The Culture of Third Edition- Good or Bad?

[I'm A Banana]

Check out your own term: Ditching. I'm not "ditching" anything if it was never there. Rather, "ditching" is a negative term that has only one purpose: to make the decision not to include something sound arbitrary. Indeed, their inclusion in the game is equally arbitrary, and so including them or not including them requires no justification.

You're putting connotation where there is none. Ditching isn't deragatory, man. It's not arbitrary or negative. It's just a synonym for "removing."

And you're "removing" it because it's in the instruction manual for playing the game. If someone wanted to play Monopoly without Chance cards it'd be the same question: "Why isn't it?" Like it or not, when you RTFM, it has elves. You don't. Why, if you call your game the same thing, does it not have elves? I mean, if you just put up a post requesting players and said "no elves," I'm going to want a reason to accept that.

I laid out the campaign, placed certain races in certain locations, and then realized I didn't have any Elves. I made the (wise) decision not to shoe-horn them in.

Well, there's part of your "Good Answer" right there. Something like: "They don't live in the area in which the campaign is taking place." Now all that's left is to give them alternatives...maybe something like "Gnomes live in the forest and enjoy magic, you could try them," or "There are forest human tribes that live in the trees, they might interest you." And viola, you've given them something with which to integrate themselves within your campaign, and given them a reason to accept your judgement. A justification.

To which I ask, "why must there be any?"

I might not be clear enough -- I'm not saying there *must* be any. I'm saying that if there's not, tell me why. Feel free to re-write the manual, but don't expect me to just mindlessly follow your edicts. I know this might not be typical, but it could be explaining this "gimmie gimmie attitude" that's being seen.

No, including or not including a Race is not a rules change. Removing Divine Magic, Arcane Magic, or something else that serves as a tool is a rules change, but not removing a race.

In the Core Rulebook (book of rules), there are certain races. Remove one of those, and you're effectively removing a Core Rule. Just like every DM, you can go wild and do it as much as you want. I do it quite a bit myself. But I think it may be a bit much to expect people to bend and sway without questioning when you change something.

The concept alone isn't the issue. However, if someone's going to whine like a spoiled brat because a specific combination of the above concept isn't available, than he can go whipe his tears on his mommy's apron for all I care.

I probably haven't been playing for as long as many, and I've probably been luckier than many, but I've only rarely encountered brats spoiled enough to be intractable. It's not the specific combination most people want -- it's the effect the combination achieves, and that effect is much more easily translatable than the combination itself. Most people -- DM's and Players alike -- are flexible enough to play within the world the DM sets up, as long as they're given a reason to accept it.

The concept is the issue. By saying "No paladins," on some campaign, people read that as "Every concept you have involving Paladins -- it is invalid in this setting." By saying "Selfless heroes will die very quickly," it gives a lot more dimension, without invalidating any concept.

Guess what? I'm not a fan of heavy-handed players that are going to thump the rules at me as if it's some form of empowerment tool.

All I ever really ask for is a reason. A cause to not obey the rules as written, and to trust in the DM.

That's dodging the question by adding a condition not present in your original statement.

Well, it's pretty much what my opinion has been all along. I have no desire to eliminate flavor, I have every desire to change it as it suits the campaign.

They could not be....they could be related to 'preserving the status quo.' Evil can be healed, could succumb to disease, could be too affraid to bear it's fangs...evil needs paladins, too.

And Unearthed Arcana handles this quite well. Unfortunately for your stance, they didn't do it by just changing the flavor text of the Paladin.

They could've. They didn't, but it would've been easy enough. The rules should serve the game, as psion said. For most campaigns, the easiest way to do that is to change the flavorbabble, without changing the mechanics.

What you want is to have an explaination that you may or may not choose to agree with. And, should you choose not to agree with it, you'll call him heavy handed and his decision arbritrary. Granted, you're free to make this choice, but don't confuse your choice with the facts.

Nice, man, write my actions for me.

There's not many explanations that don't work, and what they are will undoubtedly change from player to player. Some will get upset that they can't be drow, throw a hissy fit, and leave crying. Some, like me, don't really bother even getting into a game until the DM can at least reason with me.

There's a big difference between asking for an explanation, a reason, a motivation, a justification -- and crying because I can't be an elf.

