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

[pukunui]

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. Very few of the people I play with are interested in tweaking / experimenting.

 

[DammitVictor]

Both. Before the game, if I want to change something about the system or the setting, I don't ask permission, but just about everything is negotiable if a player thinks it's going to make the game better for everyone. If I want to change something while that game is in progress, well, I'm going to try to make sure everyone's on board with it, especially if it's going to affect the way someone's been playing their character.

I love letting players expand their own options, as long as it doesn't detract from the theme of the game or anyone else's participation in it. For instance, I'll sit down and write you a whole 1-36 class (or racial class) if you want to add something new to my Spelljammer game, but I can be downright bitchy about trying to add stuff to Dragonlance or Dark Sun.

 

[iserith]

It's pretty rare when I implement house rules, but I do frequently turn on or off variant rules to suit the game I'm trying to run or include or exclude other options (such as particular races or classes). Generally I will do so as needed, informing the players of my choices and why I made them, then hearing any objections or suggestions. Ultimately, I decide though.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Collaborate; however, the DM usually comes up with the ideas and pitches them. we then discuss them as a group.

 

[Quickleaf]

Bit of both. I come with my clearly formulated suggestions for house rules I like and think would fit the campaign. Then I invite feedback, either on my stuff or suggestions from the players, and come to a happy balance. And then stay open to course correcting based on actual play.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I propose houserules, and often the table votes before anyone even opens their mouth, other times it’s a whole discussion.

Sometimes players propose something, and I think about whether I feel confident in using it or not, and then put it to a vote if I do.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Bit of both. I come with my clearly formulated suggestions for house rules I like and think would fit the campaign. Then I invite feedback, either on my stuff or suggestions from the players, and come to a happy balance. And then stay open to course correcting based on actual play.

That is pretty much exactly how we do it too.

 

[S'mon]

If it's a house rule or optional rule that benefits the players, I consult and am guided by their wise judgement.
If it's a house rule or optional rule that hampers the players, I dictate to the foolish knaves from on high.

 

[LordEntrails]

I will say both. That's because I find collaboration without a leader is... painful. In a group of people, even with most friend groups, their needs to be someone who is a coordinator, and maybe leader. You may have several idea generators, but you need someone to organize the ideas, capture them, and help form the "rule" or decision. So, servant-leader of a collaborative group.

 

[cranberry]

I don't have many house rules, but I do dictate.

Although if someone objects to a rule, I'll listen to them.