Worst REAL house rules you've used

[vasilidor]

that is a bit more in-depth than what i intend on doing.

[Zhorn]

Fumble tables that disrupt your turn ON your turn...
I'm all cool with tables that impose some negative consequences to your actions, but I loath to use any that denies players the abilities they were completely justified in using till than nat 1 showed up.
Examples:
fighters lose all remaining attack rolls just because the first attack was a 1
rogues not getting to use their bonus action because their main action was a fumble

it's one thing to get stunned or disarmed by another creature's actions, but I don't think it's okay to have your turn grind to a halt while it is in progress (especially with DM's that keep the tables and fumble rolls secret).

[olskool]

Let me tell you: adding the sanity rules from CoC to a D&D horror campaign sounds like a fun time, but it will result in the deaths of every party member if my experience is anything to mention.

NOBODY gets out of CoC alive either. If you don't die, you go mad. NEVER read that musty old book in CoC! You can summon a "Great Old One" by just looking at the drawings. :mitd:

[olskool]

Worst Rule ever? Drink a shot (Jack) every time you take damage in combat. I was the sole Fighter... I have NO IDEA how that game ended.

[EldritchWeaver]

NOBODY gets out of CoC alive either. If you don't die, you go mad. NEVER read that musty old book in CoC! You can summon a "Great Old One" by just looking at the drawings. :mitd:

Tell that Old Man Henderson's friends.

[Quertus]

Many, many GMs I've had played with "hats on head stupidity" - if you didn't specify every detail of exactly how you were doing something, they'd fill in the blanks with the dumbest possible answer.

Wow. That was supposed to be "pants on head" stupidity. What a typo.

Anyway, I've thought of a new one - you know how people complain about "a Wizard did it"? Well, I had a GM who used that as logic for the Wizard PC(s). Oh, something would happen to you? I'll just assume that you have some Wizard trick to negate that, that you used ahead of time, even though you never said anything.

Of course, this is the same GM who would make monsters harder to hit when you went for their touch AC (that's right, their touch AC was better than their full AC), so I think it's safe say that he wasn't playing with a full deck.

[Cluedrew]

Wow. That was supposed to be "pants on head" stupidity. What a typo.This one made me laugh a surprising amount.

[Quertus]

This one made me laugh a surprising amount.

Yeah, it works either way, just... not what I was trying to type. Darn autocorrect.

[Largo833]

I don't have anything truly horrid, but my current DM is using a house rule that I'm really not a fan of, where he won't tell us what an enemy rolled to attack, only if it hit or miss. The idea is to make things like the Shield spell or a wild sorcerer's Bend Luck ability more uncertain (I don't suspect him of fudging any rolls), but it really just makes them risky to the point of being useless- I'm not going to blow 2 sorcery points on something that quite likely has a 0% chance of making any difference. Similarly, he refuses to tell us whether a boss used a Legendary Resistance or just rolled high enough on its save, and so exactly zero high level save-negates spells are ever used on them.

[The Random NPC]

I don't have anything truly horrid, but my current DM is using a house rule that I'm really not a fan of, where he won't tell us what an enemy rolled to attack, only if it hit or miss. The idea is to make things like the Shield spell or a wild sorcerer's Bend Luck ability more uncertain (I don't suspect him of fudging any rolls), but it really just makes them risky to the point of being useless- I'm not going to blow 2 sorcery points on something that quite likely has a 0% chance of making any difference. Similarly, he refuses to tell us whether a boss used a Legendary Resistance or just rolled high enough on its save, and so exactly zero high level save-negates spells are ever used on them.

That sounds like the normal rules, not house rules.

[Talakeal]

I don't have anything truly horrid, but my current DM is using a house rule that I'm really not a fan of, where he won't tell us what an enemy rolled to attack, only if it hit or miss. The idea is to make things like the Shield spell or a wild sorcerer's Bend Luck ability more uncertain (I don't suspect him of fudging any rolls), but it really just makes them risky to the point of being useless- I'm not going to blow 2 sorcery points on something that quite likely has a 0% chance of making any difference. Similarly, he refuses to tell us whether a boss used a Legendary Resistance or just rolled high enough on its save, and so exactly zero high level save-negates spells are ever used on them.

I had a similar situation in 4e. The DM mised minions in with regular enemies and refused to tell us which was which, so anytime we wasted an encounter ability on a minnion it felt real bad.

[Anonymouswizard]

I don't have anything truly horrid, but my current DM is using a house rule that I'm really not a fan of, where he won't tell us what an enemy rolled to attack, only if it hit or miss. The idea is to make things like the Shield spell or a wild sorcerer's Bend Luck ability more uncertain (I don't suspect him of fudging any rolls), but it really just makes them risky to the point of being useless- I'm not going to blow 2 sorcery points on something that quite likely has a 0% chance of making any difference. Similarly, he refuses to tell us whether a boss used a Legendary Resistance or just rolled high enough on its save, and so exactly zero high level save-negates spells are ever used on them.

'Hidden rolls' are the standard rules, although open rolls are becoming more common as new styles of GMing take over. I roll in the open a lot, but I also don't tend to run games with a lot of reaction abilities, and very rarely any games with reaction abilities that affect the previous roll instead of chaining off it. Open rolls make the game more fair, in that the players can tell when their deaths are down to bad luck or poor planning, while closed rolls make the game more structured, as one player is able to fudge results to remove things that don't seem to make sense.

Notably hidden rolls were much less of a problem in 3.X, because spells like shield aren't cast as reactions, although there were a number of Immediate Action spells printed* and contingencies in incredibly high level play could make things silly.

* When you get into 3.X anything you can stick in front of the words 'spell' has a decent chance of having been printed. This chance hits 90% if we're discussing The Dark Eye instead.

[Largo833]

That sounds like the normal rules, not house rules.