Yet the concept that Elves were never born/evolved on a world isn't enough? That's the problem with your stance: It doesn't matter if there is a reason for it, it matters if you agree with the reason. And that makes you just as heavy-handed as the GMs you are complaining about.

As I said above, it's a step in the right direction. If elves never came about, and I'm interested in playing an 'elfish archetype,' I'll want what I can do to achieve that result with the tools the world has.

Actually, yes, if you are the sort of player that is going to disect every world-condition and whine and cry like a spoiled brat if you choose not to accept the reason, than you are indeed unworthy of my table.
Interesting....Now take this sentance and compare it to your own posts. If the term "hypocritical" comes to mind, don't be surprised.And as a GM, your kind of heavy-handedness is a waste of my time and will eventually grate on the nerves of the other players. According to many posts around here, that would make you a trouble-maker....Except look at your post: You are complaining about GMs that won't bend to mesh with you. This makes you a hypocrit. And, if you did this at my table, you would indeed be deemed unworthy: Unworthy of our time, our effort, and our loss of fun, all of which would be caused by your hypocritical whining.

...and this is a problem with *your* stance. Calling me names and setting up straw men do nothing to convince me to your way of thinking.

What makes you think that I would not be as flexible as I would demand from a DM? I can live with "because this setting is gritty survivalist, high-falootin' moral codes are not useful for the heroes to hold, and more often than not leads to their untimely demise." I can't live with "No Paladins. Accept my authority! Do not question me! Silence, hypocritical whiney troublemaker, *I* make the rules!"

I don't consider anyone "unworthy" because they like playing Half-Elves. I do consider someone unworthy if they whine, cry, and prattle on like over-pampered spoiled brats about it.

In a similar manner, as a player, I don't consider a DM "unworthy" because they ban half-elves. I do consider a DM unworthy if she pulls rank, refuses to explain herself, and prattles on like a spoiled brat about their precious, precious campaign. I think there's probably about the same frequency of extremes, and most people live in between -- where they can accept, change, and adapt, and be happy with a compromise.

I only find resistance when seeking new players, and most often from those that have only played 3E.

Take that as you wish.

Now that things make sense in the rules themselves, they're more likely to ask that DM's make sense in their own rulings?

 

[Bendris Noulg]

You're putting connotation where there is none. Ditching isn't deragatory, man. It's not arbitrary or negative. It's just a synonym for "removing."

Can't remove what never was there.

And you're "removing" it because it's in the instruction manual for playing the game.

Don't know what book you've got. All I've got is 3 books of suggestions and ideas.

If someone wanted to play Monopoly without Chance cards it'd be the same question: "Why isn't it?" Like it or not, when you RTFM, it has elves. You don't. Why, if you call your game the same thing, does it not have elves? I mean, if you just put up a post requesting players and said "no elves," I'm going to want a reason to accept that.

Because the books aren't dogma. They're suggestions based on a single setting. One setting out of limitless possibilities.

Gee... I'm glad I don't see the game through such a narrow view. I'd have had to quit playing.

Well, there's part of your "Good Answer" right there. Something like: "They don't live in the area in which the campaign is taking place." Now all that's left is to give them alternatives...maybe something like "Gnomes live in the forest and enjoy magic, you could try them," or "There are forest human tribes that live in the trees, they might interest you." And viola, you've given them something with which to integrate themselves within your campaign, and given them a reason to accept your judgement. A justification.

Well, duh... It's only common sense that I would tell the player what is available. Or do you think I'll just let him keep guessing until he picks something I'd like him to play for whatever arbitrary reason?

The issue is about spoiled brats whining like a baby because what they specifically want isn't available.

I might not be clear enough -- I'm not saying there *must* be any. I'm saying that if there's not, tell me why. Feel free to re-write the manual, but don't expect me to just mindlessly follow your edicts. I know this might not be typical, but it could be explaining this "gimmie gimmie attitude" that's being seen.

And if I'm lucky, you'll choose to like my answer and not call be a crappy GM.

Yeah for me, eh?

In the Core Rulebook (book of rules), there are certain races. Remove one of those, and you're effectively removing a Core Rule. Just like every DM, you can go wild and do it as much as you want. I do it quite a bit myself. But I think it may be a bit much to expect people to bend and sway without questioning when you change something.

In the second Core Rulebook, it talks about removing races for specific campaign environments.

Next time you cite a "Core Rulebook" to me, you better check to make sure another "Core Rulebook" doesn't contradict your stance.

