Is there such a thing as too much homebrew Veeky Forums?

>In terms of rules - one line is already too much.
>People like this exist
How does one justify playing with randoms?

>ever using the unmodified lore for a system
>not coming up with your own lore for every campaign
>being this much of a creativelet

>but 'one line is too much' strikes me as a bit stupid.
I've seen games getting broken over a single houserule before. Perhaps the most common and prominent example would be "skill checks can have crits & critfails" (though D&D is far from flawless system to begin with)

And? That you can have bad houserules isn't an argument against having houserules, it's an argument against doing so clumsily and thoughtlessly.

>That you can have bad houserules isn't an argument against having houserules
Fair point. The fact that the most common and widespread houserule is one of the worst* kind of is though. Better safe than sorry.

* leaving aside the craziness such as "d20-2 is a valid replacement for 3d6"

Being fair, I think the idea you can crit skill checks is less of a houserule and more of a widespread misunderstanding, plus evidence of how few people who play D&D actually thoroughly read the rules.

Its only the most prolific terrible houserule because it modifies the most prolifically terrible system.

You should discuss homebrew choices with your players too, unless you make the homebrew options apparent or available before they join to begin with. While you run the table, you're not the only one at it.

...

>Is there such a thing as too much homebrew Veeky Forums?
>Implying there's ever enough in the first place
If your game ain't tailor-made for you and your friends, whether it be modified, totally new, or only markedly different, you ain't doing it right senpai

Ah yes its bait and not common sense.
Take a good system and the bad rules won't stick as easily.
Take a rancid system and its hard to properly fuck it up more.

Take a system with a small player base, and nothing you do with it will actually become prolific.,
Take the industry giant of the last decade with the largest player base in the hobby on the other hand.

So don't change some cor mechanic, but if a certain aspect of a game, lets say social combat, is trash. While everything else is good. Whats wrong with figuring out a way that everyone at the table enjoys rather than the way no one does?

System mastery eliminates the first problem, hell playing the game at all before you fiddle with it (how else are you going to know those flaws are actually flaws?) should mitigate the risk of borking something else.

Also what's it like playing in settings that only allow raw core content? Seriously I'd wager most house rules out there are swimming around as setting dressing. Hell my system of choice actively encourages making new content for your setting completely with a few tips on how to balance it.

Not to mention the idea of setting rules, where again you can make your own, or choose from what I'm guessing is the writer's favorite bundle of their old house rules that actually alter core mechanics.

Open question to the thread: would you play in a campaign where the DM was constantly tinkering with the rule system? I've been fucking around with 5e for a while, but I think my group is starting to get really sick of testing new rules every week

Generally, one week is nowhere near enough time to test new rules.

If you have to keep tinkering, do it in waves. Build up a coherent, logical package of rules you can present to your players, leaving a couple of months between 'patches'. That gives you time to test and tweak the previous patch without constantly confusing the data with changing other rules around it. You'll never learn anything about how well they work if the environment you're playing in is always changing.

>is there such a thing as too much homebrew?

Yes. The answer is "any." There are exactly two kinds of people who pick up a game of Pathfinder/D&D and decide to worldbuild a setting:

The first is the kind of smug, self-satisfied, pretentious person who has active disdain for a number of foundational fantasy conventions and thinks that "suberving the tropes" constitutes quality writing. This is where you get all the the eye-rollingly "wacky" settings that people propose instead of the dreaded "generic european fantasy:"
>What if we ran a D&D game with gunpowder weapons in a post-apocalyptic wild west?
>What we ran a D&D game set in a magiteck age of sail, where the whole world is covered in water and boats can fly to Renaissance-inspired cities floating on sky islands?
>What if the only playable races were gnomes and bugmen, and everyone lives underground, and magic comes from eating mushrooms that grow on the backs of wild elves?

How twee. How wacky. How inteszzzzzzzz....

The second is the kind of person who's too lazy to run someone else's world consistently. They can't put in the effort to memorize the details of Dragonlance or Ravenloft or even Forgotten Realms, so they create their own Forgotten Realms with the serial numbers filed off and the geography mixed up a little bit. They throw another bog-standard fantasy setting on the pile: another laundry list of proper nouns that the players have to re-remember even though the mean the same thing as any other D&D setting.

Either way, it's not a good sign for the quality of your GM, both in the sense of the quality of their game and the quality of their character.

I'd get real tired of that shit in a hurry.

>There are exactly two kinds of people
There are exactly two kinds of people: people who take this argument seriously, and people who don't.
Tasty pasta.

So on top of the PHB, the DMG, and the Monster Manual, I also have to pick up ANOTHER fucking textbook on imaginary bullshit to be considered a quality GM in your book?

Yeah, go jew someone else you shill

>What if we ran a D&D game with gunpowder weapons in a post-apocalyptic wild west?
Wasn't there basically a conversion for this in ad&d hidden in one of the appendixes?

>What if the only playable races were gnomes and bugmen, and everyone lives underground, and magic comes from eating mushrooms that grow on the backs of wild elves?

But what you just described has amazing potential and you're basically a drooling retard. Go play your generic fantasy and leave the imaginative stuff to the rest of us who can actually enjoy it.

Nigga isn't this whole "tons of homebrew"" thing why they made Besm?

Yes. I've gotten pretty wasted off my home-made mead, and I usually end up regretting it the day after.

How long do you normally ferment. I've just started and have been fiddling with biab beer while I wait on some honey from a friend.

>you must be a dragonlance, ravenlosft or forgotten realms autist to run d&d
desu, I've had consistently terrible experiences of people throwing overcomplicated names, loredumping me and being mad that I haven't read 20 books of pulp garbage anytime I've played in a published d&d setting.
Most homebrew settings I've played in were pretty easy and quick to understand and I didn't come across npc's with names like lothoreigen dragoriouf.

Listen to this user >Generally, one week is nowhere near enough time to test new rules.

Hell, testing any system you have to change one thing, and then test the hell out of it before tweaking something else.
Otherwise, on your fourth tweak when something borks, you have to work sixteen times as hard to figure out which tweak did what wrong, assuming they interact.

4-5 weeks, though it can end up kind of on the strong/dry side, so I normally add more honey and juice to taste when I bottle it.

>And with any flawed system attempting any amount of houseruling will be wasted effort.
That's an interesting opinion.
If houseruling is a wasted effort because the system is flawed, and a flawless needs no houseruling because it's flawless (Hook us up with some of those!), then in that case, yes, houseruling should never be done.
But this is equivalent to saying, "Why fix something that doesn't work properly?"
If we could just go to the game store and buy a perfectly suited flawless game, like buying a manufacturer approved part when the discount one you bought turns out to be crap, that would be fine.

I have not seen that store.
(Seriously, hook us up!)

>I don't like the whole "play a game or write a book" argument.
Also, in regards to lore, this whole post.

Found you a more appropriate OP image in 5 seconds of trying.
Now we just need to kit the kid out as a dorf and we're set.

I've known only 2 dms that managed to do that successfully. .- That's the point, successfully as in the whole group enjoys these changes each time.
Mechanics, sure, as long as they don't alter the core rules, if the core rules are modified too much, then your DM is insecure about his skills.

Kind reminder that you're talking about worldbuilding, not rules; and older editions left that option open for the DM to try. AD&D had something like the wild west idea vaguely suggested somewhere.

Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms and Ravenloft have some problems with some core concepts and lore creep at actual tables. I'm sorry, but it's possible to know these settings well enough to know they're bad.