D&D General Harshest House Rule (in use)?

bloodtide

Legend
So if people typically know things, yet you tell them nothing aren’t you seriously breaking immersion and realism in your games?
Well, maybe for some context....

If your a new player in one of my games, my harsh house rule is that your character will be a Clueless Berk. So, I do recommend that you pick that type of character to play. If a player wants to play a more knowledgeable character, I am happy to provide handouts, notes, articles, books shows and videos Out of Game for the player. Then they can come to the game with knowledge.

Sadly, many players hate this "homework" and whine they have "no time". They just want to show up and relax and casually sort of play the game by rolling every couple of minutes for their smart character to remember something or think of something or have a clever idea. I make it clear I don't run that sort of game.

Some good players will even be open to learning in general, beyond just the game and setting lore. I'll give the good player some lists of books, movies and TV shows they can watch to learn more general topics related to their character type.

Generally for at least the first 5-10 games a new player in my game is Clueless. Though assuming the player pays attention, is active, is immersed and care, they will slowly learn things about game lore and the setting. And clever players can always try to learn more.

So, no I don't want a player that just goofs around for hours. Then when the group finds a vault with symbols drawn on the door, the player says "ummmm, I want my super smart character to read the symbols while I spill some Mt.Dew on myself...again". I don't really want this type of player in my game.

I want the player that listens to the description and then can say "The triangle symbol is the arcane symbol for fire, I'll bet the door is trapped in a fire trap spell" or "the symbol of two circles connected by a line is thieves cant for we are being watched".

I keep mostly the same general information for most games. So once a player knows something, they can use it in most of my games.

So is intelligence, wisdom, and charisma. But you seem to suggest those have to be role played and use rules. Just curious why that doesn’t also include strength, dexterity, and charisma
Well, I require players to play the game, not to just roll and play a character. And this is just as true for all abilities. The player has to think of "hey I can shoot the rope holding the door open" BEFORE they make the Dex roll to throw a dagger.
Sure, but it seems you’re against that for some people. Like only your fun matters
Well, I'll tell players up front my game is not the easy roll game. It's one of my harsh hose rules designed to weed out players.

I'm an old-time rebel against harsh old-school-style rules, going back to the days when old-school was still new. But this... this is something I might actually adopt myself, at least for shapeshifting magic. Although I'd be inclined to make it a focus, instead of a component.
It works great. It stops all the problems of a player that looks through all the books to find the perfect creature to shapechange into as needed. A character in a woodland can find wolf fur easy enough, but not great white shark teeth and very much not tyrannosaurs rex teeth or other more exotic creatures. But it does leave the opening for players to hunt down creatures if they want too.

Like a lot of my houserules, it gives an adventure incentive. Smart players will collect creature parts to change into later.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

cbwjm

Seb-wejem
If your a new player in one of my games, my harsh house rule is that your character will be a Clueless Berk.
I'm a lot more permissive in the games I run. I don't require intelligence checks for a player character to know something about the world they would have grown up in, I'll just say that "You would know that..." and provide the information.

At most pre-game, I just provide a two page sheet with some info about the campaign world start location, I think I used Matt Colville's campaign sheet for the last one and players used it to create some characters for the game, it worked well.
 

ezo

Get off my lawn!
THIS...
They just want to show up and relax and casually sort of play the game by rolling every couple of minutes for their smart character to remember something or think of something or have a clever idea.
AND THIS...
So, no I don't want a player that just goofs around for hours.
are two VERY different typs of players IME and IMO.

I am fine with the first kind. I know a lot about D&D, but I don't know your setting, etc. And no, I don't have the time to "do homework" for your game if I am playing a INT 18 PC. I always expect my PC might know things about the world I won't know, and heck YOU as DM might not have even thought of yet!

A "campaign summary" detailing background info on the kingdom, gods, history which is a couple pages? Fine, I'm all for that. But reading books, watching videos, etc.? No, thank you. That is way too extreme for something that is a hobby; and I am the type who takes my D&D VERY SERIOUSLY!!!. I expect players to show up on time, be respectful and prepared, pay attention on other players' turns, know their character and what that character can do.

I do NOT expect the player to be as strong as their character, as smart, as agile, etc. A player with normal strength isn't made to bench press 500 lbs in order to show their PC can break down the iron-bound door, are they? You don't take them outside and have them leap 20' across the road to show their PC can leap over a chasm, do you?

