PDA

View Full Version : Houserules vs Customrules



Gamer Girl
2011-05-04, 03:41 PM
So Started with a new group and this came up: What is the separation between Houserules and Customrules?

My quick definitions:
Houserule:A change to the existing 'by the book' rules.
Customrule:Anything not covered in the rules, that a GM makes up.


A lot of players seem to think that if a DM 'does' anything they must immediately type it up in bold print and display it as an official Houserule And this is where the split comes in. Yes, players need to know Houserules, but they should not automatically know all the custom rules.

Examples:
"There is no teleportation in my game'' is a Houserule.
"Divine locations have faith by-passable teleport wards'' is a Customrule.


"Rouges can sneak attack anything'' is a Houserule.
"One special sect of rouges can sneak attack undead" is a Customrule.

''Lava does 1d4 damage if you touch it" is a Houserule.
"Lven is a special form of 'hard lava' that is used to make buildings.'' is a Customrule.


How many players think that all the (Dm, custom made) rules must be known about an entire game world? Does anyone see the difference in a Houserule and a Customrule?

And I'm not talking about knowledge roles to learn things(as they are all combat players anyway)..

Mystic Muse
2011-05-04, 03:52 PM
So, house rules change mechanics and custom rules change fluff? I don't really see how that makes a custom rule a rule.

All houserules should be known before a player even begins making their character though.

Tyndmyr
2011-05-04, 03:58 PM
So Started with a new group and this came up: What is the separation between Houserules and Customrules?

My quick definitions:
Houserule:A change to the existing 'by the book' rules.
Customrule:Anything not covered in the rules, that a GM makes up.

I don't really use the term Custom rule as such. The latter might mean fiat, but I'm not 100% sure you mean that.

House rules: The list of junk I write down before a campaign to tell you what is banned, or works differently. For instance, no multiclass xp penalty. This list can be as long or as short as desired by the group and DM, but I generally find my players prefer it when the list is short. They can be an impatient lot at times. This is a broad category.

Variant Rules: These are things I didn't invent, and are also not standard rules. UA has lots of them. For instance, weapon groups is an excellent variant. Gestalt is also fascinating. I don't usually use most of these, but when they come up, I slap them on the same starter info sheet as house rules. I also tend to put character creation rules there. Keep it simple for everyone, and avoids me explaining the same thing repeatedly.

Fiat: Stuff there wasn't an actual rule for. IE, something the DM made up(usually on the spot) that doesn't follow the agreed upon rules. I consider these to be generally bad.

Setting-specific stuff: Some settings have special rules. These are generally considered official within that setting. They are often disallowed outside that setting. For instance, getting a dragonmark outside of eberron is likely to be iffy. Consult your DM. If you whip up your own special setting, ensure that your players know about any special funky things like this in advance.

MightyTim
2011-05-04, 04:03 PM
I've never really differentiated the two, always considering anything in my game that is different than the source book is a houserule.

Should players know about every single one of them?

A player should be aware of anything that would make a difference to how they are able to play their character, or that would be common knowledge within the game world.

If you have a human-centric world, your players should know that before they try to create a halfling and get xenophobic remarks form all the NPCs.

Most of what I think you mean by "custom rules" is really just anything that makes your story setting unique and interesting. Telling absolutely everything about it ruins the sense of adventure.

There's no need for the PCs to know of a secret sect of rogues that can sneak attack undead because you probably weren't going to let them play one anyway "at least initially." Later on if you wish to have them inducted into that order, it's all the more neat.

Siosilvar
2011-05-04, 04:31 PM
I refer to the difference as something along the lines of "House Rules" vs. "Setting Details".

I'd consider both subsets of "Homebrew", also known as "Anything the DM makes up or lets the players get away with that isn't word-for-word in one of the books". And then "RAW" and "Variants" are both part of the "Book Rules".

Here, let me try and table this:

{table=head]{colsp=4}
Rules

{colsp=2}
Book Rules |{colsp=2}
Homebrew

RAW | Variants | House Rules | Setting Details [/table]

Hope that's somewhat clear.

erikun
2011-05-04, 05:42 PM
I will admit, I'm not familiar with the term "customrule". A house rule is, for the most part, a change made by a specific group. That's where the term comes from, after all: a new or different rule for that particular house.

It does sound like the distinction you are making is what I'd call setting details, though. A special sect (or prestige class) or rogues that can sneak attack undead would seem to me to be a houserule/homebrew just as much as allowing all rogues to sneak attack everything, but it most definitely would be specific to that DM's setting.

Mastikator
2011-05-04, 05:58 PM
To echo the sentiments of this thread I'd say that I've never heard of a customrule, and the difference to me seems only to be the scale of the change. A houserule can be pure fluff, or setting fluff. Or cosmetic changes.

... And I don't really see any point in cataloging different kinds of changes. And the end of the day a lot of RAW is always forgotten and a lot of DM fiat calls are made. Don't get boggled down in rules, get boggled down in the game instead, that's where the action is.

Gamer Girl
2011-05-04, 06:12 PM
Ok, Setting rules would be a much better name.


But it still leaves the question: Should players know all the setting rules, automatically, before the game starts, just like house rules?

NichG
2011-05-04, 06:13 PM
I can see the difference between the two, though I've generally just considered what is being called 'custom rules' here to be part and parcel of the DM's toolkit. I wouldn't expect or want a DM to tell me about every homebrew monster or special ability he's going to use ahead of time. I wouldn't want a DM to tell me about every special material he's going to introduce, every unique spell that I might one day discover, every artifact that he has made up that might play a role. Discovering those things is a big portion of the entertainment for me.

CrazedMalarite
2011-05-04, 06:44 PM
Ok, Setting rules would be a much better name.


But it still leaves the question: Should players know all the setting rules, automatically, before the game starts, just like house rules?

