Do you let your players know your House Rules?

[FreeTheSlaves]

Yup. I don't pull surprise rules on the players. Then again I tell the players the creature ACs, DCs, HPs - the lot.

I figure that the characters would know the aproximate value of these abilities and so the player gets it exactly.

This only applies to the mechanics that affect their PC's. I have changed the ecology, history & outlook of many creatures to better suit the campaign flavour. That is the sort of stuff the PC's don't know and get to discover while adventuring.

 

[Chimera]

I am not currently GMing a campaign. However, I've slowly but surely been preparing for my next one, my seventh (in 27 years) in my homebrew setting.

For the next one, I'm working on my own Player's Guide, which looks like it will be running around 60 pages. Character generation rules, class information, background help, regional geography and governments, unique monsters (and changes to existing monsters), economics (very different from standard) and house rules concerning combat, feats and magic (no spell books and some things like that).

 

[Voadam]

When 3.5 came out we talked about it because we shift around DMing occasionally for the same campaign.

One DM didn't like the new material DR versus the old +X DR while another loved the new system.

I pointed out that these were monster characteristics and my knowledgeable wizard character who studied undead and demons heavily could easily in game come across knowledge explaining why there are different breeds of similar looking demons, some who require potent magic, some who require cold iron to defeat. As DM territory it was fine to go either way with individual monsters, particularly since we made up our own with special powers/characteristics all the time. And if they wanted I would provide in-character dialogue to support the differences:

"The Vernok sub-breed of Tanari are more magically potent but physically weaker, They require potent magic weapons to pierce their hide. The Kentari sub-breed are said to require cold iron and blessed weapons, they are physically tougher but weaker magically. Hmm, the Vrock over the ridge has purple plumage and a narrow beak you say? Sounds like a Kentari one, let's try those cold iron arrows we got and hope I'm right."

And we expected monsters we had never seen before to surprise us, whether they came out of 3.0 minions rebirth or 3.5 Complete Minions, it was going to be new to the characters and a DM could legitimately choose whichever version he preferred.

Since we make up our own monsters having new surprises is no big deal as a player, in fact it is part of the fun of the game. And these DR differences are less of a difference than applying a template would be generally.

 

[Scribble]

Some houserules yes. Others no.

Here's how I see it:

If it's a house rule on something from a DM source. You don't have to. Technically the player shouldn't have that information in the first place. The trick is to stay consistent. If you've changed something keep it changed. Don't change from week to week.

If it's a house rule on something from a player's source. You do have to.
The Player's sources are what they base their character creation on. The "fundamentals" of the world kind of. So therefore they can and SHOULD know this information, and what changes have been made to it.

Above all I think the main rule is to have fun. So use whatever ruling creates the most fun.

 

[kigmatzomat]

I've been known to use non-standard DR mechanics on a unique creature or a completely unheard of alien race, but not on anything that's known about. My players are aware that if a knowledge (bestiary) check of 35+ hasn't heard of it, they're dealing with a unique or ultra-rare and anything goes.

I believe you should tell them the rules exist, but not point it out when you use them. In your case, that would mean they know that in *most* cases things are DR/magic but there are things out there where the strength of the enchantment matters.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

In the case in question, I would distinguish between the rules of how the game works and the properties of things in the world. The DM should let the players know what all the rules are of how the game works, but he can keep the properties of things in his world to himself, leaving them for players to figure out.

The problem with this is when you have highly experienced players, who therefore have a pre-established notion of how certain in-world things work. They're actually at an unfair disadvantage compared to relative newbies when you change things without telling them, because they don't know what they don't know. They should at least be warned that in your campaign, certain monsters will seem to be the ones they know from their Monster Manuals and such, but that you've changed things in certain ways of your own.

If it's an across-the-board change in how a subsystem of creature properties (such as DR) works, I'd say the DM should at least say "I'm changing how DR works, and you'll have to figure out what attacks work on different creatures much as a novice party would." And in the case of DR, individual players with access to that subsystem (e.g. through spells and such) obviously need to know.

 

[wingsandsword]

Honestly, this is D&D, not Paranoia, the PC's can know the rules of the game. PC's are going to look through the Monster Manual, especially summoners, Prestige Classes are another PC resource that's in the DMG, as well as magic-item-creation rules which are PC resources (for those with the feats or buying items at character creation above 1st level). D&D isn't "DM vs. PC's", it's about the DM and PC's having fun playing a game, a game that happens to describe a world and what happens in it, and secret rules don't help the fun.

If it's something that affects the game world or plot, then I don't communicate it, but if it's changing a rule from a core book I'll definitely communicate it (and probably discuss it with my PC's before changing it).

 

[The Grackle]

What is there to gain by not telling players the rules? Maybe a little mystery to a monster encounter? There's better ways to do that; that's what templates are for.

Why risk annoying people with rule changes that will seem sudden and arbitrary?

 

[Hjorimir]

I disclose anything that affects the characters directly (i.e. feats, skills, etc.). But I don't always fully quantify such things. For example, some spells may not work as thought or may not even exist. But Jo-Bob the Fighter doesn't need that kind of information.

A large amount of my monsters have been tweaked or completely rewritten. While I have warned my players that to make assumptions on monster stats is suicidal, I haven't disclosed any specifics.

 

[Dr_Rictus]

PC's are going to look through the Monster Manual

Yours, maybe. I play with people who are old hands at D&D, and know a lot of it by rote, but I also DM a group that's barely played D&D and shows no interest whatsoever in looking through the Monster Manual.

D&D isn't "DM vs. PC's", it's about the DM and PC's having fun playing a game, a game that happens to describe a world and what happens in it, and secret rules don't help the fun.

First, the "DM vs. PC's" thing is a straw man argument. Nobody's proposing that as far as I can see.

As to the nature of the game, I agree that it's a game that happens to describe a world and what happens in it. However, nobody says that I as a DM have to use that world, or that my players are necessarily interested in it. DM's can, and should be able to, change those things.

Further, whether it helps the fun to not know a priori how everything you might encounter in the world works is clearly a matter of taste.