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

[MostlyDm]

It's not as clear a case as say, "yeah, but you're okay with the Spiked Chain?"

But it's still pretty valid. Unrealistic fantasy armor in an unrealistic fantasy game with unrealistic fantasy elements like dragons? Not a big issue.

The kicker is when they're wildly different within one case. It's fine to be a purist about leather armor, if you're also at least open to other complaints on the same level - potatoes, for instance, are not uncommonly mentioned in passing, but are anachronistic in a medieval-European setting. The Rapier is anachronistic. There's /plently/ of other errors in D&D on the same level. If you're unaware of some but exercised about studded leather, fine. But if you're selectively indignant/dismissive, well, your complaint may carry a bit less weight.

Make sense?

Absolutely! I've run specific games where I cared about as many of those types of things as I was aware of, but that's certainly not the norm. I think you're totally right to find it silly that people are selectively bothered by this stuff.

I will say that there is a difference between anachronism and unreality, though. So, potatoes are anachronistic in a medieval Europe-style fantasy world... but it's not Earth, it's Faerun or whatever, so it's really fantastical in any sense. Potatoes existing in the Americas is just a chance of geography.

Anachronisms like rapiers can also be explained away by differences in technological advancement due to magic.

But something that's pure fantasy, and actually impractical (like studded leather?), might twig people's disbelief much more substantially.

Even so, I agree with you that it's still a form of selective attention. Saelorn mentioned "As reality unless noted," which I think is an important thing to consider... I definitely think that's the best way to approach any fantasy fiction. But "reality" is still pretty flexible... lots of fantastical things happen in your average modern day "real world" action movie, for example.

Ultimately, our suspension of disbelief is often going to be hurt most by what we know. If we know weapons and armor, studded leather sticks out like a sore thumb, the same way that computer programmers might be taken out of an episode of a crime show where two smart "hackers" try to hack faster by both typing simultaneously on a single keyboard (okay, even someone with rudimentary knowledge of computers might roll their eyes at that one).

This happens a lot, really. Doctors often have to grit their teeth when watching medical dramas, cops have to hold back the eye rolls on crime procedurals, former military will have their suspension of disbelief ruined by many war films. In all cases, there is a gradient of how badly the fiction misrepresents reality. Usually, if a reasonable attempt is made, and the main "unrealistic" stuff is clearly for drama and excitement, we can forgive this stuff. Sometimes, it's too glaring and pointlessly wrong.

The main reason I disagree with you is just that I don't think any of this is really illegitimate. Maintaining verisimilitude is a big, known issue in fiction writing and storytelling. Just because something is a fantasy story doesn't actually mean that all need for various kinds of verisimilitude gets tossed out the window.

The root 'problem' making falling damage unrealistic isn't falling damage, it's hit points. (Sure, it could be a much, /much/ better simulation, but it captures that the greater the height, the more deadly the fall. Which is intuitive enough, however scientifically inaccurate.) Falls from a great height are deadly. We know that. A dagger to the aorta is also pretty deadly, but you don't seem nearly as many people upping dagger damage as fiddling around with falling damage.

Ultimately, heroes in genre survive being stabbed and survive falling from great heights - through various authorial devices (the blade misses the heart by hair's breadth, the hero catches hold of a convenient ledge) - so PCs get hps.

Yeah, you're totally right. I think the issue is that it's usually easy for many people to tweak their mental image of the fiction to allow for the weapon strike to be non-vital. If not, they probably won't play a game like D&D, they'll play something fundamentally much more mortal and gritty.

But falling in particular gets changed fairly often because there are lots of situations where the fiction is much harder to tweak in the same way you can with a weapon attack. You get knocked off the back of a dragon flying 200 feet above a field, there aren't many ledges or anything to grab on to. It's just a more difficult suspension.

Though, getting stabbed with a knife while unconscious is another hard one, I'd say. In battle is one thing, but if you're asleep, why aren't they just cutting your throat? This could spark a whole new conversation though.

The fighters-can't-have-nice-things double-standard, yeah. ;P

Seriously, though, that's what pointing out the other anachronistic, fantastic, anachronistic or other genre element is pointing out. That there's a double-standard being imposed.

And, yeah, when it comes to something as utterly subjective as that bar of willingness to suspend disbelief, people /get/ to have double-standards. They just shouldn't be so determined to impose them on others. Let the game have it's less realistic, even on the other extreme, less genre-faithful elements, and just don't use the ones that you have a pet peeve with.