It depends largely on the group, but personally I say not necessarily. If it's common knowledge in the setting, definitely. If it's not common, but still not uncommon, I'd still say yes. If it's kinda obscure to obscure but their character would know - or a character concept they're considering - would know, then yes.

But that the aliens which will show up mid-session will have blasters which will punch right through the thickest body armor but be stopped by glass (or something else)? Nah. As a player I actually generally wish I knew less information than I usually do; it can be hard NOT to metagame at times.

But that's personal preference. You'll need a feel for your group.

Pentachoron
2011-05-04, 06:46 PM
But it still leaves the question: Should players know all the setting rules, automatically, before the game starts, just like house rules?

Only if their character would.

dsmiles
2011-05-04, 07:04 PM
Only if their character would.
I agree.
1. Anything that their character would be expected to know at whatever point in their life you start the game at should be known to that player.
2. To use a d20 term: If they have a lot of Knowledge-type skills, they will know stuff they probably wouldn't be expected to know, but the DM would have reasonable belief that they had researched in their lifetime.

That's the premise that I base a player's knowledge of the setting on in the beginning of the game. Of course, I write out almost everything in the setting up to the point where the characters start adventuring, so the players are more than welcome to read the campaign book. (Just not the DM section or the homebrewed monster stat blocks.)

Jay R
2011-05-04, 07:15 PM
But it still leaves the question: Should players know all the setting rules, automatically, before the game starts, just like house rules?

No, no more than they should know what's behind every door. But the decision of what they don't know should be made with story and gaming in mind.

I ran a recent game in which the universe matched the medieval ideas of the universe, with the seven wandering stars-- the moon, Mercury, Venus, the sun, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn.

I didn't tell them, because they were going to have the Staves of the Wanderers, with an XP bonus to whoever figured out they were avatars of the planets.

At one point, the cleric knew her staff was sun-related, the elf knew hers was moon-related, the dwarf knew his was martial in nature, the bard knew his was related to love, but it was many adventures later before they put it all together.

snoopy13a
2011-05-04, 10:08 PM
There are also rule interpretations where a DM has to decide how to implement a vague or ambigious rule.

I think whether or not to disclose "custom rules" depends on the player characters' knowledge. For example, if it is common knowledge that there is an order of rogues that has specialized knowledge in fighting undead--for game purposes meaning that they can sneak attack them--then the players should know as well. However, if the order is top secret then the players shouldn't know about that rule.

Gamer Girl
2011-05-05, 12:51 PM
It depends largely on the group, but personally I say not necessarily. If it's common knowledge in the setting, definitely. If it's not common, but still not uncommon, I'd still say yes. If it's kinda obscure to obscure but their character would know - or a character concept they're considering - would know, then yes.

I guess this is where the problem is...common, uncommon and obscure and secret.

I feel that a game world person would only know about 50% of even the common stuff. Most people don't know everything common about the area they live in.

And it get worse the bigger area you cover, how far does 'common knowledge' go? Should a character know all common things in a state or even a kingdom?

Worse is how would you do it anyway? Do players expect a Dm to type up a 2,000 page book all about the common stuff? Or do players really want to sit for six hours as the DM tells them about all the common stuff?


I guess I just find it much more fun for players to find out this stuff in the game, while playing the game. It's not so unreasonable that a person would not know everything about the area they live in. Even common stuff only travels in some social circles.

Say an elf opens a elven bar. She does not overly advertise this fact, and just tells her fellow elves by word of mouth. So the average human, living just down the street, would have absolutely no idea that she lived just down the street from an elven bar.

Tyndmyr
2011-05-05, 01:29 PM
Worse is how would you do it anyway? Do players expect a Dm to type up a 2,000 page book all about the common stuff? Or do players really want to sit for six hours as the DM tells them about all the common stuff?

It's an awkward problem to be sure...but what players do not want is to make a decision based on assumptions of how things work normally, and later turn out to be in error due to that.

How you prevent that is up to you, but the correct amount of info is "enough to avoid that". Personally, for my setting, yes, I will write it all up, and have it bound in a book. Having a custom printed book is surprisingly inexpensive nowadays, and hey, I take notes for all kinds of things anyway. I may as well format them nicely and clearly.

Choco
2011-05-05, 01:32 PM
And lets not forget that the way a lot of us DM, we don't necessarily have (very many) custom rules planned, they just kinda come up when the players want to try something that isn't covered by the rules.

IMO the only rules the players *NEED* to know from the start are the rules that influence their character creation. Same thing with setting info (which usually includes custom rules), I like creating custom settings and having the PCs/players learn about it as they go (like real adventurers... they wouldn't start out knowing everything about the world cause the player read the campaign setting book...). How many DMs feel the need to basically give their players all of their campaign setting notes? If my players demanded them, I would have to find another group.

Lyin' Eyes
2011-05-05, 01:43 PM
Say an elf opens a elven bar. She does not overly advertise this fact, and just tells her fellow elves by word of mouth. So the average human, living just down the street, would have absolutely no idea that she lived just down the street from an elven bar.
Then it isn't common knowledge, and it's reasonable for most non-elves to have no idea. (Although anyone in the elf's immediate neighborhood probably knows about her bar, regardless of their race, unless she's being actively cloak-and-dagger about it.)

I too find the best way to introduce setting info is often to wait until it pops up in-game. IME, players have a tough time remembering even common knowledge stuff until it actually becomes relevant. So often I'll say "By the way, the city you're about to enter is notoriously racist against non-elves" and give them enough time to plan for possible problems. If it's not common knowledge, I'll ask for a roll and then tell them, or not.

RaginChangeling
2011-05-05, 02:24 PM
Say an elf opens a elven bar. She does not overly advertise this fact, and just tells her fellow elves by word of mouth. So the average human, living just down the street, would have absolutely no idea that she lived just down the street from an elven bar.

