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

[CreamCloud0]

This is not an issue with the fact that the fighter in heavy armor isn't going to be great at stealth,

tangential thought, i think it's way past time DnD got past the rut that all heavy armour gets stealth disadvantage, heavy armour isn't so significantly better than medium just cause the highest AC you can get is better by 1 that all it's options needs that millstone, despite the natural implication that because it's the next tier up it's therefore an upgrade, heavy and medium are more of a parallel progression, in fact, considering all the other benefits DEX provides it's probably a valid interpretation that medium is actually the preferable of the two if your build offers the option.

just do what what medium does and have 'second best' armour lack the stealth disadvantage, so it's an actual choice if you want stealth with lower AC or be the clanking tank.

 

[Thomas Shey]

So your position is, " I don't like the traditional GM/player power dynamic and want it to be different"? You should have just said that in the first place. It would have saved a lot of confusion.

Given I've expressed that position multiple times in this thread...

But in this particular context, it almost doesn't matter; the point was that getting into houserules as a discussion of problem areas isn't the all purpose power tool; its mostly only relevant to GMs, and not always even then. My feelings about the GM/player dynamic are almost a side gig. My position regarding this is "saying what house rules you've used to address a problem is frequently useless to the person you're responding to, because they don't get to engage house rules".

 

[Thomas Shey]

I normally assume that if we are at the point of talking about rules problems that the possible approximations have been considered and already rejected. If they were accepted then it wouldn’t be much of a rules problem anymore?

I think that's a big assume. In some cases the person talking about it may not have thought about all the workarounds.

One might also suggest refluffing over outright houseruling, though refluffing usually involves some minor houserule to function as well.

In any event the suggesting of some other rules route to achieve something is valid but it’s not a likely to be applicable in most situations.

When talking to a non-GM, its more likely to be applicable than "I solved this with this house rule."

I think the question is really, what about when there isn’t any other acceptable path to the goal? Isn’t it just houserule/symapthy/or disagreement that such is a problem in the first place? That’s really the only high level paths available right?

Probably. What I'm suggesting is that not all those three are created equal.

 

[Thomas Shey]

If the DM is consistently implementing house rules the players don't like they likely won't have a group for long. I think the majority of GMs want the rest of the group to have fun and enjoy the game they're playing together. Do you really assume the majority of GM's are power hungry bastards?

I think you seriously underestimate what players will put up with if they have limited options when to play. A set of house rules has to be massively off-putting before that will get a lot of players to jump ship. Its a little less true in the age of VTT play, but not everyone can or is willing to go there.

The DMG talks about house rules - that you ask the players about it and if it doesn't work change it. I've always assumed that's what most GMs do.

Given we've had at least two in this thread that outright said they don't consult with their players about them...

*With the exception, for the most part, of public games. With 4e, there were also limited house rules because of the nature of the way the game worked.

Edit - I was only asking about invisibility because you stated "A workaround uses other extent rules to bypass (to some degree) the problematic ones. It doesn't actually change any rules." I don't need to make a big deal out of this, I just disagree. House rules (and rulings) are part of how almost all D&D games I've played work.

I've never denied that. I've denied they're much of a solution for most players who have limited (or no) ability to impliment house rules by themselves. I think the assumption they'll be able to convince a GM to impliment a house rule they happened to hear about from someone on the Internet is a big reach.

 

[AlViking]

tangential thought, i think it's way past time DnD got past the rut that all heavy armour gets stealth disadvantage, heavy armour isn't so significantly better than medium just cause the highest AC you can get is better by 1 that all it's options needs that millstone, despite the natural insinuation that because it's the next tier up it's therefore an upgrade, heavy and medium are more of a parallel progression, in fact, considering all the other benefits DEX provides it's probably a valid interpretation that medium is actually the preferable of the two if your build offers the option.

just do what what medium does and have 'second best' armour lack the stealth disadvantage, so it's an actual choice if you want stealth with lower AC or be the clanking tank.

I agree, especially something like chain mail shouldn't have that much of a penalty. Even plate armor could have special padding or felt added to reduce noise without significantly reducing effectiveness.

Meanwhile I make mithral armor readily available.

 

[AlViking]

I think you seriously underestimate what players will put up with if they have limited options when to play. A set of house rules has to be massively off-putting before that will get a lot of players to jump ship. Its a little less true in the age of VTT play, but not everyone can or is willing to go there.

