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

[Waterbizkit]

I always find these threads endlessly fascinating... because I have/do none of this. Mostly. I mean if I'm running something with a very specific theme then maybe I say to my players "Hey, for this one the idea is that you're an all-human party because *insert reasons*." But that's few and far between and if there wasn't 100% buy-in at the start I'd scrap the idea and just run something a bit more "typical", I've got ideas for days... so scraping one is no skin off my nose.

Anyway, I certainly can't fathom running nearly every campaign with these sorts restrictions or rules tweaks. And it's not because I'm an "all RAW all the time" kinda DM, it's just not my style to say "I don't like this, so you don't get to experience it either."

To be clear, I'm not saying this to dump on the rest of you. I think it's cool. It's why I find the threads like this such an interesting read, aside from the occasional arguments that occur. Even if none of what I'm reading is for me or my group I always like to get glimpse of how others enjoy the same game we do, even if it's their own "version" of it. It's what's so great about this game and why all the arguments that erupt from "badwrongfun" get so irritating. None of it's bad or wrong, it's just someone else's fun.

Oh, and some of things I saw mentioned seemed less "pet peeve" and more "basic rules" of the unspoken social contract that exists when people sit down to play a game like this... I'm talking about the stuff like "no sexual violence towards PCs/NPCs" type stuff... so I won't mention it again length here, but just to cover my bases know that I enforce that sort of thing at my table because the idea is to have fun, not make others feel uncomfortable or alienated against.

So, carry on. Good stuff.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Anyway, I certainly can't fathom running nearly every campaign with these sorts restrictions or rules tweaks. And it's not because I'm an "all RAW all the time" kinda DM, it's just not my style to say "I don't like this, so you don't get to experience it either."

I can come up with dozens of different campaign ideas, but if I don't like gnomes, then none of those ideas are going to include gnomes in them. The list of races available will vary from game to game, but it will never include gnomes.

 

[Oofta]

I think that (getting players to help shape the world) is one of the most powerful things you can do to make a lasting, memorable game. Lots of DMs refer to THEIR games and seem to consider the players as some sort of nuisance trespassers into it. Great games (IMHO) is where the DM provides structure and story but the players feel empowered to appropriately add to the tale in ways that extend beyond their PCs' actions. The MY game becomes OUR game in many ways, even extending to elements of world building.

I agree. The only trick is how much structure is necessary, and how to empower people to shape and change the world while still keeping a cohesive backstory. So for my world, not allowing drow is a cultural thing. People on the surface world would kill a drow on sight just as most people would kill a poisonous spider that got into their house (like the black widow I found the cats playing with a couple of years ago ).

Is that too restricting? For some people, maybe. But it's also part of my world having logical consistency.

On the other hand asking people to help me flesh out organizations that they belong to, working with them to develop interesting back stories and NPCs is all encouraged.

I know some people go further and make players responsible for entire cities/regions ... I'd be curious to see how it worked but that's probably a topic for a different thread.

 

[MostlyDm]

My pet peeve is interrogations. 9/10 of my worst roleplaying experiences has been associated with interrogations. I go to great length to avoid them as player and DM.

I find this really interesting. Why is that?

It seems like some of the people replying to you are assuming it's because of uncomfortable experiences roleplaying borderline torture... is that it, or is there some other issue you have run into a lot?

 

[Satyrn]

I can come up with dozens of different campaign ideas, but if I don't like gnomes, then none of those ideas are going to include gnomes in them. The list of races available will vary from game to game, but it will never include gnomes.

.

 

[MostlyDm]

I've not posted any house-rules in this thread, but the reason why I haven't is the answer to this question: My players and I have to reach a consensus on any house-rule or optional rule before it gets put into use. All our votes are given weight, with my vote as DM usually having the least weight because the rules do not impact my enjoyment anywhere near as much as they can the players', and the player votes are weighted based on how much they care (so if they are ambivalent they have almost no weight, but if they are deeply invested in a particular thing their vote is considered the most important).

Can you elaborate on the part I bolded a little more? I'm having a hard time understanding. I'm not sure I'd say my enjoyment of any game is significantly impacted by the rules, as a player or a GM, but... it can be, on occasion. And I can't really figure out why one would be felt more strongly than the other.

My only guess is that it's because the GM can simply ignore/change the rules that bother him... except that's the whole point of this thread, and you're saying that you don't do that without a vote, and your vote weighs the least.

