D&D 5E Capricious Home Rules and DM Pet Peeves

Well, I think I already gave my opinion about this subject. For me, Paladins should be LG-only; we just shouldn’t demand them to be perfect.
And honestly, if a DM demands your Paladin to be perfect, and then force you into a Good-or-Law dilemma, and takes your powers regardless of your choice, this guy is not a nice DM. This must have occurred in such high numbers that now people are resentful just by hearing the name.
When I finish it, I may show my take on Paladin. Be assured: it’s pretty much the LG-hero, just with my special touch

lowkey13 said:

Well, in fairness, I think the actual saying is that opinions are like money; everyone has it, but the only money that matters is mine. Pretty sure that's it. Close enough.

Click to expand...

Maybe inflation had something to do with it? The more of 'em out there, the less they're worth?

iserith said:

I can't say I have this trait or habit. I've definitely seen DMs who have had it, but I tend not to stick around in their games as there seems to be a correlation in my experience between this trait and others I cannot abide in a regular game. Typically, if I'm making a house rule or including one option or another to the baseline game, it's because I'm trying to evoke a very particular play experience for that one adventure or campaign by playing to its theme. The next adventure or campaign won't have the same house rule as the current or past one.

Click to expand...

I see what you are saying, but in my defense, DMs who try too hard to create a certain atmosphere or want to realize some artistic vision with their home-brew campaign can be just as bad. In my current campaign, I started with a low-magic campaign and severely limited the classes and races that were allowed. I mentioned that in a post on EN World once and was flamed a little bit for it (the quote being: "you're pretty clearly of the "players shouldn't be allowed to enjoy playing things I don't and knowing the setting is cheating" camp, which does indeed make you out of touch." Ouch!).

On the one hand, one can argue that if you are playing D&D then players should be able to play can class or race in the official rule books. If you want another "flavor", buy another game. I guess that is just not how I learned to play the game. In the AD&D 1e era, every DM I knew had their own settings and home rules. Sometimes players would argue and sometimes the DM would change and sometimes he wouldn't. The group would have to agree to the rules for that campaign or session. Rarely do I recall that ever being an issue.

Not sure that I see "no studded leather" as being worse than "this is a gritty, low-magic campaign", or this is a goblin campaign--you can only play a goblin. The lack of studded leather affects game play far less than sweeping campaign settings.

MNblockhead said:

Not sure that I see "no studded leather" as being worse than "this is a gritty, low-magic campaign", or this is a goblin campaign--you can only play a goblin. The lack of studded leather affects game play far less than sweeping campaign settings.

Click to expand...

Personally, I have a lot more trust for the "goblin campaign" DM or the "Gritty, low-magic" DM than the "no studded leather" DM. I can get behind DMs who have a broad vision for their game and want to try something different. I'm much more wary of the DM who feels the need to change picayune details for reasons of "fidelity" or "realism". That's a warning sign, for me, that our playstyles might differ too much to be glossed over.

*Deleted by user*

manduck said:

I have two house rules based on my pet peeves.

1. No evil characters at my table. You can be good or neutral, but not evil. I had too many adventures derailed by constant note passing and backstabbing. I didn't spend several hours preparing for game day so I could read everyone's notes about how they are going after each other. Granted, this was when I was was much younger that I had these problems. Though the rule still stands.

Click to expand...

I used to say this but I don't find alignment to be helpful in 5e. I don't disallow alignment as much as I ignore it. It is about as important on the character sheet as your eye color.

Instead I have some general table etiquette:

1. No sexual violence

It can be part of a backstory, but I have no interest or tolerance in PC's engaging in rape.

2. No detailed sex roleplay

If it ever comes up, my games are "fade to black" when it comes to romance. I'm not going to be roleplaying a sexual encounter with my players. Discussing with a 40-something-old how he touches what is not my idea of a fun time.

3. No harming children

Obviously, it is a dangerous world and children die and get hurt and are used to threaten parents. But I want my players to be the ones that put an end to it, not engage in it. As a father I get irrationally angry just reading about people who hurt kids--I'd be inclined to punch out a player who roleplayed harming kids for the LOLs.

4. Constant backstabbing and PvP

Players have their characters do things in their own interests from time to time, over the party's interest. They keep secrets from one another. They don't all always share treasure equally. But I'm not interested in a PvP game. If the players are spending their time just going after each other, I have other games I would rather play that make that style more enjoyable for me. I've never enjoyed playing in or DMing that kind of game in DnD.

Beyond that, I'm not particularly prudish in my games. But the above rule might seem capricious to some.

TwoSix said:

Personally, I have a lot more trust for the "goblin campaign" DM or the "Gritty, low-magic" DM than the "no studded leather" DM. I can get behind DMs who have a broad vision for their game and want to try something different. I'm much more wary of the DM who feels the need to change picayune details for reasons of "fidelity" or "realism". That's a warning sign, for me, that our playstyles might differ too much to be glossed over.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. So much about enjoying a game is finding the right group to play with.

MNblockhead said:

Instead I have some general table etiquette:

1. No sexual violence

It can be part of a backstory, but I have no interest or tolerance in PC's engaging in rape.

2. No detailed sex roleplay

If it ever comes up, my games are "fade to black" when it comes to romance. I'm not going to be roleplaying a sexual encounter with my players. Discussing with a 40-something-old how he touches what is not my idea of a fun time.

3. No harming children

Obviously, it is a dangerous world and children die and get hurt and are used to threaten parents. But I want my players to be the ones that put an end to it, not engage in it. As a father I get irrationally angry just reading about people who hurt kids--I'd be inclined to punch out a player who roleplayed harming kids for the LOLs.

4. Constant backstabbing and PvP

Players have their characters do things in their own interests from time to time, over the party's interest. They keep secrets from one another. They don't all always share treasure equally. But I'm not interested in a PvP game. If the players are spending their time just going after each other, I have other games I would rather play that make that style more enjoyable for me. I've never enjoyed playing in or DMing that kind of game in DnD.

Beyond that, I'm not particularly prudish in my games. But the above rule might seem capricious to some.

Click to expand...

My personal list is very similar to this with one addition:

5. Arguing with me about any of the above has a very high likelihood of you never playing an RPG with me again. I've had people actually try to tell me that my intolerance for sexual violence, torture, (and to a lesser extent PvP) in RPGs is unreasonable and that I'm somehow wrong in not wanting to roleplay those things in my games. Seriously, you're going to try to argue that? Those things are so important to you that we can't just agree to leave them out and do something else that we can both have fun with? Okay. Bye, Felicia.

One house rule I do I guess is somewhat capricious, but then again, I do it for what I think is a good reason, and I've put some thought into it based on my experiences over the years.

After years of seeing some people in my games get short changed on treasure simply because the players weren't assertive enough to speak out on their own behalf, I now actually assign magic item treasure to particular characters, and I select the items with that person in mind (like the 4e parcel system). What they choose to do with them after that (give them away, trade them, sell them, whatever) is up to them because it's theirs to do with what they please. Monetary treasure is also divided equally (and XP is awarded evenly too, for that matter).

So basically, I remove the initial decision of who gets what from the players' hands. But they can still override my decision by trading amongst themselves.

I even took it a step further in the last 4e campaign I did and told players that if they didn't like the magic items I assigned them, they can substitute any other legal magic item of equal or lower level, or consumables, ritual components or residuum of equal value (except Rare consumables). Most players still just took the magic items I chose for them though so I guess I did a pretty good job picking stuff they'd like.

Only houserule I can think of at the moment is the old one warlock pact is a pact with demons instead because the old ones do not exist in my setting.