I probably haven't been playing for as long as many, and I've probably been luckier than many, but I've only rarely encountered brats spoiled enough to be intractable. It's not the specific combination most people want -- it's the effect the combination achieves, and that effect is much more easily translatable than the combination itself. Most people -- DM's and Players alike -- are flexible enough to play within the world the DM sets up, as long as they're given a reason to accept it.

Than what the hell are you complaining about then?

The concept is the issue. By saying "No paladins," on some campaign, people read that as "Every concept you have involving Paladins -- it is invalid in this setting." By saying "Selfless heroes will die very quickly," it gives a lot more dimension, without invalidating any concept.

And again, OA's single explaination for no Bards, Paladins, and Wizards is simply, "they don't fit." Sorry, but it seems you expect more from a homebrewing GM than you do from WotC.

All I ever really ask for is a reason. A cause to not obey the rules as written, and to trust in the DM.

"They don't fit." Good enough for WotC to use in Oriental Adventures, and therefore good enough for any GM.

Well, it's pretty much what my opinion has been all along. I have no desire to eliminate flavor, I have every desire to change it as it suits the campaign.

Which is a good thing.

They could've. They didn't, but it would've been easy enough. The rules should serve the game, as psion said. For most campaigns, the easiest way to do that is to change the flavorbabble, without changing the mechanics.

Wishful hypothetical theories aside: They didn't.

Nice, man, write my actions for me.

There's not many explanations that don't work, and what they are will undoubtedly change from player to player. Some will get upset that they can't be drow, throw a hissy fit, and leave crying. Some, like me, don't really bother even getting into a game until the DM can at least reason with me.

There's a big difference between asking for an explanation, a reason, a motivation, a justification -- and crying because I can't be an elf.

My point remains: "They don't fit the setting" is enough reason. WotC has proven this, unless you no longer consider the writers of the "Core Rulebooks" you wave about like religious dogma to be a suitable model.

As I said above, it's a step in the right direction. If elves never came about, and I'm interested in playing an 'elfish archetype,' I'll want what I can do to achieve that result with the tools the world has.

Then what's the issue, then?

...and this is a problem with *your* stance. Calling me names and setting up straw men do nothing to convince me to your way of thinking.

How are your own posts a "straw man"? You complain about campaign conditions (or, to use your favored term, "restrictions") and then back-peddle and say that you can work within them... So long as you choose to accept the reason for the conditions, which, appearantly, must be much better than WotC did for OA.

What makes you think that I would not be as flexible as I would demand from a DM? I can live with "because this setting is gritty survivalist, high-falootin' moral codes are not useful for the heroes to hold, and more often than not leads to their untimely demise." I can't live with "No Paladins. Accept my authority! Do not question me! Silence, hypocritical whiney troublemaker, *I* make the rules!"

Ah, yes, speaking of strawmen...

"They don't fit" is good enough.

If you don't like it, you can send an email to custserv@wotc.com and complain about Oriental Adventures.

In a similar manner, as a player, I don't consider a DM "unworthy" because they ban half-elves. I do consider a DM unworthy if she pulls rank, refuses to explain herself, and prattles on like a spoiled brat about their precious, precious campaign. I think there's probably about the same frequency of extremes, and most people live in between -- where they can accept, change, and adapt, and be happy with a compromise.

Okay, so "They don't fit", isn't good enough, but if the GM tries to reinforce "they don't fit", they are prattling on and on about the precious campaign.

See... You are a hypocrit. And a lousy one at that.

Now that things make sense in the rules themselves, they're more likely to ask that DM's make sense in their own rulings?

No. It's representative of the spoiled brat syndrom of the "3E culture" that this thread is about and you have so wondrously illustrated for us.

Thank you.

 

[Ssyleia]

Actually we had even more "liberties" about character creation with 2nd Edition Skills & Powers.

Compared to that system, I really like the way 3rd Edition handles things.

Now, a campaign usually lasts 9 Months to 2 years and player's don't die in my games the sheer number of feats, prestige classes, etc is far more than we need... However, this number of options provides players with great ideas how to model their character that are not "Gandalf" or "Drizzt"...

Some players like min/maxing - other like to play their character to role-playing flavor. The current system provides that both sides can have what they want.

This makes good gaming and happy players so : GOOD!