Because frankly, asking players to "learn your stuff and do the homework" is IMO the same as telling them to go work on their benchpress before they show up for the game to play their STR 20 fighter or they don't get to add the +5 bonus to attack and damage rolls.

A lot of players can even put in the effort to "learn your material" and take notes, but might not be able to solve some puzzle you give them. Maybe they just suck at puzzles or the puzzle is too complex for them? But their INT 18 PC if they existed IRL could do it no problem. And that is why the rolls exist. To give PCs the chance to do things the players might not (or even CAN NOT) possibly do.

Now, the second type of player I can totally sympathize about. I don't want goof offs, no-shows, always-on-their-smartphone players, either.

But to expect a player who shows up, pays attention, contributes through roleplay, etc. to expect to "learn about your world/setting" and everything that entails is, actually, the first really harsh rule I've seen in this thread. Frankly, I can't imagine anyone I've ever played with in my entire life (were easily talking well into the hundreds of players!) jiving with this. Now, as I said before, having a few pages of background reading to get an idea for the setting and such is perfectly reasonable IMO, but it sounds like you are asking for way more than that and IMO you should count your blessings you even have a group to play with!

Personally, I am hoping your rule is coming off as sounding much harsher than it actually is in practice...
 
Last edited:

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
My experience of rolling ability scores was that all characters had 18 in everything because they just kept on rolling until they did.
That merely speaks to a lack of DM enforcement when it came to cheating.
So, I don't use rolled ability scores, even though most of my current players are unlikely to cheat.
And even if they were likely to (try to) cheat, if they're doing those rolls in front of you then cheating should be mighty difficult.
 

bloodtide

Legend
THIS...

AND THIS...

are two VERY different typs of players IME and IMO.
Maybe sometimes, but often they are combined.
A "campaign summary" detailing background info on the kingdom, gods, history which is a couple pages? Fine, I'm all for that. But reading books, watching videos, etc.? No, thank you. That is way too extreme for something that is a hobby; and I am the type who takes my D&D VERY SERIOUSLY!!!. I expect players to show up on time, be respectful and prepared, pay attention on other players' turns, know their character and what that character can do.
Well, Harsh is in the Title.
I do NOT expect the player to be as strong as their character, as smart, as agile, etc. A player with normal strength isn't made to bench press 500 lbs in order to show their PC can break down the iron-bound door, are they? You don't take them outside and have them leap 20' across the road to show their PC can leap over a chasm, do you?
No.

My real problem here is the DM involvement. A player character can use strength to do something, I don't have to stop the game and explain to the player the right way to lift with their knees. But when the player snoozes and says "DM tell me what my character would know" and I have to stop the game and tell a player information.


Because frankly, asking players to "learn your stuff and do the homework" is IMO the same as telling them to go work on their benchpress before they show up for the game to play their STR 20 fighter or they don't get to add the +5 bonus to attack and damage rolls.
Not the same thing. I also require players know the game rules and I do not give the players free time or pause the game while they flip through a book to "find something".
A lot of players can even put in the effort to "learn your material" and take notes, but might not be able to solve some puzzle you give them. Maybe they just suck at puzzles or the puzzle is too complex for them? But their INT 18 PC if they existed IRL could do it no problem. And that is why the rolls exist. To give PCs the chance to do things the players might not (or even CAN NOT) possibly do.
I agree with the idea, for others games. Just not my game.
But to expect a player who shows up, pays attention, contributes through roleplay, etc. to expect to "learn about your world/setting" and everything that entails is, actually, the first really harsh rule I've seen in this thread. Frankly, I can't imagine anyone I've ever played with in my entire life (were easily talking well into the hundreds of players!) jiving with this. Now, as I said before, having a few pages of background reading to get an idea for the setting and such is perfectly reasonable IMO, but it sounds like you are asking for way more than that and IMO you should count your blessings you even have a group to play with!
Well, it is only harsh to a certain group of players. Plenty of players, ones that want to know more lore in general, like "home work". Sally is clueless about elves, but she is happy to read the Ye Old Handbook of Elves. Then during the next game she knows and uses all sorts of elven lore in the game play.

Many players are fine with learning things through role play. So instead of just saying "DM tell me stuff", the player has their character talk to an NPC and learn stuff.

Personally, I am hoping your rule is coming off as sounding much harsher than it actually is in practice...
Well....maybe more Harsh.
 


ezo

Get off my lawn!
My real problem here is the DM involvement. A player character can use strength to do something, I don't have to stop the game and explain to the player the right way to lift with their knees. But when the player snoozes and says "DM tell me what my character would know" and I have to stop the game and tell a player information.
You aren't stopping the game though anymore then the player would be stopping the game to tell you that they know this information.

