clearstream
(He, Him)
You mean eight.Actually, their are 7 stages of DM'ing, but you need to be in the 5th stage to even see the rest so there is no real point in explaining them.
D&D 5E House Rules
el-remmen
Moderator Emeritus
Uh-huh. Wait til you get to Stage Nine and they tell you about Xenu.
Charlaquin
Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Guys, Dungeon Master is a class. There are 20 levels. Plus epic levels if you dip into 3rd party material,
pming
Legend
Hiya!
Interesting that you left out the second part of my original post (RE: "Once they get a handle on the rules, how they all interact, and all that other stuff that comes with experience, then they SHOULD be colouring outside the lines. If not...I wonder if DM'ing is really going to be their thing." )
The question posed by the Original Poster was a Poll ("Do You Use House Rules/Restrictions in your 5e Game?"). I simply answered "yes" and then explained why. That being that, eventually, a DM is going to make house rules/restrictions simply due to the fact that people are different. I voiced that I would be 'concerned' if a DM had been DM'ing for a while and didn't use House Rules...because TO ME that seems to be an unusual trait for good DM's. The DM's that I've played under that didn't use any (or virtually any) house rules/restrictions were, lets just say, "not very fun to play under".
Why you took that to be condescending is beyond me.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
No...because it isn't.
Interesting that you left out the second part of my original post (RE: "Once they get a handle on the rules, how they all interact, and all that other stuff that comes with experience, then they SHOULD be colouring outside the lines. If not...I wonder if DM'ing is really going to be their thing." )
The question posed by the Original Poster was a Poll ("Do You Use House Rules/Restrictions in your 5e Game?"). I simply answered "yes" and then explained why. That being that, eventually, a DM is going to make house rules/restrictions simply due to the fact that people are different. I voiced that I would be 'concerned' if a DM had been DM'ing for a while and didn't use House Rules...because TO ME that seems to be an unusual trait for good DM's. The DM's that I've played under that didn't use any (or virtually any) house rules/restrictions were, lets just say, "not very fun to play under".
Why you took that to be condescending is beyond me.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
Yeah, well, the author of the thing sometimes misses the implications.
Only because it doesn't get better....
So... "Once they know what they are doing, they do it the way I think is best!"
Yeah, not less condescending. The level of value judgement on people doing something other than what you do... does not improve there. Sorry.
pming
Legend
Hiya.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
Wow. If that's what you read into it... I guess nothing I say is going to change your mind. Sorry.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
p_johnston
Adventurer
I run a fairly extensive list of house rules/homebrew that I change up fairly frequently. As a whole if I see something in the system that I feel could be improved I'll house rule it for 2 to 5 sessions and see how it goes. If the it seems to be easy to use and fun I keep it. If the players never remember it or it causes a feel bad moment I toss it.
Currently the house rules that are a core part of my game are
1) I changed the entire feat/ability score system so that players get a "mini" feat every two levels along with a single ability score increase. (I have like 11 pages of feats by now mostly stolen from the base game, pathfinder, Star Wars 5e, etc).
2) I changed character creation so that players can make any background and take any equipment (within reason) that they want.
3) I tried to fix up the Berserker, 4 elements monk, and ranger.
4) I turned perform into a tool proficency and lumped all instruments in with it.
5) I combined survival and handle animal.
6) I allow people to use inspiration to either reroll or ask for a plot hint.
7) I use an injury mechanic whenever someone goes down/takes massive damage. I also tinkered with the death save system.
8) I tweaked/removed about 15 spells (some for balance, some to make them more useful, some because they were just annoying)
9) I use an encumbrance system I stole from Pathfinder 2e
Rules I'm Testing
1) Changing expertise to work like the dragonmark bonuses from Eberron.
2) Having 2 short rests per long rest that take 5 minutes (give or take 5 minutes depending on plot needs)
3) Having long rests take place whenever necessary for pacing (by adventure, by day, by week, etc)
4) allowing people who role critical hits to just declare they deal max damage with their base attack rather then roll double dice (statistically should be about the same on average but save some time).
Currently the house rules that are a core part of my game are
1) I changed the entire feat/ability score system so that players get a "mini" feat every two levels along with a single ability score increase. (I have like 11 pages of feats by now mostly stolen from the base game, pathfinder, Star Wars 5e, etc).
2) I changed character creation so that players can make any background and take any equipment (within reason) that they want.
3) I tried to fix up the Berserker, 4 elements monk, and ranger.
4) I turned perform into a tool proficency and lumped all instruments in with it.
5) I combined survival and handle animal.
6) I allow people to use inspiration to either reroll or ask for a plot hint.
7) I use an injury mechanic whenever someone goes down/takes massive damage. I also tinkered with the death save system.
8) I tweaked/removed about 15 spells (some for balance, some to make them more useful, some because they were just annoying)
9) I use an encumbrance system I stole from Pathfinder 2e
Rules I'm Testing
1) Changing expertise to work like the dragonmark bonuses from Eberron.
2) Having 2 short rests per long rest that take 5 minutes (give or take 5 minutes depending on plot needs)
3) Having long rests take place whenever necessary for pacing (by adventure, by day, by week, etc)
4) allowing people who role critical hits to just declare they deal max damage with their base attack rather then roll double dice (statistically should be about the same on average but save some time).
doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
As a guy who regularly plays in a game that has no houserules because the DM doesn’t like using them, and who has 30 years of experience running a dozen or so systems, and who is my group’s best DM...I have trouble taking this seriously.Hiya!