That's not really common knowledge, or anything anyone but an Elf would know. Nor is it particularly relevant to the vast majority of characters who are not Elves. Things people mean when they're talking about common knowledge,

If they see a Goblin walking down the street it is/is not appropriate to attack them. (Are Goblins monstrous terrorizers of civilization or integrated members of a larger society?)- This is the kind of thing everyone in the society should know, things that could get them thrown in jail for murder and whatnot.

manyslayer
2011-05-05, 03:06 PM
Agree with the whole "if the characters would know it." But this is also true of even official stuff. For instance, if the characters are city born and have no ranks in knowledge(nature) (or maybe weaponsmithing) they would likely not know cold iron is often effective against fey.

Taking your examples:


Examples:
"There is no teleportation in my game'' is a Houserule.
"Divine locations have faith by-passable teleport wards'' is a Customrule.

Is this all divine locations? Then anyone with a few ranks in Knowledge(religion) or Knowledge(arcana) would likely know this. If it is only certain locations, then the difficulty to know would likely be higher.



"Rouges can sneak attack anything'' is a Houserule.
"One special sect of rouges can sneak attack undead" is a Customrule.

Is this sect secret or are they the beloved defenders of the common man against the terrors of the night?



''Lava does 1d4 damage if you touch it" is a Houserule.
"Lven is a special form of 'hard lava' that is used to make buildings.'' is a Customrule.

Are the characters in an area where this is used as building material (or from such an area originally)? Is it a common building technique?

One idea to see if a character would know about it (without resorting to making a knowledge check for each custom-rule) is to set a DC for a relevant knowledge skill and anyone that would pass it on taking 10 would be assumed to generally know something about it. For specific info, or if they encounter it and ask, make a check.

I'll close with an example in game I played in that rather annoyed me. 5th level character that had been fighting a guerrilla war against an evil prince and his demons that had taken over the kingdom. Character background (worked out with the DM) was that I (and several other characters) had been fighting this guerrilla war for 5+ years. My character (druid) has Knowledge(the planes) and been fighting this war for all this time. When buying equipment, I ask if it is alright to buy cold-iron weapons (demons and all, enough ranks in Knowledge(the planes) that I should reasonably know that some demons have DR bypassed by cold-iron) and am given the OK. The game starts and we find that not only does cold-iron have no effect, but oaken weapons bypass DR and do extra damage (a bar stool doing more damage than a magic greatsword). After fighting this war for all these years, you'd think maybe one of us might have known this. This, to me, is an example of knowledge the PCs should have. If the demonic incursion just happened then yes, discovering the odd vulnerability would be part of playing and shouldn't be revealed early.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-05-05, 03:20 PM
A lot of players seem to think that if a DM 'does' anything they must immediately type it up in bold print and display it as an official Houserule And this is where the split comes in. Yes, players need to know Houserules, but they should not automatically know all the custom rules.
House Rules are modifications to the Rules of the Universe (i.e. the RAW). If Rogues cannot normally Sneak Attack undead, and you want them to be able to do so, it is a House Rule and the Players should be so informed. This way the Players are fully informed about the abilities of their class (or potential class) as well as relevant details about the Universe that they should know about. These House Rules tend to be true regardless of setting.

Setting Rules (AKA "Custom Rules") are details tied to the setting that either fill in blank spaces (e.g. "elves are vegetarian" where the rules do not specify elven diet) or situational modifications to the Rules of the Universe (e.g. no teleportation, except for wielders of the TARDIS). In either case players should be informed as soon as their characters would know about it. To be safe, these sorts of details should be mentioned in rumor when they become relevant and certainly in response to Player questions.

* * * *

To be honest, this hypothetical sounds tied to a specific situation. Care to elaborate?

Tyndmyr
2011-05-05, 03:30 PM
"There is no teleportation in my game'' is a Houserule.
"Divine locations have faith by-passable teleport wards'' is a Customrule.

House rule either way. The latter sounds like some custom spells are in order. Which is fine, but you should probably write them out, and have them interact in a well defined way within the rules(ie, subject to dispel as normal, etc. Can they be permanencied?)


"Rouges can sneak attack anything'' is a Houserule.
"One special sect of rouges can sneak attack undead" is a Customrule.

Again, I see no reason why this is not a house rule. It would almost certainly fit well as an affiliation-based bonus, much like those in complete champion. Or, if you wanted to really flesh out this sect, an ability in a prestige class for them.


''Lava does 1d4 damage if you touch it" is a Houserule.
"Lven is a special form of 'hard lava' that is used to make buildings.'' is a Customrule.

Again, not different from a house rule. It's a new type of material. Specify what it can be used for(too brittle for weapons? Check), it's hardness, and so on, and go about your merry way. Materials are a common portion of the rules, just like damage.

I can see no real difference between "custom rule" and "house rule", except that the house rule is something you've actually defined as a rule, where the custom rules do not appear to be finished.

I, too, am curious about the incident or story that appears to have spawned this.

Tvtyrant
2011-05-05, 03:42 PM
I think setting specific stuff should be mostly available unless the setting calls for it not to be; the origins of Ioun Stones and Pearls of Wizardry might be public knowledge in one campaign and a closely guarded trade secret in another. The fact that Dwarves aren't received well by Orcs should be common knowledge in almost every case though.

CrazedMalarite
2011-05-05, 06:30 PM
I guess this is where the problem is...common, uncommon and obscure and secret.

I feel that a game world person would only know about 50% of even the common stuff. Most people don't know everything common about the area they live in.

In general, if you're not sure if it's common knowledge, I'd err on the side of giving the information. In almost every game/genre, the PCs aren't just average joes. Or some games have a Common Knowledge roll which can determine it.


Worse is how would you do it anyway? Do players expect a Dm to type up a 2,000 page book all about the common stuff? Or do players really want to sit for six hours as the DM tells them about all the common stuff?