 

[rounser]

Bendris Noulg may be in rant mode, but he has the right of it here. The "Dragonlance is wrong unless it's got orcs and halflings" argument, which seems to be the gist of what's being pushed (only with homebrews), is utterly crosseyed, IMO.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Bendris Noulg may be in rant mode...

Yeah, you're right...

My apologies, KM... I'm not going to edit the post, since I wouldn't want to loose any of my points and it would take too long (others might be replying to me and I wouldn't want to screw them up). Respond civily, though, and I'll do so as well.

Peace.

 

[BSF]

I want a *good* reason.

Your "good" reason doesn't need to exist beyond my "I'm trying to establish a different feel to the game. It can exist beyond that, but it doesn't have to.

Well, I'm looking at it from a player's perspective. As a player, if a DM is going to take the tested core rules and alter parts of it that I am interested in playing, I'm going to want a justification for that. After that, I can either alter my choice based on the world, or help the DM give a bit so I can still play the concept I want. If they're just going to give me some condescending "'cuz I'm the DM, that's why!" I'd rather not deal with someone who's that heavy-handed when I just want to play a game and have some fun.

Well, I am the DM and since I am the one running the game, I might be telling a story that you don't yet understand. Learning the background in the context of the game might be part of the fun. So, no I won't always explain why certain limitations are in place. If you, as a player, can't accept that, that's fine. I'll keep you in mind the next time I run a more "normal" campaign.

Take the "no gnomes" rule.

Bad answer: "They're extinct." (So what? What's the reason for them not being there?)
Good answer: "The world is technologically savage, and severe. There's little room for pranks or professors. Mischief is not tolerated, and there's no method for gnomish ingenuity to manifest. If you're interested in playing a prankster, perhaps a gladiator who wins by winning over the crowd and embarassing his opponent (without physically hurting him) would appeal to you. If you're interested in playing an inventor, perhaps a designer of gladiator weapons, or perhaps a city-employed engineer for wells or city streets, would be interesting for you."

I'll counter you on this with some home-grown examples..

My game doesn't have Dwarves. Why? They don't exist. My reasons? Well, among other things, I got tired of the stereotype of "grumpy dwarf" as the extent of a character's personality and development. No Dwarves. I have two races that are somewhat Dwarf-like. The Thurgon and the Durgon. However, you are going to really need to understand the background and personality that are already inherent in the Thurgon before you can even begin playing one. And no, I am not going to be very tolerant of a deviant personality to fit your vision. Read the full background and you will probably understand why. Then write up a background as to why the character would be different and we can start "negotiating."

Last campaign didn't have any Elves either. Why? You don't know. There are legends that the Elves once existed. You want to play one? No. Why? Because they don't exist right now. Why? You don't know. Play the game and see if you can unravel that mystery.

Gnomes are not inveterate tricksters. You want to play one like that? Sure, but keep in mind that _your_ gnome is very different than the rest. Why? Well, because they consider themselves to be the protectors of the last true forest in the world. They are also the ones responsible for saving the halflings from extermination. Many Gnomes are Druids or Rangers, in fact, Druid is the Gnomes Favored Class.

Halflings are rarely seen. Why? They were almost completely exterminated by humans. You want to play one? Well, they are a bit shy of humans and not likely to be in the human city where the campaign begins. Why? See the extermination comment above? You want to play one from somewhere else? These are the last halflings on the continent. Oh, you want to be from another continent? No. There is only one race that understands navigation right now. They are trying to control all trade and they are a byzantine mess of politics.

No half-breeds either. Why? They have never existed. Can't I make an exception? No. Play the game and see if you can figure out how to make that happen.

Wizards and Sorcerors suffer an incredible prejudice in every society. If you play one, you will be pretty much ostracized initially. I will warn you in advance that you will not find much treasure that they can use either. Why? Read the background I provided. There is a reason why they were called the Necromancer Kings and there is a reason why it was called the Necromancer Wars.

Heironemous? Who is that? No, I don't use the stock gods. Hmm, none of my gods have the exact domains that you wanted? I'm sorry to hear that.

These are just some of the restrictions I put in place for my last campaign. Oddly enough, everyone seemed to have a good time playing.

See where I'm going with this? Don't make you restrictions absolute and involatile, and provide ways to play the same character archetypes in a way that is square with the world, and you won't end up peeving off players who just want to play a bloody fatalistic hero in a blasted world for a little fun on the weekend.

