same amount of XP, no matter what they do in the game. Infuriatingly unfair, removes the most effective motivational tool a GM has and it is just plain lazy. I got better, though.

[JeenLeen]

Pathfinder, Kingmaker module.

Players asks about embezzling from their kingdom. Even limiting magic item availability, they had really good magic gear early in the game.

On a humorous note, they put a cowardly and stupid kobold NPC as the treasurer, so at least it was realistic that they could bribe and coerce their treasury into not really noticing.

In practical terms, we were playing the game fairly non-seriously, so it wasn't a big deal. But it was still a broken houserule.

[stack]

Another crit fumble. Had a character that could summon a levitating weapon. First attack roll in the game is a 1. DM rules that the weapon is destroyed, meaning he can't resummon it until the next day. The kicker: we were not told that critical fumbles were being used. I wouldn't have played if I had known.

Not long after that I quit since there were subsequent issues.

In PBP, not houseruling to use group initiative. I have seen about 1 game make it past the first combat without group initiative.

[Hand_of_Vecna]

However, I misunderstood and thought it meant that if the attacker rolled low, the armor took the damage, but if the attacker rolled high, the character in the armor took the damage. One poor PC was an Iron Man style character. He took one hit and the guy inside the armor was turned into a bloody pulp... but on the plus side, the armor was still in perfect condition!

Ya Palladium's armor rules are wonky, to be fair a lot of their rules are wonky and have been copy pasta'd between books and editions forever without even getting spelling and grammar mistakes fixed.

There are actually two sets of armor rules for Palladium. Historical and modern armor work as you described with a number you can roll past to ignore while lower hits grind down the armies health. Supertech and some magical armor has a number that works like D&D AC and has health that is deducted before the wearer's when that number is surpassed.

My own Palladium games suffered from bonus inflation to the point that all but the heaviest real world armor was useless. After years of play and reading and rereading various books I found a few lines that seemed to suggest that modern armor made you ignore all natural rolls of 1-4 which actually made light armor somewhat relevent again.

Palladium was also the system in which I first encountered 1's as fumbles which were always illogical and terrible. High tech weapons exploded on ones doing damage equal to the ammo left in the clip which made the weapons average more damage to shoot than to get shot at.

[JNAProductions]

Worst Rule I actually played with: All PCs gain the same amount of XP, no matter what they do in the game. Infuriatingly unfair, removes the most effective motivational tool a GM has and it is just plain lazy. I got better, though.

That doesn't seem like a bad rule at all.

I mean, let's say you have three experienced roleplayers and gamers, and one new person. The new person will likely not do as much in game, due to lacking knowledge, and won't roleplay as much, lacking confidence. If you punish them by not awarding them as much XP, there's a good chance they won't show up again, and you just soured them on TTRPGs for no good reason.

[CharonsHelper]

Worst Rule I actually played with: All PCs gain the same amount of XP, no matter what they do in the game. Infuriatingly unfair, removes the most effective motivational tool a GM has and it is just plain lazy. I got better, though.

Having players at different XPs would be horrid.

[GunDragon]

Idk if this is a bad houserule or not, but one time I implemented a house rule in a D&D-like game where every confirmed critical hit would result in the target receiving a permanent injury, such as an eye being cut out, an ear being sliced off, a concussion, sometimes even a hand being chopped off. These injuries could be cured of course, but only with the use of magical healing. Idk, it kinda made combat feel more dangerous.

[martixy]

Does "had used on me" count?

In which case turn-based role-playing. It's as horrendous as it sounds.

Worst Rule I actually played with: All PCs gain the same amount of XP, no matter what they do in the game. Infuriatingly unfair, removes the most effective motivational tool a GM has and it is just plain lazy. I got better, though.

Sisyphus isn't lazy either, but is he doing anything useful with his effort?

Your post leaves the impression you subscribe to the badwrongfun school of gaming.

[Arbane]

Idk if this is a bad houserule or not, but one time I implemented a house rule in a D&D-like game where every confirmed critical hit would result in the target receiving a permanent injury, such as an eye being cut out, an ear being sliced off, a concussion, sometimes even a hand being chopped off. These injuries could be cured of course, but only with the use of magical healing. Idk, it kinda made combat feel more dangerous.

That depends - do you want higher-level characters to all look like extras from 'Night of the Living Dead'? If so, it's great.

(And of course, like every 'make combat more dangerous/realistic' rule, it cripples fighters without inconveniencing casters at all.)

[Black Jester]

That doesn't seem like a bad rule at all.

I mean, let's say you have three experienced roleplayers and gamers, and one new person. The new person will likely not do as much in game, due to lacking knowledge, and won't roleplay as much, lacking confidence. If you punish them by not awarding them as much XP, there's a good chance they won't show up again, and you just soured them on TTRPGs for no good reason.

