Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Kichwas" data-source="post: 54915" data-attributes="member: 891">If I were you (and I was when I first got back in to DnD with 3E) here's how I would handle it:1. I would announce a zero house rules policy. Until the DM knows a rule very well, they're better off not modifying it. Especially if the desire to modify it comes from one of their players.Tell them in no uncertain terms that will automaticly reject any request for rule changes or customization. Even if you like the idea. Until you know the rules past your own comfort zone. At that point you will announce your receptivness to the ideas. But before that announcement they had better not even talk about house rules in front of you.2. I would pick out a player in the group who did know the rules very well and appoint that person rules advisor. Then use them for all they were worth as much as I could.In fact in my games I often hold the game a moment when there is a dispute until I can get someone to quote me something.The result is that at first the person may think they've been handed a lot of power; but soon they start to gain that sense of fairness a good DM has, and they work for you.It's also fun to see their reactions the first time some rule they quoted to gain advantage is quoted by you back at them later on with you using against them. That reaction alone can be a real judge of a player's quality.As well people learn to make sure they really don't know a rule before they start arguing about it. Because with every argument they all end waiting around. So the frivilous ones tade to fade out and get replaced by the ones where the entire group is actually unclear on how to handle a situation. Again in the end resulting in tricking them into cooperating.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Kichwas, post: 54915, member: 891"] If I were you (and I was when I first got back in to DnD with 3E) here's how I would handle it: 1. I would announce a zero house rules policy. Until the DM knows a rule very well, they're better off not modifying it. Especially if the desire to modify it comes from one of their players. Tell them in no uncertain terms that will automaticly reject any request for rule changes or customization. Even if you like the idea. Until you know the rules past your own comfort zone. At that point you will announce your receptivness to the ideas. But before that announcement they had better not even talk about house rules in front of you. 2. I would pick out a player in the group who did know the rules very well and appoint that person rules advisor. Then use them for all they were worth as much as I could. In fact in my games I often hold the game a moment when there is a dispute until I can get someone to quote me something. The result is that at first the person may think they've been handed a lot of power; but soon they start to gain that sense of fairness a good DM has, and they work for you. It's also fun to see their reactions the first time some rule they quoted to gain advantage is quoted by you back at them later on with you using against them. That reaction alone can be a real judge of a player's quality. As well people learn to make sure they really don't know a rule before they start arguing about it. Because with every argument they all end waiting around. So the frivilous ones tade to fade out and get replaced by the ones where the entire group is actually unclear on how to handle a situation. Again in the end resulting in tricking them into cooperating. [/QUOTE]

Verification