Other players' experience obviously may differ, but virtually every campaign I've played in or watched has had the DM openly stating their roll totals- I haven't seen anything in the rulebook that states either way whether the DM is supposed to do that or keep the rolls hidden (though it's entirely possible I've just missed it), so "house rule" may not quite be the right term, but I figured it was enough of a deviation from the norm to be mentioned here.

[Talakeal]

Other players' experience obviously may differ, but virtually every campaign I've played in or watched has had the DM openly stating their roll totals- I haven't seen anything in the rulebook that states either way whether the DM is supposed to do that or keep the rolls hidden (though it's entirely possible I've just missed it), so "house rule" may not quite be the right term, but I figured it was enough of a deviation from the norm to be mentioned here.

The DM's screen has long been a stable of old school DMing.

I have long thought that both rolling in secret and hiding the difficulties of rolls were needlessly cryptic and antagonistic, but a lot of people swear by them and defend them to their last breath. The Angry GM recently had a nice article about this.

[Luccan]

The DM's screen has long been a stable of old school DMing.

I have long thought that both rolling in secret and hiding the difficulties of rolls were needlessly cryptic and antagonistic, but a lot of people swear by them and defend them to their last breath. The Angry GM recently had a nice article about this.

I don't think hiding the enemy to-hit roll is necessary, at least. Obviously you want to play some things close to the chest, but when you have reactions that are dependent on what number was rolled in the first place, especially when that reaction comes from a limited per day resource, it seems fair to at least reveal that much.

[georgie_leech]

I prefer the Book-only strips of Dungeon Crawlin Fools method. "It hit Roy's AC on a 2?! :smalleek:"

[Samwich]

Here is a house rule I played with just a few days ago. Just to be clear, this is not something that the players agreed to, this was just something the DM wanted to do.

Cutscenes.

Now, a cutscene consists of an extended period of time in which a player is deprived of their ability to take actions, reactions, make saving throws, or even say something in character. Instead, the DM simply tells all the players some terrible thing that happens, and nobody is allowed to do anything to counter their horrible fate.

An example to put this into context:
The group had been playing this one shot that was basically the Odyssey. We were trying to get home, but we kept getting imprisoned, ship wrecked, all manner of things. Most of our failures arose because of cutscenes, and while it was aggravating to have your whole cunning plan, with backups and contingencies, fail because your character suddenly loses the ability to act, we were all having a fairly good time.

Up until the end.

We had finally reached home, and the party was celebrating in a tavern. It was getting late, and the session was basically over, so we thought that was the end. Just then, this small cat, which we recognized as the familiar of an evil wizard we had escaped, appeared in the door.

The players immediately say, "We go out the window."

"You can't. It's a cutscene. Only the rogue sees the cat."

"Okay," says the rogue, "Then I go out the window."

"No, you don't. You walk over to talk to the cat."

"No I don't."

"Yes, you do. It's a cutscene."

The rest of the party asks if they see their companion get up and walk over to the door, and if they can follow him.

"No, it's a cutscene."

The cat suddenly lunges forwards at the rogue, trying to grab him.

"I dodge out of the way!"

"No, it's a cutscene."

The cat suddenly grabs the rogue and teleports him away. Several players argue that teleportation only affects willing targets, and that if this is happening against his will, he should at the very least get a saving throw.

"No, he doesn't get a saving throw. It's a cutscene."

The rogue suddenly finds himself alone, back in the evil wizards tower. He is in a room with several windows. He declares that he immediately bolts for the nearest window.

"You can't, it's a cutscene."

The wizard in question enters the room, and the rogue declares that he immediately attacks.

"You can't, it's a cutscene."

The wizard suddenly polymorphs the rogue into a small bird, and then teleports him into a cage with no doors. The players ask if he gets a saving throw against either spell, only to be met with the familiar,

"No, it's a cutscene."

And that was the end of the session. What had been a fun adventure was pretty much spoiled for the players on account of an almost five minute segment during which they could do nothing as one of their companions was kidnapped. We still have yet to rescue our rogue.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yeah, that's the "house rule" of "shut up and sit down, I'm in charge here." AKA straight up railroading. It's rarely that blatant, though.

[Malifice]

Here is a house rule I played with just a few days ago. Just to be clear, this is not something that the players agreed to, this was just something the DM wanted to do.

Cutscenes.

WEG's D6 Star Wars actually used cutscenes and even scripted play to great effect.

The cutscenes were only to show what the villians were up to. The DM would suddenly announce: Camera pans; interior Star Destroyer bridge... and show the PCs the discussion being had by the baddies on the bridge (about the PCs or what they were up to). It was a cool technique totally in line with the cinematic feel of how Star Wars should feel.

Ditto when you started a new adventure. You'd be handed a short script and (after the intro music played and the crawl opened up on youtube, if you're running them now) each PC would play a role (PC 1, 2, 3 etc) for a short scene.

While scripted it was still cool (and not overdone; just to set the scene for the adventure), and felt very 'Star'Wars'.

[PhoenixPhyre]

WEG's D6 Star Wars actually used cutscenes and even scripted play to great effect.

The cutscenes were only to show what the villians were up to. The DM would suddenly announce: Camera pans; interior Star Destroyer bridge... and show the PCs the discussion being had by the baddies on the bridge (about the PCs or what they were up to). It was a cool technique totally in line with the cinematic feel of how Star Wars should feel.

Ditto when you started a new adventure. You'd be handed a short script and (after the intro music played and the crawl opened up on youtube, if you're running them now) each PC would play a role (PC 1, 2, 3 etc) for a short scene.

While scripted it was still cool (and not overdone; just to set the scene for the adventure), and felt very 'Star'Wars'.

That especially works if the "cutscenes" don't involve the player characters at all. That way you're not stomping on their agency by declaring/denying their actions.

And if they're rare. Like villainous monologues, they get stale real fast.