No, these restrictions are absolute. It's the game world I wanted to design. If I wanted a different game world, I could have chosen Grayhawk or Forgotten Realms. I've run games in both in the past. I don't want to right now. There are plenty of ways to play different types of characters in my games. IF none of them fit your "vision" I'm sorry to hear that. Don't want to play because of that? I'm sorry to hear that, catch you later.

Oddly enough, all my players wanted to play in the next campaign. Same world, 1000 years later. Some of the restrictions have changed. They seem more interested in the options that are available rather then worrying about my arbitrary restrictions. I am heavy-handed on some things. I also allow my players to create cultures, countries, martial orders, gods, organizations, etc as they need them. Sure, everything has to be OK'd by me. Sometimes I will require changes to be made to fit my world vision a bit better. More heavy-handed arbitrariness on my part I am sure. I have also created PrC's, organizations, etc to appeal to particular characters. Something that nobody else has yet seen. It seems to work. We are playing in a campaign that is different than any of us has played in before. I'm still waiting for all the characters to gel together in a strong manner, but they are getting there.

Say what you want about arbitrary decisions and DM heavy-handedness. Perhaps it offends your ideal of what the game should be. And yes, I know there are people out there that can be arbitrary and heavy-handed in a completely non-fun way. But, that doesn't mean every arbitrary decision detracts from the potential fun in every game.

 

[BSF]

Yeah, you're right...

My apologies, KM... I'm not going to edit the post, since I wouldn't want to loose any of my points and it would take too long (others might be replying to me and I wouldn't want to screw them up). Respond civily, though, and I'll do so as well.

Peace.

Hey Bendris,
Thanks! I like KM and you were definitely going into the rant mode.

In real terms, I don't think any of us is that far off from each other. I think we are maybe getting wound too tight on some of the worst experiences with DM & players we have experienced.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Hey Bendris,
Thanks! I like KM and you were definitely going into the rant mode.

Yeah... I didn't get too flamy, did I? Ranty, yes... But I've been better since I learned how to Ignore people (i.e., using the feature rather than trying to skip-over posts that would catch my eye anyways). Hate to think I lost all that work over this.

I feel like a recovered addict that just drank a beer.

In real terms, I don't think any of us is that far off from each other. I think we are maybe getting wound too tight on some of the worst experiences with DM & players we have experienced.

Admittedly, a little of both from me. That is, as a player, I've experienced many negative effects due to "all inclusive" gaming, both from the GM and fellow players. As a GM, I've found myself in more than a few debates that, in my opinion, should not have occured (and thinking more deeply on it, one of them does mirror the "I want a 'good' explaination" stance KM has made).

It is interesting, looking one-past back for you, that you present your campaign conditions with the opportunities they offer. Discover about the new races. Learn about the history. Uncover the mystery. These are shortened and abridged, yes, but they show that "restrictions" can present more "options", even though these options are a part of game-play rather than mechanical.

In a recent thread about Low/High Magic, I made similar points: That by me saying "These spells don't exist", I wasn't banning the spells, but rather presenting the players of spellcasting PCs in-game options: Discover (or recover!) the magic yourself. Become the great wizard that unravels the greatest secrets of the Arcane Arts rather than being just another spellslinger casting the same-old ho-hum in the shadow of setting iconics like Elminster and the Circle of Eight...

To summarize, I don't believe that any of the Core assumptions (races, classes, feats) need to be "true" in order for the game to remain "the" game. There should be plentiful variety, yes, but the lacking of a few races or a class or two that are part of the Core set isn't that big of a deal rules-wise. What should be present is that which "fits" the feel, flavor, and themes of the setting. Character options should be fairly equal, but need not be all inclusive.

 

[Azazyll]

If any thread ever qualified as "flaming the message boards" this would be it.

Granted I don't have a great deal of play time experience, as I've mentioned before, nor do my friends. But everyone I've ever talked to has considered it standard to assume that the DM is in charge and the rules serve the game. In fact, I've never seen anyone post to these messageboards otherwise. So first of all:

YOU'RE PREACHING TO THE CHOIR

As I accidentally hit post instead of return...

