D&D General DM Authority

[Blandco]

Did they ruin those games though? They certainly lead to a different experience than the designed one, but if the people playing had more fun, who’s to say they the game was “ruined”?

It's been covered by many articles. Most games never came to a satisfying conclusion and ended up dragging on and on. The number one point most people come to is that house rules always ruined the basic gameplay. Interesting isn't it?

Monopoly: Why It's Broke and How You Can Fix It | Monopoly

Yes, the game we've all played since we were kids. The game many dread. This review is two fold. First, I will acknowledge and attempt to explain why most people falsely assume Monopoly stinks as a playable game. Second, I will offer some rules that will assist in making

boardgamegeek.com

 

[Charlaquin]

Again no system mastery is considered. An experienced player will be less disappointed by restrictions than a brand new player who just read the PH and was looking forward to playing a dwarf. That's all. Just considering the perspective of the player.

I have never known a new player to read the PHB before playing the game. Usually DMs either give them a set of pregens to choose from or else asks what kind of character they want to play and walks them through creating it.

Now, the fact that the PHB is so unfriendly to new players is a problem that hurts the hobby, but that’s a whole different topic than the one we’re discussing here.

 

[Oofta]

But to a brand new player they are.

I've taught several people to play. Not one thought of it as a board game after the first session, none had any issues with my restrictions.

You seem to be seeing issues where there are none.

 

[FrogReaver]

Again no system mastery is considered. An experienced player will be less disappointed by restrictions than a brand new player who just read the PH and was looking forward to playing a dwarf.

I'm not convinced that is true. But an experienced player does has more recourse as it will be relatively easier for him to find an alternate game.

Speaking of dwarves. Our next campaign features only dwarf PC's and it's for play purposes. (Tends to give a greater feeling of belonging and caring about what happens to the dwarf community).

That's all. Just considering the perspective of the player.

If I'm a new player - I'm going to join said game and give it a try and see if I even like D&D at all. I'll give it a few sessions. I might find myself loving the game. I might find myself hating it. And I might find that I'm really not into this character and really want to play my dwarf and so i go find a game I can be a dwarf in.

 

[Charlaquin]

It's been covered by many articles. Most games never came to a satisfying conclusion and ended up dragging on and on. The number one point most people come to is that house rules always ruined the basic gameplay. Interesting isn't it?

Monopoly: Why It's Broke and How You Can Fix It | Monopoly

Yes, the game we've all played since we were kids. The game many dread. This review is two fold. First, I will acknowledge and attempt to explain why most people falsely assume Monopoly stinks as a playable game. Second, I will offer some rules that will assist in making

boardgamegeek.com

But again, “ruined” the game by who’s standards?

I am well aware of the effects that common Monopoly house rules have on the game, and that a lot of the common perceptions of Monopoly (chiefly that it “takes forever”) are a result of those house rules. But I’m not willing to say that the experience these house rules create is inherently worse than the base experience. That’s up to individual players to decide what they like and what they don’t.

 

[generic]

Arguing that house rules and restrictions ruin a tabletop RPG is never going to be a popular argument. There's a reason my mates and I sit down to play D&D with kitbashes.

 

[Imaculata]

It's been covered by many articles. Most games never came to a satisfying conclusion and ended up dragging on and on. The number one point most people come to is that house rules always ruined the basic gameplay.

To be honest, I have never played a game of Monopoly that didn't feel like it dragged on and on. Even without house rules. Imo, it is just a dreadful game, where the winner is decided pretty early on in the game, and what follows is just a long drawn out crawl towards the inevitable victory of that winner.

Arguably, this is what prompted Monopoly Legacy; a variant of Monopoly that is all about switching up the rules, and changes to the game being permanent.

D&D never stated that its rules are law. They are guidelines. Most DMG's for example explicitly state that the DM can choose to not make use of magic items at all, for example.

 

[Don Durito]

Yes. A lot of the monopoly house rules are there to basically keep the game as a group game for as long as possible and give people a chance to keep playing.

 

[Blandco]

I've taught several people to play. Not one thought of it as a board game after the first session, none had any issues with my restrictions.

You seem to be seeing issues where there are none.

If I went by my experiences as a DM I would have a similar experience as you have. No issues.

However, like I said for research I have went in as a player looking at the online games that were available to me and I found the issues with DM authority consistently overriding player choice. I saw things much differently then I did as a DM running games.

And that is pretty much it. Like I said I am limited to what I can experience in the online D&D landscape but I can't discount what I have experienced.

 

[generic]

None. My answer comes from the perspective of a new D&D player who might have their interest piqued by something in the PH or free rules.

Okay, and? What's your point? If I'm running a humans game, I'll make it clear prior to the game session. Questions are welcome from the players. If they don't want to join in, so be it.