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

[cbwjm]

[MENTION=6796661]MNblockhead[/MENTION] Thanks for sparking some interesting discussions!

I do have one pet peeve as a DM. I hate "throw away" die rolls. You know, players throwing dice at a problem until it breaks. DMs allowing that behavior. Knowledge checks without consequences. Rolls where nobody really is clear about what's at stake.

Combat being something of an exception, because it's "roll happy" in D&D and always has been.

But when an ability check comes up I pretty much always have an idea of what interesting thing happens as a result of failure or success, and often I have ideas for what happens if the checks fails/succeeds by 5+ as well. For an exaggerated example of what I mean, here's what's working in the mental background for me as DM when adjudicating a player's Dexterity (Thieves' Tools) roll to open a lock or disarm a trap...

I like this idea, I do something like it with knowledge checks with better rolls giving more information to the point that you may know of a particular weakness for an uncommon/rare creature.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I've never cared for the evil = selfish idea. Sure, good can mean being selfless - so selfish is the opposite, right? Nah, selfish is just the middle of the spectrum. Good cares about others, neutral doesn't (without a reason)... Evil cares about others. Really, Evil cares a lot, evil goes far out of it's way, often gets itself killed by Good, it cares so darn much about others. Y'know, killing others, enslaving others, torturing others. It's a very others-oriented perspective, Evil. The really committed NE has to remember to make some 'me time' now and then, just to recharge the old batteries so he can get back to doing (horrible) things for (the suffering of) others.

So the classic psychopath is... neutral?

 

[Tony Vargas]

So the classic psychopath is... neutral?

In 1e AD&D terms, has no alignment, at all.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

In 1e AD&D terms, has no alignment, at all.

(a) This is a 5E board.

(b) "Has no alignment" was not a thing in 1E.

 

[Tony Vargas]

(a) This is a 5E board.

(b) "Has no alignment" was not a thing in 1E.

The alignment digression was shading into all editions, particularly the oldest ones (when Hemlock & I are going on about how we 'always' felt about Alignment - and we exemplify an old debate, btw - that's going back decades).

And, yes, 'has no alignment' was a thing in 1e - specifically for insanity. FWIW.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

And, yes, 'has no alignment' was a thing in 1e - specifically for insanity. FWIW.

Not according to the 1E DMG I'm looking at right now. The insanity rules don't say a word about alignment, and the alignment rules don't say a word about insanity. And psychopaths aren't "insane" in the moral/legal sense, anyway. They understand, they just don't care.

To claim that a character like Patrick Bateman or Hans Landa lacks an alignment in a system where even brown mold is Neutral seems... questionable.

 

[Igwilly]

Good discussion here, guys. I'm already having ideas for my gaming group ^^
Well, this is my opinion, but one thing the books say and people often forget is that next to no-one is 100% consistent. That is, everyone steps out of their alignment at something. With that in mind, and what others have already told here, I now think it's quite possible to have a team-oriented evil character (even CE).
Right now, I'm remembering some cartoons and shows of my childhood (I'm not as old as it may seems), and some shows I'm watching today. Some of them have supposedly-evil characters as one of the main stars of the show. Apparently evil is more diverse than the old villain. Not that I have anything against - I love old-fashioned evil villain, but that's another topic.

 

[MacConnell]

Good discussion here, guys. I'm already having ideas for my gaming group ^^
Well, this is my opinion, but one thing the books say and people often forget is that next to no-one is 100% consistent. That is, everyone steps out of their alignment at something.

With this part as a premise, I agree, and it requires the DM to have the skill and knowledge to handle the slight variance to keep game-play flowing and enjoyable without too much censure.

With that in mind, and what others have already told here, I now think it's quite possible to have a team-oriented evil character (even CE).
Right now, I'm remembering some cartoons and shows of my childhood (I'm not as old as it may seems), and some shows I'm watching today. Some of them have supposedly-evil characters as one of the main stars of the show. Apparently evil is more diverse than the old villain. Not that I have anything against - I love old-fashioned evil villain, but that's another topic.

I do not, however, see this as a good follow for that premise. To me this leads into comparison of too much of the selfishness of reality. Too many want income without labor, health and fitness without maintenance, and whimsy, frivolity, or even avarice without consequences.

I could not see a completely selfish, pernicious, malevolent person refraining from his natural tendencies for any period of time necessary to participate in a group that was not all completely similar in disposition.

 

[MacConnell]

I do have one pet peeve as a DM. I hate "throw away" die rolls. You know, players throwing dice at a problem until it breaks. DMs allowing that behavior. Knowledge checks without consequences. Rolls where nobody really is clear about what's at stake.

Combat being something of an exception, because it's "roll happy" in D&D and always has been.

But when an ability check comes up I pretty much always have an idea of what interesting thing happens as a result of failure or success, and often I have ideas for what happens if the checks fails/succeeds by 5+ as well. For an exaggerated example of what I mean, here's what's working in the mental background for me as DM when adjudicating a player's Dexterity (Thieves' Tools) roll to open a lock or disarm a trap...

Nice! Nice. I love thorough thinking!

 

[smbakeresq]

I like this idea, I do something like it with knowledge checks with better rolls giving more information to the point that you may know of a particular weakness for an uncommon/rare creature.

What you should also use for knowledge checks is give out false information for degrees of fail. As a DM you want players to use their skills all the time, even if untrained you might still know or be able to do something. In this case of a knowledge skill, I have every player make a check instead of just the "skilled" PC; the skilled member will know more and more accurate stuff while the unskilled PC who hits that 20 will know something obscure but valuable.