[Mara]

One of the things I hated on the Dumpshock forums was how you would ask a rules question,
and, instead of being told the answer, you would be given a dozen responses, all their own house
rule.

I would really like to see in the Rules Forum, a sub-forum for house rules, with House Rules
ONLY allowed to be given or discussed there...That way, if people want to avoid House
Rules, they can, instead of being forced to deal with them on every rules question...

[JM_Hardy]

What we might do is have an "Ask the Devs" thread in the rules forum, where only Dev responses would be allowed. Would that perform the function you're looking for?

Jason H.

[Mara]

What we might do is have an "Ask the Devs" thread in the rules forum, where only Dev responses would be allowed. Would that perform the function you're looking for?

Jason H.

While that would be nice(and like Battletech's forums), I am more thinking that: the player base can often answer rules questions, but I would really love to see people's house rules
separated out from rules discussions or questions answerable by players.

[Bull]

The problem is they're not always something that can be separated, so creating a "hard line" division between the two won't work.  Some players simply feel some rules are broken or do not work.  Others have their own interpretations of the rules which, when they're different than others interpretation, effectively become a house rule.

Bull

[FastJack]

Well, I created a thread for listing house rules. And I saw another thread for Magic house rules, so hopefully that will pull the focus for them there, leaving the questions a lot 'cleaner'.

Of course, whenever I answer a question regarding the rules, I always preface it as either "Here's how I understand the current rule" or "Here's a house rule I have that answers the question". Keeps things a little more organized, IMHO.

[Wayfinder]

I've known enough game developers to know that there really is no true definition of a rule. I've spent long and laborious nights arguing about rules interpretations, not with players or even beta testers, but with authors and line developers. I've also had friends whose "house rules" were so extensive they required their own booklet. For me it's never been a question of "official" vs "house rule" rather more a question of "common sense" vs "rules lawyer".

[Bull]

That's usually how it breaks down, Wayfinder...

You'll also find a split between the hardline "Rules as Written" vs "Rules as Intended". 

(And I had the acronym RAW more than Brackhaven hates Trolls, so beware if you use it around me )

Bull

[Casazil]

I like to follow the rules as written ..........as much as possible but there are just times when GM's just need to be flexable.

Not everything can always be done in black an white.

When I need to bend (I try to never break) a rule I try really hard to bend only as far as it needs to go so it can stay as close to the original rule as written.

But yes house rules sub fourm would be a thing that could be helpfull and a seperate one for magic sounds good too I guess.

[Xylifrost]

You are essentially suggesting that the Latin Skyscrapers become the domain of the Mexican forum.