Generally, mention it as it comes up. For example, when a PC decides he wants special arrows, you'd mention that they know of a well-known fletcher not too far away. Or the first time they see a golden pendant with a stormcloud and lightning bolt, that's when you say "Hey, the stormcloud/lightning bolt symbol is the emblem of Baron de Telkos, a minor lord a week's ride south of here."



I guess I just find it much more fun for players to find out this stuff in the game, while playing the game. It's not so unreasonable that a person would not know everything about the area they live in. Even common stuff only travels in some social circles.

Say an elf opens a elven bar. She does not overly advertise this fact, and just tells her fellow elves by word of mouth. So the average human, living just down the street, would have absolutely no idea that she lived just down the street from an elven bar.

First off, this is entirely setting detail, not rules. So it's not really relevant to the discussion. I don't think anyone says that players should know every detail of the world.

Secondly, this particular example actually seems ridiculous to me. Bars are, by nature, a public business. The human might not have ever ventured inside and thus wouldn't know much about it, but he'd know it's a bar frequented by elves. I guess you could say it's not an actual bar but rather an elf who has elven friends over to his home, where he serves them (expecting them to reimburse him appropriately). Then the human might not know exactly what's going on - but it's darn likely he'll have noticed a good number of elves frequenting the place over time.

Pisha
2011-05-05, 07:11 PM
Secondly, this particular example actually seems ridiculous to me. Bars are, by nature, a public business. The human might not have ever ventured inside and thus wouldn't know much about it, but he'd know it's a bar frequented by elves. I guess you could say it's not an actual bar but rather an elf who has elven friends over to his home, where he serves them (expecting them to reimburse him appropriately). Then the human might not know exactly what's going on - but it's darn likely he'll have noticed a good number of elves frequenting the place over time.

Oh, I dunno - I'm actually thinking of creating an elven speakeasy now :smallwink: You could walk past it on the street and never know a thing, unless you have the password...

I'm going to join the consensus here. Is there a specific rule or set of rules that's become a bone of contention?

Tyndmyr
2011-05-05, 07:59 PM
First off, this is entirely setting detail, not rules. So it's not really relevant to the discussion. I don't think anyone says that players should know every detail of the world.

Secondly, this particular example actually seems ridiculous to me. Bars are, by nature, a public business. The human might not have ever ventured inside and thus wouldn't know much about it, but he'd know it's a bar frequented by elves. I guess you could say it's not an actual bar but rather an elf who has elven friends over to his home, where he serves them (expecting them to reimburse him appropriately). Then the human might not know exactly what's going on - but it's darn likely he'll have noticed a good number of elves frequenting the place over time.

Would agree.

Not giving every bit of setting detail is eminently reasonable.

Not giving rules is something very different. It's not a traditional thing in most games. Oh, you've got the odd exception, like paranoia, which thrives on keeping players in the dark, but they are all about a very specific style of play, which doesn't translate well to everything.

And yeah, the guy who doesn't know about a bar just down the street would be a reclusive fellow indeed. I would expect the common man to know what sort of thing is practically next door to him.

CrazedMalarite
2011-05-05, 08:00 PM
Oh, I dunno - I'm actually thinking of creating an elven speakeasy now :smallwink: You could walk past it on the street and never know a thing, unless you have the password...

I'm going to join the consensus here. Is there a specific rule or set of rules that's become a bone of contention?

Walking past a place on the street and living a few doors down are different things.

dsmiles
2011-05-05, 08:03 PM
Not giving rules is something very different. It's not a traditional thing in most games. Oh, you've got the odd exception, like paranoia, which thrives on keeping players in the dark, but they are all about a very specific style of play, which doesn't translate well to everything. No, it doesn't, but in the systems it works for, it's sooooooo much fun. :smallwink:

Tyndmyr
2011-05-05, 08:13 PM
No, it doesn't, but in the systems it works for, it's sooooooo much fun. :smallwink:

Oh yeah. I love me some paranoia on occasion.

Or, Mau.

dsmiles
2011-05-05, 08:19 PM
Or, Mau.
Wait. What? :smallconfused:

Tyndmyr
2011-05-05, 08:31 PM
It's a card game. The rules of Mau are suit on suit, number on number.

Legend
2011-05-05, 08:38 PM
IMO, houserules should be communicated to the players as soon as possible. For things the DM knows will be altered going in, they should make clear up front, before characters are made. For things houseruled during play, the idea that this is a houserule and it's going to be consistent going forward, players should know that soonest, and if it's called for, given a chance to alter character choices to reflect the new rule assumption.

Setting information should be doled out when it comes up, common knowledge for free, uncommon knowledge or more obscure information with a successful Knowledge, Gather Information, or some other check, and some truly secret information might be beyond the characters' knowledge at this point. Also, when it comes to knowledge, I think it's better to show rather than tell. Have the characters hear about a town's racism from an NPC or better yet, have PCs witness some of that racism or the results of it as they enter town. At the very least, I like to tell the player that would know the information and let him be the hero. To me, that's much better than just saying, "also, everyone knows that this town is racist against elves."

Gamer Girl
2011-05-05, 11:31 PM
I'm going to join the consensus here. Is there a specific rule or set of rules that's become a bone of contention?

It happens a lot with flavor backed by rules. For example:


1.The Temple Defenses is an example. A temple is a special place, so natural it is protected. This is obvious. And more so, a temple(or any place really) will have plenty of custom, unique and even secret defenses. The common person would only know 'temples are protected'.

But then the player comes along and wants to know what magic and spells were used. They want to read the description of the spell. They feel they should 'know' this stuff.

