D&D General Ignoring the rules!

[Quickleaf]

Let's talk about ignoring rules and how great it is! Don't like a rule? Just ignore it. Great DMs have been ignoring rules for decades!

Think gold for EXP is dumb? Don't do it!
Hate level limits for races? Gone!
Is a high level spell breaking your game? If you never cast it, does it exist?
Is a subsystem subpar? Slice it out of your game!

What rules have you kicked out of your game???

Fifth additions, chase rules. After trying them twice, I kicked them to the curb, wrote my own rules and never look back.

 

[cbwjm]

All alignment "rules" were gone long ago, replaced with "let's figure out what makes sense for your specific character."

And the usual ignoring of encumbrance beyond "just don't be silly" and needing a free hand for certain spells: if you're holding a focus, even if it doubles as a shield or weapon, you're all set.

Oh yeah, alignment, that's something I don't bother with any more in most cases, I tend to instead use descriptors for a general idea of personality so that an order cleric might be focused on law and justice rather than writing lawful whatever on the sheet. I think my players might still note it down but I never really bring it up when running a game.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Oh yeah, alignment, that's something I don't bother with any more in most cases, I tend to instead use descriptors for a general idea of personality so that an order cleric might be focused on law and justice rather than writing lawful whatever on the sheet. I think my players might still note it down but I never really bring it up when running a game.

You can write "chaotic" on your character sheet, but I'm not going to give it more weight than if you wrote "whimsical."

(Although circle of protection against whimsy is a spell; it keeps out gnomes, bards, cute goblins, and anything stacked in a trench coat).

 

[DEFCON 1]

So... we can have rules instead of rulings back in the rulebooks, right? Because you can just ignore them?

Sure. They just won't be the rules that YOU want though... they'll be the rules the designers decide to make.

You then have to decide whether to use those rules, make rulings about them so it ends up closer to what you'd prefer, or ignore them altogether and make up your own.

Pretty much what we have now.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Sure. They just won't be the rules that YOU want though... they'll be the rules the designers decide to make.

You then have to decide whether to use those rules, make rulings about them so it ends up closer to what you'd prefer, or ignore them altogether and make up your own.

Pretty much what we have now.

This is way too complicated a means of saying 'absolutely not'.

 

[MichaelSomething]

This is way too complicated a means of saying 'absolutely not'.

Not "way too complicated," "Gygaxain."

 

[TwoSix]

Xp - and more importantly, individual xp - always makes sense unless you want to encourage the playing of hang-back take-no-risk characters.

Modern play encourages risk-taking by simply alleviating the penalties for risky play. The worst thing that happens is that you die, and you get to make a new character with your new book at the same level you were before.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Our collective inability to leave space for things other than our own personal proclivities is an eternal drag on the RPG community.

It would have taken just three words to leave that space here, but who cares about anyone else, if we can stake our territory on all of gaming! Amirite?

Or, one could rather simply save themselves some self-inflicted frustration and instead interpret @Lanefan’s assertion more charitably by inserting the unspoken “in my opinion”.

(Btw, @Lanefan, I respectfully disagree with your assertion… IMO.)

 

[Oofta]

I don't use XP, and haven't for a few versions now. I ignore having a free hand if they're holding weapon and/ or shield. I don't pay any attention to alignment for PCs other than general no evil. I'm also not too concerned about swapping weapons or stowing a shield before climbing.

I'm sure I'm probably forgetting something, but that's what I can think of off the top of my head.

 

[Lanefan]

Modern play encourages risk-taking by simply alleviating the penalties for risky play.

Except then it ain't all that risky, is it?

The worst thing that happens is that you die, and you get to make a new character with your new book at the same level you were before.

"At the same level [as] before" - is that RAW in any edition, or is everyone left to decide on a by-table basis?

In the early editions the default - hinted at but maybe not hard-coded in the rules - was that you started over at 1st level.

We have it that you start a level lower than the party average.