[Malifice]

That especially works if the "cutscenes" don't involve the player characters at all. That way you're not stomping on their agency by declaring/denying their actions.

And if they're rare. Like villainous monologues, they get stale real fast.

There are usually 1 or 2 cutscenes in each module. A short exposition by the DM about what the villians are doing (or to set the scene for the rest of the module).

They worked really well.

You have to bear in mind this is Star Wars. Monologuing villains and pulpy cinematic space opera adventure is the core theme of the game.

The scripted bits did kind of tread on PC agency (you each play a part in a scripted single page of about 2 minutes of dialogue). But it was never overbearing (maybe you'd get a bad pun to say in the script, and you're portraying a serious PC, but that's about it).

They were fun and IME always gor a laugh and were a hoot to play.

Heck even when I was running SWSE last time, I converted those old modules to D20 and and printed out the handouts, scripts and kept the cutscenes. The players loved them.

[PhoenixPhyre]

There are usually 1 or 2 cutscenes in each module. A short exposition by the DM about what the villians are doing (or to set the scene for the rest of the module).

They worked really well.

You have to bear in mind this is Star Wars. Monologuing villains and pulpy cinematic space opera adventure is the core theme of the game.

The scripted bits did kind of tread on PC agency (you each play a part in a scripted single page of about 2 minutes of dialogue). But it was never overbearing (maybe you'd get a bad pun to say in the script, and you're portraying a serious PC, but that's about it).

They were fun and IME always gor a laugh and were a hoot to play.

Heck even when I was running SWSE last time, I converted those old modules to D20 and and printed out the handouts, scripts and kept the cutscenes. The players loved them.

When the players are playing a role in the cutscene, is it their character in the scene or is are they playing someone else (an NPC) and just acting the lines? The second doesn't stomp on agency but lets the players get involved (so its not just the exposition fairy talking), which is good. The first (having my PC be forced to say certain lines and do certain things) would not be something I'd like.

[Malifice]

When the players are playing a role in the cutscene, is it their character in the scene or is are they playing someone else (an NPC) and just acting the lines? The second doesn't stomp on agency but lets the players get involved (so its not just the exposition fairy talking), which is good. The first (having my PC be forced to say certain lines and do certain things) would not be something I'd like.

The cutscenes are the Villians (you know; like in the movies).

You start with a Opening Crawl that you read out (or better yet these days, actually make or can find on You tube). Like this:


A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far
away...
A group of Rebel agents has been assigned
to accompany the great engineer Walex
Blissex, designer of the Victory-class Star
Destroyer, to Kwenn space station. Blissex, now
a respected member of the Alliance, received
a message from his son-in-law, Imperial Governor Denn Wessex, claiming that the engineer’s
daughter is near death. Even though it
appeared to be a trap, Blissex could not pass
up this last chance to reconcile with his
daughter.
Whether Lira Wessex, who designed the
Imperial-class Star Destroyer based upon her
father’s previous work, is^ruly dying or not
seems inconsequential. Upon reaching Kwenn,
Walex and his Rebel escorts were captured and
placed in the custody of Captain Kolaff, commander of the VSD Subjugator.
Now, trapped within the detention block of
the powerful ship, the Rebels have little hope
of escape. They can only wait for the eventual
return of their captors and the terrible interrogator Droid that is sure to accompany
them . . .

That starts the adventure.

Then you hand the PCs a copy of the 'script' and play starts like this:


Use the following script to start your adventure. Your gam em aster will tell you w hat
part (or parts) to read. W hen your turn com es read your lines out loud, speaking the way
you think your character would. Be sure to listen to w hat the other characters say as the
script contains im portant background inform ation to start the adventure.
Start the Script
1st Rebel: Well, all things considered, it could
be worse.
2nd Rebel: We’re locked in a detention cell in
the middle of a Victory-class Star Destroyer with
no equipment and no weapons. How could it
possibly be worse?
3rd Rebel: We could be dead.
GM (as voice over cell comlink): Attention
prisoners. Interrogation will begin shortly. We
hope that you will be as uncooperative as our
last “guests.”
4th Rebel: I’m not so sure that would be worse.
5th Rebel: I’ve got a bad feeling about this. . .
6th Rebel: Maybe if you had this “bad feeling”
before convincing us to volunteer for this mission we might not be in this mess.
3rd Rebel: Yeah, when an Imperial Governor
sends holotapes all over the galaxy to contact
a well-known Rebel, it should set off a few
warning lights.
5th Rebel: The Governor sounded sincere to
me. Just a guy who’s wife was dying, and her
last wish was to see her father before she took
The Final Jump. What’s so unusual about that?
6th Rebel: Her father just happens to be Walex
Blissex, designer of the Victory Star Destroyer,
and now an important member of the Alliance.
2nd Rebel: Speaking of Blissex, where do you
think they’ve taken him?
1st Rebel: I think he’s still somewhere in the
detention center. I overheard some guards talking about it.
3rd Rebel: Well there’s not a whole lot we can
do about it just now.
4th Rebel: What do you mean? We’ve got to
escape.
5th Rebel: That’s right. Those Imperials just
warned us that they’re on their way. ..
2nd Rebel: And they’ll probably have an interrogator Droid with them!
4th Rebel: But what can we do about it? They
outnumber and outgun us, and that Captain
Kolaff character sounds like a real Rancor.
1st Rebel: Yeah, the way he calmly “invited”
us all aboard his ship back at Kwenn kinda’ gave
me the creeps.
6th Rebel: Listen, we’ve still got Dr. Blissex on
our side, if we can find him.
5th Rebel: Right. If we do break out, he might
know a way to get out of this Imperial
monstrosity.
3rd Rebel: Wait a minute! You want us to go
up against an entire Star Destroyer?
2nd Rebel: I like the o d d s...

Basically it's a single page script the PCs read out at the start of the adventure to set the scene. After that they're on their own.