2.A red dragon with the spell Breath Weapon Substitution, so when the players attacked it...it breathed acid. They felt cheated and complained that they should know that. That any action taken by any creature should be known to them before combat. Plus they had the problem with ''oh we did not know you were using the Draconomicon spells''. And that is true as I did not sit and list my entire collection of D&D books before the game started.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-05-06, 12:24 AM
But then the player comes along and wants to know what magic and spells were used. They want to read the description of the spell. They feel they should 'know' this stuff.
Did they ask to roll any Knowledge checks? Did you let them roll Knowledge checks? :smallconfused:


2.A red dragon with the spell Breath Weapon Substitution, so when the players attacked it...it breathed acid. They felt cheated and complained that they should know that. That any action taken by any creature should be known to them before combat. Plus they had the problem with ''oh we did not know you were using the Draconomicon spells''. And that is true as I did not sit and list my entire collection of D&D books before the game started.
Well, you're fine here.

Personally, I never liked using these sorts of things in my games - it always felt like cheating to randomly make trolls resistant to fire or red dragons spit acid. Still, this is a "bad form" as opposed to "DMing problem" sort of deal. Were it me, I would have given some sort of heads-up to the Players beforehand - a legend of this Dragon being particularly crafty, or somesuch. Oh, they would have had to do some research of course, but it would've been there.

Fiery Diamond
2011-05-06, 12:48 AM
It's a card game. The rules of Mau are suit on suit, number on number.

Or rather, those are the rules you're allowed to tell newbies.

:smallcool:

I like that game too. There's actually a bunch of different versions, which means even if you're playing with people who have played before you might not know what's up.

...

Not to mention the fun to be had when you win a hand...
:smallcool:

Bobby Archer
2011-05-06, 02:05 AM
I seem to remember you implying in your first post that your players don't take Knowledge skills because they're "combat" players. I'd argue that Knowledges are combat skills. Without them, you shouldn't feel (IMO) any obligation to give them information about temple defenses or draconic abilities. If they wanted to have this information, they should have statted their characters such that this information was available to them.

It sounds a bit like you might be trying to run a different game than the ones your players are trying to play. They seem to want to be able to use their out-of-character knowledge and intelligence instead of roleplaying what their characters should or could know. You seem to be trying to decide on what knowledge they should have based on what the characters should know, not the players.

It might not be a bad idea to take a moment before your next session and explain to them that their characters do not have copies of the Monster Manual in their saddlebags. PCs are not born with an encyclopedic knowledge of the physics, sociology, zoology, etc of their world. That their characters' knowledge is limited to their experiences and their knowledge skills. Then offer them a one-time-only opportunity to re-allocate skill points if they want to have knowledge skills.

It would then be your job to make sure that these skills mean something and use them to judge how much information on areas or threats that the players should have available to them. I think the reason many players don't take them is because they assume the skills won't mean anything. That the DM will judge whether or not information is available without considering whether their characters should have that info. If you want them to play by these rules, you'll need to be very sure you're treating them fairly within them.

Good luck!

Shpadoinkle
2011-05-06, 03:56 AM
Um... I'm sorry, I'm not really seeing why the distinction between houserules and custom rules is needed.

CalamaroJoe
2011-05-06, 04:39 AM
1.The Temple Defenses is an example. A temple is a special place, so natural it is protected. This is obvious. And more so, a temple(or any place really) will have plenty of custom, unique and even secret defenses. The common person would only know 'temples are protected'.

But then the player comes along and wants to know what magic and spells were used. They want to read the description of the spell. They feel they should 'know' this stuff.


Here I agree with you, but I can understand that it depends on tastes and on player expectations.
My players are ok with misterious stuff that works in unexpected way or custom spell/magic effect realted to a location. Someone else would want to know how exactly it works, what spells were used to create it, the cost, etc. I don't like the latter attitude, but that is...
With this kind of players you need to do more work. Then, if you devised all the mechanics, you can say "make three spellcraft checks" then tell or not tell. (It depends also on character level, IMO at lower levels you are not expected to understand these things).
Also, you can say "Trust me, it works but you don't know how". :smallbiggrin:




2.A red dragon with the spell Breath Weapon Substitution, so when the players attacked it...it breathed acid. They felt cheated and complained that they should know that. That any action taken by any creature should be known to them before combat. Plus they had the problem with ''oh we did not know you were using the Draconomicon spells''. And that is true as I did not sit and list my entire collection of D&D books before the game started.

This can be mean or fine, depending on character level and experience.
Was it the first dragon they met? It seems just a way to hinder metagaming...
If their characters killed or met several dragons, this one can be the nice twist to the pattern.

Frozen_Feet
2011-05-06, 06:47 AM
So, house rules change mechanics and custom rules change fluff? I don't really see how that makes a custom rule a rule.

In tabletop RPGs, words are everything. The divide between fluff and crunch is largely arbitrary. Even if a rule doesn't have a mathematical representation, it can still be influential for the game, and if it's enforced, it's just as much a rule as any mathematical formula.

Quietus
2011-05-06, 07:48 AM
2.A red dragon with the spell Breath Weapon Substitution, so when the players attacked it...it breathed acid. They felt cheated and complained that they should know that. That any action taken by any creature should be known to them before combat. Plus they had the problem with ''oh we did not know you were using the Draconomicon spells''. And that is true as I did not sit and list my entire collection of D&D books before the game started.

I find it interesting that there are people who are against this. Dragons are listed without spells known, without feats - they can be made into whatever you want to make them into. For example, in my setting, there exists several dragons; There's "a black" that's known to exist, which is actually twin black dragons who, if hunted down, will work in concert to provide a much greater threat than the players expect.. and depending on my whims, and the CR I'm aiming for, may be treated as a Dvati pair, sometimes sharing an increased spellcasting pool between them on top of being more dragons than the party expected.

There's two reds that I have named and statted, one that has a penchant for grappling, with the tendency to try and grab one individual and fly away, or to take them for a swim through lava in its volcanic home. Then there's his father, an immensely old, powerful, and cunning creature that focuses more on spellcasting and breath weapon use than physical assault. The first has picked feats like Improved Grapple, Snatch, and Multisnatch. The second has several Breath Weapon Recovery feats and Metabreath feats, plus several breath weapon spells. Even on his worst roll off his strongest metabreath, he only has to wait one round before breathing again. And it's not uncommon for him to Sub/Admixture his breath weapon so that instead of throwing 24d10 fire or whatever a great wyrm red normally does, he's tossing around 48d10 acid, and his reflex save is in the 40's if memory serves.