Your argument only makes sense if one assumes that XP are something the players are automatically entitled to and therefore one can take them for granted; under any other ideas of how XP could or should work in a game (let's say as a reflection of the actual experiences the charaters make or as a reward mechanism), your argument doesn't work.

Spoiler

Show

I run *a lot* of games for very young and mostly new players, mostly between the age of ten to twelve (I actually get paid for these game sessions, so I can genuinely claim that I am the most professional gamemaster you probably ever talked to, because that matters, right? right?).
Especially for these new players, it is extremely helpful if the XP rewards as a clear orientation, because they lack the experience of older or more established players. Individual rewards are a great instrument to provide this guidance, especially because it does not only affect the game itself but also the general social mores. In this scenario with new/young/inexperienced players, there is very little difference between the distribution of XP and general classroom management.

For kids, it is very beneficial to make it very clear how and why they get their XP - through teamwork and being thoughtful, brave and clever - because these are the parameters that makes the game the most fun for everyone. Bad experiences are most often the result of frustration with other players - the very same problem that individual XP rewards can adress almost infinitely better than an equalized amount of XP, because it allows to concretely adress the good, the bad and the ugly the players do.

So, especially in the case of organising games for new players, my experience tells me that
the actual truth is almost the exact opposite of your example.

Also, the idea that you punish somebody because they do not get the same reward as somebody else... that is not a punishment. Again, only if one assumes that the players are entitled to the XP in the first place, does this idea of a punishment makes any sense.

Sisyphus isn't lazy either, but is he doing anything useful with his effort?

Your post leaves the impression you subscribe to the badwrongfun school of gaming.

Being damned to do the same thing every day in and out, without any proper compensation or encouragement: Sisyphos could act as a nigh perfect analogy of what playing with a GM who refuses to hand out fair XP rewards and encouragements must feel like - but we have to imagine Sisyphos as a happy man, I presume, especially when we are him. Or worse, his warden.
Speaking of that warden, the more fun interpretation is that, through tenacity and effort, Sisyphos is grinding down his rock until it is small and sharp enough to be used as a weapon...

[ImNotTrevor]

Again, only if one assumes that the players are entitled to the XP in the first place, does this idea of a punishment makes any sense.

Having taken a class in behavioral psychology... you can 100% punish someone by rewarding everyone else and leaving them out. It is, specifically, punishment by removing a good thing or access thereto. I work in a psych hospital and we do this all the time. If you don't participate in the programming, you don't get the goodies that come with doing your part. That the kids experience it as and acknowledge it to be a punishment for not doing things is sufficient to prove the point.

In essence: when speaking on human behaviors, whether it is experienced as a punishment or not matters more than whether it literally is.

If Jim thinks Tim insulted him when Tim meant no such insult, that won't do diddly to make Jim feel less insulted in the moment. And explaining that Tim didn't mean it that way probably won't make things immediately hunky-dory, either.

In short:
No. This sentence is literally wrong.

Being damned to do the same thing every day in and out, without any proper compensation or encouragement: Sisyphos could act as a nigh perfect analogy of what playing with a GM who refuses to hand out fair XP rewards and encouragements must feel like - but we have to imagine Sisyphos as a happy man, I presume, especially when we are him. Or worse, his warden.
Speaking of that warden, the more fun interpretation is that, through tenacity and effort, Sisyphos is grinding down his rock until it is small and sharp enough to be used as a weapon...

The entitlement argument, hilariously enough, can be used here, too. Believing that receiving a good thing in the same amount as everyone else is a personal affront to you is a fairly entitled viewpoint.


Granted, I generally decide how to go based on what system I'm using. In D&D, having the group advance as a whole unit makes sense. You work together as a TEAM. You succeed together or die alone. Singling out the weakest link in any given session is not going to make things cohesive, and a party member not helping is probably an OOC problem, not an IC problem. And, for the most part, since the bonus XP for doing things is 100% arbitrary, you won't be teaching them to play D&D better. Just to play it HOW THE GM PREFERS. Which doesn't help outside of that table.

In a game where the Party structure is minimal or absent (a la Apocalypse World) then individual XP makes the most sense, since individuals may indeed be separated and even acting against one another. (In the last AW game I was a player in, my character literally went like 100 miles away from everyone else to go solo kill a dude he hated. This isn't unheard of and most people were glad I was running off for this murder.)

So even though I'm picking apart this bad logic, I don't necessarily disagree with the concept. But I do disagree that it is a Universal Good of Proper GMing to do individualized XP. It's not that simple.

[Luccan]

Re-rolling initiative every turn. You think combat takes forever? Add re-drawing the initiative table every turn for a 6 person party, 8 mooks, and a boss to that.

I actually grew up playing this way. Of course, we only ever had 3 players at most.

Edit: Speaking of, this isn't great upon reflection: We also did d6 initiative rolls (we played 3.5 and d20 modern pretty exclusively, so this was a weird change). So if you had a decent dex and improved initiative, you always went before the enemies. I didn't realize we were doing initiative weird for years.