D&D General Houserules - Do You Collaborate or Dictate?

[Stormonu]

I’ve been making custom rules for D&D and other games for years, shaping the game to fit the way I want it to run. It might be some idea I saw in a movie or book, or perhaps evolves out of an in-game issue, but I’m generally the one coming up with new stuff.

While I always listen to my players for sticking points we can fix or smooth out, I find I’m generally the one who comes up with houserules out of the blue (before game, as much as feasible) or after seeing some gap/issues and only tend to tweak/discard them if it causes issues within the group. I’m obviously a Dictator in this sense.

So, do you work with your players in the first place to create your houserules or do you create and implement them without first consulting players? Or perhaps you do a bit of both?

 

[Lanefan]

So, do you work with your players in the first place to create your houserules or do you create and implement them without first consulting players? Or perhaps you do a bit of both?

Varies depending on situation.

Between campaigns it's pretty much just me, looking at what worked and didn't work last time out and tweaking to suit before starting the next one.

During a campaign it can involve all kinds of discussion - in the early years occasionally entire sessions would end up being rules discussions over tea - or not, often depending on the specific players I have at the time (some care about the nuts and bolts while others just want to play).

The one constant is that I and another DM often compare notes and bounce ideas off each other; and as we usually play in each other's games we can see firsthand what changes work and what don't, from both sides of the screen.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Been playtesting the past few years, so I'm literally the dev.

Still collaborate.

 

[J-H]

I recently started a Baldur's Gate II game, with some more extensive houseruling of some things to give it a bit of a 2e feel. I ran everything by the players in session 0.

I don't think anyone has suggested any other changes to me; I'm the only one who hangs out on forums and thinks about this stuff in such detail.

 

[Cruentus]

Also a little bit of both. Usually when a campaign ends, and I’m going to be running, I’ll pitch the new campaign - setting, magic and “tech” levels, as well as other idiosyncrasies that exist in the imagined world. I also talk to players post-last campaign to find out what they liked/didn’t like about the rules, etc.

Then during the pre-campaign (session 0, or more like “several week session 0”), I’ll build out the “house rules” document, and ask for feedback, ideas to hit the notes we want, other rules or systems that people want to play, etc. I’ll also, if there are rules or things I want to try, I’ll run it by the players, and then put it in as a “beta test” that can be removed immediately if it bounces off people or the game feel.

And then players will come up with ideas - like one game I’m running now, a 1st level Thief (playing OSE advanced), is bound and determined to be a merchant, and continues to avoid adventuring and works on routes, supply runs, and other similar things. So now we’re collaborating on the best “rules” for running a business, and bouncing ideas around, while still playing the base game. It also gives us reasons to rummage through every game system out there for ideas. A win-win.

 

[Umbran]

My games typically run with very few house rules. I have many shelves full of games, if I need many house rules to make one do what I want, that probably means that there's another than does it better natively, and I choose that instead.

So, mostly what I end up with are the rulings that cover edge cases that arise in play. And we are pretty collaborative about that.

 

[TwoSix]

I tend to dictate, but that's mostly because I'm the one in our group who's actually interested in tinkering and experimenting with the rules.

 

[Charlaquin]

I’ve been making custom rules for D&D and other games for years, shaping the game to fit the way I want it to run. It might be some idea I saw in a movie or book, or perhaps evolves out of an in-game issue, but I’m generally the one coming up with new stuff.

While I always listen to my players for sticking points we can fix or smooth out, I find I’m generally the one who comes up with houserules out of the blue (before game, as much as feasible) or after seeing some gap/issues and only tend to tweak/discard them if it causes issues within the group. I’m obviously a Dictator in this sense.

So, do you work with your players in the first place to create your houserules or do you create and implement them without first consulting players? Or perhaps you do a bit of both?

Like you, I tend to write my own house rules ahead of time, according to the game I want to run, but I do remain open to feedback from the players and am happy to revise or remove house rules that are causing problems.

That said, I generally try to keep my player-facing house rules to a minimum. I’ll hack the heck out of things on my side of the screen, making various subsystems and tools for myself, designing new monsters, tweaking existing ones, etc. But when it comes to things that affect how the players play the game, I try to keep it to a minimum. If I can’t fit it on one page, at a reasonable font size, with nice formatting, it’s too much.

 

[Tonguez]

I come up with an idea and then tell the players “these are the houserules for the game, what do yer guys think?“
players can suggest stuff too, sometimes I’ll Go “sounds cool, what does everyone else think?” sometimes I’ll go “nah, I dont wanna” and sometimes “no that doesnt fit, I dont like it”

 

[Oofta]

I only have a handful of house rules and they pretty much always benefit the players. Things like longbows are versatile so they can use either strength or dex, you can throw as many javelins or daggers as you wish, etc. There are some rulings I've made that I'll discuss with my players after the fact. During the game players have roughly a minute in game to point out if I missed something, but I want to keep the game moving. Even then I make the final call.

The do house rule/ban or change a handful of spells like plane shift and banishment. Traveling between planes is not simple in my campaign world. Same with death and dying, revivify works, raise dead requires effort, resurrection is pretty much unheard of. I just dictated those as part of world design.