The double standard being that magic-users are allowed to do fantastical things, but when non-magic users try, they get smacked down because of verisimilitude?

I'm sure that's a real problem in some games. That sucks. I definitely think that's an area a GM should be a lot more careful... changing falling damage is a lot harsher to the guys who lack feather fall after all. But changing studded leather to some sort of authentic name for a lightweight reasonably protective leather armor doesn't seem to hurt anybody.

 

[MostlyDm]

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).

Interesting... that hasn't been my experience at all.

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.

Yeah, perhaps it's just the group I play with.

They employ all kinds of tactics in various campaigns, some of which I would definitely classify as a form of torture. And they experience wildly different levels of success, depending on the particular approach used for each particular captive.

But it's never really been uncomfortable for any of us. It's a game, not real, so even in the rare cases where it delves into outright torture I don't think it's any more uncomfortable than any other R-rated bit of violence or horror that might occur in a game.

And it hasn't really led to frustration/boredom, either... if the guy isn't giving anything useful up, and the party has run out of viable approaches, they move on. No more frustrating than any other failure they might encounter.

Failure is okay, no need for it to be a source of unhappiness per se.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I will say that there is a difference between anachronism and unreality, though...
...But something that's pure fantasy, and actually impractical (like studded leather?), might twig people's disbelief much more substantially.

Nod. Potatoes and the Rapier are on the same level of anachronism. A lone Dragon or lone hero taking on an army are on the same level of fantasy. Studded leather is on the same level of impracticality as the spiked chain or thinking through the implications of systematic spell-casting.

"As reality unless noted," which I think is an important thing to consider...

Sure. Xena was 'as reality' but for bicycle kicks and the like. ;P And gods & magic. And, like, everything else. But sure. Gravity worked - well, except for the bicycle kicks...

But "reality" is still pretty flexible... lots of fantastical things happen in your average modern day "real world" action movie, for example.

'Reality' isn't the right idea, I don't think. Genre expectations, maybe.

Ultimately, our suspension of disbelief is often going to be hurt most by what we know. If we know weapons and armor, studded leather sticks out like a sore thumb, the same way that computer programmers might be taken out of an episode of a crime show where two smart "hackers" try to hack faster by both typing simultaneously on a single keyboard (okay, even someone with rudimentary knowledge of computers might roll their eyes at that one).

Ignorance is bliss!

Just because something is a fantasy story doesn't actually mean that all need for various kinds of verisimilitude gets tossed out the window.

True enough, but it does mean that it has a fairly large open window it /can/ toss quite a lot of such concerns out of, if it comes to that. The conventions of fantasy get you a lot of free passes. Calling you on some of them but not others is bogus.

It's more nearly legitimate when you pull something that OK in one context into a different context. You establish dragons, elves, magic & general heroic-fantasy tropes, fine. You bring in a flying saucer, maybe not.

I think the issue is that it's usually easy for many people to tweak their mental image of the fiction to allow for the weapon strike to be non-vital. If not, they probably won't play a game like D&D, they'll play something fundamentally much more mortal and gritty.

Yeah... it's not really that hard to cope with D&D hps and their oddities. Yet, people /do/ get hung up over some of them and not others, even though they're not much more of a stretch.

But falling in particular gets changed fairly often because there are lots of situations where the fiction is much harder to tweak in the same way you can with a weapon attack. You get knocked off the back of a dragon flying 200 feet above a field, there aren't many ledges or anything to grab on to. It's just a more difficult suspension.

Meh, you:

catch hold of the dragon's tail
land on a...
...haystack
...pond
...river
...bog
...'nuther dragon...

Though, getting stabbed with a knife while unconscious is another hard one, I'd say. In battle is one thing, but if you're asleep, why aren't they just cutting your throat? This could spark a whole new conversation though.

Can & has, and has had special rules since the early days. FWIW.

The double standard being that magic-users are allowed to do fantastical things, but when non-magic users try, they get smacked down because of verisimilitude?

I'm sure that's a real problem in some games.

Games like D&D, yes. ;P

That sucks. I definitely think that's an area a GM should be a lot more careful... changing falling damage is a lot harsher to the guys who lack feather fall after all.

