Are these good house rules?

[DanmarLOK]

I won't go into a detailed list, others have covered it pretty much in terms of what I think. Well other than the skill thing, all that's going to do is "okay before I go to sleep I'm going to practice picking the lock on our room door to up my thievery. I'm going to do some pushups to up my athletics and endurance. I'm going to play poker with the mage and boost my bluff, insight, perception, intimidation, diplomacy." See where that's going? And it should be legal by your system, trying to pigeonhole it even further, "you can only gain skill experience when it 'means' something." would make it worse. At that point you might as well just say, "Okay your skills go up when I tell you they go up."

I will say this, if you can get your group to agree to these then the rules are fine for you and your group. But from decades of experience if you can't get them to agree to them wholeheartedly, then you can either write it off because it'll likely flop as a campaign or you can get rid of the ones that aren't behind it 100%.

It honestly sounds, like others have said, that you're the wrong DM for this group or they're the wrong group for you, or 4th edition is the wrong gaming system for both. It comes off like a major case of square peg, round hole issues.

Just out of curiosity, why the disclaimer on the PVP versus PVE at the start? The only ones that imbalance things is the screwing the divine casters over so yes that's unbalanced. Or do you also have issues with players attack each other?

 

[mlangsdorf]

okay so I'm starting a new campaign and have a bunch of house rules i want to throw in, please tell me if the seem as fair and balanced as possible (by balanced I mean PC vs. PC not PC vs. world/monsters)

1) If you take more than a quarter of your total damage in one hit make a saving throw, if you fail you are unconscious/ dying

2) If you take more than half you total damage in one hit make a saving throw, if you fail you are dead

At first level, most characters have around 28 hit points. That makes, by your rules, if they take 8 or more damage in a single attack they have a 50% chance of dying. A single critical hit - which is not something that most characters can avoid - will do enough damage to force a death saving throw that, again, only has a 50% chance of survival.

That's really gritty. And I say that as someone who likes gritty games. I'd just run away from any brutes in your game: the chance of dying is just too high.

...If you continue down this path, how does a character recover from the failed unconscious check for > 1/4 damage? Can they spend a healing surge or do they need to wait until they roll a 20 on a dying check?

 

[granfalloon]

Here's something I always try to remember when I'm GMing. When I'm reading my books, it's my game. When the group sits down at the table, it's our game. We're all there to help each other have a good time. As the GM, I have the most responsibility toward that end (though everyone needs to contribute). If I were joining a game as a player and was presented with this list of rules, Yarblo of the Twenty-Six Y Chromosomes would get a phone call from his wife because the gnomelings are sick.

My gut reaction to a lot of these is, "dude, what's your problem?" When I step back to give you the benefit of the doubt, a lot of them make some sense, especially anything to speed up combat, or deal with disruptive players. That's an awful long list, though. And it feels very heavy-handed, like, "Listen up! I'm runnin' this here game, and this is how I like my games to work!" Might I suggest a more diplomatic approach?

Start with a... Mission statement? Cover letter? for the game. Write up things you would like to see. It looks as though you're trying for a game that's grim and gritty, more serious in tone, with an emphasis on roleplaying (or at least not breaking character flagrantly). Say that. "You are mighty heroes, but even the great can be felled with a well-placed blade. Roleplaying is encouraged, silliness isn't. Please no Yarblos of the Twenty-Six Y Chromosomes. Please know the rules, and be ready to act quickly. We'll have a lot more fun if combat and other crunch goes quickly and smoothly."

As to the rules about death from heavy damage, I respect what you're going for, but I think you're gonna have a lot of characters killed by chance rather than foolishness. If you want that gritty feeling, I would recommend looking around here for "Lingering Injuries" (i think that was what they called them). You won't have as much bouncing back overnight from near-evisceration, but the characters will still be able to survive most things.

And the skill changes... why?

 

[avin]

1 and 2 - That would be ok for a more "dangerous" game but kinda hurts 4E. I'd use GURPS instead.
3 - Not good. Your vision of alignment shouldn't dictate players.
4 - You could fail judging. DMs are not perfect.
5 - Never. Punishment must be in game roleplaying. You are using XP for something you should react and interact in game.
6 and 7 - Dude... you're a control freak
8 - Ok.
9 - that's how it works at my games, because they're not heavily combat focused, so it would be unfair to players not to reward them.
10 - I won't use it, but seem fine...
11 - Drow fan? hehehe
12 - I would never play a game of you...
13 - Dragons is official, why banish it?
14 - This is up to the master. Titles are fine.
15 - "I have a reason", sorry, is silly, you should be honest to players... tell them why.
16 - A fine rule.

I bet you have bad players up there

PS. I'd give GURPS Fantasy a shot, but probably not with these players...

 

[PeelSeel2]

If you want a Grittier campaign, just raise the damage your monsters do, and increase their hit potential.

Remember, Some characters at first level with a daily can do 6d6+stat bonus as damage.

I made an assassin NPC for my campaign. One of his rechargeable powers I gave him was despicable strike, doing 4d8+10 points of damage. If he has combat advantage against an opponent, he does an extra 2d8. That is GRITTY!! He can potentially one shot a character. Rough? Yeah. Unfair? No. He is meant to be EXTREMELY dangerous. Also within the limits of monster damage expressions.

 

[gtoasnt3]

Simple imput from our game: we have considered two house rules so far and we have been playing 4th ed since it was released. Neither of the house rules were balanced or fair and they were promptly dropped. Both were variations of how the PC's can use action points.

In our opinion (I say it that way because our game's players are just as important in these decisions) we have no need for house rules with 4th edition so far.

 

[Charger28Alpha]

Mr Pink, are the people playing in this game the same folks that are playing with you in the game you described in the "My DM is retarded" thread?

If so don't risk having one of them starting a similar thread about you. Taken as a whole the proposed house rules come across as tools of a dictator DM. Trim the list and then discuss the smaller list of house rules with the players.

I second the recommendation for GURPS Fantasy, if you go that route pick up the GURPS Dungeon Fantasy PDFs from the online store a Steve Jackson Games.

 

[JackSmithIV]

I think mostly what these rules stem from is a lack of respect, understanding, communication, or trust with your group. Most of your "rules" are really just things that can be solved with an honest conversation. And most of them are, at the core of them, about making the players play the game that you want them to. I don't think you have the right kind of players for the campaign you're trying to run.

"4) At any time you may be asked out of game to justify an action that was just performed in game to maintain your alignment/ not lose XP for failure to roleplay"

"5) Failure to roleplay will result in a loss of 10% of all XP in next encounter unless actions are justified"

"14) No rediculus names, please have simple names that are easy to remember. Also, no giving yourself titles."

Things like that, you know? Punishments for not roleplaying? In my game, in which we are almost always in character, I just say "In character, guys" when they digress into talking about something in-game out of character. Then they leap right back in. But perhaps rules like yours are in place because you have a group who don't want to role play. In that case, why make them? Sounds like you and your group have different ideas of what's fun, and all these rules do is enforce your version without consideration for theirs.