D&D 5E Dying House Rule

Saeviomagy said:

I think you got me backwards there: I was saying that if people aren't bad at tactics, they will realize that dropping to 0 is a bad idea. If they DO care about the story, you don't need to 'punish' them extra for falling to 0. I don't think players can abuse this... I just don't think it's in any way the solution to the problems "My players think dropping to 0 is a good tactic" or "My players don't give a damn about whether their characters live or die".

Click to expand...

I am saying that people caring about story does not mean that rules can't also fit the world you want. Back to my world as an example, my players are almost 100% story driven. So, I make rules to help tell the story I want to go with my world. There is no story disconnect when the mechanics don't fit.

Story: A lot of gods died, most importantly every single one of the Nature gods.
Rule: No Nature Clerics (As champions of a god anyway, you could still play one, but call it a Druid instead.)

Story: Plane of Death has a separate, very slow, time progression, and is freezing cold.
Rule: Anyone who dies wanders a Blizzard for centuries-per-second, so if they come back their Soul remembers that cold. Cold based issues occur, and stack as they die more often.

Story: Most magic is Chaotic, borderline uncontrollable.
Rule: Most Full-casting classes cannot go higher than level 12, as the higher magics are outside PC control. Though, I might consider some sort of artifact that allows casting a higher spell, with a spellcasting check, or a Con save to avoid some sort of detrimental effect. Something like a Legendary Scroll maybe.

All of these rules help tell the story I want to tell, and helps my Players better picture the world they are in from the character's point of view.

Lanliss said:

I am saying that people caring about story does not mean that rules can't also fit the world you want. Back to my world as an example, my players are almost 100% story driven. So, I make rules to help tell the story I want to go with my world. There is no story disconnect when the mechanics don't fit.

Click to expand...

And none of them are attempts to 'fix' things. They're mechanics intended to reflect a world. I can respect that.

Perhaps more importantly is that none of your changes make a player have to sit out during the game.

Saeviomagy said:

And none of them are attempts to 'fix' things. They're mechanics intended to reflect a world. I can respect that.

Perhaps more importantly is that none of your changes make a player have to sit out during the game.

Click to expand...

Thanks, but my point is that those are just examples of rules that work for my world. If someone else wanted to tell grittier stories they would need grittier rules to reflect that in their world. Rules like the OP that make the world feel much more deadly, instead of just telling your players to imagine the world as more deadly. The latter can be done, and there is nothing wrong with it, but it doesn't help players who want the rules to reflect whatever world they may be in.

When I see the word "Fix", I always put it in the context of "for me and mine", as the only ones who say they are actually trying to make a fix for everyone are generally either working on something that most agree is an issue, or they are joking. 'Fixing' a rule just means making it work for yourself (general you), so that you can play the game with more enjoyment. I am sure that the DM isn't just going to throw a rule like the OP at his players when they happen to go down, but will instead get their input on if it fits the story that they want to play.

The other example I brought up, CapnZapp's threads for making the rules more balanced, simply means he and his players want the game world to be more balanced, to put more stock in the things they care about than the realism of Ranged Combat being the best*, or feats breaking the game**. I can certainly respect the underlying intent of making the game better for him and his players, even when I don't agree with the issues he is having. At the end of the road, he will have a world where Melee is just as much an option as ranged, where you don't have to sacrifice any capability for story purposes, and where a few key Feats don't make one person better than every other player.

*In his opinion, which he only jokingly forces onto others, as far as I have seen.
**same thing.

Your point seems to be "everything is opinion so we shouldn't discuss it"?

Saeviomagy said:

Your point seems to be "everything is opinion so we shouldn't discuss it"?

Click to expand...

No, my point is that the particular issue you are pointing out (Players being mad that they have to sit there and do nothing) probably isn't an issue when the OP is playing with a group of players that think the same way he/she does. There are still plenty of points of discussion, like how you might make rules to support the requested type of gameplay, and a healthy discussion on the pros and cons of the yours vs. OP.

The issue you are pointing out is specific to playing with random people, or people who don't want to play in the particular way you are aiming for, hence my first response to you about assuming the OP is playing with unknown quantities rather than others who think the same way he/she does. If you assume the OP is playing with others that want the same style of game, than there doesn't need to be a discussion warning them that their players might not enjoy it.

Also, if my first post seemed only directed at you, I apologize. I meant it in the general sense, since I see this happen fairly often. Someone will put up some sort of house rule, and there will be a number of people talking about how open it is to abuse, or how it kills the game if applied to the way they play. Most houserule discussions require a certain level of putting yourself in the OPs shoes, so that you can consider it from the perspective of their game rather than your own, otherwise there are just a bunch of side discussions about how a given person would abuse it.

Lanliss said:

Also, if my first post seemed only directed at you, I apologize. I meant it in the general sense, since I see this happen fairly often. Someone will put up some sort of house rule, and there will be a number of people talking about how open it is to abuse, or how it kills the game if applied to the way they play. Most houserule discussions require a certain level of putting yourself in the OPs shoes, so that you can consider it from the perspective of their game rather than your own, otherwise there are just a bunch of side discussions about how a given person would abuse it.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but what else is there going to be in a houserule thread? A bunch of people saying "ok"? If I were to post a house rule here, I really do want people to try to poke holes in it. If I were to implement a house rule that someone in my group dislikes, would they necessarily notice straight away, realize that it's what is reducing fun or bring it up even if they did? Probably not. People typically don't like conflict. They'll suck it up, and they'll keep sucking it up as the rules change more and more, and they'll gradually start prioritizing things above our weekly d&d game.

Saeviomagy said:

Yeah, but what else is there going to be in a houserule thread? A bunch of people saying "ok"? If I were to post a house rule here, I really do want people to try to poke holes in it. If I were to implement a house rule that someone in my group dislikes, would they necessarily notice straight away, realize that it's what is reducing fun or bring it up even if they did? Probably not. People typically don't like conflict. They'll suck it up, and they'll keep sucking it up as the rules change more and more, and they'll gradually start prioritizing things above our weekly d&d game.

Click to expand...

Of course, I also want people to poke holes in my house rules. However, I generally want them to have some of their own ideas. Not very fun to go into your houserule thread and just find a lot of posts saying "That sucks, just play it RAW.". That is where putting yourself in the OPs shoes comes in. When I go into someone elses houserule thread I try my best to look at the game from their perspective on what they want, and consider how I might arrive at a similar outcome in a different way. This thread is a great example of that.

I don't agree with how the OPs houserule works. It does not seem to actually accomplish the goal of making your players care about death, it just gets them there faster, at which time they get to roll up a new PC. Yipee. So I mentioned my own houserules, which I made with a similar goal of giving my players a better reason to care about death. There being downsides to dying repeatedly makes it more likely they will try to avoid dying, rather than simply kill them faster when they make a mistake. So, I get to help the OP by poking holes in the houserule, and provide constructive feedback, rather than giving the OP nothing to read but a negative post. That kind of thing just cuts the lifeline of the idea, and leaves the OP floating in a void without any ideas.

I am not saying there shouldn't be any debates, or shooting down of ideas, just that that is only half of the discussion, with the other half being to actually provide help. Also, I am not saying that the rules should just be implemented with the assumption that the players will like them. I don't think many DMs just throw rules like this at their players at the time the rule becomes important, and most probably actually consult with their players before this sort of thing enters play.*

*rushed right now, might add more to these thoughts later.

EDIT: Nope, that pretty much covers it.