[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

On one hand, you're not supposed to use House Rules in SRM.  On the other, the rules aren't written to be watertight and embrace a paradigm of allowing a GM to decide "whatever works for your table" quite a lot of the time.

So one particular rule has me wanting to solicit opinions for a specifically SRM context:  Making a Ranged Attack in Melee (SR5 pg 177).

I don't have a question about the rule per se.  My question is would it be more "House Rule" or more "whatever works for my table" to say the -3 dice pool penalty isn't one size fits all but can vary based on the context.  You know, like using a pistol might even be less than -3 whereas a rifle might be more than -4 dice.   For what it's worth, the rules themselves actually never codify a value for the penalty.  You have to find the chart (nearest one is on the page preceding) to find a value... so in light of the rules not specifying a value is that value written in stone or is it reasonably malleable?

[Kiirnodel]

While your idea for house-ruling the bonus based on the type of weapon being used is interesting and potentially quite valid, it's definitely a house-rule.

I don't quite follow the logic behind the idea that the value of the penalty being listed in the chart means that the "rules don't specify a value." Really, it couldn't be farther from the truth. The chart comes first, it clearly lists a series of situational modifiers for firing a ranged weapon. That chart is the rule, the text is just support and clarification.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

While your idea for house-ruling the bonus based on the type of weapon being used is interesting and potentially quite valid, it's definitely a house-rule.

I don't quite follow the logic behind the idea that the value of the penalty being listed in the chart means that the "rules don't specify a value." Really, it couldn't be farther from the truth. The chart comes first, it clearly lists a series of situational modifiers for firing a ranged weapon. That chart is the rule, the text is just support and clarification.

Kind of the same logical question of can cover ever be situationally ruled as something other than exactly +2 or +4 as a modifier without being labelled a "house rule".