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

[Colder]

I thought everyone understood Rule 0 of D&D: if you don't like a rule, change it.

Everybody says 'rule 0' but will obviously still argue with people exercising it, myself included. This entire thread is a testament to that.

Also, why are you the one invoking rule 0 when I'm the one defending my use of it?

 

[Warmaster Horus]

Just curious. How much input and agency are DMs providing players regarding these house rules?

 

[Igwilly]

Just curious. How much input and agency are DMs providing players regarding these house rules?

I’m pretty open about my house-rules. I tell to them which are and what they change, and they respond me if they’re ok with the rules, or if they didn’t like, or any suggestion, etc.
However, my players do have the tendency of agreeing with me. I guess that’s because they’re somewhat novices and most of them just want to see what crazy-insane world I’m bringing, and just enjoy.

 

[ccs]

Just curious. How much input and agency are DMs providing players regarding these house rules?

On my no Drow/no Psionics rule? Zero.
I'm the DM & I'm not going to DM for stuff I don't like. If that's a deal breaker for you, go find a different DM.

Other than that 100%. We put house rules to a group vote & keep those the majority agrees on.
Sometimes we even revisit desicions. Ok, new campaign, do we want to keep x or change something??

 

[SkidAce]

Once upon a time I didn't know any of this stuff.
Then I learned it.
And eventually I realized that, as far as D&D is concerned, I just don't care.

Thus studded leather, assorted varieties of mail, & longswords (wich look just like arming swords!) all happily exist. Right along side fire breathing dragons, Brontosaus, Norse gods, & any # of other things that don't exist or are mis-named here in the real world.

Brontosaurus' don't exist?

 

[Azurewraith]

Just curious. How much input and agency are DMs providing players regarding these house rules?

I state up front my house rules and that they are up for debate.

 

[Oofta]

Everybody says 'rule 0' but will obviously still argue with people exercising it, myself included. This entire thread is a testament to that.

Also, why are you the one invoking rule 0 when I'm the one defending my use of it?

For the final time, I've never told you how to run your game.

I disagree with your interpretation of the rules and have tried to understand your perspective and why you think teleport would not work.

Unfortunately the conversation has gone something like:

colder: the rules are broken, teleport doesn't work
oofta: why?
colder: you can't teleport behind a closed door. Here's a link to the podcast that proves it's a mess.
oofta: but rules say you have to have line of effect to the target. The targets are you and ...
colder: teleport doesn't work.
oofta: huh? Why could you not target yourself?
colder: TELEPORT!
oofta: Ok, sorry to get into an argument. I just don't think you need to change any rules for teleport to work. I think the rule is clear...
colder: YOU AREN'T THE BOSS OF ME!
​

colder,
I mean no offense. If you had said that you think it's silly that you can't target someone behind a window with a Charm Person, I could understand that. I don't think it's worth changing, but that's just me.

You see an issue with teleport and misty step (to name two) that I don't, that's all.

To the OP,
My apologies for contributing to the the bicker-fest.

 

[Oofta]

Just curious. How much input and agency are DMs providing players regarding these house rules?

I have some rules such as no evil characters, no drow etc in a document I give people before they start. The doc also explains why I do what I do.

But for the most part it depends. I can defend my decision to change the way ability altering magic (belt of giant strength) work but I didn't really ask for feedback.

Other things? Well in a previous edition campaign I had said no Devas but someone really wanted to play one so I figured out a way to make it work. I think he may have regretted how I justified it eventually (but in a fun way).

So it just depends. I try to get players to help me shape the world, but there are some decisions I have to make to have a consistent world that fits with my vision.

 

[Ancalagon]

I'm very defensive about my changes but:

2) No hobbits. This isn't middle earth people. I love the good Professor as much as the next guy (or more), but stop being derivative.

and elves and dwarves aren't?!? Dude. D&D is *immensely* derivative of Tolkien. And it's halflings, not hobbits

4) "Chainmail": It's just 'mail'. And it's plate armor, not "plate mail". And 'studded leather' got thrown right off the table, darn it. Right now the bet is on how long I can go before I finally change the 'longsword' entry to 'arming sword', and convert 'bastard sword' to 'longsword'.

Studded leather... it's "reinforced leather, otherwise non-specified" to me.

I never made a rule for it, but it *profoundly* bothers me that padded armor is so crappy in the rules. Padded armor is *good*. It's really tough and resilient.

 

[ccs]

Brontosaurus' don't exist?

They exist again.