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

[Emerikol]

But how do they play their character if you don’t tell them anything about the world?

How do I play a player with 18 strengths? If I’m not told that age string teen strength means. Or 18 intelligence and I’m really not that smart.

Isn’t the whole point of playing a game like DND to role-play a character that can do things that I cannot do?!

He means that the only way you can learn things about the world is by playing your character. He isn't going to tell you the player stuff outside the game.

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

I dislike players using player knowledge about monsters so I will often just describe the monsters and not give the name. They are often a lot scarier when just described.

I can understand this in the abstract. But in practical terms it's going to be a highly unusual situation, at least in my games, where player knowledge is significantly greater than character knowledge. The PCs, after all, live in a world where those monsters are real, and are engaged in a profession where encountering those monsters is an established hazard.

Sure, I can contrive scenarios where player knowledge outweighs character knowledge, but those scenarios are just that - contrived. They're special cases at best. IME it's far more common for the characters to have more knowledge than the players, and the usual problem is to give the players the practical bits of this knowledge in a concise form. When that backfires, you get things like the infamous "gazebo" encounter.

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

I suppose my harshest house rule is "Any clever trick or exploit that the players can use can also be used by the NPCs and monsters." Now this usually works out as "Would this game-element be 'unfair' or fun-killing if used against the PCs? If yes, then it gets banned or nerfed, both for NPC and PC use."

 

[RhaezDaevan]

Considering how abstract HP are, some players may see the "chunky salsa" rule as too harsh.

I like the rule personally.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

He means that the only way you can learn things about the world is by playing your character. He isn't going to tell you the player stuff outside the game.

Right, typically a character would know stuff outside of simply what they have been played through.they have a whole history and knowledge that predates them being PCs

 

[Emerikol]

Right, typically a character would know stuff outside of simply what they have been played through.they have a whole history and knowledge that predates them being PCs

That is a good point but I think his point kind of assumes the basics. He's talking about in game exploration as the primary way to get information about the campaign. For me, I agree you could have a written background that gives you more information and that would be out of game. Otherwise often, the background of a PC is some faraway place and the main action is a bunch of strangers in a strange land. (a sandbox).

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

That is a good point but I think his point kind of assumes the basics. He's talking about in game exploration as the primary way to get information about the campaign. For me, I agree you could have a written background that gives you more information and that would be out of game. Otherwise often, the background of a PC is some faraway place and the main action is a bunch of strangers in a strange land. (a sandbox).

Sure, but the whole background mechanic gives a large assumption of knowledge that really isn’t defined if the DM doesn’t provide the information. There’s a bunch of stuff that character should know, if the DM isn’t willing to allow that, well that kind of sucks I think as a player myself.

 

[Emerikol]

Sure, but the whole background mechanic gives a large assumption of knowledge that really isn’t defined if the DM doesn’t provide the information. There’s a bunch of stuff that character should know, if the DM isn’t willing to allow that, well that kind of sucks I think as a player myself.

I think a good DM should provide that information. When I run a game I sit down individually with every player (or I zoom them these days) and I interview them and we work out a lot of their backstory. Since they don't know enough about the campaign we work together by me asking questions and suggesting answers. For example, they don't know anything about the nobility of my new campaign setting but someone says they want to be the disfavored younger son of a nobleman. Well, I go find a good fit in my world if that is at all possible. If there were no "Kings" in my world, suppose I was playing a Roman Republic style setting, then I might counter with "Would the son of an influential senator work?"

I agree a DM that does nothing is selling his players short. If they have in game mechanics representing background, I think the DM needs to rise to that challenge.

 

[bloodtide]

Right, typically a character would know stuff outside of simply what they have been played through.they have a whole history and knowledge that predates them being PCs

Yes, as said, I'm unwilling to stop the game every couple of minutes and tell the players things their character knows.

That is a good point but I think his point kind of assumes the basics. He's talking about in game exploration as the primary way to get information about the campaign. For me, I agree you could have a written background that gives you more information and that would be out of game. Otherwise often, the background of a PC is some faraway place and the main action is a bunch of strangers in a strange land. (a sandbox).

I'm not a fan of just telling players endless lore. I would much rather have the PCs talk to a local druid for ten minutes then just have me as a DM tell four players what their PCs "know" for ten minutes.

Sure, but the whole background mechanic gives a large assumption of knowledge that really isn’t defined if the DM doesn’t provide the information. There’s a bunch of stuff that character should know, if the DM isn’t willing to allow that, well that kind of sucks I think as a player myself.

What are you talking about here?

 

[SteveC]

Sure, but the whole background mechanic gives a large assumption of knowledge that really isn’t defined if the DM doesn’t provide the information. There’s a bunch of stuff that character should know, if the DM isn’t willing to allow that, well that kind of sucks I think as a player myself.

This is such a good point. There's so much info about the world that a character actually living in it would know that it just amazes me that the DM doesn't talk about or provide.

I'm not talking about constant information dumps, but in the part of the game where the DM describes the situation they can let the players know what they know about it. It makes the players seem like smart, capable members of the world and the world seems more real as a result.

"What does my character know about this?" ... is such a central part of determining what the character is going to do or how they're going to react to a situation. I think there are a lot of DMs that just don't understand that they are the only one with perfect knowledge of their world in a traditional D&D game. And that doesn't even take into consideration that the players in some games will contribute to the world so that the DM isn't the sole creative force in the game.