D&D General DMs - What makes You...

[hawkeyefan]

More specifically, what makes you, as a DM, sit down and change a rule?

I generally try not to do that, but there are times where a specific rule just doesn't work quite as much as I'd like. The biggest one that comes up is that on a critical, we maximize the base damage die. This way, a crit always does at least max base damage. Nothing worse than rolling a crit and then snake eyes on the damage dice and doing like 4 points instead of like 20. Doesn't sound like a critical hit to me!

What makes you craft different lore for your world?

It depends. But generally speaking, I don't want to be beholden to anything I don't feel like being beholden to. I prefer lore that's about offering interesting opportunities for play rather than tracking the ongoing events of an IP.

What makes you not allow/or insist on the presence of certain races, classes, backgrounds?

I generally don't do this. I want players who are excited and engaged about playing, and I've found a huge part of that depends on their investment in the game. I've noticed that the more my players are allowed to contribute, the more engaged they tend to be. So I don't limit them in their race and class selection, but instead I tailor things to their choices.

This is my default approach. If I have an idea for a setting that would indicate such requirements.... let's say a historical or quasi-historical setting... then I may apply such restrictions. But I'm gonna clear that with my players before we begin and make sure everyone's on the same page and is cool with such restrictions. If there's a concern of some kind, hopefully we can find a compromise.

Having said that, I think at this point, the only racial restriction I can imagine imposing would be "human only". I can't imagine a circumstance where I'd allow a Dwarf but not a Tiefling, or whatever. Most racial selections just feel more like pre-packaged bonuses and an implied default personality..... but I don't think in most cases that the same can't be accomplished with cultural elements.

What makes you not allow certain combos?

I can't think of any combos I don't allow. I suppose if it came up, it'd likely be a case of an overpowered rules exploitation.

What makes you use certain books and not use others?

I'd ideally like to just play with the core books. But I have friends in my group who like the expansion books, so I don't want to deny them. I think a lot of the options in those books tend to kind of raise the base power level of a PC by just enough to kind of be annoying. I'm currently playing a wizard in a game. There's also a warlock with a genie patron and a divine soul sorcerer, and just the amount of additional minor things those characters can do compared to the wizard is interesting. It's not severe enough to make a big deal out of it, but it's noticeable.

We generally don't allow 3rd party products. If one of my players picked one up and wanted to use it, I'd just want to have a complete and clear version made available to me so I can check it out. I'd most likely not deny it, but some such products are ridiculously over the top.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Hello Dms.

Seeing the lore discussion and about a dozen others on mechanics, races, rules, etc, I can't help but wonder one simple question - why?

More specifically, what makes you, as a DM, sit down and change a rule?
What makes you craft different lore for your world?
What makes you not allow/or insist on the presence of certain races, classes, backgrounds?
What makes you not allow certain combos?
What makes you use certain books and not use others?

I would like to state, that we all understand these are preferences. There is no right or wrong way. I am insanely curious about the why though.

As always, thanks to everyone in advance for participating in the discussion.

1) Changing rules.

Depending on the game it's usually one of two things:

A) The rule is just not fun. I understand how it works, and why it's there, but I don't find it to actually make the game more enjoyable for my group, so I change it.

B) The rule is just bad or dumb. Not a reasonable rule but un-fun, but a bungled or poorly-designed rule. 5E has very few of these, I can't think of any non-optional ones. But a lot of RPGs have plenty of these, especially RPGs from the 1970s through to the mid 2000s (when game design started to get more disciplined). The only immediate example I can think of in 5E, a rule which doesn't even achieve its stated goal, is the entirely optional Sanity rules, which are literally perverse, in that they achieve the opposite of the stated goal.

2) Crafting different lore

Different to what? The default? 5E has very vague and Realms-centric default lore, so I think anyone playing outside the FR is going to be "crafting different lore", technically.

As to why, usually because it's more interesting and I'm not trying to do the same things as the default, Realms-centric implied setting.

3) Not includes certain races/classes/backgrounds.

First off, backgrounds being included here shows a very common confusions. Backgrounds don't exist. I mean, they do, but they're all merely examples. You're not supposed to either be limited to them, nor to force your players to choose among them. So backgrounds can be ignored. They should always be stuff that actually exists in the setting. Classes/races, it's usually down to what role they play in the setting and what the tone of the setting is. You don't necessarily want every D&D race in every D&D setting. The same goes for classes - some settings don't fit certain ones - Artificer, Monk and Cleric are particularly likely to "not fit", I'd suggest (though Cleric fits most existing D&D settings). The classes in D&D are specific rather than generic, so them existing at all tells you something about the setting.