But changing studded leather to some sort of authentic name for a lightweight reasonably protective leather armor doesn't seem to hurt anybody.

Of course not. And if a player likes the visual, he can get his character some brigandine, no?

 

[Tony Vargas]

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).

Or, y'could just make some intimidation checks, drop some questionable info, and move on...

 

[Ancalagon]

Some things are easier to fix than others though. "studded leather" is really "slight heavier, slightly better" leather armor and can be "fixed" by it being declared to be "reinforced" leather armor.

(never mind that leather armor may not have been much of a thing but...)

Spiked chain though, it's hard to fix without it... just not being a spiked chain anymore.

 

[Oofta]

Some things are easier to fix than others though. "studded leather" is really "slight heavier, slightly better" leather armor and can be "fixed" by it being declared to be "reinforced" leather armor.

(never mind that leather armor may not have been much of a thing but...)

Spiked chain though, it's hard to fix without it... just not being a spiked chain anymore.

Good thing spiked chain isn't in the 5E rules then.

Wielding a quarterstaff one-handed now, that just ... no.

I am curious why people have such a problem with breastplate armor - or is the image of the conquistador with breastplate and no greaves about as accurate as horns on viking helmets?

 

[ammulder]

Or, y'could just make some intimidation checks, drop some questionable info, and move on...

Plus... Detect Thoughts.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I have several. In fact, most of my house rules are based more on pet peeves than balance.

I'll give one example--the quarterstaff. The quarterstaff is just as a mace in one hand, and can be used two handed if you want to. There is pretty much no reason not to use a quarterstaff instead of a mace by the rules.

Mechanically, a mace and shield cleric really ought to be a staff and shield cleric, especially if they get a magic staff. And a druid should be using a staff and shield too, instead of just a staff in two hands.

I hate that. I really, really hate that. Traditional clerics go mace and shield, and druids with quarterstaves don't use shields.

So I changed the quarterstaff's properties to two-handed and finesse instead of versatile. This nicely eliminates both problems. This also makes it a bit more appealing for a typical wizard. One unforeseen side effect is that it makes quarterstaff a great option for a Pact of the Blade warlock with the Polearm Master feat.

 

[Satyrn]

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.

That is a nice, elegant solution.

I've played in a group in the past where I'd have loved that rule. *Sigh* the one guy took forevah to choose which path his fighter should take to get himself in melee. (I still wish he had played an archer, and that was a decade ago)

 

[MNblockhead]

Just curious. How much input and agency are DMs providing players regarding these house rules?

There has to be give and take. When I started my campaign, it was a long time since I had role-played. And 5e was completely new. I made my campaign low magic in part because I enjoy magic feeling rare, scary, and--well--magical. But also because I was new and by now allowing casting classes I could ease myself into the rules of magic.

I also limited what races could be played, because of the campaign backstory, elves had left/been pushed out of the known world, beast-people were pushes to the edges of civilization, etc.

Over time I loosened up and became more comfortable with the rules and the players took the campaign in a direction where other options mades sense to the story. We eventually brought in a new player who was a sorcerer. And we had another player play a Yuan-ti pure-bred a year before Volos came out (I was pleased that my homebrew matched very closely what became official). An she is a warlock.

I state some general rules and explain what I'm comfortable with and what I'm not but I also built a huge homebrew world and allow a semi-sandbox. The players decide what leads they want to follow, what factions to support or oppose, or just "hey I want to travel there..." And then I plan the next session around that. So my campaign started very "limited" but over two years grew organically into a very different game than I thought I would be.

Also, as a GM I'm open to suggestions, feedback, and rules lawyering. I let my players, many who are more experienced than me school me on the rules. I'm comfortable with having players give me their understanding of the rules and making arguments for changing the rules. I have final say, but I expect my players to know the rules for their abilities better than me and trust them to not take advantage.

I also didn't know at the start what kind of game the players wanted. Initially each session was very different. One would be all roleplaying and mystery solving, the next would be almost all tactics and combat. I mix it up with elaborate terrain and mini, to maps on a big screen, to pure theater of mind. The goal is the enjoy the game as a group, not push my artistic DM vision for my world and stories. That's what makes DnD awesome, its the players story too. I love how I don't know what the next game will be like.

So, to sum up, I'm a crumudgeon when it comes to torches. But if it was REALLY important to player that they use torches rather than lanterns or magic for lights. I'd allow it.