D&D General Ignoring the rules!

[Bayushi_seikuro]

Meta though it might seem, this is one thing I've never minded; as I've always assumed the characters themselves can at least vaguely feel when they're coming due for another round of training and might need that one last little push off the cliff.

I don't know if it's 'meta', but since some people like to lay Real World over games sometimes, there are sometimes as people where we might feel we've learned enough that we can handle extra work duties, or handle training others. Sometimes it even manifests as a need or calling to just DROP careers and start over in some other field.

 

[Blue]

I don't know if it qualifies, but I can't remember the last time that we cared about non-expensive material components. And 5E alignment doesn't have any associated mechanics, so i don't know if we can call it a "rule" but we have certainly been ignoring it all edition.

It serves the same purpose as weapons. Biggest is that it allows a caster to be disarmed. So that it's possible to capture someone. Be it an NPC caster, or one of the PCs. It's useful for that once-a-campaign escape from capture scenario. It has smaller ones as well, such as taking up hands the same way a shield does, as a check on characters who can do everything.

 

[payn]

They certainly can; and while some nasty elements and places are "signposted" not all of them are, and if they get in over thier heads and don't quickly turn tail and run (for which there's almost always an opportunity) they're hosed.

This doesn't mesh somehow.

In-character, it only makes sense that the characters are going to - if given a choice - try to take on challenges they have reason to think they can handle, while leaving those they don't think they can handle to someone else.

I mean, if you're a 2nd-level party (any edition) and you've heard rumours about a band of Orcs raiding the highway, a band of Giants marauding in the mountains, and an ancient Lich stirring again in her tower - and assuming your party has a collective wisdom higher than that of a gas tank - which of those missions are you gonna take on?

That decision has nothing whatsoever to do with available xp or any other meta-concerns; it's an in-character decision based on what the characters think they can handle...and if they do decide to go after the Giants or the Lich then so be it; and we'll remember those characters fondly provided they've named us in their wills.

Yes, when you take the example completely out of proportion, it doesn't mesh.

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

The "bleeding out" or "death saving throw" rules: If a player-character is reduced to zero hit points or less (but not negative enough for instant death) then the player decides if and when the character dies. (And the GM does likewise in the case of NPCs). The character may die at once, linger just long enough for a dying speech, or cling to life long enough to recover - which may be days if the recovery is by natural healing.

Experience point awards: I use free-form, end-of-session awards that vary by maybe +/-25% each session from the base award but that don't change based on character level. My preference is that low-level characters should advance rapidly, mid-level characters should advance slowly, and high-level characters should advance glacially.

Point buy: I like point buy - but only for other RPG systems, not D&D. And I really dislike the "official" point buy options offered for D&D. I've settled on my own hybrid dice-and-points system, designed to avoid "every character must have a dump stat" and to allow the occasional fluke high ability score. (If you want to play a barbarian and the diced part of ability score generation gives you INT 17 - then you can play a barbarian with INT 17.)

My natural inclination is to write lots of house rules. Lots and lots and lots... But recently I've been making myself keep that tendency down to a dull roar.

 

[tetrasodium]

After reading the last eleven pages I'm going to add a rule I ignore... Milestones.

While xp may work great for you and your game, others can find it tedious and pointless.

They can ignore it in their games! And you can keep it in your yours!

Every DM can ignore the elements they don't like! Every DM is empowered to use their judgment to decide what to ignore and what to keep! Every DM can have it their way! Every DM can get what they want!

While milestones might work great for you and your group, others find it tedious and pointless having to regularly wait for or rebalance the session plans just because Bob knows being late or skipping again won't cost him progress.

 

[niklinna]

It serves the same purpose as weapons. Biggest is that it allows a caster to be disarmed. So that it's possible to capture someone. Be it an NPC caster, or one of the PCs. It's useful for that once-a-campaign escape from capture scenario. It has smaller ones as well, such as taking up hands the same way a shield does, as a check on characters who can do everything.

Now, now, now. The whole reason people choose the class that can do everything is so they can do everything! We can't have checks on that, else they wouldn't be able to do everything!

 

[DinoInDisguise]

rebalance the session plans just because Bob knows being late or skipping again won't cost him progress.

This is a player problem, in my opinion. You shouldn't have to use punishment mechanics to get a player to show up to the game. I'd also argue that such use is a bad reasoning for the inclusion of a mechanic.

And because I know I'll get push back on calling XP a punishment mechanic. I want to clarify that a "punishment mechanic" is any mechanic used to "punish" players for out of game behavior. XP could be one here, and not in another instance.

 

[tetrasodium]

This is a player problem, in my opinion. You shouldn't have to use punishment mechanics to get a player to show up to the game. I'd also argue that such use is a bad reasoning for the inclusion of a mechanic.

And because I know I'll get push back on calling XP a punishment mechanic. I want to clarify that a "punishment mechanic" is any mechanic used to "punish" players for out of game behavior. XP could be one here, and not in another instance.

No, it avoids needing to engage in any "punishment"... I cite Matt Mercer to save the precious keystrokes

Spoiler

Timestamped start at his reasoning

Experience points mean that I as the GM don't need to consider doing anything to punish "Steve" & nobody needs to feel slighted.

 

[Blue]

No, it avoids needing to engage in any "punishment"... I cite Matt Mercer to save the precious keystrokes

Spoiler

Timestamped start at his reasoning

Experience points mean that I as the GM don't need to consider doing anything to punish "Steve" & nobody needs to feel slighted.

Hard disagree because it's all intent and how you are using it.

You mention the reason you are avoiding Milestone is because your problem player would show up late without feeling a penalty.

So you are moving from a system where everyone progresses in lockstep to one where a player exhibiting behavior you don't like will progress slower.

Lie to yourself if you'd like, but "if you do this behavior I dislike your character will fall behind" objectively is being used as a punishment. Regardless if XP can be use in a non-punishment way, the specifics of what you laid out is absolutely punishing them.

Question, you said: "Experience points mean that I as the GM don't need to consider doing anything to punish "Steve" & nobody needs to feel slighted."

If you told your players, including "Steve", I switched to XP because I don't want those who show up late to keep up with the rest of the party, do you think they would be slighted knowing your actual intent? I think they might.

 

[DinoInDisguise]

No, it avoids needing to engage in any "punishment"... I cite Matt Mercer to save the precious keystrokes

Spoiler

Timestamped start at his reasoning

Experience points mean that I as the GM don't need to consider doing anything to punish "Steve" & nobody needs to feel slighted.

I'm not here to argue the merits of XP vs Milestone. That is a topic not worth debating, as the pros and cons of each are widely known.

I am only stating that in-game "solutions" to out of game problems, are always a bad idea. They simply don't work. They create animosity and just kick the issue down the road.

EDIT: Blue largely said what I wanted to, but much better xD.