Not the same thing. I also require players know the game rules and I do not give the players free time or pause the game while they flip through a book to "find something".
It is though. Do you know every rule in the game by heart? Do you never have to pause the game to look up something like a monster stat block or obsure rule? Frankly, I highly doubt it you never do it.

On the surface, I agree, I don't want a player who doesn't know the rules (for the most part), but I am not going to hold it against them if they look up something from time to time.

Anyway, expecting a player to "know" everything their PC is likely to know is unreasonable IMO. We spend lifetimes just getting to know what we know in our own lives, let alone what some fantasy person in another world knows. It is actually impossible, really.

You are basically asking them to do a "mental workout" but you don't insist on a physical one? Don't you see the inconsistancy in that?

I agree with the idea, for others games. Just not my game.
Why not? Again, you can't expect players to be as strong as their PCs, so why do you insist they be as smart?

Well, it is only harsh to a certain group of players. Plenty of players, ones that want to know more lore in general, like "home work". Sally is clueless about elves, but she is happy to read the Ye Old Handbook of Elves. Then during the next game she knows and uses all sorts of elven lore in the game play.
Having a published book (like in 2E) that a player can read if they want to know more about the fantasy lore for their race in the general game framework is fine. Insisting they read it, follow it, etc. is not IMO. Does it mean that player is "lazy" or bad if they don't? No. It just means that aspect of the game isn't as important to them as it is to you.

Many players are fine with learning things through role play. So instead of just saying "DM tell me stuff", the player has their character talk to an NPC and learn stuff.
Sure, and that is perfectly reasonable. I often encourage players to intereact with NPCs and we often make-up "lore" on the spot.

For example, I have a player with a half-elf (drow) PC. His backstory had him in the Underdark, raised in drow society, and proficient in poisoner's kit. He makes his own "drow sleeping poison" for his hand crossbow. Given the cost in the DMG to craft it, I told him that it is very hard on the surface because he needs special mushrooms from the Underdark. Every once in a while, he finds some with a local herbalist or trader, but they don't last long above ground.

In leiu of a magical item, he recently acquired an ebony box made of darkwood (from the Underdark) and it contains soil from there as well. If he keeps the mushrooms (when he rarely finds them!) in the box, it allows them to last for years instead of just a month, so when he has more downtime to craft his poison he can.

Well....maybe more Harsh.
:ROFLMAO:

Well, it works for you so I guess have at it. :)
 

Edgar Ironpelt

Adventurer
It works great. It stops all the problems of a player that looks through all the books to find the perfect creature to shapechange into as needed. A character in a woodland can find wolf fur easy enough, but not great white shark teeth and very much not tyrannosaurs rex teeth or other more exotic creatures. But it does leave the opening for players to hunt down creatures if they want too.
What I find attractive about your "must have something from the type of creature being shapeshifted into" rule is that it makes intuitive sense from a simulationist perspective. That it would also cut down on gamist-style player exploitation of shapeshifting is, for me, just a bonus.

I'm not too bothered by players trying to pick the best possible creature to shapeshift into, but I am bothered by shapeshifting into creatures that (a) never existed in my game world, (b) are now extinct in my game world, or even (c) exist in my game world, but only in locations hundreds or even thousands of miles away.
 

ezo

Get off my lawn!
I'm not too bothered by players trying to pick the best possible creature to shapeshift into, but I am bothered by shapeshifting into creatures that (a) never existed in my game world, (b) are now extinct in my game world, or even (c) exist in my game world, but only in locations hundreds or even thousands of miles away.
This is why I don't allow dinosaurs, for example, for wildshaping or polymorphing (generally...).

The PC has to have encountered a creature they want to change into or transform another creature into. In general, also allowing common creatures makes this simple enough IME. Given the CR ratings for creatures, generally it isn't an issue for me.
 

cbwjm

Seb-wejem
This is why I don't allow dinosaurs, for example, for wildshaping or polymorphing (generally...).

The PC has to have encountered a creature they want to change into or transform another creature into. In general, also allowing common creatures makes this simple enough IME. Given the CR ratings for creatures, generally it isn't an issue for me.
I agree with no dinosaurs. I mentioned on Reddit that I don't have them in my setting so you can't transform into them and some people were a little annoyed by that, their thoughts were that if it's in the core books it should be in the game.
 

Remove ads

Top