D&D General Harshest House Rule (in use)?

[ezo]

Yep, you are correct, I just checked. 2E made critical hits an optional rule in the DMG. Regarding called shots were a standard rule, but clearly states that attempts to blind, cripple or maim will not succeed. So, there is no way that players character should have been decapitated, unless the damage was enough to kill him outright. Further there is no way the other player should have gotten surprise as there is a +1 to initiative on a called shot. It's funny how we would take the parts of the rules we liked and conveniently forget or disregard the one we didn't.

LOL we all did that to one degree or another.

 

[Seramus]

"If you die, you leave the table permanently."

It wasn't stated outright, but the DM simply didn't allow it. If you died, another player at the FLGS got the spot and you couldn't play in that game anymore. You were allowed back if they started a new campaign, which sometimes happened if everyone died or he got bored.

 

[R_J_K75]

"If you die, you leave the table permanently."

It wasn't stated outright, but the DM simply didn't allow it. If you died, another player at the FLGS got the spot and you couldn't play in that game anymore. You were allowed back if they started a new campaign, which sometimes happened if everyone died or he got bored.

This isn't just harsh its ridiculously stupid. I can't imagine anyone being that hard up to play in a game to agree to this upfront, or I'd be really pissed off if I found out after I'd already been playing a while. I can't imagine why any store owner would even allow this?

 

[cbwjm]

"If you die, you leave the table permanently."

It wasn't stated outright, but the DM simply didn't allow it. If you died, another player at the FLGS got the spot and you couldn't play in that game anymore. You were allowed back if they started a new campaign, which sometimes happened if everyone died or he got bored.

My first thought was that, if you die you'd be leaving a lot of things permanently. My second thought was, oh wait, that probably means the PC.

 

[Seramus]

This isn't just harsh its ridiculously stupid. I can't imagine anyone being that hard up to play in a game to agree to this upfront, or I'd be really pissed off if I found out after I'd already been playing a while. I can't imagine why any store owner would even allow this?

No idea! It was in the golden age of AD&D. I vaguely remember he wanted to do something Westmarches-ish, and really strongly argued that everyone should get a fair chance to play and not have the same few people always taking the spots. So this was his idea of a forced rotation? Maybe he just didn't want to be the bad guy and say something like "Nobody plays more than 1 adventure in a row"? Anyway, it was silly.

 

[CleverNickName]

The harshest house-rule I'm using (according to my players): you must roll your hit points at every level-up.

Those poor, unfortunate souls. They suffer so much, so unjustly.

 

[R_J_K75]

No idea! It was in the golden age of AD&D. I vaguely remember he wanted to do something Westmarches-ish, and really strongly argued that everyone should get a fair chance to play and not have the same few people always taking the spots. So this was his idea of a forced rotation? Maybe he just didn't want to be the bad guy and say something like "Nobody plays more than 1 adventure in a row"? Anyway, it was silly.

In our regular game back in AD&D days, for narrative purposes if a character died you had to wait until a logical point to introduce a new one. So, this meant the player may have to wait a few hours or even a session or two. We were always upfront about this and tried to minimize that time. Everyone was OK with it. Back then it didn't make sense for a group of characters that had been adventuring together to just trust and welcome some stranger with open arms into the party. There was a probational period until they proved themselves. We've since come to our senses. players can introduce new characters as fast as they can make one, even if that means "Bob" just becomes "Bobagain".

 

[Blue]

For those using “new characters start at level 1” - I assume this is with XP progression instead of milestone? Hard to see how the player has a chance of catching up otherwise (unless that is not a priority for players, and/or death is reasonably commonplace)

I've only seen this work well in earlier editions, when the XP to level increased dramatically between levels so you'd usually catch up to level-1 and then eventually (when the game past 9th and it doubled XP needed for each level) you'd catch up the rest of the way.

With 5e XP I wouldn't do that. Well, I didn't even do it back then, but I played in games with it so I guess I thought it was acceptable even if not what I wanted.

 

[R_J_K75]

Those poor, unfortunate souls. They suffer so much, so unjustly.

Gotta love the player that shows up at the table with 20, 18, 18, 17, 16, 15 stats and max hp. I always make my players roll their stats in the open at session zero.

 

[Blue]

In our regular game back in AD&D days, for narrative purposes if a character died you had to wait until a logical point to introduce a new one. So, this meant the player may have to wait a few hours or even a session or two. We were always upfront about this and tried to minimize that time. Everyone was OK with it. Back then it didn't make sense for a group of characters that had been adventuring together to just trust and welcome some stranger with open arms into the party. There was a probational period until they proved themselves.

Oh, we used to do this in a long running AD&D 2e game I was in. "No PC t-shirts" was one of the DM's sayings, and the party picked it up - we didn't accept others just because they were run by a PC.

I remember in one group, the Fellowship of the Azure Phoenix, I was trying to bring in a new character, and the remaining party decided to have auditions for a new cleric. I almost got upstaged by an NPC who they would have brought in.

And this was our "neutral, morally grey" campaign where the PCs intentionally took on the role of heroes because it got us the most perks. So my replacement character was lying to them and they were right to be suspicious. I was a worshiper of Mask (Faerun god of shadows, thievery, and intrigue) pretending to worship Shaundakul (god of travel and exploration). Luckily by the time they found out they already realized he was supremely lazy (== efficient), and he convinced them that he'd rather work once a month and amass a fortune over a year rather than one heist against the party that would leave him looking over his shoulder for the rest of his life for a powerful and vengeful party of adventurers. They bought it - sometimes the best deception is the god's honest truth. Depending on which god, of course.