Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Controversial House Rules (my new game!)
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="StGabe" data-source="post: 3381932" data-attributes="member: 49275"><p>Well they might be but you kinda already said that's what your players want.</p><p></p><p>Personally I prefer to simply let players retire at whatever point the campaign seems to have peaked which is usually just past 10th or so.</p><p></p><p>One rule I disagree with is:</p><p></p><p><em>GM Can't Introduce New House Rules</em></p><p></p><p>It's nice to have a contract of sorts with the players but it seems that if you are going to add a lot of house rules like this you have to be ready to patch them if they don't work and ultimately the DM is the one with the objectivity/perspective to do that. I just started a campaign with a fair number of house rules and I told players what things I knew would almost certainly stay the same and which I felt might need to be tweaked as we played. </p><p></p><p>Part of the decision was just the fact that, had I not just gone with that, I may never have gotten done writing all the required house rules. At some point I just had to say, "alright, let's play". But that's MY problem, I'm a perfectionist that way. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>I guess I just believe that ultimately, the flaws and the clarifications needed for any sufficiently complex set of rules are things that can only be fixed after you've played with them for a while.</p><p></p><p>Are you replacing alignments with anything or just getting rid of them? I use an "allegiance" system. Players have to declare allegiance to at least three things: a goal, a person and an organization. They can do multiples if they want. These give some small guidelines to roleplay and they can also be used in placements where alignment would normally be used. For example a +1 sword that is +3 if wielded by someone with allegiance to a certain God or Organization or a shield that provides an additional bonus if you are protecting something or someone to which you have an allegiance. This makes allegiances something you want to have and can be counterbalanced with obligations that go along with each allegiance.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="StGabe, post: 3381932, member: 49275"] Well they might be but you kinda already said that's what your players want. Personally I prefer to simply let players retire at whatever point the campaign seems to have peaked which is usually just past 10th or so. One rule I disagree with is: [I]GM Can't Introduce New House Rules[/I] It's nice to have a contract of sorts with the players but it seems that if you are going to add a lot of house rules like this you have to be ready to patch them if they don't work and ultimately the DM is the one with the objectivity/perspective to do that. I just started a campaign with a fair number of house rules and I told players what things I knew would almost certainly stay the same and which I felt might need to be tweaked as we played. Part of the decision was just the fact that, had I not just gone with that, I may never have gotten done writing all the required house rules. At some point I just had to say, "alright, let's play". But that's MY problem, I'm a perfectionist that way. :) I guess I just believe that ultimately, the flaws and the clarifications needed for any sufficiently complex set of rules are things that can only be fixed after you've played with them for a while. Are you replacing alignments with anything or just getting rid of them? I use an "allegiance" system. Players have to declare allegiance to at least three things: a goal, a person and an organization. They can do multiples if they want. These give some small guidelines to roleplay and they can also be used in placements where alignment would normally be used. For example a +1 sword that is +3 if wielded by someone with allegiance to a certain God or Organization or a shield that provides an additional bonus if you are protecting something or someone to which you have an allegiance. This makes allegiances something you want to have and can be counterbalanced with obligations that go along with each allegiance. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Controversial House Rules (my new game!)
Top