D&D 5E How Close do you stick with the Game As Written?

[Sword of Spirit]

As it sits, I try to run as close as possible, but... I don't always get it right.
In play, I don't worry about whether I got it right, but if I get it wrong, I respect and accept being corrected by players...

I think that's a great approach. As a DM, I'm usually on top of the rules, but when players do know more than me I'm fine with them correcting me. If it is a clear rule and they know it, I'll just go with it. If there is disagreement on interpretation or we aren't sure where the rules is, I try to just make a ruling for now and get on with the game, then look it up later.

 

[Piratecat]

I seldom if ever change core game mechanics. I've never enjoyed playing in games that did so. Instead, I change and customize (with player support) class abilities, races, and magic items with impunity. In general, I make things more flexible instead of less flexible.

The result? Anyone can sit down at my table and immediately know how to play the game, but it's going to become clear pretty quickly that we're not necessarily using a traditional D&D premise for the campaign.

 

[diaglo]

it is all guidelines

 

[jimtillman]

An interesting thought popped in my head the other day... How many people play D&D as written?

By that, I mean the following: uses all the default rules (no house rules), has all the default classes, races, and monsters "in world", keeps mostly to the D&D flavor text, etc. Additionally, if you use a setting, you keep it as close to cannon as possible (adding details, but not making major changes) Basically, a combination of Rules As Written and Setting as Described, with no major deviance from the core.

Anyone run a game like that?

mostly use rules as written, one of the mistakes I often see is dm's make is house rule something without really groking why a rule was the way it was and end up screwing up the game.

 

[Nellisir]

I always add (troldfolk, jotunkin, leshii) and subtract (halflings, half-orcs, tieflings) races; I often disallow monks; I pretty much always disallow psionics. I'll rewrite classes or add new ones as it seems appropriate. I rarely mess with the core mechanics, although I did to some degree in that later part of 3.5

 

[Tzarevitch]

When WotC stops using words like "the DM will adjudicate how this works" in their products I'll consider RAW. I usually give the players advance notice of the house rules at the beginning at the beginning of the campaign and then follow those and the published rules as RAW unless something is broken. I'm finishing my 4e campaign now and readying for my 5e campaign and I've been developing my houserule packet for that one. Oddly, I didn't have a need to in 4e because the rules were pretty precise (and the character builder didn't support house rules anyway). 5e is similar enough to 3e that I just dusted off most of my old 3e houserules and then added some more to reflect the new campaign.

 

[DammitVictor]

No, my house is where RAW goes to die. I simply hate-- hate hate hate-- 3e/5e style "multiclassing" and have replaced it with something more resembling AD&D's system. I want PC race to be a deeper, more flavorful choice, so I'm designing race-as-class rules to be used with the AD&D multiclassing. I rarely use established settings, and my custom settings usually involve elements that aren't neatly covered under standard D&D rules; my current game is a "shroompunk" (dark Mario Bros.) game, set between a modern, mostly realistic Earth and the Mushroom Kingdom with all of the custom races and monsters that entails.

If you think that's extensive, you should see what I did to 2e back in the day.

 

[BigVanVader]

my current game is a "shroompunk" (dark Mario Bros.) game, set between a modern, mostly realistic Earth and the Mushroom Kingdom with all of the custom races and monsters that entails.

If you think that's extensive, you should see what I did to 2e back in the day.

First: I wanna play, and be Bowser or Donkey Kong. Secondly, I assume you've made rules for the Buttstomp combat technique?

 

[aramis erak]

No, my house is where RAW goes to die. I simply hate-- hate hate hate-- 3e/5e style "multiclassing" and have replaced it with something more resembling AD&D's system. I want PC race to be a deeper, more flavorful choice, so I'm designing race-as-class rules to be used with the AD&D multiclassing. I rarely use established settings, and my custom settings usually involve elements that aren't neatly covered under standard D&D rules; my current game is a "shroompunk" (dark Mario Bros.) game, set between a modern, mostly realistic Earth and the Mushroom Kingdom with all of the custom races and monsters that entails.

If you think that's extensive, you should see what I did to 2e back in the day.

Rather not, thank-you... It sounds positively drastic. I did mangle 2E pretty well myself.

But I definitely fall in the category of "If the GM says «I've not run it yet, here's my house rules»" I don't walk away - I run away. Because, 99 of a hundred times, they are "fixing" things with patches more broken, and often fixing things that in fact are not broken at all. Especially when it's across-edition houserules.

 

[Skyscraper]

I see the rules as a bunch of elements to pick from. I usually don't mess with the mechanics (much), but in this particular instance, I plan on changing the races significantly (all human variants that deviate from the PHB races - mostly fluff); change the ability score generation rules; and play around with the overnight healing and HD recuperation.