Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon 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 Next
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
*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!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
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
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
DMs - What makes You...
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="James Gasik" data-source="post: 8705320" data-attributes="member: 6877472"><p>More specifically, what makes you, as a DM, sit down and change a rule?</p><p></p><p>There can be a few reasons. 1, I don't think it's fun. I can come to this conclusion by just imagining how I would react to it as a player, or just watch my players groan about it.</p><p></p><p>For example, the bulk of my gaming career, D&D was a game about going into dungeons and finding cool magic items. In earlier editions, magic items were used as a way to give players new abilities, and potentially could be used to adjust balance (though it can go the other way as well...). So I adjusted the rules for attunement. First by making attunement equal to 1+proficiency bonus, then by removing attunement from most items; now, if an item has an attunement, it's not a requirement to use the item at all, but it unlocks an additional power or feature.</p><p></p><p>2, it might be confusing, or arbitrary, with no real explanation of why it works the way it does.</p><p></p><p>A good example of this would be something like <em>see invisibility</em> not overcoming the <em>invisible </em>condition. That just confuses people.</p><p></p><p>3. A player might have made a choice that turns out to be sub-par for no good reason. Like deciding to play a lizardman monk and finding that your natural armor is redundant, or picking a spell that sounds cool, but for whatever reason is weaker than other spells of it's level.</p><p></p><p>What makes you craft different lore for your world? </p><p></p><p>I'm a creative person, and sort of a lore junkie, so I like to add older lore to my 5e games, or sometimes put a new twist on an old concept, just to make the game more interesting. I'm the kind of player who loves the thrill of discovering lore about a setting, and this way, there are mysteries that you can't read about in a book, and can only find out by engaging with the world.</p><p></p><p>What makes you not allow/or insist on the presence of certain races, classes, backgrounds?</p><p></p><p>Either it better reflects the lore I have created for my setting, or it's an attempt to get people to play things they normally wouldn't. I have a friend (hi Andrew!) who only has two real character concepts- he either wants to be a necromancer and have undead minions fight for him, or he wants to be a simple fighter that does the same thing turn after turn. For him, D&D is about turning his brain off (he's actually a fairly bright guy, and an EMT) and having fun. That's great, but you get tired of seeing "Human Champion Fighter #4" after awhile (and his foray into being a Necromancer Wizard didn't turn out to be very much fun for him). </p><p></p><p>So I'll be like "in this setting, there are no humans", or "this is a curated list of races and subclasses". As for backgrounds, I did once run a game where all the characters were Elven Nobles, scions of great Elven families, who had to travel to distant lands as ambassadors. So there, it fit the story.</p><p></p><p>What makes you not allow certain combos?</p><p></p><p>I don't do this often, but the way I see it is, if a particular combination is so good that it makes others seem obsolete, there's a problem. Why would anyone not seek out this combination? Surely NPC's in the campaign would have realized "hey man, if a Sorcerer makes a pact with a Demon and then ever sleeps, he can become all powerful!", and either anyone who can be a Coffeelock became one, or the non-Coffeelocks got together and murdered any Coffeelocks (or the superior Cocainelock) they could find! Not that I've had to ban this combo, but if someone asked, I'd probably put some limits on it.</p><p></p><p>What makes you use certain books and not use others?</p><p></p><p>Every D&D campaign is a black hole of creativity, sucking up any good idea that comes it's way. So it's rare that I would disavow an entire book, rather, I'd pick and choose the parts I liked. In 5e, I haven't had to toss any book yet, but in previous editions, it happened from time to time.</p><p></p><p>In 2e, for example, the Complete Class Handbooks offered Kits, a sort of weak precursor to Subclasses. The first few of these stated, in no uncertain terms, that multiclassed characters couldn't have kits.</p><p></p><p>Then the Complete Dwarves' Handbook offered multiclass Kits, and I was skeptical, but nothing seemed ridiculous.</p><p></p><p>Then the Complete Elves' Handbook came out, and not only did it have powerful multiclass Kits (at least, they seemed powerful to me at the time), but you suddenly had the book claiming all these extra racial powers for Elves, like resistance to extreme temperatures, immunity to normal disease (for a race with a penalty to Constitution, no less!), and even a "mystical communion with nature and elvenkind, which replaces sleep, leaving you aware of your surroundings". Oh and Elven subraces with bonuses to Strength and Dexterity, beyond the limits of the races in the PHB. </p><p></p><p>In 3e, there were some odd subsystems that I didn't understand at first, so I was reluctant to use them initially- Magic of Incarnum, The Tome of Magic, and The Tome of Battle come to mind. Oh and the Expanded Psionics Handbook. When I eventually did allow them, only the Tome of Battle got any use, sadly.