One of the reasons I started DMing was so that I didn't have to put up with a bad DM. Which was unfortunate honestly, I think the DM was just burned out but wasn't mature enough to just explain it to us. In other cases the DM just didn't work for me so I found another group. No game is better than a bad game.

Of course the first thing I would suggest would be to have a conversation offline and explain the issues and see if they can be resolved. Meanwhile you're assuming that I've always had plenty of options of what group I join, that's rarely been the case for me either. Still doesn't change my opinion.

Given we've had at least two in this thread that outright said they don't consult with their players about them...

I think at least one of those is tongue and cheek. But even if there are some DMs who don't consult, so what? I think they should at the very least explain what they do and why. If you're like me where I DM for multiple groups there's going to be times when I just explain "This is what I do and why". If I try something and it doesn't make the game more enjoyable for the majority (which may well mean some individuals don't like it) then I'll try something else. My goal is to run the best game I can, I'm not worried about the rare tyrannical DM who doesn't care what their players think.

I've never denied that. I've denied they're much of a solution for most players who have limited (or no) ability to impliment house rules by themselves. I think the assumption they'll be able to convince a GM to impliment a house rule they happened to hear about from someone on the Internet is a big reach.

If I allowed players to implement their own house rules I would have had werewolves that were immune to most damage (with no real penalty) along with other power grabs or builds that made no sense for the shared campaign world. On the other hand they can always suggest house rules and we'll discuss it. I just reserve the right to say no.

 

[Maxperson]

And when I have evidence the majority of GMs are good at that, I'll consider it more of an answer.

You have as much evidence that DMs are good at that as you do that they are bad at that, which is to say pretty much none. Our experiences are minimal at best given the sheer number of DMs out there across the wide world.

In my personal experience, most DMs do listen. Other folks have a different experience.

 

[James Gasik]

Ok so, let's say that, I don't know, 75% of DM's are good DM's who don't need to share authority because they're so good that their players trust them absolutely. And 75% of players are good players who can be trusted to play their characters correctly without looking for exploits and don't need a DM to have absolute authority because they're so good that their DM's trust them absolutely.

We can just throw the 25% of the population we don't want on a starship and blast them off into space, and there'd be no reason not to have utopian games where everyone contributes to the game!

...and then hope we don't die from a plague brought on by unsold game products or something.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Ok so, let's say that, I don't know, 75% of DM's are good DM's who don't need to share authority because they're so good that their players trust them absolutely. And 75% of players are good players who can be trusted to play their characters correctly without looking for exploits and don't need a DM to have absolute authority because they're so good that their DM's trust them absolutely.

We can just throw the 25% of the population we don't want on a starship and blast them off into space, and there'd be no reason not to have utopian games where everyone contributes to the game!

...and then hope we don't die from a plague brought on by unsold game products or something.

Or dirty telephones.

 

[AlViking]

Ok so, let's say that, I don't know, 75% of DM's are good DM's who don't need to share authority because they're so good that their players trust them absolutely. And 75% of players are good players who can be trusted to play their characters correctly without looking for exploits and don't need a DM to have absolute authority because they're so good that their DM's trust them absolutely.

We can just throw the 25% of the population we don't want on a starship and blast them off into space, and there'd be no reason not to have utopian games where everyone contributes to the game!

...and then hope we don't die from a plague brought on by unsold game products or something.

Over the course of decades of D&D play I've never had a DM that truly shared authority. Even with my wife, she and I share the same handful of core house rules (it makes life much easier), she still makes rulings now and then I disagree with and it's fine. Typically we discuss house rules, but the DM makes the final call. If it's something I really disagree with we discuss it after the game and I explain why, just like with every other DM.

But either I've just been fantastically lucky or the number of bad DMs is far, far lower then 25%. Do DMs sometimes make house rules or rulings I disagree with? Of course, any time you have a group activity with rules this complex and flexible there's going to inevitably be compromises. But over many, many years the number of truly bad DMs (and running a game theme I don't like doesn't count) who don't listen to feedback and don't seem to care about what the players want has been virtually nonexistent. Do they run the game exactly the way I would? No. They don't have to.

Meanwhile there have been several occasions where there was one problematic player or one that was always pushing the limits for the benefit to their character. It was far better to have a GM that had the authority built in to the assumptions of the game that could deal with it.