One of the most passionate debates in tabletop wargaming isn’t about which tank was best or whether Napoleonic squares are overrated. It’s about house rules — those little tweaks, rewrites, and “we do it this way here” moments that sneak into almost every gaming group sooner or later. In this latest video, I dig into the question that every wargamer eventually faces: do house rules enhance the experience, or do they quietly undermine it?
For many of us, tinkering with rules feels completely natural. We don’t just play historical games — we study history, obsess over specific battles, and get emotionally invested in moments when everything could have gone another way. When a ruleset doesn’t quite allow for that, the temptation to adjust it is almost irresistible. Maybe a unit should be tougher, maybe morale should matter more, or maybe the official army list doesn’t quite reflect what actually fought on that day in 1942 or 1815. So we change things, often with the best of intentions.
But rules aren’t just words on a page. Underneath every good game is a web of probabilities, balance decisions, and design choices that are usually invisible to the player. When we start altering things, even in small ways, we might be tugging at threads we don’t fully understand. A tiny bonus here or a new rule there can slowly warp how a game plays, sometimes without anyone noticing until it’s too late.
The video also examines the individuals behind the rules. Designers bring their own vision of history to the table, based on research, playtesting, and compromise. Changing their work can sometimes sharpen a game, but it can also erase parts of what made it special in the first place. And, just to keep us humble, there’s always the risk that we, as players, might not understand a period quite as well as we think we do.
At the same time, house rules aren’t the villains of this story. They can be powerful tools for learning, creativity, and personalising a game to suit your group. They encourage deeper engagement with both history and game mechanics, and they let us explore those wonderful “what if?” moments that make wargaming so compelling.
This video isn’t about declaring a winner in the house rules war. It’s about exploring the tension between creativity and consistency, between personal vision and shared systems, and how that tension shapes the way we enjoy our hobby. If you’ve ever rewritten a rule, ignored an army list, or argued passionately over a single modifier, this one is for you.
Lee, you produce another interesting and solid essay. Much to consider for rules' tinkerers.
ReplyDeleteI've been tweaking the rules since I noticed that my original hardback of Donald Featherstone's War Games had pencil alterations in the margin from the previous owner, and I wondered if they were really an improvement. Your thoughts about upsetting the fine balance of the original are as interesting as always, but imply a level of care in the original rules that we sadly don't always see in some recent, hurried rules whose only purpose is to sell more toys. Those are the targets that most need altering or replacement by something better. And of course there is no room for house rules in the tournament environment, unless the tournament organisers create them to address the broken balance of the originals. You'll probably guess that I'm not a tournament player.
ReplyDeleteI love a good house rule as long as it's explained and balanced and fellow gamers agree from the outset, far better than religiously sticking to rules that don't work because the 'book' says so.
ReplyDeleteI love a good house rule as long as it's explained and balanced and fellow gamers agree from the outset, far better than religiously sticking to rules that don't work because the 'book' says so.
ReplyDeleteIn half of our games, the entire ruleset is "house rules" in as much as we play rules created and written by our mate Mark of 1866 and All That. Mind you, that does not stop the tinkering, they change a bit on a regular basis! I play my solo games using another mate Andrews rules, which I find super easy to remember and play and also have some unusual features I really like eg a unit fired on always returns fire. The other 30-40% of the games I play I do use commercial sets at our friend Julians place - but rarely the same set more than a couple of times in a row, and he changes his flavour of the month on frequently - so WW2 could be one of four or five options....and we generally do change something about them - even if it's just leaving out bits we think are irrelevant or over complicate things!
ReplyDeletePersonally, I see no issue with this at all - the only time people would have to agree to play rules exactly as written would be in competition gaming - but that holds zero interest to me, so won't ever affect me!