At 1 or 2 points during the adventure you 'cut' away from the players and introduce a cut scene like this:


Read aloud:
INTERIOR: SUBJUGATOR BRIDGE. Standing
before the massive viewports of the command
bridge, a high-ranking Imperial officer looks out
upon the damage his ship has sustained. His eyes
slide slowly across the deep gashes and the
twisted superstructure, resting momentarily upon
a black scar that slices the forward hull. An
explosion rips through the wounded ship from
somewhere deep inside, throwing the bridge crew
from side to side. But the officer stands firm
before the viewport, oblivious to the discomforts
of his men.
“It doesn’t look very promising, does it Captain
Kolaff,” asks the woman who now stands beside
him. She wears the regal garb of an Imperial
official, retaining an air of authority even though
the outfit is stained and torn.
“Promising, my lady?” replies Kolaff. “We are
about to win a great victory against our enemies.”
The official laughs, but there is no humor in
her voice. “Victory? Captain, that pirate fleet
caught you off guard and devastated your vessel.
I do not see running away as a victory.”
A dangerous gleam sparkles in KolafTs piercing
eyes. “Not running, my lady, tactically retreating.
They have damaged us beyond repair, that is
true. But I have a surprise being readied for those
pirates. They will find the price of dealing with
Subjugator to be more expensive than they can
afford.”
The official smiles evilly. “With my help, of
course, Captain.”
“Of course, my lady.”
Fade to. ..
INTERIOR: SUBJUGATOR CORRIDOR AND A
SMALL GROUP OF REBELS.

It gives the whole adventure a 'space Opera/ cinematic pulpy' type feel.

For a Star Wars game it works great. Those WEG adventures remain some of the best I've come across in 35 years of gaming.

Them and the adventures in Dragon Warriors (a 90's fantasy heartbreaker that I maintain had the best campaign setting and evocative adventures ever made).

[PhoenixPhyre]

The cutscenes are the Villians (you know; like in the movies).

You start with a Opening Crawl that you read out (or better yet these days, actually make or can find on You tube). Like this:

That starts the adventure.

Then you hand the PCs a copy of the 'script' and play starts like this:

Basically it's a single page script the PCs read out at the start of the adventure to set the scene. After that they're on their own.

At 1 or 2 points during the adventure you 'cut' away from the players and introduce a cut scene like this:

It gives the whole adventure a 'space Opera/ cinematic pulpy' type feel.

For a Star Wars game it works great. Those WEG adventures remain some of the best I've come across in 35 years of gaming.

Them and the adventures in Dragon Warriors (a 90's fantasy heartbreaker that I maintain had the best campaign setting and evocative adventures ever made).

So that sounds like the "rebel 1" there isn't the character that the player made, but simply an NPC that they're giving voice to for that scene (after which the player picks up his "real" character in possibly a completely different part of space). Is that accurate?

If so, I'd have no problem with that and might find it fun. It neatly avoids the "GM monologue/exposition fairy" issue by giving the players a role (even if that role is scripted) while not forcing their characters (with which they identify much much more than they do with an NPC) to take actions against their established characterization. And yes, it very much fits the feeling of Star Wars.

[Malifice]

So that sounds like the "rebel 1" there isn't the character that the player made, but simply an NPC that they're giving voice to for that scene (after which the player picks up his "real" character in possibly a completely different part of space). Is that accurate?

If so, I'd have no problem with that and might find it fun. It neatly avoids the "GM monologue/exposition fairy" issue by giving the players a role (even if that role is scripted) while not forcing their characters (with which they identify much much more than they do with an NPC) to take actions against their established characterization. And yes, it very much fits the feeling of Star Wars.

Yeah man, it's like 1 page (around 5 lines each PC) of script and around 2 minutes.

You can improv all you want as well really. It's only to set the scene, and then off you go in the adventure.

Each script someone says 'I have a bad feeling about this..' which is hilarious and on point with the movies.

The only people that Ive ever had that disliked it were the kind of dudes that complain that Stormtroopers are 'underpowered' and buff them 'because they're elite' or refuse to let 1st level PCs do heroic **** from the movies 'because they're only 1st level and not as powerful as [insert character from movies here]'.

So people that dont really 'get' Star Wars and cinematic pulpy space opera.

After the 'Opening crawl' and the mini-script you do what you want. During the module the DM has handouts to give to the PCs, and occasional 'cut aways' to the Villains (just like in the movies).

When you get the hang of it as GM, you can insert more cut aways yourself (Cut away; bridge of the Imperial Star Destroyer, camera pans to the worried face of an Imperial Moff: No ship that size has a cloaking device! sort of thing).

It doesnt really tread on the players agency in a meaningful way (although the script does refer to other PCs doing things like being the cause of the current predicament 'off camera' before the adventure starts and things like that).

I find they focus the players, set the scene and bring the whole Star Wars thing to life. I always note my players are smiling ear to ear after reading them.

[Anonymouswizard]

Here is a house rule I played with just a few days ago. Just to be clear, this is not something that the players agreed to, this was just something the DM wanted to do.

Cutscenes.

Now, a cutscene consists of an extended period of time in which a player is deprived of their ability to take actions, reactions, make saving throws, or even say something in character. Instead, the DM simply tells all the players some terrible thing that happens, and nobody is allowed to do anything to counter their horrible fate.

So they made a rule that 'when I declare it I can railroad you as much as I want'?

Now I get that sometimes disallowing or forcing certain actions for game flow, especially when it's a choice of accepting the adventure or having no game. I have an unwritten but accepted house rule when running Shadowrun: if the session begins with you meeting a Johnson in a bar you accept the mission (although that was the only restriction, I never vetoed any other actions). I also used to force Villain Survival scenes when I wanted to use them again, although I now only do that if I'm using a 'heroes never die' rule because it's just cheap and I can always make a Suspiciously Similar Substitute.

