Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7602805" data-attributes="member: 4937">My general advice to noob DMs is try the rules first, and only change them if everyone at the table is unhappy with the results.&nbsp;&nbsp; And certainly, if something seems wrong, consult the rules to make sure you are actually using them before complaining about the rules.&nbsp; Make sure you are testing the rules as they exist before deciding to write your own.The big problem with house rules is that rules smithing is an art, and most DMs just don't have the skills accomplish their actual goals.&nbsp; Chances are, the professionals designed it better than you will.&nbsp; Back when we had a real house rules forum, I saw tons of house rules proposed that didn't solve the problem that they were intended to solve, or which created more problems than they solved, or which seemed to be a solution searching for a problem.That said, every game has issues, and the professionals have deadlines and are working under a budget and within a limit on page count.&nbsp;&nbsp; If you know what you are doing and if a rule just makes everyone unhappy, by all means change it.&nbsp;&nbsp; Further, every rule set has gaps in it where things are either open to interpretation, or the exact circumstances just aren't covered by the rules, or where the rules work for a given set of assumptions but that in real play cases come up outside of the assumptions.&nbsp; I've never really DMed a game where the players haven't proposed something that a kindergartener could at least try to do (maybe failing, but they could try) but the rules didn't really clearly explain what to do in that case.&nbsp; Further, I've never DMed a game where the rules have't stated something that for most cases is perfectly reasonably, but produces unreasonable results in edge cases.So even if you don't plan on having house rules, and even if you plan on playing by the RAW, you have house rules.&nbsp; If you think you don't, then you just aren't conscious of your house rules.I haven't followed very closely on the argument you are having, but what passage from 5e do you think is a rule?&nbsp; It's been my experience that a lot of things that people claim are rules aren't rules.&nbsp;&nbsp; For example, &quot;wealth by level&quot; in 3.X was not a rule, it was a guideline.&nbsp; Thirteen encounters per adventuring day, was not a rule, but a guideline.&nbsp; That this percentage of encounters should be above CR and this below it was not a rule, but a guideline.&nbsp;&nbsp; Yet I often got into arguments online that insisted that if the PC's didn't receive their suggested wealth by level that I was breaking the rules.Generally speaking, I don't classify things that don't have to do with process resolution as &quot;rules&quot;.&nbsp;&nbsp; Much of the DMG in every edition tends to be just good advice to novice DMs on how to play D&amp;D according to its default assumptions.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7602805, member: 4937"] My general advice to noob DMs is try the rules first, and only change them if everyone at the table is unhappy with the results. And certainly, if something seems wrong, consult the rules to make sure you are actually using them before complaining about the rules. Make sure you are testing the rules as they exist before deciding to write your own. The big problem with house rules is that rules smithing is an art, and most DMs just don't have the skills accomplish their actual goals. Chances are, the professionals designed it better than you will. Back when we had a real house rules forum, I saw tons of house rules proposed that didn't solve the problem that they were intended to solve, or which created more problems than they solved, or which seemed to be a solution searching for a problem. That said, every game has issues, and the professionals have deadlines and are working under a budget and within a limit on page count. If you know what you are doing and if a rule just makes everyone unhappy, by all means change it. Further, every rule set has gaps in it where things are either open to interpretation, or the exact circumstances just aren't covered by the rules, or where the rules work for a given set of assumptions but that in real play cases come up outside of the assumptions. I've never really DMed a game where the players haven't proposed something that a kindergartener could at least try to do (maybe failing, but they could try) but the rules didn't really clearly explain what to do in that case. Further, I've never DMed a game where the rules have't stated something that for most cases is perfectly reasonably, but produces unreasonable results in edge cases. So even if you don't plan on having house rules, and even if you plan on playing by the RAW, you have house rules. If you think you don't, then you just aren't conscious of your house rules. I haven't followed very closely on the argument you are having, but what passage from 5e do you think is a rule? It's been my experience that a lot of things that people claim are rules aren't rules. For example, "wealth by level" in 3.X was not a rule, it was a guideline. Thirteen encounters per adventuring day, was not a rule, but a guideline. That this percentage of encounters should be above CR and this below it was not a rule, but a guideline. Yet I often got into arguments online that insisted that if the PC's didn't receive their suggested wealth by level that I was breaking the rules. Generally speaking, I don't classify things that don't have to do with process resolution as "rules". Much of the DMG in every edition tends to be just good advice to novice DMs on how to play D&D according to its default assumptions. [/QUOTE]

Verification