</p><p></p><p>And then there's the Book of Exalted Deeds and the Book of Vile Darkness. Yeah no. I'm not going to go into <strong>those</strong> abominations here.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="James Gasik, post: 8705320, member: 6877472"] More specifically, what makes you, as a DM, sit down and change a rule? There can be a few reasons. 1, I don't think it's fun. I can come to this conclusion by just imagining how I would react to it as a player, or just watch my players groan about it. For example, the bulk of my gaming career, D&D was a game about going into dungeons and finding cool magic items. In earlier editions, magic items were used as a way to give players new abilities, and potentially could be used to adjust balance (though it can go the other way as well...). So I adjusted the rules for attunement. First by making attunement equal to 1+proficiency bonus, then by removing attunement from most items; now, if an item has an attunement, it's not a requirement to use the item at all, but it unlocks an additional power or feature. 2, it might be confusing, or arbitrary, with no real explanation of why it works the way it does. A good example of this would be something like [I]see invisibility[/I] not overcoming the [I]invisible [/I]condition. That just confuses people. 3. A player might have made a choice that turns out to be sub-par for no good reason. Like deciding to play a lizardman monk and finding that your natural armor is redundant, or picking a spell that sounds cool, but for whatever reason is weaker than other spells of it's level. What makes you craft different lore for your world? I'm a creative person, and sort of a lore junkie, so I like to add older lore to my 5e games, or sometimes put a new twist on an old concept, just to make the game more interesting. I'm the kind of player who loves the thrill of discovering lore about a setting, and this way, there are mysteries that you can't read about in a book, and can only find out by engaging with the world. What makes you not allow/or insist on the presence of certain races, classes, backgrounds? Either it better reflects the lore I have created for my setting, or it's an attempt to get people to play things they normally wouldn't. I have a friend (hi Andrew!) who only has two real character concepts- he either wants to be a necromancer and have undead minions fight for him, or he wants to be a simple fighter that does the same thing turn after turn. For him, D&D is about turning his brain off (he's actually a fairly bright guy, and an EMT) and having fun. That's great, but you get tired of seeing "Human Champion Fighter #4" after awhile (and his foray into being a Necromancer Wizard didn't turn out to be very much fun for him). So I'll be like "in this setting, there are no humans", or "this is a curated list of races and subclasses". As for backgrounds, I did once run a game where all the characters were Elven Nobles, scions of great Elven families, who had to travel to distant lands as ambassadors. So there, it fit the story. What makes you not allow certain combos? I don't do this often, but the way I see it is, if a particular combination is so good that it makes others seem obsolete, there's a problem. Why would anyone not seek out this combination? Surely NPC's in the campaign would have realized "hey man, if a Sorcerer makes a pact with a Demon and then ever sleeps, he can become all powerful!", and either anyone who can be a Coffeelock became one, or the non-Coffeelocks got together and murdered any Coffeelocks (or the superior Cocainelock) they could find! Not that I've had to ban this combo, but if someone asked, I'd probably put some limits on it. What makes you use certain books and not use others? Every D&D campaign is a black hole of creativity, sucking up any good idea that comes it's way. So it's rare that I would disavow an entire book, rather, I'd pick and choose the parts I liked. In 5e, I haven't had to toss any book yet, but in previous editions, it happened from time to time. In 2e, for example, the Complete Class Handbooks offered Kits, a sort of weak precursor to Subclasses. The first few of these stated, in no uncertain terms, that multiclassed characters couldn't have kits. Then the Complete Dwarves' Handbook offered multiclass Kits, and I was skeptical, but nothing seemed ridiculous. Then the Complete Elves' Handbook came out, and not only did it have powerful multiclass Kits (at least, they seemed powerful to me at the time), but you suddenly had the book claiming all these extra racial powers for Elves, like resistance to extreme temperatures, immunity to normal disease (for a race with a penalty to Constitution, no less!), and even a "mystical communion with nature and elvenkind, which replaces sleep, leaving you aware of your surroundings". Oh and Elven subraces with bonuses to Strength and Dexterity, beyond the limits of the races in the PHB. In 3e, there were some odd subsystems that I didn't understand at first, so I was reluctant to use them initially- Magic of Incarnum, The Tome of Magic, and The Tome of Battle come to mind. Oh and the Expanded Psionics Handbook. When I eventually did allow them, only the Tome of Battle got any use, sadly. And then there's the Book of Exalted Deeds and the Book of Vile Darkness. Yeah no. I'm not going to go into [B]those[/B] abominations here. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
DMs - What makes You...
Top