I have a fairly young white dragon with a unique magical item that functions as a crystal ball, which he's holding onto for said older, more powerful Red. This setup is because the unique magical item is made of ice, and thus keeping it in the White's home prevents it from melting. This White is built for hit-and-run tactics, poking its head out of the various holes in its winding, tunnel-filled home and harassing people trying to hunt it from cover.

With all of that, it shocks me that there are players who would expect to automatically know.. any of that, really. If your characters actively search this information out, then you can probably learn that there's a youngish Red that has a great love of snatching people up and carrying them away, or that some guy who survived a hunt for the White says it's impossible to pin it down in its lair, or that the black dragon has spellcasting well beyond its years. But to expect to have knowledge of these things beforehand, without ever encountering these creatures, and without investing in the Knowledge skills to have heard of them - well, that's rather foolish.

Choco
2011-05-06, 08:44 AM
I seem to remember you implying in your first post that your players don't take Knowledge skills because they're "combat" players. I'd argue that Knowledges are combat skills. Without them, you shouldn't feel (IMO) any obligation to give them information about temple defenses or draconic abilities. If they wanted to have this information, they should have statted their characters such that this information was available to them.

Agree 100% here. Knowledge checks, personal experience, active research on their part, and/or otherwise being given the knowledge IN CHARACTER should be the only ways the PC's know anything about the game world. Whenever I see a player pulling up the Monster Manual to look up what they are fighting, I promptly change its abilities around if this is the first time they are facing said creature.


Was it the first dragon they met? It seems just a way to hinder metagaming...

This is exactly why I do things like that. Often times I use the stat block for a dragon and just refluff it to be something else, for good measure :smallamused:


With all of that, it shocks me that there are players who would expect to automatically know.. any of that, really. If your characters actively search this information out, then you can probably learn that there's a youngish Red that has a great love of snatching people up and carrying them away, or that some guy who survived a hunt for the White says it's impossible to pin it down in its lair, or that the black dragon has spellcasting well beyond its years. But to expect to have knowledge of these things beforehand, without ever encountering these creatures, and without investing in the Knowledge skills to have heard of them - well, that's rather foolish.

Yeah, that gets on my nerves too. Researching an opponent you know you will be fighting SHOULD BE a part of the game. I say "should be" because a lot of players just charge right in.

I had that happen with a black dragon once, it had tactics very much like your younger red. The PC's just walked into his swamp, without doing any research, probably thinking he would just park himself in front of them and exchange blows until someone dies. Then they got all butthurt when he jumped out of the water, snatched the wizard, and then went right back down. He took his time toying with and finishing the wizard off underwater, and all this time the other PC's were just standing there waiting for it to come back... Yeah, that was the day I learned they don't handle intelligent enemies very well :smallsigh:

Tyndmyr
2011-05-06, 09:03 AM
Did they ask to roll any Knowledge checks? Did you let them roll Knowledge checks? :smallconfused:

There you go. Knowledge checks. Detect Magic, etc. Players absolutely should be able to gain information about these sorts of things.

I use only official rules and accepted, known houserules when designing encounters and such. But I feel no compulsion to tell the players beforehand exactly what rules I'm using. They can determine that with the tools available to them. If they did not invest in any of these tools, like knowledge skills, helpful spells, and it's not common knowledge...tough.

I do often leave hints around with regard to especially unusual things. They may not be terribly clear. For instance, last time I used energy substitution on a breath weapon, it was a blue dragon that breathed fire. There was a bit of brown mold in the cave system, and there were huge splotches of it as they got closer to the dragon's lair. Not obvious, but certainly a clue.

I also strongly suggest laying out precisely what sources are allowed before the game. If you intend to use sources your players cannot, make this clear, and make sure they're ok with it. Some are, some view it as unfair. Meh. Either way, if they're cool with it at the beginning, it makes it harder for them to call foul later.

Anxe
2011-05-06, 09:41 AM
I'd go with, the players can know the custom rules (And probably should, so they know what builds/fluff is available for their characters). However, the characters themselves might not know all the custom rules.

As said, I think house rules should be known by everyone playing at the table.

Jay R
2011-05-06, 09:55 AM
In a previous game, I included the following in my intro to the group (re-written recently - the game was in the 1970s):

"The published books represent the body of stories you have heard from travelers and old timers. They are not automatically deemed to be correct. I reserve the right to alter stats as seems necessary. Your characters are not assumed to know precise stats on any monster.

"Some of the stories seem unbelievable in any case. Why, one drunken traveler tried to convince you that you could tell a dragon's alignment from the color of his scales.

"Any monster you've never seen before will be given a quick description, not a name. In a darkened corridor, a kobold, orc, goblin, hobgoblin, gnoll, dwarf, elf, zombie or other undead would be "a vaguely man-shaped creature' unless you've met one before. So would an Umber Hulk. Also, vision is not a binary function, either on or off. If you can't see it at all a 61 feet, you don't get perfect detail at 60. As it gets closer, you would be able to tell if it's bigger or smaller than you, and other details.

"Of course, once you've seen and fought orcs, or any other monster, you will recognize them much more easily. We will go over your backstory to see what creatures you're likely to recognize at first level."

I then re-wrote a few monsters. Not many, but it doesn't take many to make them nervous in all encounters. (And yes, dragons were still color-coded.)

Seb Wiers
2011-05-06, 11:57 AM
How many players think that all the (Dm, custom made) rules must be known about an entire game world?

Pft, I don't even know a lot of the BOOK rules. As such, it could ALL be house / custom rules, and I wouldn't much care as long as there were fair, consistent, and fun.