So... yeah. I'm not sure I understand.

 

[Satyrn]

Can you elaborate on the part I bolded a little more? I'm having a hard time understanding. I'm not sure I'd say my enjoyment of any game is significantly impacted by the rules, as a player or a GM, but... it can be, on occasion. And I can't really figure out why one would be felt more strongly than the other..

Well, take Saelorn's dislike of gnomes compared to the delight I'm taking in playing my gnome battlemaster.

Is his DM experience going to be ruined so badly that it counters my loss of not getting to play that race? I mean, I don't play gnome battlemasters exclusively, I'd never get to play it if Saelorn was one of my friends I play with.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I find this really interesting. Why is that?

It seems like some of the people replying to you are assuming it's because of uncomfortable experiences roleplaying borderline torture... is that it, or is there some other issue you have run into a lot?

I know that, for me, the reason why I have had problems with interrogations in the past is that the players have a specific expectation of what is going to happen, and get irritable when that expectation doesn't pan out even though it wasn't a reasonable thing to expect in the first place.

I.e. the player thinks they are going to threaten or torture, and get good information out of it - while I know that what they are going to get is more likely to be whatever it seems like they want to hear said so that they will stop, or obstinate refusals designed to goad them into killing the creature before it unintentionally gives them useful information.

The good news is that most of my group have been helped out of the expectation that torture = good info by way of a couple TV shows/movies that focus on the fact that torture is unreliable, and interrogation really needs to be tailored to target and circumstances, so now they typically treat an attempt to gain information as bargaining rather than a one-sided taking of information.

Can you elaborate on the part I bolded a little more? I'm having a hard time understanding. I'm not sure I'd say my enjoyment of any game is significantly impacted by the rules, as a player or a GM, but... it can be, on occasion. And I can't really figure out why one would be felt more strongly than the other.

My only guess is that it's because the GM can simply ignore/change the rules that bother him... except that's the whole point of this thread, and you're saying that you don't do that without a vote, and your vote weighs the least.

So... yeah. I'm not sure I understand.

I think the best way to clarify is with examples:

I don't like gnomes. Anything labelled "gnome" in an RPG starts in a hole and has to dig its way up in order to win me over, because my experience of gnomes is that they are typically treated as "even smaller dwarves" or "short elves" or a mix of the two that only involves added unique details like "...and they're all jerkish pranksters" or what have you. But since I don't have to ever portray any gnomes even if a player wants to play one, I don't ban them - because banning gnomes would affect my players more than it affects me, and some of them like gnomes so they get a stronger vote than I do.

I don't like critical hits, but my players insist they want them in the game... no big deal to me because monsters are meant to be defeated, but it's a huge deal to players because critical hits are both more likely to happen to them because monsters usually make more attack rolls, and more of an effect because players only have the one character, so they are "sitting out" if their character has run out of hp, or worse has died.

I like lingering injuries, but some of my players have objections to hard to fix and involuntary crippling of their characters. Since it's the players, not me, that'd be dealing with a character with an arm they can't use or what have you, I weighted their votes more strongly than my own - the result being that we implemented lingering injuries, but altered the rules on recovering from them so that the player's found them to be acceptable.

Most rules are like that - they can have huge impact on the player experience of the game, but the DM doesn't really deal with any lasting impact of them even when using them, rather than ignoring or changing them.

 

[OB1]

Used to have a very long list, now it's just a single house rule that both fixes a pet peeve and speeds up play.

AOE spells and effects apply to anyone engaged with a target in range of the AOE.

The pet peeve is how anyone can place a fireball so perfectly as to not hit an ally who is in a swordfight with the target and that the effect is so perfectly sized as to allow this. The benefit is it makes figuring out AOEs in TOM much easier, and when I run a grid based, keeps people from counting each and every flipping square trying to figure out how to hit 8 orcs without hitting the PCs.

 

[kalil]

I find this really interesting. Why is that?

It seems like some of the people replying to you are assuming it's because of uncomfortable experiences roleplaying borderline torture... is that it, or is there some other issue you have run into a lot?

The torture (and its not just "borderline"...) is one aspect of it. But even if the player characters refrain from torture it is generally a very dull and sullen experience. Much like interrogations in real life. It is just a painfulloy slow way to move a story ahead that adds very little value and is often frustratying for all parties (much like real life interrogations).