Second, I can't see how anyone would really not get this. Perhaps it's just me, but if someone wants the other kind of game, it's probably cheaper to buy Neverwinter Nights or Baldur's Gate and pretend RPG to your heart's content. Or the Legend of Zelda. THere are thousands of similar so-called RPG video games out their that fulfill hack and slash. Most people who want to sit down and do pen and paper realize the difference. But maybe I've met too many White Wold players (scary, I know)

Then again, it's my understanding that the general RPG community has never seen so many new members at a time. A lot of people are bringing new ideas of what it means to role play into the community. That means it has to change. People who have been playing for years are going to hate it. That's just how it works. Does WotC encourage it? Yes. Are they a company that wants to get new people to play so they can get more money? Yes. Do they realize they have to keep some of it the same for the people who have been playing for years? Obviously, why else would they incorporate the hundreds of little rules that give D&D it's essential flavor that really make the game unbalanced? Magic missile is better than almost all first level spells. Why is it there? for the old timers. Why do dwarves randomly get a dodge bonus against giants and not all large creatures? that's how they were way back when. Why do we use hit points or AC instead of the variant rules wound points and armor as damage reduction? That's D&D. frankly I'm thankful we managed to dump THAC0, and that they took some of the good ideas from Alternity, even if they had to bastardize them to some of the more inane rules from old school D&D.

Don't get me wrong. the Rules Encyclopedia is what got me hooked on D&D, and I loved 2nd edition as much as anyone else. But it was the first RPG, and improvements have been made in virtually every conceivable area. It STARTED as a hack and slash game. There has always been a Hack and Slash vs role playing problem. People are still whining about it. people will always whine about it. people will always whine that those damn teenagers play their music too loud too. That's life.

Now we can multiclass, we have reasonable skills, monsters are in line with characters, and experience makes sense with the encounter level system. THere may be too many prestige classes and feats out there, but at least the core idea is cool. otherwise we wouldn't have the thousands of them that are out there.

What's at the source of the problem causing people who have been playing the game a long time to lament the n00bes? the n00bes don't have years of experience under their belts, the ones who are never going to get it haven't been weeded out yet, they're bringing in ideas and interests that older folks aren't used to. In ten years some of them will be making the same complaints. But thank god we're a growing community, and so much so that we don't know what to do with all the n00bes. it'll get figured out, and the game will change. it will never be the same as it was, and no one will ever think it's perfect, because there is no perfect game system for everyone. But it will be D&D, and people will still play it, and it will still be fun for lots of people. and magic missile will still be the best first level spell in the game.

 

[billd91]

<snip>

Every one of the people I asked were enthusiastic at the get-go. If they hadn't been, I wouldn't have included them in the campaign. If they'd said, "But I really want to play a sorcerer," I'd have said, "Then join a different campaign."

I didn't justify a thing. I didn't offer any explanations and I don't intend to. There are no non-humans because Barsoom doesn't have non-humans. There are no clerics because Barsoom doesn't have clerics. Why would I justify these things? If a player doesn't want to play in this campaign, that's okay with me.

<snip>
A. the idea that a DM needs to justify houserules is silly.
B. the idea that 3e somehow makes it harder to implement houserules is equally silly.
C. the idea that Paizo committed some atrocity by explaining how one might use paladins in a defunct campaign setting is possibly even sillier than those other two.
D. I DM a bunch of stewardesses.

Now hold on here. By saying that you're going to be running the game in a Barsoom setting, you've already justified why some things are cut out of the game. Because they didn't exist in Burroughs's original works, they aren't appropriate for the game setting. Players not interested in that justification really don't want to play in your Barsoom game, they want to play in a modified Barsoom setting with some of the features of the original and some others built in.
That's not really the same as saying that you gave no justification. You already provided that, pretty explicitly, by saying it's a Barsoom setting.

As far as your later points, I both agree and disagree. Specifically, I agree with B and C but not A. Players have the core books and maybe whatever else you've allowed as sources and can and should be expected to plan out their characters based on those rules... what other sources do they have? House rules need to be communicated to the players effectively and, I think, you need to explain why you're using them. A simple statement that it something you're experimenting with because it fits a certain quirk of your campaign better than the standard rule will suffice quite often, but it's also possible that the players will discover that your house rule is completely insane and will be able to convince you that it could damage the game (as many house rules have the capability of doing). Letting your players know what's going in behind the curtain with respect to your rule changing ideas isn't a bad thing because they can apply their additional experience and devious brains to finding where there may be exploitable cheese and loopholes.