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

[James Gasik]

Or dirty telephones.

Well yeah, but the analogy breaks down- we don't even have public phones anymore!

 

[James Gasik]

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.

I have no idea how many bad DM's there are out there. I might be a statistical outlier because I've met far more bad to mediocre DM's than good ones, lol. I will say though, that while I do let my players vote on things, especially my houserules, and I listen to their input, the times I've been forced to share authority have chafed me. Like public play, when I'm hamstrung by not being able to make rulings, or limited in how much I can tailor the adventure to match the group.

Or the few times I've dabbled with shared campaigns, which inevitably leads to bickering (the first time I did it, everyone complained that I "gave out too much gold" despite following the rulebooks' guidance).

Or my once foray into being a DM-for-hire. I eventually had to turn down 100 bucks a session, just because the player footing my bill kept demanding preferential treatment since he was paying for the game.

 

[CreamCloud0]

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.

if i had my way with the armour system here's a post i've made before on what i'd do with it

out of curiosity, what did you end up swapping it for?

honestly i think if the armour tables had been distributed differently chain shirt could've actually 'served a purpose', so if we'd had:

Medium Armour	AC	Strength	Stealth
Hide	12+DEX(+2)	-	-
Ring Mail	14	STR 11	Disadvantage
Chain Shirt	13+DEX(+2)	-	-
Scale Mail	14+DEX(+2)	-	Disadvantage
Chain Mail	16	STR 14	Disadvantage

then shirt would've been 'the best' available medium armour that doesn't impose stealth disadvantage, while the other four armours provide STR and DEX options for medium starter armour and later progression, each armour in this table has it's own 'niche', and then maybe for heavy armour...

Heavy Armour	AC	Strength	Stealth
Spiked Armour	13+DEX(+3)	-	Disadvantage
Breastplate	14+DEX(+2)	-	-
Splint	17	STR 13	-
Half Plate	15+DEX(+3)	-	Disadvantage
Full Plate	18	STR 15	Disadvantage

now here's where i've made a few minor tweaks, i bumped spiked's base AC down one but increased it's and half plate's DEX bonuses which can now go up to +3, and i've removed splint's disadvantage on stealth, again providing an array of options for STR and DEX builds and if you prioritize stealth, then to round it off my shield table.

Shields	AC	Strength	Stealth
Buckler	+1, Hands Free*	-	-
Shield	+2	-	-
Tower Shield	+3, Versatile(+4)	STR 14	Disadvantage

*if you have shield proficiency you can equip bucklers, they do not take up a hand slot so are a passive AC boost but they do prevent you from equipping other shields while worn, they count as having a shield equipped for any feature that requires that.

 

[James Gasik]

I'm a heretic. I'd rather have AC be a function of your class and not even have armor rules. I mean, how many fictional heroes (the ones D&D tries to emulate, that is) are running around out there with no or limited armor?

And increases to AC come from class levels, so a Fighter is going to get a lot more AC from levels than say, a Wizard. Thus if you're meant to be able to stand in the front line, the game gives you the AC you need. If not, it doesn't. No fuss, no muss, no arguments about stealth or gymnastics or if you sink or swim.

 

[Faolyn]

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.

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.

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.

I must've critically succeeded on my "Find Party" roll because we will give suggestions for things that will make the game better, not just benefit the players.

Mind, we don't make houserules often--we have a tiny handful across all the different systems we play--but when we do, we do so in good faith.

It's in the general collective interest of the players to make the game easier on them and-or their characters,

See, that assumes they're in a game with an antagonistic GM or "neutral referee" (which IMO isn't really neutral because you made the adventure and put everything in it). In a game where the GM and players work together ("GM is a fan of the players"), IME you don't get that nearly as much.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I must've critically succeeded on my "Find Party" roll because we will give suggestions for things that will make the game better, not just benefit the players.

Mind, we don't make houserules often--we have a tiny handful across all the different systems we play--but when we do, we do so in good faith.


See, that assumes they're in a game with an antagonistic GM or "neutral referee" (which IMO isn't really neutral because you made the adventure and put everything in it). In a game where the GM and players work together ("GM is a fan of the players"), IME you don't get that nearly as much.

Depends on what they're working together for. I'm not interested in collaborative storytelling as the goal.

 

[Faolyn]

Depends on what they're working together for. I'm not interested in collaborative storytelling as the goal.

Well, there's your problem then.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Not everyone feels that way, and where they draw a line varies considerably.

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.

Nope. But you aren't everyone, and I have every reason to believe a lot of people will tolerate a lot more, because I've seen them do it.

I think at least one of those is tongue and cheek.

I'm unconvinced.

Edit: You may be talking about one poster I wasn't, since I think their whole posting process is a bit--or they're trolling.

But even if there are some DMs who don't consult, so what?

So it means in practice trying to get them to use a houserule when you're a player is a nonstarter, that's what.

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.

So, we're back to "GMs can be trusted to make whatever rules decisions, but player never can." Got it.

 

[AlViking]

Not everyone feels that way, and where they draw a line varies considerably.



Nope. But you aren't everyone, and I have every reason to believe a lot of people will tolerate a lot more, because I've seen them do it.



I'm unconvinced.

Edit: You may be talking about one poster I wasn't, since I think their whole posting process is a bit--or they're trolling.



So it means in practice trying to get them to use a houserule when you're a player is a nonstarter, that's what.



So, we're back to "GMs can be trusted to make whatever rules decisions, but player never can." Got it.

I've had far more problems with fellow players than DMs. It's simply a numbers thing, ther are typically 6 players to 1 DM.

If I don't trust the DM to make decisions they won't be my DM for long.

 

[AlViking]

Well, there's your problem then.

Since when is a preference a problem?

If I'm playing I don't want to do any world building. If you have a different preference that's not a problem either.