StreamOfTheSky
Adventurer
On the other hand, if you use him/her enough times, you can just copy/paste it.
Let's rant! When house rules get stoopid...
- Thread starter Cryohaggar
- Start date
On the other hand, if you use him/her enough times, you can just copy/paste it.
Dandu
First Post
That... might actually be a reason in its favor.
Also, them is grammatically incorrect. The word you are looking for is "he".
ValhallaGH
Explorer
Or she.
Historically, the masculine form was also used for gender-neutral in English. That recently went through a reversal, partly due to the political correctness movement.
The current guidelines are less clear-cut. He, she, she/he, he/she, are all considered equally valid from a technical stand-point (various groups have their objections).
Of course, if you look to precedent to solve the quandry then you come right back to the masculine form.
StreamOfTheSky
Adventurer
I'm also partial to usages that employ the fact he is fully part of she, such as s/he and (s)he.
"Hir" for people who don't fit neatly as male or female (and by extension, works quite well online when you just plain don't know) I don't mind using, either.
Shakespeare is an overrated hack.
I'll prove it:
When Shakespeare goes and "invents" a word or spelling that previously didn't exist, he's called "creative." When a regular person does that today, it's called "slang."
The first three of these rules were implemented by a GM of mine, who took them from another group in which he played. The fourth rule was one that simply came from another group I was in for a short period of time.
House rule one, the DM of the other group had created a new alignment called "Chaotic A**hole" and of course, it seemed that the DM in our campaign was doing his best to run the game as if that were his alignment...
Another rule that was just ridiculous, at least in how it was executed: when rolling up character's, if you rolled doubles, they counted as one die and you could roll again. Rolling 4d6, taking three highest, for example, if you rolled a 3, 3, 6, 6; you would have a 6, a 12, and would get to roll two more d6 to pick the highest. It could get pretty overpowered, and one guy legitimately started with a 26 or 28 dex, if I recall correctly. 4,4, 6, 6, and the third dice was a 6 or two 4s or something.
Third rule was just a bit silly; needless work. Initiative was determined in a long manner, with the DM rolling a d6; even meant highest init went first, odd meant lowest went first. If he rolled odd on the dice, your initiative bonus was subtracted from your dice roll; if he rolled even, your initiative bonus added to your initiative as normal. Initiative was rolled with d12, rather than d20, and was rolled each round of combat.
Another rule from another game I was in (very) briefly, was mostly for the DM's friends. It was a mixed game at the local gaming store, partly made of friends from his home area, and the rest of the party made up of those of us who frequented the store. The rule was something he called the Lazarus bonus, or some such pretentious title; if he felt a character had been truly heroic, the gods could grant a spontaneous resurrection. I'll leave it to you to figure out which of the party members qualified for that res the most.
House rule one, the DM of the other group had created a new alignment called "Chaotic A**hole" and of course, it seemed that the DM in our campaign was doing his best to run the game as if that were his alignment...
Another rule that was just ridiculous, at least in how it was executed: when rolling up character's, if you rolled doubles, they counted as one die and you could roll again. Rolling 4d6, taking three highest, for example, if you rolled a 3, 3, 6, 6; you would have a 6, a 12, and would get to roll two more d6 to pick the highest. It could get pretty overpowered, and one guy legitimately started with a 26 or 28 dex, if I recall correctly. 4,4, 6, 6, and the third dice was a 6 or two 4s or something.
Third rule was just a bit silly; needless work. Initiative was determined in a long manner, with the DM rolling a d6; even meant highest init went first, odd meant lowest went first. If he rolled odd on the dice, your initiative bonus was subtracted from your dice roll; if he rolled even, your initiative bonus added to your initiative as normal. Initiative was rolled with d12, rather than d20, and was rolled each round of combat.
Another rule from another game I was in (very) briefly, was mostly for the DM's friends. It was a mixed game at the local gaming store, partly made of friends from his home area, and the rest of the party made up of those of us who frequented the store. The rule was something he called the Lazarus bonus, or some such pretentious title; if he felt a character had been truly heroic, the gods could grant a spontaneous resurrection. I'll leave it to you to figure out which of the party members qualified for that res the most.
Celebrim
Legend
Hmmmm... all those rules seem pretty bad but I can concieve at least of why a DM would do this one. This is the sort of rule that DM's pull out when he has cheaters at the table and he doesn't feel comfortable confronting them. Of all the rolls that a player does, the two that matter most to cheaters are iniative rolls and saving throws, and of the two, the one that annoys DM's the most is initiative rolls. The reason cheaters cheat on initiative is that in many combats, the side that wins initiative has a huge advantage. Many D&D combats are over in 1-3 rounds, so the side that wins initiative advantage gets effectively 50% or 100% more damage inflicted than the side that loses.
One of the ways to get around cheaters indirectly is to impose rolls like this were the cheater doesn't know whether to report a high roll or a low roll for his check. You can do something take a cup and turn it over without revealing the dice, and the cheater doesn't know whether to report he rolled high or low (doing it like this is the best method, because the first instinct of a cheater is to project on to the DM his own faults). Hense, you've stopped the cheater from stealing spotlight from the other players and reducing the game state to a degenerate one without having to confront the player directly and risking a friendship, wrecking the social dynamics of the table, etc. Usually cheaters are pretty smart players, so if you pull this kind of rule out, they'll probably figure out why you did it hopefully be impressed with your fairness and in some cases clean up their acts.
The other aspect of this rule, initiative changing every round is one I've often been tempted to use because it makes the events of a round more surprising. The main reason I don't is that its just a huge burden in book keeping and dice rolling and that mitigates against everything you gain. However, in formal duels between two combatants I do often use the initiative changes every round rule to increase the tactical complexity and interest of the fight.
I once made a houserule that Magic Missle (in 3.0) allowed a save. After trying it, I can safely say this was a huge mistake. MM may be more powerful than other spells of it's level, but is balanced in context.
This one definitely holds a respectable place on the “10 worst house rules ever” list.
- So much text just to say HP.
- I doubt even the writer has all the nuances figured out and memorized (not to mention play-tested), making this set of rules probably incomplete even within itself.
- It contributes absolutely nothing as far as game experience goes (realism, options, dynamics etc). The core mechanics already cover all suggested aspects.
- Adopting this set of rules would slow down combat to a crawl and make numeric tracking a nightmare. Out of combat tracking would not be fun either.
- Even if one could somehow manage it all, any other house rule would have to take it into account.
Did I miss anything ?
Did I miss anything ?
