Your game or theirs?

[Fallen Seraph]

In my games when I DM I find it much easier to address any house-rules prior to when they are put into use. I go through each one with the group and address if they have any concerns with them, I tell them why I think it be good for the gameplay or the feel of the campaign. But in the end their enjoyment plays into my own enjoyment since D&D is a group activity so if they don't like the house-rules they aren't implemented or together as a group we figure out house-rules.

Hell, this happens even prior to a campaign starting. I give the group a basic layout of a campaign/setting (or multiple ones) we discuss what we would like to play. Then after deciding on one we together try to adapt the setting/campaign chosen to suit what each person would want, ie; person wants to play a Tiefling a race is developed to suit that in the setting.

I find it creates a much more fun and indepth group dynamic because your all playing a roll in making this game work. This also tailors into my game-style where stuff like... Influencing an enemy can be descided narratively by a player, ie; how that enemy got damaged by his attack. Or influence what is in a city by discussing where to go.

 

[Treebore]

With the caveat, all rules are subject to change, I write out my house rules and give them to my players. They are to tell me if they like it/them, and if not are to write up alternatives. I then consider their input and make any changes I like, and give a written explanation as to why I did or did not change things even more.

Then they get implemented. If problems come up in play the rule gets tweaked and the changes noted in my write up ASAP.

So things are done my way, but I have good players who have a good eye towards "balance", so I am fortunate enough to have good feedback too. So it works for me.

The key is they have to write out their suggestions/problems. If they can't be bothered to write it up, like I do, then they don't really have any problems. So therefore don't have the right to argue with me about it. So aren't allowed to waste my time with verbal arguing/debate.

So my thinking is, if it bugs them enough to put in the effort to write up suggestions, it really bugs them. IF they only want to verbally complain then they don't really care, they just want to complain.

 

[Kzach]

Where is that you all find the time and energy to be so diplomatic?

When I create a rule, I research it as best I can. I go through message boards and look for similar rules, go through what books I have, and if I have any doubts I post to get feedback before using it in the game.

All of this takes a substantial amount of time, effort and energy. To then have the rule reviewed and criticised in game and out just adds to an already large workload. Especially when I'm already putting together 3D scenarios, custom monsters, and trying to piece together a substantive, interesting, interactive plot for not only the group, but each player.

I should also point out that gaming with long-term friends is a wholly different scenario to throwing together a group of people through online and other resources and hoping everyone gels enough for sessions to continue. If you're lucky enough to be gaming with people you've known for years, that's great, but don't compare your game to mine when we're both dealing with completely different situations.

I compare it to too many cooks in a kitchen. Either you have a head chef who brooks no argument and produce brilliant dishes, or you have every chef arguing with each other and produce nothing.

Maybe if I'm with this same group for another year or two we can all be happy-happy-joy-joy buddies who sing kumbuya and toast marshmallows together, but until then if there isn't a clear leader, the game devolves into twenty minute rounds as we argue over minutia. And out of game, I'm already putting a large amount of effort (I spent almost the entire day yesterday just writing out new content for the players) in, by adding in a discussion and input from players on every custom rule I use, I'm increasing my workload exponentially.

And if I'm wrong about a rule, it gets changed... by me. I'm trying for balance and reason and enjoyment for all. If I'm not good enough and people don't like my style, then as I've said, I'm happy to sit at the player's table. I'm not forcing anyone to be in my game. And when someone else DM's, I swallow whatever they dish up. If I have enough of a problem with something that it spoils my enjoyment of the game, I'll take it up with the DM, but otherwise I just sit and play.

Who is disrespecting who by questioning and criticising all that I do?

 

[Fallen Seraph]

It doesn't take that long to go before a game starts, to go, "hey guys what do you think of this rule, it good with you?" If the majority agree then cool, if not then don't add it or agree to spend sometime later on talking about it. Perhaps spend part of a normal game-time discussing such stuff.

In fact it may be good to spend a whole game-time period prior to starting the game to go over all this stuff together, thus it doesn't get shoved into all rest of the work your doing but happens prior. Heck you could do this a couple weeks prior to the campaign beginning so you have time to adapt things if need be.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Where is that you all find the time and energy to be so diplomatic?

It's how normal people form functioning, long-term social relationships.

 

[FireLance]

Where is that you all find the time and energy to be so diplomatic?

When I create a rule, I research it as best I can. I go through message boards and look for similar rules, go through what books I have, and if I have any doubts I post to get feedback before using it in the game.

I don't think it takes a lot more time to drop all your players an email describing your rule and asking them what they think about it. If you plan to get feedback online, you could do it at about the same time.

 

[Treebore]

It's how normal people form functioning, long-term social relationships.

But "normal" is the minority!

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

But "normal" is the minority!

Among gamers, seemingly so.

 

[Arkhandus]

A few things.

1) The DM absolutely should not change the rules mid-game unless it is with the group's approval. Once the game has started, rules changes should only come when needed or approved by the group (like, if you find a particular rule causing serious problems, you may have to change that rule or something during play, but this can cause serious problems with the group if a player's character suffers for it (like banning their prestige class or nerfing it all to heck), so you may need the group's approval. Otherwise just adjust other aspects of the game to compensate (Frenzied Berserker giving you problems? Use more wraiths and other I-don't-care-about-your-HP-and-Fortitude monsters, or more mindscrew stuff like mindflayers or telepath psions)).

2) The gaming group is not a dicatatorship. They're all there to have fun, not to be shackled by the script you've written for them or serve you for your own aggrandizement (not accusing you of that, but some DMs certainly see it as a dictatorship for their own fun). You have to accept some degree of cooperation between you and the players, even if it's only by agreeing to the style of campaign they want to play in (and that includes the degree of houserules; many don't want to play with a lot of houserules). Otherwise you may find yourself without a gaming group (or without a group bigger than yourself and your one friend).

3) As DM, you certainly have the most authority and responsibility, so you can't let the players push your around, but you also have a responsibility to try making the game fun for everyone. It's a game, and the whole reason that anyone plays is for the sake of fun.

Forcing a lot of houserules or a few major houserules down your group's throats is going to eliminate the fun for some people, and they're either going to complain and be uncooperative, or they're going to quit. The art of compromise doesn't mean giving in to everyone's demands, but you should be able to accept some amount of criticism gracefully and selectively drop whatever houserules are too onerous for the group to accept.

4) If you want to run a game with houserules, they should be made apparent to the group from the beginning, and it should be with a group that can abide by those houserules, after you make them totally clear (not just "I'm gonna use some houserules if I DM, alright?" It has to be "Here are my houserules in detail, do you still want to play?"). If the group you're in right now won't abide by your houserules, then find another group to use those houserules with.

Maybe you'll still run a simpler, less-serious game with your first group, but you can always try to find another group to play/DM with, even if only online. There are free virtual tabletop programs out there if you need an online group for D&D or something. I use OpenRPG, but there are several others. My houserules are plainly presented on EN World threads or on my webpage, and I make sure every player knows the web address to check those rules. I ask if they want to play in my setting with my houserules, or if they'd only play if I ran a different game with Rules-As-Written, like Greyhawk or Rokugan. If so, then I can just find another group to run my houseruled game with.

 

[catsclaw227]

What was the house rule that was getting the pushback, and why was the player against it?

First, if i have house rules, they are introduced at PC creation time.

Then, if I am about to make an adjustment to the rules or add a house rule, I always send an email to the group describing the issue I am trying to resolve. Then I offer my beta solution, solicit their feeback and note that more info may be pending (book research, online message boards, etc.)

This goes a long way with establishing an open dialogue and trust among a group that is new playing together.