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.

 

[John Quixote]

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.