Like most DMs, I am obviously flexible on this. If a player has their heart set on playing a specific thing, there's usually a way to work it out.

4) Combos.

I've never had to disallow a "combo" in 4E or 5E. Last I did was in 3E with certain PrCs which were just blatantly better than core classes for virtually no cost.

5) Books.

I've never disallowed "by book" in any edition of D&D.

 

[Quickleaf]

I watch my mind.

There are my personal favorites – e.g. I could redesign the fighter class for days – that have nothing to do with objectively improving the group's experience. I acknowledge these parts of myself, but they don't creep into my DMing or house ruling.

And then there are things which are more like "modules" that facilitate the type of play the group wants to pursue. For example, a game with "exodus through the desert" being a significant theme needs to take a long hard look at multiple core elements that actively work against that theme (e.g. Leomund's tiny hut, the genie warlock's higher level ability, goodberry, create water, typical encounter distribution vs. resting mechanics, etc). By limiting or changing some of these things – seemingly restricting the players' options – I'd actually be supporting their fun and immersion in that theme far better than adhering to the core rules blindly.

Rather than it being a bunch of house rules I lug around with me to every game, I try to learn with every game and then take those principles and apply them to the specific of each new group and new campaign.

 

[Lanefan]

More specifically, what makes you, as a DM, sit down and change a rule?

Many things:
--- balance; I'm fixing something that's already been proven as broken in play or I feel has the potential to be broken later
--- simplicity; I'm stripping out or streamlining something that's needlessly complex
--- complexity; something in the rules has been over-simplified and needs some additions to be of any use
--- realism; something in the rules doesn't reflect reality very well and can easily be replaced with something better
--- clarification; the existing rule is badly written and needs more clarity, or can be interpreted more than one way and I'm settling on one of those interpretations
--- precedence; I've made an on-the-fly ruling and want to lock it in.

Realism is the big one here for me.

What makes you craft different lore for your world?

I build my settings homebrew from scratch, thus by default I have to also invent the lore.

What makes you not allow/or insist on the presence of certain races, classes, backgrounds?

Several things:
--- setting conceits; some classes/species/backgrounds simply don't exist (yet) in the setting, while others exist but are uncommon or rare
--- personal preference against; some species IMO should simply not be PC-playable, and a few PC-playable species should not be able to be or become a few classes e.g. no Dwarf Wizards
--- personal preference for; a D&D setting without ancient Greeks, Norse, Dwarves, Elves, and Hobbits isn't a setting at all
--- playstyle nudging; I want each character to have clear strengths and weaknesses so as to encourage formation of a team to pool strengths and cover weaknesses, thus I set the char-gen system up to fight against one-man-band type characters who can do everything

What makes you not allow certain combos?

See answers to previous question

What makes you use certain books and not use others?

My system is mostly homebrew now, so I pretty much don't use any published books in play. They are merely there as idea sources.

 

[DND_Reborn]

More specifically, what makes you, as a DM, sit down and change a rule?

The current rule is...
1. unbalanced
2. un-'realistic"
3. too complex
4. too simple
5. trivial (as in I like the idea but it never comes up in play...)

What makes you craft different lore for your world?

I always have. Even when I've used established "settings" it was mostly just for the map. I'll ignore all the lore, NPCs, etc. associated with that world.

What makes you not allow/or insist on the presence of certain races, classes, backgrounds?

I only insist on races if it is a "theme", like when we did an all-monk half-animal races (Tortle, Aarakocra, and Tabaxi were chosen), mostly because the group thinks it will be fun.

Now, I omit races all the time. Mostly because to me they are not PC races, but monsters, etc. Also, I like the typical races inspired by AD&D, so I am not a big fan of even the core "monster" races such as Dragonborn and Tieflings. I allow them but not my preference. Many races will encounter animosity, curiosity, and other reactions depending on the area they are in and how the interactions unfold.

The only class I forbid is Artificer. I just think it is silly and frankly OP. I allowed it once and vowed never again. Period.

Any background, and custom backgrounds, are generally encouraged as long as it works into the campaign, which I will do everything I can to ensure that.

I also don't allow anything from Critical Role. It is mostly OP and crazy, silly stuff IMO. I understand it appeals to many people, but not to me at all.

What makes you not allow certain combos?

If the above considerations are met, I don't think I've not allowed anything. Any class/race combination is permitted, any multiclass combo is fine.

What makes you use certain books and not use others?

As newer and newer books come out, I don't allow more and more of them.

For example, I am fine with 100% of Xanathar's, but only about 40% of Tasha's (if that!).

The reason is because newer material typically have power creep and many new things make the original things obsolete because of the power creep.