But in about 95% of cases I've seen an action forced it's been to make a railroad. Not to get the ball rolling, I'm fine if you tell me that my character is in X location doing Y when the game begins if that makes it easier to run, but to funnel player agency along one track and/or just deny the players stuff (I was once explicitly denied the ability to build a subsonic railgun, despite a warehouse of electrical components and access to multiple identical poles).


WEG's D6 Star Wars actually used cutscenes and even scripted play to great effect.

The cutscenes were only to show what the villians were up to. The DM would suddenly announce: Camera pans; interior Star Destroyer bridge... and show the PCs the discussion being had by the baddies on the bridge (about the PCs or what they were up to). It was a cool technique totally in line with the cinematic feel of how Star Wars should feel.

Ditto when you started a new adventure. You'd be handed a short script and (after the intro music played and the crawl opened up on youtube, if you're running them now) each PC would play a role (PC 1, 2, 3 etc) for a short scene.

While scripted it was still cool (and not overdone; just to set the scene for the adventure), and felt very 'Star'Wars'.

That sounds like a nice thing in more pulpy or cinematic campaigns. Especially if you keep them to a minute or two or allow the players to join in, I can see giving each of them a plucky henchman character that shows up in Villain scenes. I might use it if I ever run a Lensman game (meanwhile in Boskonia...). But you would really have to make sure to limit it to one scene per couple of hours of play, but I see it working well.

i think the difference, as has been stated, is that in 'cutaway' scenes the actions of the PCs don't come up at all because they aren't there, while in 'cutscenes' the PCs are there but don't have agency.

[Enixon]

Many, many GMs I've had played with "hats pants on head stupidity" - if you didn't specify every detail of exactly how you were doing something, they'd fill in the blanks with the dumbest possible answer.


bonus points if when a player DOES specify ever detail the GM goes over that description with a fine toothed comb for any excuse to have the attempted action go horrifically wrong to the point where the players just deal with the pants on head stupidity option because while your character will be made to look like an idiot at least the job will technically get done without a bunch of crippling injuries.



To add another house rule the same GM used, "If you add any description to your attacks beyond just "I attack the (bad guy here)", the attack is now a "called shot" and will only hit on a nat 20 regardless of your THAC0, the target's AC, or anything else"

I'm not sure if this really counts as a "rule" per say, but that GM also had the habit of declaring PC's alignments to change to Evil for just being rude or snarky, meanwhile his NPCs who'd literally and openly murder people for "being annoying" where still considered "Chaotic Good" or at worst "Chaotic Neutral"

[Anonymouswizard]

bonus points if when a player DOES specify ever detail the GM goes over that description with a fine toothed comb for any excuse to have the attempted action go horrifically wrong to the point where the players just deal with the pants on head stupidity option because while your character will be made to look like an idiot at least the job will technically get done without a bunch of crippling injuries.

Yep. Missy GMs develop selective hearing instead of using that method.


To add another house rule the same GM used, "If you add any description to your attacks beyond just "I attack the (bad guy here)", the attack is now a "called shot" and will only hit on a nat 20 regardless of your THAC0, the target's AC, or anything else"

So anti-Stunting? Ouch.


I'm not sure if this really counts as a "rule" per say, but that GM also had the habit of declaring PC's alignments to change to Evil for just being rude or snarky, meanwhile his NPCs who'd literally and openly murder people for "being annoying" where still considered "Chaotic Good" or at worst "Chaotic Neutral"

I've seen stuff like this. Not specifically with regards to alignments, but I've seen some really bizarre in-game morality from GMs. Beyond the standard 'killing things and looting their corpses isn't evil as long as they have green skin' anyway. I think my favourite was that attacking the GMPC dinged evil.

Now I've sometimes used blue and orange morality to make a point. Law and Chaos are a good baby steps version, and I've actually had my PCs abuse that one before (one has to make a check to be willing to break the law, yet couldn't see anything wrong with killing beyond that and condoned torture*). But it should be acknowledged and done consciously.

* He cared not what the law was or if it helped people, it just has to be consistent.

[Pelle]

Cutscenes may kind of work if they are handled like something like pushed rolls in CoC. If the players fail a roll, they may choose to try again, but if they now fail, the GM gets to dictate what happens and put them in a bad situation. If so, the players have full agency to give away their agency if they think it's worth the risk.

[King of Nowhere]

Here is a house rule I played with just a few days ago. Just to be clear, this is not something that the players agreed to, this was just something the DM wanted to do.

Cutscenes.

Now, a cutscene consists of an extended period of time in which a player is deprived of their ability to take actions, reactions, make saving throws, or even say something in character. Instead, the DM simply tells all the players some terrible thing that happens, and nobody is allowed to do anything to counter their horrible fate.

An example to put this into context:
The group had been playing this one shot that was basically the Odyssey. We were trying to get home, but we kept getting imprisoned, ship wrecked, all manner of things. Most of our failures arose because of cutscenes, and while it was aggravating to have your whole cunning plan, with backups and contingencies, fail because your character suddenly loses the ability to act, we were all having a fairly good time.

Up until the end.

We had finally reached home, and the party was celebrating in a tavern. It was getting late, and the session was basically over, so we thought that was the end. Just then, this small cat, which we recognized as the familiar of an evil wizard we had escaped, appeared in the door.

The players immediately say, "We go out the window."

"You can't. It's a cutscene. Only the rogue sees the cat."

"Okay," says the rogue, "Then I go out the window."

"No, you don't. You walk over to talk to the cat."

"No I don't."

"Yes, you do. It's a cutscene."

The rest of the party asks if they see their companion get up and walk over to the door, and if they can follow him.

"No, it's a cutscene."

The cat suddenly lunges forwards at the rogue, trying to grab him.

"I dodge out of the way!"

"No, it's a cutscene."

