D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[kermit4karate]

Sometimes you don't pay attention, Micah. I've mentioned that I've used house rules for my whole career in the hobby.

What I won't assume is that everyone complaining simply has the option to put in a house rule. Because not everyone, I'd care to bet not even the majority, can. They can, at best, try to convince their GM to do so with no assurance that will happen. And as such, its often a largely useless response.

If you don't accept that as a legitimate objection you don't, but let's not act like it indicates a hostility to house rules; it just indicates cynicism that its a useful response in many if not most cases.

Mr. Shey, I know I'm not the person this was directed toward, but it's a public forum and I'm following along. With all due respect, I think most people reading this thread understand the point you're making -- that relying on house rules is fundamentally unfair because players aren't able to invoke them like DMs are when they feel the need to.

I think the disconnect here that's causing a bit of tension is because, only speaking for myself now, you're stating the obvious. Yes, DMs get to pick/choose which house rules they want to use and players don't. That's been the standard for half a century. And?

Do you think it would consistently work to have the players around the table -- every table -- have the final say in which house rules the table followed? Because I don't. Would it work sometimes with some groups? Of course. Would it work most of the time? No, not even most of the time. Most of the time letting the players vote/choose which house rules they wanted to follow would not work well for multiple reasons. Most of them are players, after all, not DMs. Most players lack the experience being a DM and aren't even qualified -- yes, I realize that that will set some people off -- to make the determination.

All of these issues were anticipated way, way back in the day when they came up with the idea for a DM. It just works. It mirrors most activities in society. In real life, everyone almost always follows rules enforced by someone else, and we don't all get a vote on everything. Representative government and all, not a pure democracy.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Mr. Shey, I know I'm not the person this was directed toward, but it's a public forum and I'm following along. With all due respect, I think most people reading this thread understand the point you're making -- that relying on house rules is fundamentally unfair because players aren't able to invoke them like DMs are when they feel the need to.

Then they'd be incorrect. That is not and has not been my point. I also disagree with your last paragraph but see no useful point in responding to it.

 

[Cadence]

Sometimes you don't pay attention, Micah. I've mentioned that I've used house rules for my whole career in the hobby.

What I won't assume is that everyone complaining simply has the option to put in a house rule. Because not everyone, I'd care to bet not even the majority, can. They can, at best, try to convince their GM to do so with no assurance that will happen. And as such, its often a largely useless response.

If you don't accept that as a legitimate objection you don't, but let's not act like it indicates a hostility to house rules; it just indicates cynicism that its a useful response in many if not most cases.

I'm kind of confused about the difference between a work around and a houserule. I mean, I assume it is a matter of degree. Is reskinning a workaround or houserule usually, for example?

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm kind of confused about the difference between a work around and a houserule. I mean, I assume it is a matter of degree. Is reskinning a workaround or houserule usually, for example?

A workaround uses other extent rules to bypass (to some degree) the problematic ones. It doesn't actually change any rules.

 

[Lanefan]

So, high level, what are the objectives of a D&D game?

Super high level?

1. Ensure that everyone has fun.
2. Prevent chaos (see: #1 above).

Change "Prevent" to "Embrace" there and you've got it bang on.

 

[Lanefan]

@Lanefan runs multi-year campaigns in a homebrew system that is only tangentially related to D&D. I don't think that's an unfair characterization.

Take a look at our system sometime - it's probably closer-related to TSR-era D&D than you realize.

www.friendsofgravity.com/games then "commons room"; then "blue books" for (very setting-specific) player-side stuff and "DM stuff" for DM-side.

 

[Maxperson]

OK, but that's not what I see. Have you actually read all 2262 pages...of this thread?? I see some militantly pedantic ruleism.

Yes, I just coined that phrase, but you can borrow it.

I think that's more because people get entrenched in their arguments about X, Y or Z. Folks challenge those ideas, they defend, the defense gets challenged, and suddenly the argument appears to be very much only about realism being the king of kings.

When these discussions get boiled down and mixed in with other discussions, you'll see that folks aren't as militantly pedantic about ruleism as you think.

 

[AlViking]

A workaround uses other extent rules to bypass (to some degree) the problematic ones. It doesn't actually change any rules.

How would that work? For example, I dislike the stealth rules in the 2024 PHB that states that the hide action requires a DC 15 stealth check no matter who you are hiding from. In addition if one enemy notices you, all enemies notice you. My house rule that it's an opposed check against each enemy's passive perception (basically the 2014 rules). I can't resolve the issue without changing the rule and I don't understand how that would ever work. Either you abide by the literal rules of the game or you don't. Occasionally there's some wiggle room and interpretation, but frequently there is not.

 

[Maxperson]

I want to keep this discussion civil because I really do enjoy it. That said, I have to inquire about that last comment. Hard to still find joy at that +1 sword after 40 years of finding them?

The joy comes down to the game, right? Haven't you run campaigns where magic was rare and the entire story would turn on the littlest of things (like that +1 sword)? When a werebear terrorizes the woods around the village and one of the players finds Emberfang or Dawnbreaker (the simple +1 sword) and can now face the werebear without needing silver...you can't tell me that doesn't still feel a little awesome even after 40 years.

I blame 3.5e and onward for that mentality, really. During 1e and 2e, any magic sword was prized because it meant being able to hurt things that were immune to anything needing a +1 or higher to hurt.

3e continued that feeling by making DR 15/+1, 30/+2 and the like. Once 3.5e came around and any old magic sword would harm things up to highest power levels, it started meaning less. Couple that with the sheer number of minor magic items 3.5e generated and if you played by RAW, you could end up coming back from a dungeon with a dozen +1 weapons of various types.

What that did was completely kill the magic of finding magic items. After a while of DMing, I just stopped handing out magic items like butter. Instead of a group finding a +1 weapon, a ring of jumping, and Bracers of Spider Climbing, they would find Arachnid, the +1 Short Sword that enabled it's wielder to Jump 3/day and Spider Climb 1/day. Fewer magic items found, a much higher quality magic item, and the same number of expected magic items abilities. Instantly the players started coveting magic items again and were thrilled when they found one.

 

[Cadence]

Wrong thread!