Generally, I don't allow 3PP material for the same reason, but occasionally I make exceptions of the material is actually well-balanced. As I said above, absolutely NO Critical Role--EVER.

 

[touc]

What makes you, as a DM, sit down and change a rule? It's a core tenet of D&D to make it your own as no two tables are, or should be, alike. I do it because I believe it will make the game more enjoyable for MY gamers. I then research prior editions, other game systems, compare notes with other DMs, and see if I'm missing something, then run it by my table.

What makes you craft different lore for your world? Lore makes a game world come alive. Using real-life inspirations, I've created fairy tales that were told by NPCs over the campfires (foreshadowing high level events), used mythology and stories of wisdom, worked up accents and speech styles for the locals (more than an Irish one for dwarves), and researched tidbits like religious customs that people would see. I then drop these into random descriptions. It's the heart and soul of a campaign, and there's just not enough room in any module for all of it. That's on the DM.

What makes you not allow/or insist on the presence of certain races, classes, backgrounds? Immersion, 100% immersion. It's a collaborate effort with my gamers to better enjoy a particular storyline if options are suspended. For Curse of Strahd, players wanted to limit races to human, half-elf, elf and dwarf to thematically fit a dark, medieval Romanian feel based on real-life artistic inspirations. For all of us, it was easier to get into despair and horror than if we had something goofy running around Barovia like a turtle person. If we're in Spelljammer or Planescape, that's a different day and different discussion.

What makes you not allow certain combos? By combos I assume things that ruin gameplay by somehow trivializing a part of it and upsetting gamers who haven't found a loophole or gimmick. I always ask my gamers to look for cheese and that's worked out great. Sometimes, it was nothing to worry about. I think my list of "bans" is pretty short even after nearly 10 years of D&D 5E.

What makes you use certain books and not use others? I let my players use PHB + 1 usually when it comes to making characters if it's official product because those are usually subjected to extensive playtest. And, I read comments on these forums because we've got some really sharp minds when it comes to game mechanics.

 

[Scott Christian]

Not to be generic, but wow! You folks are amazing!
Thank you for sharing. It gives me great joy to know what makes a DM tick.

I feel like one common thread for crafting lore is definitely the need to unleash some type of creative process. Although @Agametorememberbooks using it to match his magic style, @Maxperson altering some part of lore, @Baldurs_Underdark time constraints are some exceptions. But overall, it seems the creative juices need to be unleashed, either for logical or abstract reasons. And @Jer and @Ruin Explorer , yes I do mean crafting different lore from the "very vague and Realms-centric default lore" that is D&D. And I feel like @MNblockhead 's answer probably did it for me (sorry, not trying to add to the stalker vibe ) in that when running one's own lore, the memorization process is pretty solid. I find this to be very true. I remember running Skull & Shackles, and knew nothing about PF's Golarion. And while we still had a lot of fun, the amount of spinster thread-weaving I had to do was, even for me, silly. Where, even running D&D's Rime, a world I know pretty darn well, I still had a bunch of holes in the narrative. (At least for me.) Whereas, in my world, I can tell you the best tailor in town. I know him. His name is Wolfie, and he is an extremely hairsuite individual. He pauses before all his sentences, like he is about to speak, then waits. He uses needles made from the sturgeon ribs and has a bit of a hunchback from stooping all the time. When he stands, he is always taller than what everyone expects, even while hunched. He is attracted to one the ladies who works at the Firehole... has been for years... etc. I feel like that type of detail, which can be interlaced in four or five sentences and a five-minute RP paints the world and helps paint the larger lore.

Thanks again for everyone responding. I am going to dig into the answers on rule changes now!

 

[bloodtide]

1. More specifically, what makes you, as a DM, sit down and change a rule? - To improve the game and make the game more fun. Some times to fix a vague or bad rule. I see the printed 'rules' as suggestions anyway.
2. What makes you craft different lore for your world? - I like to create lore. I don't really care what someone was paid to scribble down in a book. I'd much rather create lore on something, then read page 44 in a book and say "oh the book says this".
3. What makes you not allow/or insist on the presence of certain races, classes, backgrounds? -

The annoyance factor is a big one. Kender ruin the game, I don't want the game ruined, so no kender.

4. What makes you not allow certain combos? -
Don't care about combos.

5.What makes you use certain books and not use others? - some books are full of game ruining scribble, so they get banned.

 

[Celebrim]

Since you were so flattering and effusive, I'll continue my response moving the focus from rules to lore.

What makes you craft different lore for your world?