The cat suddenly grabs the rogue and teleports him away. Several players argue that teleportation only affects willing targets, and that if this is happening against his will, he should at the very least get a saving throw.

"No, he doesn't get a saving throw. It's a cutscene."

The rogue suddenly finds himself alone, back in the evil wizards tower. He is in a room with several windows. He declares that he immediately bolts for the nearest window.

"You can't, it's a cutscene."

The wizard in question enters the room, and the rogue declares that he immediately attacks.

"You can't, it's a cutscene."

The wizard suddenly polymorphs the rogue into a small bird, and then teleports him into a cage with no doors. The players ask if he gets a saving throw against either spell, only to be met with the familiar,

"No, it's a cutscene."

And that was the end of the session. What had been a fun adventure was pretty much spoiled for the players on account of an almost five minute segment during which they could do nothing as one of their companions was kidnapped. We still have yet to rescue our rogue.
that's an especially egregious case because, if the DM wanted the rogue captured, there were much better ways to do it without forcing the party to act like total morons.
I mean, just off the top of my head
"the evil wizard teleports in the pub, grabs the rogue while you're all flatfooted, and teleports away. yes, the rogue get a saving throw, but fails because rogue saving throws suck."
"ok. i try to escape out of a window"
"there are no windows, and the only dooor is locked and bolted. and the wizard summoned a dozen monsters in preparation"

that would have been a much more believable way of kidnapping a party member

[hotflungwok]

What was the point of capturing the rogue to begin with? Was the player tired of the character decided to switch to a new one? Was the player going to stop playing and wanted to tie up his character as a loose end with an option to return later? I guess I don’t see why the GM would have done this in the first place, the ridiculously ham fisted railroading was just the icing on the cake.

If a GM had done that to me when he next asked ‘What are you going to do?’ my response would have been ‘Why don’t you tell me?’ I’ve quit games for stuff like this. If I wanted to stand there and watching what was going on I’d go see a movie or play a JRPG video game.

[sengmeng]

My worst rule was also my best rule: if your character drinks, you drink.

[Segev]

NOBODY gets out of CoC alive either. If you don't die, you go mad. NEVER read that musty old book in CoC! You can summon a "Great Old One" by just looking at the drawings. :mitd:

On that subject, I'd like to thank the reader of that tome I sent ahead of me into this dimension.

[PopeLinus1]

So Story time with Grandpa kinglinus1.

This was almost a year ago, when while staying n Kansas City for three weeks, made friends with a guy who was about to dm a group. Know, I liked this guy, he was funny, and we had similar tastes, so I asked if I could show up for a few sessions, and he agreed.

He... Wasn't a great dm, let me just say that, he had only played one game before, and most of his problems came from that, but I'm not here to talk about that. I'm here to talk about the semi house rule he used.

When I went back to my beloved home town, we tried to Skype me in. Because of the fact that their Interwebs was weird, I usually ended up joining them about an hour into their game. So obviously the dm had to find an excuse to remove me from the game, and to bring me back into it.

So what he would do is, whenever I joined back in, wherever the party was, they would find me in the room, doing something embarrassing like hiding under a table from a goblin. Then the dm informed the party I was doing this for two days. Every time it was something embarrassing, and stupid and totally out of character for this guy who I had actually developed pretty well.

This isn't really a house rule, just a approach to this problem that I found... kinda mean spirited.

Then he Rocks fall you died the party

[Cluedrew]

Here is a house rule I played with just a few days ago. Just to be clear, this is not something that the players agreed to, this was just something the DM wanted to do.

Cutscenes.

[...] We still have yet to rescue our rogueBecause you quit playing?

I'm always confused about how GMs think they can do this without being bludgeoned to death (or rather having players just walk out on them). Or course in the end it makes sense because the other players don't bludgeon them to death (or rather walk out on the game). But that confuses me too.

Are people optimistic things will improve? Are their standards just that low or what? Last time I was in a bad session, people bailed before the session was over and there wasn't even a hint of having other session after that.

[King of Nowhere]

Because you quit playing?

I'm always confused about how GMs think they can do this without being bludgeoned to death (or rather having players just walk out on them). Or course in the end it makes sense because the other players don't bludgeon them to death (or rather walk out on the game). But that confuses me too.

Are people optimistic things will improve? Are their standards just that low or what? Last time I was in a bad session, people bailed before the session was over and there wasn't even a hint of having other session after that.

most often it's because people still have a good time. Say, you may not like the way you were railroaded, but the quest to free the rogue will be an exciting one, you had good experiences before with the DM, so you accept the flaws.
This is especially common when the players are good friends; those kind of games can tolerate a greater amount of disfunctionality, both because there is an implicit trust, and because nobody expects anyone else to be a professional.

sometimes, everyone is a beginner, everyone is roleplaying the first time, and so they have no actual idea what it entails and what are the bad behaviors and what ruin games. So they start there, and only years later they recognize, in retrospect, all the problems. they also enjoyed themselves because they had no other standards.

Those are the functional reasons for accepting a disfunctional group.

Other times, people are desperate enough for a game that they will stay in a toxic one. Not nice, but it's a fact of life; just as there are people who are desperate enough for a relationship that they will stay in a toxic one, or desperate enough for social acceptance that they will hang up with the wrong kind of people.

Possibly there are also people who enjoy seeing the disfunctionality around them; they care little about the character or campaign, and they laugh at seeing all the crazyness that happens around them. This is the same attitude of people watching trash movies to be entertained by how bad they are, and take a plot hole not as something ruining the story, but as a further source of hilarity.

[Samwich]

Because you quit playing?

I'm always confused about how GMs think they can do this without being bludgeoned to death (or rather having players just walk out on them). Or course in the end it makes sense because the other players don't bludgeon them to death (or rather walk out on the game). But that confuses me too.

Are people optimistic things will improve? Are their standards just that low or what? Last time I was in a bad session, people bailed before the session was over and there wasn't even a hint of having other session after that.

