D&D General Houserules - Do You Collaborate or Dictate?

[Quickleaf]

That is pretty much exactly how we do it too.

Indeed. Fidel's Kids and the Black Sea Horns had it right since 2012. "All right stop, collaborate and listen."

 

[cbwjm]

Generally I will create house rules in the start of a campaign, but players might suggest something that get incorporated into them. For example, bonus action potions/action when feeding them to someone else were suggested and now they are part of our house rules.

House rules tend to always be open for modification or removal if they end up just not working out, same with homebrew.

 

[Jack Daniel]

I tend to dictate, but that's mostly because I'm the one in our group who's actually interested in tinkering and experimenting with the rules.

This is where I'm at.

I tend to be the only one in my circle who cares about these games enough to DM, tinker, design, playtest, read forums, etc. But because I care, I'm also particular about what I'm willing to run — and if there's something about a system that I don't like, I won't hesitate to hammer it into a more pleasing shape. (By which analogy, my OD&D house rules are by now the game-design equivalent of the Glittering Caves of Aglarond.)

 

[Clint_L]

I’ve been making custom rules for D&D and other games for years, shaping the game to fit the way I want it to run. It might be some idea I saw in a movie or book, or perhaps evolves out of an in-game issue, but I’m generally the one coming up with new stuff.

While I always listen to my players for sticking points we can fix or smooth out, I find I’m generally the one who comes up with houserules out of the blue (before game, as much as feasible) or after seeing some gap/issues and only tend to tweak/discard them if it causes issues within the group. I’m obviously a Dictator in this sense.

So, do you work with your players in the first place to create your houserules or do you create and implement them without first consulting players? Or perhaps you do a bit of both?

Bit of both. The priority is always the story making sense, so if RAW produces a result that doesn't make sense then RAW is broken, at least in that situation. My players and I are pretty copacetic on prioritizing story logic over arbitrary rules.

 

[overgeeked]

So, do you work with your players in the first place to create your houserules or do you create and implement them without first consulting players? Or perhaps you do a bit of both?

Depends on the situation and specific house rule in question.

The more I know the players, the more I'm willing to collaborate. The more specific the house rule and reason I have for it, the less I'm willing to collaborate.

If we're playing in a setting that doesn't have specific races, they're banned. Period. If there are game breaking spells, feats, classes, subclasses, multiclass combos, cheese builds, etc then they're banned. Period. Not even the possibility of a conversation to be had.

Things like general "how do we want to handle X" questions, when I don't have an opinion either way, but we need to have something in place, I'll throw that to the players and let them decide. Things like tracking encumbrance, ammo, rations, etc. If it's an old-school survival horror game, they matter and we'll use harsh version of those rules, if it's not that style of play, I'll leave it to the players to decide. If tracking things helps them immerse in the game, we'll do that. If they think it's more hassle than it's worth, we won't bother. How do we handle travel? Etc.

Some house rules I'll suggest to the players and they get to decide as a group, take it, leave it, or modify it. I have final say if they try to turn a suggested house rule into cheese.

 

[Deset Gled]

As everyone else is saying, it's not binary House rules are often a combination of collaborative and dictated.

But I'll throw this thought in as well: some house rules are neither. It is entirely possible for house rules to develop without the group consciously planning them. They are not dictated by the DM and they are not discussed. Rather, they are simply things that a group does over time without thinking about it. Sometimes the group doesn't even know it's a house rule. Especially before the internet, this was a very common phenomenon.

 

[Lanefan]

But I'll throw this thought in as well: some house rules are neither. It is entirely possible for house rules to develop without the group consciously planning them. They are not dictated by the DM and they are not discussed. Rather, they are simply things that a group does over time without thinking about it. Sometimes the group doesn't even know it's a house rule. Especially before the internet, this was a very common phenomenon.

Most often caused by what seems a valid interpretation of a vaguely or poorly worded rule at the time*, only to find out years later that the "official" interpretation is something entirely different.

* - which are still a thing even in 5e - just look at the two active threads right now arguing about casting spells through a transparent barrier.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Almost exclusively collaborate.

Given I have the most experience with Dungeon World in our group, I tend to be at the front of coming up with ideas. But I would have no problem implementing a reasonable player suggestion exactly as-is if the group thinks it reasonable.

With a small group, only 3-6 people counting myself, it's quite easy to reach genuine consensus on something, in my experience.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Most often caused by what seems a valid interpretation of a vaguely or poorly worded rule at the time*, only to find out years later that the "official" interpretation is something entirely different.

* - which are still a thing even in 5e - just look at the two active threads right now arguing about casting spells through a transparent barrier.

Indeed. Natural language at its finest, resolving rules arguments since never.

 

[jmartkdr2]

A mix of the two. In my experience, the process tends to be:

1. DM sees an issue, or an issue is brought to the dm's attention.

2. DM proposes one or more houserules to the gorup.

3. Players have the opportunity to discuss - mostly this is asking for clarity/reasoning, but players can push back

4. DM makes final decision to use houserule or not.

Prior to a campaign, some dm's will have a bunch of houserules which are presented as a batch. This is usually done outside of table time so players can peruse at their leisure and respond in kind. Mid-campaign, it's more likely to be a single rule about a specific situation so less discussion is necessary.

