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

[Faolyn]

Well, the "house" in house rule is the DM's house. Players are welcome to ask or suggest that a particular house rule be added or removed, but the decision must be the DM's alone IMO. When a DM, even out of a desire to appease and ensure that everyone feels heard, allows the ship to be pushed and pulled too much by the players, the ship runs aground and sinks. It may not feel democratic to ever silence debate, may leave a bad taste in one's mouth, but it's necessary. We can try to imagine it otherwise, try to manifest something better and more evolved, but we're only fooling ourselves when we do.

If you run your game in someone else's home, does the person who lives in that house get to make houserules?

Honestly, I've had nothing but good experiences with players suggesting house rules, or the entire group working together to make one. All you need is a group where everyone trusts each other to work towards making the game better.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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

I don't see why a clear houserule wouldn't be a cleaner solution to the problem.

 

[Faolyn]

Why would the kobold necessarily have a magic dagger customized to their needs? To me it makes more sense for them to just use the best tool they have available, especially as the dort of item you're describing would IMO require a significant magical forging infrastructure to create. How important is this kobold that he gets such a thing, and how would he have come by it? I would want those questions answered.

Our priorities are, I suspect, very far away from each other.

Kobolds are smart enough to use magic (even if they've been made less intelligent in recent editions). Therefore, they are smart enough to make magic weapons (especially since there's no longer a need for high-level enchant a weapon or permanency spells like in AD&D, or XP expenditure like in 3x.). If you use a more mythical ways of making magic items ("footfall of a cat" type of thing), then kobolds are certainly capable of gathering materials that could make a dagger of tunnels. Kobolds are communal enough so that the maker would give it to whoever would make best use of it, or sell it to whoever paid the best price or commissioned. And heck, you play Level Up--go look at the weapon materials list. That +1 dagger could be made of stone, bone, or horn, if you don't think kobolds have metallurgy.

 

[Deset Gled]

Honestly, I've had nothing but good experiences with players suggesting house rules, or the entire group working together to make one.

I've definitely seen players suggest house rules in bad faith (or at least munchkin oriented towards their character), or groups get an idea in their collective head that sounds good but really isn't. So, while it's preferable to have the whole group support all the house rules, it's also one of the places where I see the DMs role as final arbitrator to be necessary.

 

[Lanefan]

Honestly, I've had nothing but good experiences with players suggesting house rules, or the entire group working together to make one.

My experience here has been mixed. I remember back in the 80s sitting around on numerous occasions with our DM and a few other players over far too much tea, shooting the breeze about all sorts of different rules ideas. Some great and fondly-remembered conversations but I'm not sure how many functional ideas came out of them.

All you need is a group where everyone trusts each other to work towards making the game better.

Which sounds great in theory.

In practice, however, there's a split: what makes the game better for the players might very well not make the game better as a whole.

It's in the general collective interest of the players to make the game easier on them and-or their characters, and so rule changes that do so are what they'll tend to advocate; but continually and gradually making the game easier isn't necessarily the avenue to a better overall game in the long run. Eventually, too-easy just becomes boring, and then bang goes engagement and interest.

And so in light of this it's usually the DM who has to push back, and there's where the split arises.

 

[kermit4karate]

If you run your game in someone else's home, does the person who lives in that house get to make houserules?

Honestly, I've had nothing but good experiences with players suggesting house rules, or the entire group working together to make one. All you need is a group where everyone trusts each other to work towards making the game better.

Honest question, so in good faith here, did you think I meant the use of the word "house" literally?

 

[Thomas Shey]

How would that work?

Sometimes it won't. It depends on the specific problem area. Its most useful when its addressing a special case that applies to a character concept one has, where if there's another way to get there, that's the thing to do.

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.

This isn't a great solution to that one, but its a functional one: get an Invisibility item so you don't have to deal with it. It sidesteps the whole stealth system. (Note, again, this is for cases when someone isn't going to have the option of just declaring a houserule, such as the case where its a player who thinks the extent stealth rules are just dandy).

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.

See above. I'm talking cases where its "Put up with it, leave, or find a workaround". The invisibility example is far from ideal but it still might be better than dealing with it or leaving.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I don't see why a clear houserule wouldn't be a cleaner solution to the problem.

Come on, man, I've explained that multiple times: because players don't get to just declare houserules. Heck, under a few situations, even GMs may not get to.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I've definitely seen players suggest house rules in bad faith (or at least munchkin oriented towards their character), or groups get an idea in their collective head that sounds good but really isn't. So, while it's preferable to have the whole group support all the house rules, it's also one of the places where I see the DMs role as final arbitrator to be necessary.

On the other hand I've seen GMs get an idea of a houserule that seemed good on paper, but created serious problems in play because they didn't see all the implications and interactions. They may be somewhat less likely to be tunnel-visioned to their own fun (note, however, the "may") but they don't necessarily understand rules interactions better than a player who's really into rules.

 

[kermit4karate]

Since this thread is the gift that keeps on giving , here's a different angle on the whole "who gets to choose the house rules?" convo:

Is it fair to say that all DMs are different, have different strengths/weaknesses and different styles? If so, would it also be fair to say that the same house rule, then, might affect gameplay differently between games run by different DMs? For instance, some DMs excel at combat. Others excel at narrative play.

Would it not be wise to let the person running the game have the final say in which house rules they use?

I mean, I think I excel at fast play. If something forces me to slow down, like to stop to look something up in a manual, I think everyone at the table suffers. It breaks the flow and rhythm I have where I think I do my best work.

So, if the table were to vote and politely insist that we implement a particular house rule, but the rule will slow gameplay down, who benefits? I've been running one game for 13 years with the same group of people. Would they know better than I do which house rules we should use?