Which rules do you NOT use?

[Elric]

Anyone else do anything similar? If so, why? Is realism more important to you than smooth gameplay and fun? Is realism more fun for you than for me?

Great topic! In my last D&D campaign (I was a player), we didn't use any of the rules that you don't use. We also didn't use:

Monk/Paladin multi-class restrictions and Favored Classes- we let players multiclass without penalty.

Experience points- none of the spellcasters used spells that costs XP, so the DM just occasionally said "everyone gains a level."

Spell Books- I'm not sure we had a party wizard for any length of time, but it was clear that we weren't going to use spell books. You were assumed to have the spells from the supplements that we were using, except the ones the DM didn't want to allow.

Alignment-I think we used this for things like demons and holy weapons, but I think we rarely cast detect evil, so it must not have been very prominent.

 

[Delta]

Massive Damage Saves. Too outside-the-core combat mechanic. Call me a grognard, but it looks like a bad 2E-era patch; instead, I use arithmetically increasing damage for falling & environment.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Currently playing the Rules as written. Nothing added and nothing subtracted.
There are one or two things that are a pain but easily enough handled in the end.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Gold Roger]

There's a whole bunch of things I don't do in my game - usually because I think it's not interesting, slows down play, detracts from the fun or whatever. I realise that my style is not the same as everyone's (I'm sure some people would be horrified!)

Anyway, the following don't have a place in my game:

Encumbrance - too dull. Too tedious.

Money under 1 SP - can't be bothered with CPs and the price of a meal. That's not heroic gaming! Really cheap stuff is just "assumed" in my game. Same goes for basic adventuring equipment (ropes, picks, rations, etc.)

Identify - this one will be the one which most people will disagree with. I don't force players to identify items (unless there's a good plot point involved). Unless it matters to the game, they get all the info on an item (using an Item Card) immediately. I can rationalise by trying to claim that all the knowledge skills and divinations in the party make such a thing easy, but the truth is it's just easier and facilitates play for me. Doing this, IMO, does not detract from the enjoyment of the game, even if it seems unrealistic.

Components - unless it's really expensive, spellcasters are always assumed to have material components.

Anyone else do anything similar? If so, why? Is realism more important to you than smooth gameplay and fun? Is realism more fun for you than for me?

There are no rules I officially don't use, but I tend to give a lot of leeway with some rules.

Material Components: Assumed to be there, unless there's reason not to be there.

Small Money: What's a copper piece? Something we don't use.

Alignment restrictions for bards and barbarians. If a player gave a good reason for a non-standart alignment char of another class I'd admit it as well.

Multiclassing restrictions: I'd never enforce the monks multiclass restrictions or reduced xp for multiclassing.

 

[Odhanan]

Encumbrance is just forgotten unless someone is obviously in overload. Material components are generally assumed to be there. Favored classes and XP penalties are unknown. Most multiclassing limitations are handwaved if the character concept makes sense for the DM. A bit like Varianor on the rules overall: if the idea is cool, makes sense, but the rules don't allow for it, it's generally better to tweak the rules to make it happen rather than submit to abstract limitations.

 

[TheNovaLord]

grapple, sunder, grapple, disarm, grapple, cheap spell components, grapple, spam , spam, grapple, slight change to concentration checks, grapple, random encounter tables, grapple....


the rest utterly RAW

JohnD

 

[Mark Hope]

The rules that I use differ depending on the type of game I am running. I normally handwave encumbrance, but at the moment I am running a low-level barbarian tribes game and the gear a character carries is important, so I am tracking it. I usually don't bother tracking food and water rations, but when I am running Dark Sun I enforce those rules with uncompromising harshness . At higher levels, spell rules for components, identifying items etc tend to blur, but at lower levels I keep them in play. It all depends on what kind of genre and mood I am going for.

 

[Psion]

I have two:

Alignment: Boy, how nice it was to eliminate those arguments.

I use alignments, and can't remember the last time I've had one (an alignment argument) in play.

To me, alignment arguments are almost entirely an online phenomenon.

 

[Rystil Arden]

I use alignments, and can't remember the last time I've had one in play.

To me, alignment arguments are almost entirely an online phenomenon.

I've had players briefly argue when I told them their alignment was changing, and then everyone else at the table would agree with me and the player would admit it. For instance, one character was attacked by the high priestess of the Goddess of Joy because of misdirection. He drained most of her power with an expensive charge off a powerful magic item and then she surrendered. He let her go, but then he said "Wait a minute, that was a waste of my charge", so he followed after her and finished her off. At this point I told him that he was no longer Lawful Good

 

[bowbe]

Grapple... rather than rolling twice, unless someone unarmed is trying to grapple an armed foe, they just roll grapple checks for grapple rather than attack roll then grapple check and it saves a load of time. If an unarmed opponent tries to grapple an armed one, the armed one gets an AOO. Saves a lot of time in the ensuing hug fest. If someone gets grappled, they get one chance to break the grapple without help. They fail, they get pinned. Nobody seems to mind.

As for alignment. Haven't had a problem in 20 years till recently. I have a player who claims he is lawful evil, but hasn't done anything evil at all or particularly lawful. He then argues that he "follows his own law" and doesn't want to get penalized for killing someone if they need killed. Of course he also believes that Conan is lawful evil.

I finally gave up and refer to him as "lawful" ala the old D&D basic and everything is fine. Nobody else has a problem with their alignment.

I actually like the "memorized spells" mean spells you can cast that day... but cast whichever ones you want as many times as you have open slots. Thats keen. I may use that.

Case