No, we didn't rescue him because the session ended there. I actually just got back from a session where we continued the story. The rogue's player had to make a new character, but once he was introduced, the party traveled to the evil wizard's tower.

Turns out, the DM did this because, in his words, the wizard was "Too intriguing and interesting of a character to abandon," but the DM simply "Could not think of any other story hooks to bring him back." So the wizard met the party, and said that he would release the rogue if we did a series of quests for him. Being a mature, reasonable group of adventurers, we did the obvious thing.

We killed the wizard, freed the rogue, burned the tower to the ground, salted the earth on which it stood, and had the cleric cast desecrate on it's unholy site.

Because that's how we roll.

[Anonymouswizard]

No, we didn't rescue him because the session ended there. I actually just got back from a session where we continued the story. The rogue's player had to make a new character, but once he was introduced, the party traveled to the evil wizard's tower.

Turns out, the DM did this because, in his words, the wizard was "Too intriguing and interesting of a character to abandon," but the DM simply "Could not think of any other story hooks to bring him back." So the wizard met the party, and said that he would release the rogue if we did a series of quests for him. Being a mature, reasonable group of adventurers, we did the obvious thing.

We killed the wizard, freed the rogue, burned the tower to the ground, salted the earth on which it stood, and had the cleric cast desecrate on it's unholy site.

Because that's how we roll.

I recommend asking if you can use the railroad tracks as raw materials, the obviously won't be much use as originally intended :smallwink:

[noob]

No, we didn't rescue him because the session ended there. I actually just got back from a session where we continued the story. The rogue's player had to make a new character, but once he was introduced, the party traveled to the evil wizard's tower.

Turns out, the DM did this because, in his words, the wizard was "Too intriguing and interesting of a character to abandon," but the DM simply "Could not think of any other story hooks to bring him back." So the wizard met the party, and said that he would release the rogue if we did a series of quests for him. Being a mature, reasonable group of adventurers, we did the obvious thing.

We killed the wizard, freed the rogue, burned the tower to the ground, salted the earth on which it stood, and had the cleric cast desecrate on it's unholy site.

Because that's how we roll.

throw in a consecrate too or else the wizard might come back as an undead.

[ViridianIIV]

The Worst house rule I ever saw employed was basically an instakill trap equivalent of "Get out Kevin, you aren't welcome in the group anymore!" It hurt to lose a player... but losing him brought back a player who was less contentious... still have mixed feelings about it though.

[Talakeal]

Here is a house rule I played with just a few days ago. Just to be clear, this is not something that the players agreed to, this was just something the DM wanted to do.

Cutscenes.

Now, a cutscene consists of an extended period of time in which a player is deprived of their ability to take actions, reactions, make saving throws, or even say something in character. Instead, the DM simply tells all the players some terrible thing that happens, and nobody is allowed to do anything to counter their horrible fate.

An example to put this into context:
The group had been playing this one shot that was basically the Odyssey. We were trying to get home, but we kept getting imprisoned, ship wrecked, all manner of things. Most of our failures arose because of cutscenes, and while it was aggravating to have your whole cunning plan, with backups and contingencies, fail because your character suddenly loses the ability to act, we were all having a fairly good time.

Up until the end.

We had finally reached home, and the party was celebrating in a tavern. It was getting late, and the session was basically over, so we thought that was the end. Just then, this small cat, which we recognized as the familiar of an evil wizard we had escaped, appeared in the door.

The players immediately say, "We go out the window."

"You can't. It's a cutscene. Only the rogue sees the cat."

"Okay," says the rogue, "Then I go out the window."

"No, you don't. You walk over to talk to the cat."

"No I don't."

"Yes, you do. It's a cutscene."

The rest of the party asks if they see their companion get up and walk over to the door, and if they can follow him.

"No, it's a cutscene."

The cat suddenly lunges forwards at the rogue, trying to grab him.

"I dodge out of the way!"

"No, it's a cutscene."

The cat suddenly grabs the rogue and teleports him away. Several players argue that teleportation only affects willing targets, and that if this is happening against his will, he should at the very least get a saving throw.

"No, he doesn't get a saving throw. It's a cutscene."

The rogue suddenly finds himself alone, back in the evil wizards tower. He is in a room with several windows. He declares that he immediately bolts for the nearest window.

"You can't, it's a cutscene."

The wizard in question enters the room, and the rogue declares that he immediately attacks.

"You can't, it's a cutscene."

The wizard suddenly polymorphs the rogue into a small bird, and then teleports him into a cage with no doors. The players ask if he gets a saving throw against either spell, only to be met with the familiar,

"No, it's a cutscene."

And that was the end of the session. What had been a fun adventure was pretty much spoiled for the players on account of an almost five minute segment during which they could do nothing as one of their companions was kidnapped. We still have yet to rescue our rogue.

Wow thats bad.

I once had a player who told me to Tell the players that I was using a cut scene if I didnt eant the players arguing.

I was narrating a characters exploration and told them that they slipped and fell, and the player jumped in and demanded I give him a roll to avoid falling and how it just wasnt fair, and eventually I was able to calm jom down enough to explain that I was merely trying to let him know that the unidentified magic ring he had found had feather falling properties, and te player told me that in the future if I ever did that again I needed to declare it a cut scene, using those exact words, to a oid player argument.

Of course, the forum then told me tnat it is never appropriate to narrate player failure for any purpose, including setting up a scene or a situation which ultimatley benefits the player, as failure, no matter how minor or inconsequential, hurts players ego and should only be brought about by the dice, not by DM fiat.


No, we didn't rescue him because the session ended there. I actually just got back from a session where we continued the story. The rogue's player had to make a new character, but once he was introduced, the party traveled to the evil wizard's tower.