There are probably two reasons. The first is that I'm a creative person and I enjoy lore building and world building. The second is that existing lore is generally incoherent, in that it was created by a bunch of different authors to describe the little niches that they were working on at the time, and for the most part there isn't a really coherent picture of the cosmology of D&D worlds except for the Gygaxian "great wheel" model. That model is fine as far as it goes, but it was never fleshed out by Gygax fully enough to become coherent in published works and the subsequent expansion of it tends to be of the hodge podge multiple author mode that results in no big picture just a lot of little pictures.

There are exceptions. Settings like Planescape, Dark Sun, and Eberron have coherent big pictures that encompass D&D and I admire that. But it turns out that the "big picture" of D&D tends to get very personal for lack of a better word and while the personal spin that Eberron puts on D&D is great and well thought out, it doesn't fit the game I have ran in the past and want to continue to run. This means the burden of lore building is on me.

What makes you not allow/or insist on the presence of certain races, classes, backgrounds?

Part of big picture lore building is asking "Why is everything the way that it is?" or "Where did everything come from?" The meta-answer is that D&D has all sorts of creators who are dumping every idea that they find into the lore of the game resulting in D&D's famous "kitchen sink" feel. It's interesting to me that the D&D cartoons lore building, that the D&D world was a dungeon world where members of many races from around the galaxy or the multi-verse had become imprisoned either intentionally or accidently over the years, resulting in a "Star Wars cantina" "wretched hive of scum and villainy" aesthetic was probably one of the most well thought out explanations for the "kitchen skin" in the game's history. But, I really didn't want a "dungeon world" cosmology with refugees from other worlds and a science fiction theme under the surface (that actually shows up in Greyhawk or the Forgotten Realms to some extent). I wanted a more pure fantasy cosmology with a single world, suitable to human archaic lore from ancient Greece to the Renaissance - the very cultural inspirations common to most of D&D.

And that ultimately meant pairing down the number of sentient races from the kitchen sink, or at least redefining them a bit to explain the diversity. The most noticeable part of the paring down for me is the complete removal of orcs from my game because the evolution of orcs ultimately stopped fitting my conceptions. Originally I think goblins, orcs, hobgoblins, and bugbears all refer to names for orc-kind that are dropped in works like the Hobbit, and were conceptually all part of Tolkien's orc-kind which were themselves morgul work minor demons created by and in the service of his Satanic dark lord Morgoth. But take the orcs out of Tolkien's cosmology and you need a new cosmology for them, and for whatever reason D&D ended up with two - one for goblins and one for orcs, which became sworn enemies and not members of the same race, each with their own culture. But this struck me as redundant. Each evil monstrous humanoid was serving the same purpose and taking up cultural space that could be inhabited by the other. Of the two inventions, I found the caste based race the more compelling and so I kept goblin-kind and dropped orcs.

Conversely there are aspects of my imagined cosmology that aren't really a big part of standard D&D and are rarely detailed - divine intervention, curses, blessings, spirits and animism, wizardly research and magical pollution, sacred sites and shrines, and races that I invented over the years like the Orine and Idreth. I have some of this written down and some of this I want to write down, but the point is in play I'm always having to invent stuff to cover the stuff the published rules are silent on. For example, the rules don't tell you what the HD of a sentient garden or sentient house is, or what happens when an old man on his death bed blesses you for fulfilling his dying request or conversely curses you for bringing him to this state.

What makes you not allow certain combos?

I don't forbid combos per se. What I do do is remove most of the redundancies from the system so that it's harder to stack bonuses unless I intend them to stack. If you look at what really breaks the game it tends to be when you have X different ways to do something, and instead of picking one, the player picks them all and takes advantage of frontloading and unintended stacking. By cutting down on the rules until there is only one way to do something and avoiding easy stacking except where intended as progression, it tends to inherently make all combos fair and balanced.

What makes you use certain books and not use others?

I honestly don't use a lot of books. The reason I don't use a lot of books I that when I look at a book I count the number of pages that I feel I'm going to actually use. For most published supplements this turns out to be a number from 0-20 pages. If the book is 300 pages, this means that the book is offering almost no value. Since I often have to rework everything anyway, I usually just steal the 5 pages of ideas from the book that I think are useful to me and write down my version of them. I really only buy a book if a considerable portion of it is actually useful, or if I am adapting so much of the material from the book that I wouldn't have come up with on my own don't consider it fair not to send some money toward the author. That usually happens if there is more than 20 or so pages I actually care about, which is rare these days.

 

[Fifinjir]

When it comes to changing lore:

Often because a piece of lore comes this close to being just right. I’m making a list of lore edits to put in if I ever run Curse of Strahd, not out of any dislike for what’s already there (aside from one detail), but because it’s good enough that the tweaks I can make to it that will make it even better (subjectively) leap right off the page into my brain.