hawkeyefan
Legend
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.
Last edited: