Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FrozenNorth" data-source="post: 9045016" data-attributes="member: 7020832">I think the issue that [USER=7019027]@Asisreo[/USER] is referring to is that certain houserules are so widespread that players assume they are actual rules.For instance,<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">surprise round;</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">not tracking encumbrance;</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">not enforcing drawing/stowing action economy;</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">everyone speaks Common.</li> </ul>So when a DM does not apply these houserules, the players are surprised.As for me, I never assume that any Session Zero can be sufficiently detailed to address all possible houserules or rule interpretations/interactions.I expect from my players that if there is an interpretation mismatch, they will bring it up civilly and maturely (and when I play, I do the same).Often, I will make a spot ruling for the session. If the player’s action was predicated on a different understanding of the rule, they can change their action (Classic example: a player who believes the flanking rules are in play, moves to flank despite the fact he’s an archer because it greatly benefits the monk he’s flanking with).During clean-up, I will ask the player for their rationale and explain my own.  Any other players are also given an opportunity to pipe in.In all cases, if the character’s build choices are impacted by the ruling, they can rebuild or replace their character.This is one of the reasons I like the relative simplicity of 5e: there is less room to pick a ton of features that turn out to be useless because of DM interpretation.</blockquote>

Verification