I finally found a reason to like the weekly monster/treasure/spell type post so popular on OSR blogs. They make excellent jumping off points for quick posts when when I’m blogging from my phone on the subway on the way to a Labyrinth Lord game….
In this case, Zack at rpgblog2 asks about house rules:
How Closely Do You Follow The Rules As Written? In general, do you find yourself houseruling heavily? Do you tend to let such houserules be emergent from play, or clearly codified at the start? As a player, how important are playing the with Rules As Written to you?
I currently have only one game going, and I’m using Swords and Wizardry core rules. I like the simplicity of S&W but need few more options than what’s in the S&W whitebox. Also, if my son decides he wants to read the rules, he has a better chance of understanding them than LL reading LL off the bat.
I use individual initiative, replaced elves with goblins as pcs, don’t use clerics (magic users can learn heal and cure spells) and all pc hit point rolls are max. Some of the above has more to do with my own fantasy prejudices, obviously. Even back in the day, when I was a more active GM I didn’t usually replace any core system. I think most games have it close to right for whatever setting or theme they are trying to create.
As a player I am fine with deviations and on the fly changes, too. Whatever is fun.
When I write gaming stuff, I try not to assume a specific system. The rules are different at every table, so I don’t make anything hinge on a specific mechanic. Initiative, especially. I just stuck to the rules I am writing for and assume the GM can handle any adjustments.
That said, I do like to stretch things a bit when I can and bring things to the game that go beyond rules as written.For example, I am toying with an idea that would require the DM to figure out how a mortal might become a god if the written and house rules don’t cover that.