Gamer Girl
2011-05-06, 01:30 PM
I seem to remember you implying in your first post that your players don't take Knowledge skills because they're "combat" players. I'd argue that Knowledges are combat skills. Without them, you shouldn't feel (IMO) any obligation to give them information about temple defenses or draconic abilities. If they wanted to have this information, they should have statted their characters such that this information was available to them.

Yes, they are my heavy combat group. They have nothing except stuff that kills and does damage. They never take Knowladge skills, as they want to max out things like Spot, Listen, Bluff and Intimidate.

So I'm not talking about them using skills or divination spells to get information as they never do that. They just barley role-play to get information. They quite often just 'run off' on an adventure with no information other then 'it might be east'.

And that is where the problem is.......They hear that a 'explorer found a strange building' and simply run off in that direction....... after a trek through a jungle to the lost temple, they are shocked to find the entire temple is covered in magical animated poison. This is where they cry that they 'should have know that', not by using game abilities or role-playing, they should just 'automatically' know things.

Tyndmyr
2011-05-06, 01:47 PM
The solution to your problem players is fire.

Analytica
2011-05-06, 01:51 PM
So this group actually wants no surprises, then?

I guess you could give them a hireling scholar or something that can provide hints.

Pisha
2011-05-06, 02:09 PM
Yes, they are my heavy combat group. They have nothing except stuff that kills and does damage. They never take Knowladge skills, as they want to max out things like Spot, Listen, Bluff and Intimidate.

So I'm not talking about them using skills or divination spells to get information as they never do that. They just barley role-play to get information. They quite often just 'run off' on an adventure with no information other then 'it might be east'.

And that is where the problem is.......They hear that a 'explorer found a strange building' and simply run off in that direction....... after a trek through a jungle to the lost temple, they are shocked to find the entire temple is covered in magical animated poison. This is where they cry that they 'should have know that', not by using game abilities or role-playing, they should just 'automatically' know things.


:smallconfused: Your players sound silly. Explain to them the concept of research and gathering information, and make sure they understand that - just like in real life - their characters don't just magically know everything about the world around them unless they make an effort to find out.

Since they obviously didn't understand how this works, I'd allow them a one-time chance to rearrange their skill points. Suggest at least a few knowledges between them, plus a decent Gather Information and maybe even Survival and/or Search (for gleaning info about a location once they're there.) Make sure they know this is a one-time offer only; if they don't put ranks into knowledge skills, then they don't know stuff. Period.

Bobby Archer
2011-05-06, 02:55 PM
Honestly, it really does sound like the game you're trying to run is incompatible with the one your players are trying to play. If you can't get them to come around to roleplaying more or thinking realistically about how knowledge and information should work or at least come to some kind of compromise, it might be best to cut your losses.

If they want creatures straight out of the book set in dungeons assembled for the purpose of them crashing through them killing the inhabitants and they won't accept trying to play any other way, you can only try to convince them otherwise so much. Showing them the consequences of their rash actions doesn't seem to work. If you can't explain to them how things should be working or how they can use skills and roleplaying to further their goals, then it might be best to stop trying to go to this extra effort for a group that obviously doesn't appreciate it.

If you can have fun as a DM running the type of game that these players want to be in: fighting against from-the-book creatures with known capabilities and no non-combat encounters, challenges, or interactions, then maybe you should stop giving all this extra effort trying to make a deeper or more varied world. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with a game like this as long as everyone involved is having fun (because, that's the point, having fun).

If you can't have fun playing in their type of game and they can't have fun (or won't try to play) in your type of game, then you might not be a good match for each other. It might be best that you try to find a group of players who're more interested in playing the type of game you're interested in running.

If you think you can get your players to come around, then, yes, go for it. I think the kind of gaming experience that you're trying to run is ultimately more fun and rewarding than what they seem intent on doing. But if they're as intractable as they sound from your examples, getting them to try something different might not be possible, and butting heads with them every session likely won't be fun for anyone involved.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-05-06, 03:55 PM
So... important note.

Not all Players want to "work" for their information.
The Mandatory Research Time is not universally loved; some people just want to go explore forgotten ruins and kill dragons. This is not to say they like reading the last page of mystery novels first; they are just not particularly interested in spending RL time to figure out information that may or may not be useful to them. They're "Reactive Players" : they like to react to situations instead of figuring everything out ahead of time.

My Players are somewhat like this. They're interested in getting to the Danger Zone and then dealing with the situation as they find it. They're perfectly fine making plans and so forth - but they don't like spending time mucking around in libraries to figure out what they need to know in order to plan. They would much rather just make a Knowledge Check on the fly.
The way I adapted to this is by first talking to them (after a disastrous frontal assault on a Gnoll fortress) and explaining that their knowledge skills are there for a reason. If they know they're gong to be fighting gnolls, it might be helpful to see if they actually know anything about gnolls rather than drawing "facts" from thin air. Then I retooled my adventures so that "figuring stuff out ahead of time" was no longer necessary: life would be easier if they did research, but a failure to do so was not going to be a TPK.

Things have worked out pretty well so far - with the amusing note that one of my least "prep Players" is now getting frustrated by "ask no questions" PCs in the first game he is DMing :smallamused:

Pisha
2011-05-06, 04:25 PM
The Mandatory Research Time is not universally loved; some people just want to go explore forgotten ruins and kill dragons. This is not to say they like reading the last page of mystery novels first; they are just not particularly interested in spending RL time to figure out information that may or may not be useful to them. They're "Reactive Players" : they like to react to situations instead of figuring everything out ahead of time.


Which is fine, as far as it goes. But a) it doesn't take more than a minute, tops, to roll a die, announce your result, and have your GM tell you "you know blah." And b) it sounds like these players are trying to have their cake and eat it too. Yes, sometimes just reacting can be fun. But if you prefer that playstyle, you have to accept that sometimes things will take you by surprise. I agree that it needn't be the difference between success and TPK, but you can't expect to know everything about an encounter beforehand if you're not even willing to roll a D20 for it.

