Do your players hate your house rules?
- Thread starter Emirikol
- Start date
The first houserule was when they asked if magic shops ruined D&D. But I'd never used a magic shop, so I didn't say anything.
The second houserule was when they asked if Eberron was finally dead. But I wasn't in Eberron, so I didn't say anything.
The third houserule was when they asked if removing AoOs was okay. But I wasn't an AoO, so I didn't say anything.
And now, there's noone left to say anything for me. POOR ME!
The second houserule was when they asked if Eberron was finally dead. But I wasn't in Eberron, so I didn't say anything.
The third houserule was when they asked if removing AoOs was okay. But I wasn't an AoO, so I didn't say anything.
And now, there's noone left to say anything for me. POOR ME!
Nifft
Penguin Herder
Oy! Hong! I made your damn Ninja of the Crescent Moon, and you've been hiding ever since. Go gimmie feedback.
Oh, and this threadcrap has been brought to you by Magic Missile, which I cap at 5th level (3 missiles), and about which one of my players whines every frikkin' session.
Cheers, -- N
Oh, and this threadcrap has been brought to you by Magic Missile, which I cap at 5th level (3 missiles), and about which one of my players whines every frikkin' session.
Cheers, -- N
Faerl'Elghinn
First Post
Our playgroup (with the exception of one guy who mostly just gets wasted and stumbles out in the middle of the session) is composed entirely of DMs who work on a rotating schedule. Given our shared respect of DMific authority and responsibility, we generally discuss house rules before implementing them, and they often get applied as blanket rules.
In any case, we generally start by tossing out the question, "What do you think of this?" If a suggested house rule were ever met with widespread dislike or disinterest (which has never really happened IIRC), it would probably be abandoned. To avoid player dissension, I suggest keeping house rules within the realm of the necessary, logical, and just plain cool, discussing them with the playgroup, and giving up the ghost when it's not worth it. It's also a good idea to be extremely judicious with the Nerf bat when a player's active character will be limited by a ruling.
In any case, we generally start by tossing out the question, "What do you think of this?" If a suggested house rule were ever met with widespread dislike or disinterest (which has never really happened IIRC), it would probably be abandoned. To avoid player dissension, I suggest keeping house rules within the realm of the necessary, logical, and just plain cool, discussing them with the playgroup, and giving up the ghost when it's not worth it. It's also a good idea to be extremely judicious with the Nerf bat when a player's active character will be limited by a ruling.
I find the central issue with house rules to be credibility, a lot of times we'd rather go By The Book since it's easier to remember and look up on our own. That's not to say we don't use house rules because we do, it just has to have some heat behind it to overcome the inertial barrier.
I liken it to the story about the free refrigerator. A man bought a new refrigerator, and he didn't have room for his old refrigerator, but it still worked and he didn't want to throw it away, so he put it out in front of his house with a sign that said "Free Refrigerator". A week goes by, the neighborhood association complains, the trash company says they don't pick up major appliances, all sorts of bad noise. So the guy puts a new sign on it that says "Refrigerator, $20." The next day he goes outside and someone has stolen the refrigerator.
To me, the rules in the books have credibility over house rules because we paid for them. They have a perceived worth over stuff somebody just made up, which doesn't cost us anything (but the occasional headache and acrimonious discussion.) Also, HR's are a bit of a pain to keep track of. That's probably why I see most HR's in my group dealing with character creation, because you reference them once at the beginning of the game and you don't have to go back to them until you need to make another character. That has less handling time that a change to combat, which will come up every session.
I liken it to the story about the free refrigerator. A man bought a new refrigerator, and he didn't have room for his old refrigerator, but it still worked and he didn't want to throw it away, so he put it out in front of his house with a sign that said "Free Refrigerator". A week goes by, the neighborhood association complains, the trash company says they don't pick up major appliances, all sorts of bad noise. So the guy puts a new sign on it that says "Refrigerator, $20." The next day he goes outside and someone has stolen the refrigerator.
To me, the rules in the books have credibility over house rules because we paid for them. They have a perceived worth over stuff somebody just made up, which doesn't cost us anything (but the occasional headache and acrimonious discussion.) Also, HR's are a bit of a pain to keep track of. That's probably why I see most HR's in my group dealing with character creation, because you reference them once at the beginning of the game and you don't have to go back to them until you need to make another character. That has less handling time that a change to combat, which will come up every session.
Ltheb Silverfrond
Explorer
The only real house rule I implemented was a D% Wound table, ala' Hackmaster, but consulted every time someone is wounded (some exceptions apply, such as damage forms that don't allow a save or attack roll and can't be avoided, like magic missile). Since I brought it up as optional at first, and we playtested it a bit, and made some changes, no one in the group wants to play unless we use "the table."
Which was pretty much a shock to me, since before I started DMing, our previous DM has some pretty crappy critical fumble rules. (If you rolled a "1" on anything, you failed, your turn was automatically over, and if it was impossible to strike an ally, you did. (Like attacking around a 10' wide pillar to hit an ally with a dagger, or hurling your greatsword 50' to strike the mage in the back)
The best way to introduce a house rule it to discuss with your group why you think the change was needed. I wanted a more gritty, realistic combat, not some "Ok, the great axe does 8 damage to me? Oh noes, 80 hp left..." My players agreed, and thus the table was drafted. We still make changes and addendum's to it every once and a while. (Example: Diehard prevents the Auto-unconsciousness, and Endurance provides +4 to all the saves against the table, making those two feats really attractive options) But over all no one complains that it is "unfair". (Though we take turns rolling the penalties, and one member of our group somehow manages to roll headshots for everyone else. He isn't cheating or anything, just pure dumb luck
)
Which was pretty much a shock to me, since before I started DMing, our previous DM has some pretty crappy critical fumble rules. (If you rolled a "1" on anything, you failed, your turn was automatically over, and if it was impossible to strike an ally, you did. (Like attacking around a 10' wide pillar to hit an ally with a dagger, or hurling your greatsword 50' to strike the mage in the back)
The best way to introduce a house rule it to discuss with your group why you think the change was needed. I wanted a more gritty, realistic combat, not some "Ok, the great axe does 8 damage to me? Oh noes, 80 hp left..." My players agreed, and thus the table was drafted. We still make changes and addendum's to it every once and a while. (Example: Diehard prevents the Auto-unconsciousness, and Endurance provides +4 to all the saves against the table, making those two feats really attractive options) But over all no one complains that it is "unfair". (Though we take turns rolling the penalties, and one member of our group somehow manages to roll headshots for everyone else. He isn't cheating or anything, just pure dumb luck
)Similar Threads