Yeah, as I said, a "newbie DM" is best served by sticking to the rules he/she thinks they understand (which, chances are, they don't). This is the "First Stage of Dungeon Mastering". Don't have much of a clue what the game is or has in it now or for the future...but if'n it ain't a helluva lotta fun!
Second Stage of DM'ing is the "That did NOT turn out well! Ok. Lets stick to the books so we can't possibly mess it up". This invariably leads to the stark realization that no, a DM should NOT "stick to the Rules As Written" and never deviate...because that works just as "well" as when they first started and thought "Bonus to Attack Roll" meant you got that bonus for EVERYTHING related to Attacking....leading to PC's declaring they were "hitting the wall forcefully as they climb it...so they can get their Attack Bonus!", sticking the RAW regardless of situation will often make no sense at all (especially with bad interpretations of the English language).
Then they get to the Third Stage of DM'ing. This is where all DM's end up (hopefully!) Where enough experience, highs and lows, wins and losses, good rulings and bad, all start to fall into place. This, as time goes on and a DM's experience goes up, results in a DM with a "style" of DM'ing. Not all DM's are the same, some excel at the RPG/acting side, some at the technical side, some at the combat side, others at the creative side...but all DM's develop a "style".
And that is why I am always weary of DM's that don't have any house rules; it tells me they haven't gotten out of Stage Two yet. So when the Magic-User picks up the Fighters two-handed sword and says "I attack!", the DM says "No, you can't. Magic-Users can't use two-handed swords! You do nothing this round. Next...", well, yeah...not a positive trait for a DM, imnsho.
House Rules = DM who is at least attempting to move into Stage Three.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
That DM has, after years, adopted a couple houserules, and is willing to homebrew to accommodate a character concept that doesn’t work in the rules when he needs to, but his SWSE games are still pretty much no houserule games, for instance, and no less fun for it.
clearstream
(He, Him)
I think I understand @Umbran's point there. Your post seems to conflate house-ruling with being a good DM. I'd say that they are two separate qualities - one could easily be a great DM and never house rule, or a terrible DM with house-rules all over the place.
A bloat of house rules - especially where they are inadequately tested - would for me be a warning sign. A possible counter-point might be that the best RPG game designers - who ought to be great at creating house rules - should also be good DMs. I think what is crucial is that they can empathise with the needs of players and DMs: it's not crucial that they, themselves are good DMs. Being able to get the most out of a system when playing it, isn't the same skill as being able to design that system (otherwise the designers of say FPS games would have to be the top esports champions... which they are not: they're too busy designing!)
And perhaps that last - too busy designing - has something to it. A DM who is so much into their house rules as to be fabricating really great rule sets... well, is that the same thing as guiding the very best play for the players around the table? Or a DM who is so willing to bend things that their players never experience meaningful challenges, or the consistency that preserves and validates fantasy worlds? I don't know if they are automatically doing their players the best service. Separate qualities: not a dichotomy, but not automatically found together either.
pming
Legend
Hiya!
). So either case...no house rules, or too many house rules, are likely a "bad thing".
That said, I stand by my assertation that you so aptly put as "house-ruling with being a good DM"; house rules is GENERALLY a sign of a superior DM. My reasoning is simple: A DM is the adjudicator and creator of the entirety of existence in his/her campaign world. By default, the DM is supposed to be "adjudicating" situations that are not covered in the rules, or when dealing with unique creations that have no real applicable rules to support them. Ergo, creating rules goes part and parcel with a DM becoming better at DM'ing simply due to the necessity to, well, create stuff not in the rules.
So, yes. House rules = better DM. At least in an overall sense of the meaning. Exceptions there are, and extremes are always bad...but, as I said, any DM that has no house rules but has been DM'ing for "a while" (...say, more than 8 to 12 months...) that doesn't have any house rules or only one or two? Red flags for me. On the flip side, you did point out the other side which I didn't mention in my original post: A DM that has been DM'ing for 10 months and whips out a 114 page binder of "house rules" raises multiple Red Flags as well!
^_^
Paul L. Ming
I agree with the old adage: "Too much of a good thing..." (is not a good thing, basically
). So either case...no house rules, or too many house rules, are likely a "bad thing".That said, I stand by my assertation that you so aptly put as "house-ruling with being a good DM"; house rules is GENERALLY a sign of a superior DM. My reasoning is simple: A DM is the adjudicator and creator of the entirety of existence in his/her campaign world. By default, the DM is supposed to be "adjudicating" situations that are not covered in the rules, or when dealing with unique creations that have no real applicable rules to support them. Ergo, creating rules goes part and parcel with a DM becoming better at DM'ing simply due to the necessity to, well, create stuff not in the rules.
So, yes. House rules = better DM. At least in an overall sense of the meaning. Exceptions there are, and extremes are always bad...but, as I said, any DM that has no house rules but has been DM'ing for "a while" (...say, more than 8 to 12 months...) that doesn't have any house rules or only one or two? Red flags for me. On the flip side, you did point out the other side which I didn't mention in my original post: A DM that has been DM'ing for 10 months and whips out a 114 page binder of "house rules" raises multiple Red Flags as well!
^_^
Paul L. Ming
Similar Threads
