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

[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.