House rules disagreement?

[Thurbane]

Hi all,

I found myself in a situation last night where one of my players vehemently disagreed with a house rule of mine (regarding firing missiles into melee). The upshot of the houserule is that he almost accidnetally killed a friendly NPC.

We have a group of the players and myself (the DM), and the other two players are fine with my houserule. The houserule was an established one that the players were aware of - I dodn't just spring it on them unanounced.

The game got bogged down with an argument, until I put my foot down, enforced my houserule, and agreed to consider his objections before the next session.

My problems is that of the 4 of us, only 1 disgarees with the houserule - myself and the other 2 players support it. This is possibly because we three are "older edition" veterans where it was accepted that firing into melee was a lot more perilous than it is in 3.5, where the other player has only ever played 3.5 where firing into melee is completely risk free.

What should I do here? Should I just go with majority rules and enforce the house rule, at the risk of upsetting one of my players?

Thanks - T

 

[mirivor]

Previously known, not originally objected to, only upset the player once it impacted him? Tell him, in a friendly and polite manner, to get stuffed.

Later!

 

[Kahuna Burger]

You say that he was aware of it - had it actually come up in play before? I don't think that arguing about it at the time was appropriate, but there's nothing wrong with him saying "hey, this sucks" once he sees it in action.

To some extent majority rules, but I would consider strength of feeling. If three people "are ok with it" and one can't stand it, the overall balance of feeling on the rule may be to the negitive side. I know the hubby played in a group with a critical miss/fumble houserule that he hated so much he actually got rid of his character and only played spellcasters with no ray spells until that DM was done running. A straight majority vote probably would have kept the rule if he had raised a stink just because folks tend to vote "whatever the DM wants" if they are apathetic about an issue, not because the rule was giving as much enjoyment to anyone else as it was taking from him.

Just something to think about.

 

[starwed]

It would be interesting to know the houserule in question, and the circumstance which caused the argument. Was there something about that particular situation which seemed more unreasonable to the player?

 

[Croesus]

You say that he was aware of it - had it actually come up in play before? I don't think that arguing about it at the time was appropriate, but there's nothing wrong with him saying "hey, this sucks" once he sees it in action.

To some extent majority rules, but I would consider strength of feeling. If three people "are ok with it" and one can't stand it, the overall balance of feeling on the rule may be to the negitive side. I know the hubby played in a group with a critical miss/fumble houserule that he hated so much he actually got rid of his character and only played spellcasters with no ray spells until that DM was done running. A straight majority vote probably would have kept the rule if he had raised a stink just because folks tend to vote "whatever the DM wants" if they are apathetic about an issue, not because the rule was giving as much enjoyment to anyone else as it was taking from him.

Just something to think about.

This matches my thinking. Any group has to be able to compromise from time to time, or it falls apart. My general rule of thumb is that if one person really wants something, and no one else really cares, then what's the harm? Better to compromise on the little things that you don't care about - generally the other person will be more willing to return the favor when it's something you're passionate about.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

The game got bogged down with an argument, until I put my foot down, enforced my houserule, and agreed to consider his objections before the next session.

That would be the correct move - particularly when it is a known house rule. Nothing wrong with players objecting to rules or house rules and asking for changes - but turning it into an argument is bad form. If the player finds it so distasteful the time to make an issue of it is NOT in the middle of the game.

My problems is that of the 4 of us, only 1 disgarees with the houserule - myself and the other 2 players support it. This is possibly because we three are "older edition" veterans where it was accepted that firing into melee was a lot more perilous than it is in 3.5, where the other player has only ever played 3.5 where firing into melee is completely risk free.

Well, there's nothing wrong with you giving some reconsideration to your house rule. It's just going to be a little difficult to do that objectively considering how the player chose to call it into question.

What should I do here? Should I just go with majority rules and enforce the house rule, at the risk of upsetting one of my players?

Give the rule some thought. Does it actually ADD something to the game? Will removing it actually DETRACT from the game as you play it? How and why did you institute the rule in the first place? Was it just because you were used to it in old editions?

There is certainly an argument to be made either way. Nothing at all arbitrary about deciding that in a good melee mix-it-up additional consideration should be made for missile accuracy. It should be simple though - a +2 to AC if the target is in melee with MORE than one opponent.

Of course 3rd Edition rules are intended to void the the need for such additional considerations and 3.5 even moreso because facing considerations are finally eliminated. When a players turn comes up things are where they are. It doesn't matter where they were the round before or will be next round. It doesn't matter if they're fighting one opponent or six. Chances to hit them - despite their being in a close melee combat - should only be adjusted if something qualifies as cover/concealment between the target and shooter.

If you think that means that the archer has to be awfully good considering the larger situation (confusing, unpredicatable close-combat) is that really so bad? It isn't a crime for a PC to be good at something after all.

The final decision is yours, and there's nothing wrong with the idea behind the house rule (given that we don't know the specifics of it at this point). Just try to keep an open mind about whether it's a rule that really has a place in your game. If you ultimately decide in favor of the complaining player make it ABUNDANTLY clear that despite the decision his behavior was UNACCEPTABLE.

 

[Thurbane]

Thanks all for the thoughts - the reason I didn't post the rule is basically I was more concerned about the ettiquette involved rather than a dissection of the rule itself (I've previously posted it here a while back, and got mixed feedback on it).

The basic gist of the rule is that if you fire into an ongiong melee combat, and miss the intended target by a large enough margin, you have a chance of accidentally targetting a different (random) creature in the melee.

The other two players actually support the rule, rather than just abide by it. They agree with my reasoning behind it - but as I said, that may be a result of our 1E and 2E conditioning.

I think the reason that things came to a head was that this was the first time the rule had a (potentially) major impact on a battle. In the past, it had only resulted in the occasional accidental arrow hit for a few points of damage, but in this case it was a Melf's Acid Arrow against a low level allied warrior, which had the potential to kill him (it didn't, as it turned out).

Like I said, myself and two other players are happy with the rule, and the other player is happy enough with it's intention, but not it's mechanics. I really don't want to modify the mechanics though, as it could significantly complicate combats.

The disgruntled player is my flatmate, so I'll have plenty of time to discuss the matter with him before next week's game. I'm fairly hopeful we'll reach a compromise...

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I think the reason that things came to a head was that this was the first time the rule had a (potentially) major impact on a battle. In the past, it had only resulted in the occasional accidental arrow hit for a few points of damage, but in this case it was a Melf's Acid Arrow against a low level allied warrior, which had the potential to kill him (it didn't, as it turned out).

To completely tangent, this might also be a good time to think about how house rules do or should cascade to other parts of the ruleset.

Melfs acid arrow lasts several rounds, doing damage every round. It is non-dismissable. Because, hey, why would you want it to be, its not something you are gonna cast on someone you were planning on taking alive. However, in a world where firing into a melee means you might hit an ally, if I was researching an acid arrow spell, I'd give serious thought to making it dismissable.

If you are (in effect) altering the assumptions under which the ingame world has always functioned, IMO you should give some thought to how those changes might have effected common equiptment and spell design. A low level tracer spell to guide in rays and arrows would be a must, for instance. Its nice in any case, but when a blaster/ray mage has the potential of friendly fire, that much more so.

 

[was]

your rule makes sense to me.........if he's got a problem with the mechanics, have him come up with a better one...........I'd tell him that the other rule stays in effect until he can come up with a better one....subject to the group's approval of course

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Not that I would *ever* suggest arranging combat results...

but your next session might be a good place for an NPC to be firing into melee and 'accidently' take out some of his allies..and the PC's enemies...

After all, what is good for the goose...