CrazedMalarite
2011-05-06, 04:57 PM
Your group wants to play a tactical combat game, it seems. That's perfectly fine, but it's obviously not your playstyle at all. I would try looking for players you mesh with better.

Jay R
2011-05-09, 12:29 PM
This is where they cry that they 'should have know that', not by using game abilities or role-playing, they should just 'automatically' know things.

"Yes, you should have known that -- but you chose to deliberately run away from where the information was. The sage in town knew about the temple; the explorer's wife knew what he was looking for; the people in the tavern know all the local legends. I left all the clues I could. But you decided not to find out anything.

"If you don't swing your sword, you won't hit anything. If you don't cast your spell, you won't get a fireball. If you don't cast Detect Evil, you won't detect the evil. If you don't open the chest, you won't get the gold inside. And for the same reason, if you don't look for clues you won't find any."

And if none of that works, hit them where they live: "You even left before finding out about the 10,000 gp reward offered - which means you can't get it."

(And if they still won't look for clues, then either run a hack'n'slash campaign, or find other players.)

Oh - and don't call them a "heavy combat" group. Every competent combatant knows that combat includes intel and logistics. If they aren't focused on that before the battle, they are a "swinging swords without being serious about combat" group.

MightyTim
2011-05-09, 12:56 PM
I pretty much agree with most of the sentiments expressed here. Assuming you had planned for a way to learn that information within the natural confines of the campaign, it's not your fault if they don't wait to rush into battle.

I'm going to advocate talking to your players about this, because they're demanding you tell them the story, rather than have them discover it. Which, frankly, seems pretty boring to me.

Just a small question on the red dragon example: Why exactly did you have it have a breath weapon substitution? It's a mechanically completely legitimate thing to do, sure, but it sort of seems like you did it just to trick up the PCs. If so, that's probably not the best way to go about making encounters challenging.

Quietus
2011-05-09, 02:22 PM
Just a small question on the red dragon example: Why exactly did you have it have a breath weapon substitution? It's a mechanically completely legitimate thing to do, sure, but it sort of seems like you did it just to trick up the PCs. If so, that's probably not the best way to go about making encounters challenging.

I'm not sure if this refers specifically to me, since I gave an example like this, but I don't think I'm the only one who did.

My homebrew setting has a dragon-heavy past. I try and lay off the houserules, but I do use those provided in the books. Dragons in this setting are essentially the remnants of a once-great empire that had the humanoid races under their heel. Thus, each dragon the players interact with is unique - generally made so by use of feats and spells.

The red in my example with breath weapon substitution had a number of breath weapon feats - maximize, quicken, substitution, admixture - as well as metabreath spells, including ones that ... blind, or give negative levels, I think were in there. Admixture may have been a spell as well. He's a great wyrm, that's been working for a very long time toward a particularly arcane goal. Essentially, he's more caster than tank, although he can still tank - he's a dragon, after all! Unfortunately, dragons make poor casters just off their sorcerer casting, so I took the most supernatural thing he had - his breath weapon - and keyed a great many abilities off of that. So it's not that I was trying to go "HAH, GOTCHA!" to my players; It's that this particular dragon's entire schtick is "I'm a breath weapon mage".

In comparison, the younger red dragon with the penchant for grabbing foes and carrying them off? He has nothing that augments his breath weapon. He can still use it - just as the elder can still slap things in melee - but it's not what he's known for. And in both cases, a player who wants to find out more about that dragon can research them. In the case of the younger they'd find that he's a hotheaded brute that charges headfirst at things, and has a tendency to grab a foe and fly away. In the case of the elder, the research would be much more difficult (but still very possible, given he's a great wyrm, and players should be nearing epic), but would hint toward arcane experiments, and unusual breath weapons. But if you go charging in thinking I'm just going to hit you with a random dragon, in a setting where the ones that remain are all big power players? Then you're probably going to die as a footnote in history.

Lord Vampyre
2011-05-10, 01:09 PM
1.The Temple Defenses is an example. A temple is a special place, so natural it is protected. This is obvious. And more so, a temple(or any place really) will have plenty of custom, unique and even secret defenses. The common person would only know 'temples are protected'.

But then the player comes along and wants to know what magic and spells were used. They want to read the description of the spell. They feel they should 'know' this stuff.

2.A red dragon with the spell Breath Weapon Substitution, so when the players attacked it...it breathed acid. They felt cheated and complained that they should know that. That any action taken by any creature should be known to them before combat. Plus they had the problem with ''oh we did not know you were using the Draconomicon spells''. And that is true as I did not sit and list my entire collection of D&D books before the game started.

I've always loved changing the base creature. I hate it when players meta-game. For instance, if a player's character has never seen a troll, and doesn't know anything about them, then they shouldn't be lighting it on fire after they defeat it. Far too often, I've seen players use what they know as a way of surpassing what their characters know. If the player asks if his character would know about it, ie his character is checking his memory, then I'll make a knowledge roll for him, giving him the information that he has on it. Now, I rarely use trolls or other creatures that have special weaknesses that can be exploited, but the same holds true for a creatures' immunities, resistances, and other special abilities.

I do tend to be fairly close lipped with information, unless the players ask for a knowledge check. I make players try to figure out what they are up against rather than just telling them that they see a troll. I find that players are far more cautious when they don't know what they are fighting, than when you simply tell them that they have been ambushed by a band of goblins. I also tend to use a lot of the rules variations suggested by Heroes of Horror in my campaigns, even when its not exactly a horror campaign.

The only house rules or setting rules that I give my players are the ones that will affect how they play their characters. For instance, I've taken away Detect Evil from the traditional Paladins and given them Detect Good. The thought process is that it takes one to know one. I've also changed Protection from Evil to simply just Protection. I just get tired of the whole its evil lets kill it trope.