I should note that I don't think of homebrew content (ie new monsters, treasure, etc) as houserules. That's it's own thing and usually done by the dm alone unless it's player-facing content like alternative class features, new spells, and sometimes treasure if the treasure is being tailored to a character.

 

[Mad_Jack]

I wish to multiple gods I had more players that came to me with ideas about tweaking things here and there to make them either run smoother or to be more interesting...

For the most part, it's generally me saying, at the start of the game, "Yeah, that part about that thing, it sucks - Here, we're gonna do it like this...", which is generally in the players' favor...

For the most part, it's things like letting characters speak an extra language, saying that all fighters get Athletics for free, or that, if you know a fire spell you can create a spark to light your campfire, or having most of the non-combat cantrips - prestidigitation, thaumaturgy, druidcraft, mending, etc., able to be cast as rituals with a 1 minute casting time even if the character doesn't have them as a regular cantrip.

I see myself as a benevolent dictator with a council of advisors whose opinions I generally take under advisement unless they're stupid opinions...

 

[Lanefan]

Indeed. Natural language at its finest, resolving rules arguments since never.

IMO and IME the problem isn't natural language, it's a combination of a) the author maybe not thinking it all the way through (or flat-out missing something) and b) trying to use two words where ten are required in order to make things clear.

a) is a consistent issue with 1e and its contemporaries. I rather suspect b) is where 5e more often runs into trouble.

 

[bloodtide]

I have a ton ton of Houserules, and I go on the Dictator side. All my houserules are detailed and form the exact type of game I want to run and play. A Lot of my houserules are specifically made to block set types of players or player actions.

I'm not too open to anything players might say. Even more so the players that just want a houserule dropped or changed so they can cheat, exploit something or be a jerk in the game.

Few players want to really add much, other then vague suggestions, so it does not matter too much for good players.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

IMO and IME the problem isn't natural language, it's a combination of a) the author maybe not thinking it all the way through (or flat-out missing something) and b) trying to use two words where ten are required in order to make things clear.

a) is a consistent issue with 1e and its contemporaries. I rather suspect b) is where 5e more often runs into trouble.

Okay, but the more words you're using, the more you get toward "why are we not just clearly defining what we mean?"

Natural language was supposed to make things short and simple because you didn't have to explain anything, folks would just already know. Having to replace pithy phrases with drawn out specifics is precisely why we make use of jargon in the first place, so we don't have to keep repeating ourselves over and over and over again.

 

[fluffybunbunkittens]

I don't like to run with many house rules, because there's always more to fix, and then you end with a separate multi-page document...

I'd rather pick what single issues matter to you as a GM, and can be remembered by everyone. Like 'Guidance is banned and stuff like Fog Cloud actually hinders ranged attacks'.

Maybe add to that if there's something that really matters to the players.

 

[CleverNickName]

I don't ask the players' permission to change a rule, nor do I beg their forgiveness...but I rarely need to do either. I try to make them as invisible as possible ("keep them behind the curtain," as they say) because I hate it when rules get in our way.

 

[Stalker0]

Dictate, generally when I start a new campaign, I set the house rules. Now if there are a few that my players vehemently disagree with a specific houserule I am open, but at the end of the day tweaking the game is a big part of teh fun for me as DM, and so if people want to play in my game, they are playing by my houserules.

 

[jgsugden]

I attempt to collaberate, but often times when someone presents an idea I end up saying, "Hey, I already have something from a prior edition that does that ... it worked like XXXXXXX. Were you thinking of something along those lines?" That tends to make it feel more like I am dictating - even though it is entirely not intended to be that way.

I have had a few players, though, that love to have their stamp on elements of the game - and I welcome it and almost always work their ideas into my game. Many of the most beloved features of my game are from player suggestions long ago ... and I often break off emails to tell former players when one of their inputs has resurfaced in my current campaigns in the setting.

 

[Lanefan]

Okay, but the more words you're using, the more you get toward "why are we not just clearly defining what we mean?"

Well, in part because many words have different meanings in different contexts; and oftentimes using a jargon-y word in a non-jargon-y way causes headaches.

A perfect example of this just came up in another thread: a 5e spell write-up (for a scrying spell of some sort) uses the word "target" numerous times even though the range of the spell is "self" and the spell isn't capital-T Targetted. Target is, in D&D, a jargon word that invokes specific rules and meanings, so using it in a non-jargon-y way in the write-up causes needless confusion. And it's trivially easy to fix; they just didn't do it.

Natural language was supposed to make things short and simple because you didn't have to explain anything, folks would just already know. Having to replace pithy phrases with drawn out specifics is precisely why we make use of jargon in the first place, so we don't have to keep repeating ourselves over and over and over again.

Sure, make it short and simple but at the same time make it accurate! Do whatever it takes to ensure Rules-As-Written and Rules-As-Intended line up with each other.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't like to run with many house rules, because there's always more to fix, and then you end with a separate multi-page document...

Or, in my case, an almost entirely revised/rebuilt edition of the game.