Turns out, the DM did this because, in his words, the wizard was "Too intriguing and interesting of a character to abandon," but the DM simply "Could not think of any other story hooks to bring him back." So the wizard met the party, and said that he would release the rogue if we did a series of quests for him. Being a mature, reasonable group of adventurers, we did the obvious thing.

We killed the wizard, freed the rogue, burned the tower to the ground, salted the earth on which it stood, and had the cleric cast desecrate on it's unholy site.

Because that's how we roll.

Huh. Maybe there is a reason why he is try ping to railroad you so hard?

It doesn't seem to be working.

[JoeJ]

Of course, the forum then told me tnat it is never appropriate to narrate player failure for any purpose, including setting up a scene or a situation which ultimatley benefits the player, as failure, no matter how minor or inconsequential, hurts players ego and should only be brought about by the dice, not by DM fiat.

So rather than have the action happen by GM fiat, it occurs after rolling dice against a target number set by... GM fiat?

[Resileaf]

Oh, I am definitely stealing that Star Wars cutscene idea for my Starfinder campaign.

[Malifice]

Oh, I am definitely stealing that Star Wars cutscene idea for my Starfinder campaign.

If you can dig up the old WEG D6 Star wars modules, they're full of great stuff (cut-scenes, adventure scripts, handouts etc).

The mirror the cinematic feel of the game and genre perfectly.

Among some of the best Star Wars modules made. Dead easy to convert to SWSE with minimal work (you can largely do it on the fly with a copy of Threats of the Galaxy nearby).

They should be equally easy to spin into a Starfinder game (thats being run as a pulpy cinematic space opera)

[Unavenger]

So rather than have the action happen by GM fiat, it occurs after rolling dice against a target number set by... GM fiat?

While this is definitely a gripe I have with some systems, it's not universal to all of them. Some have decent task-resolution mechanics, which isn't surprising since an RPG is just a task-resolution mechanic with an ego.

[JoeJ]

While this is definitely a gripe I have with some systems, it's not universal to all of them. Some have decent task-resolution mechanics, which isn't surprising since an RPG is just a task-resolution mechanic with an ego.

What game has a mechanic for determining whether a PC trips and accidentally discovers that they have a Ring of Feather Falling?

[Malifice]

What game has a mechanic for determining whether a PC trips and accidentally discovers that they have a Ring of Feather Falling?

Rolemaster has a mechanic to see if you trip over an imaginary invisible turtle.

[Malifice]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_lpL870wV2A4/R_GI1iFKqQI/AAAAAAAAB08/eNYr8wmXKq0/s1600/MERP.png

97-99 on the Fumble chart.

If you thought that was bad, a 00 result means you 'strike self in the vitals' turning yourself into a eunich.

Nearby enemies are out for 6 rounds laughing.

True story.

Man, I used to love that game in the 90's. We've come a long way since though.

[The Glyphstone]

How do you roll 0.49 on a d100?

[Arbane]

How do you roll 0.49 on a d100?

That's a minus sign.

IIRC, percentile rolls in RollROLEMaster explode in both directions - if you roll 01-05, roll again and subtract from your previous total, if you roll 96-00, roll again and add.

[Khedrac]

Rolemaster has a mechanic to see if you trip over an imaginary invisible turtle.

I witnessed a duel where that happened to both combatents on consecutive rounds - we came to the conclusion that the tuurtle was real and all the witnesses were blind not to have seen it.

[Anonymouswizard]

In an AiME game I'm going to be running soon I've considered making a thematic critical hit system: on a success roll a d20, compare to the chart to see which digit you lose.

In all seriousness I am planning on using a fumbles rule, rolling a natural one in all your attacks means you're off balance and reduces your AC by one point for PCs and two points for NPCs until the start of your next turn.

[Telok]

Right. I need to get s copy of Rolemaster fumble tables for the next time I run Paranoia. Trim out the boring results and keep the silly ones.

Don't have a clue how to integrate them yet, but it's Paranoia. Maybe let the players vote or wager to see who fumbles every round or something.

[Kurald Galain]

Right. I need to get s copy of Rolemaster fumble tables for the next time I run Paranoia. Trim out the boring results and keep the silly ones.

Attention citizens! An unseen <CLASSIFIED> has been causing loyal citizens to stumble and become stunned! Your mission is to locate this <CLASSIFIED> and capture it for R&D purposes! Should this <CLASSIFIED> cause you to become confused instead of happy, you must report to the nearest termination booth! Praise The Computer! The Computer Is Your Friend!

[Pex]

XP rewards are an instrument, and like most instruments, you need a bit of practice to use it well, but the truly arbitrary behaviour is to refuse to use the tools given to you at all and leave it to chance, and that's why the refusal of individualized XP is such a tell-tale sign of hack GMs.

You admit you DM for kids. Getting paid for it only means you're a babysitter, not a "professional" DM empowered to impose your way upon others. As I'm neither parent nor teacher nor babysitter, I'll let them decide what is the proper way to raise or instruct or take care of children. As an adult I am not to be treated like a child. The DM is not the Lord and Master to hand out rewards and punishments for proper/improper behavior. If there's a problem you discuss. Hopefully it gets resolved with everyone playing. If not you depart however sad it may be.


I had a game of 5e D&D that used PF crit cards (both fumbles and hits). That sucked.

1) The results of the cards required ad lib translations between the very different mechanics of the systems.
2) The effects were debilitating on both sides, but worse against players.
3) since no confirmation of crits happens in 5e, crits happened way more frequently (especially against players).
4) drawing and translating slowed things down to a crawl. Especially when there's on set of cards for 3 tables...

Oh were they horrendous. I remember once a player critically fumbled and the DM pulled a card. The result was the character critically hits himself. Eventually they were ignored, but I'm not sure if it's because the DM realized how stupid they were or because he was tired of having to pick a card a lot.

[Resileaf]

How do you roll 0.49 on a d100?

By rolling on the edge, but not quite.