Houserule Index PEACH

[Bjarkmundur]

I'm finally reached the point I can share this with you guys.

My Houserules (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BsE8zmag3LDtX5pADodx8l8jgQtr-7u8nqujE21irDE/edit?usp=drivesdk)

There are a couple of things that are WIP.

The features and options and changes are mostly all done, it's just the Feats and Items I'm still working on.

If you'd take the time and read but a portion of this, and post your honest opinions on how well I managed to reach my design goal for each feature, I'd be most grateful.

Happy Easter everyone <3

[SirFrog]

What were your design goals? I had a hard time parsing those out? In general these are not simpler, just differently complex.

That said, if you and your players like them, have fun.

[Pex]

My opinion is house rules are fine. They're little tweaks to suit your taste. However, if you feel the need to write your own handbook of House Rules are you even playing the same game? Perhaps there's a different game system more suitable to your taste. If not, publish your own and make money. What you have done is not written House Rules. You have rewritten 5E. People can still like what you have done, but what you're really asking advice about is your own game system.

[Goldlizard]

Why is the currency in Icelandic?

[Bjarkmundur]

Most of these are very common changes many different DMs implement in their own ways (initiative, crits, skills, ability scores, items), and others are my personal take on Optional rules (Inspiration, Multiclassing, feats, backgrounds). I felt these were all non-invasive enough (being Optional Rules) to tinker with, without giving any of my future players an aneurysm. :)

I do not touch any of the core mechanics, such ass Class Features, Action Economy etc. My only big change is the Hit Point Rule.

I'm pretty sure I put a link of the front page with a breakdown of the varius changes. I'll link it again here (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PNn_QKYWNjz2I0Rrnh41r5l2tiReruVPkXPfewg67Mg/edit?usp=drivesdk).

I'm mostly just completely extatic that anyone took time to read over it for me. Thank you so much <3

[NatureKing]

You have too many. I'm not going to read all of that to unlearn a game I already know.

[Bjarkmundur]

I've heard it a couple of times that this is overwhelming. I'll try to remove as much as I can, and I'll try to divert people to the must-knows, and explain the rest when the time comes.

You're right, I don't need to show the players all the feats and magic items at character creation. That is all something I can explain to people at least a month into playing.

Everything that isn't in the Level 1 Bullet falls into the category "Ah, so you want to play a mixture of Indians Jones and The Hulk. I'll send you a link with some options that might help you"

I might create a step-by-step version of the character creation Chapter, to help players navigate it. Does that sound helpful?

[Lalliman]

I would give extensive feedback, but man, I can't stand all the links. I'd much rather you put it in one big document and use a table of contents.

I can talk about the things you noted as important though.

I like the idea of the custom background features, assuming you can handle giving that kind of input into each of your player's characters.

The simplified ability scores are nice, I like them.

"Regarding levels 1-3" and "Character concepts", I... don't understand why those are there? They seem like a mix of some vague preferences that aren't really house rules (and thus don't really need to be on paper) and a bunch of general information that doesn't seem specific to your game at all.

The skill changes are fine, I use something similar in action-oriented games.

For the hit points, I have to wonder, can you handle the fact that the encounter creation guidelines don't work anymore and you'll have to wing it yourself? I don't see the versatility of extra feats making up for having 40% less hit points, so for any DM running this houserule I would be extremely sceptical about their ability to make encounters that are balanced as intended.

[PhantomSoul]

I'll definitely echo preferring having everything together -- it makes it look longer at a glance, but it's way more pleasant to navigate.

Releasing the house rules gradually would help, and sticking to the essential where possible -- give a heads up about feats, for example, but don't require them to look at it ahead of time. (I compiled the changes from my brother's campaign and then into mine -- including rulings, optional rules and house rules for easy reference... and it turned into a big document despite not changing that much of the actual game. For us it isn't much because it evolved pretty gradually, but looking at that list makes it seem pretty surprising.)

The HP change seems pretty minor -- you'd tweak low-level encounter difficulty and maybe super-high-level difficulty, but you'll have to adapt difficulty no matter what anyway.

[Bjarkmundur]

Alright. Fewer Links, remove level 1-3 and Character Concepts

You guys, I am so thankful <3

[Strifer]

All in all not bad and I read almost all, you don't limit / break the abilities of the PC's which is great. A lot of the rules seem like simplified rules/descriptions which could suit new players, or players who don't like the reading/theory crafting part of the game.

Personally I like the "difficulty" of the normally worded game and enjoy the range of skill / tool proficiencies (although it can be tricky to make all of them relevant as a DM, but I like the challenge).

I do like the focus point "characters being characters instead of sheets of paper" I have been running a campaign for 3 years now but will really let the Pc's change a lot about spells / flavour and races to suit concepts instead of classes.

But I wonder why house rules were needed for a lot of these subjects. You could change monsters to reduce dmg at the first 2 levels or deal more later on. Same with characters, simply let session 0 go on for multiple sessions and create the story from there, wouldn't it have roughly the same effect? It would save the players from having to read everything and 'adapt'.

I like making it easier on the players and adapting if neccecairy on my end (not during combat but in preparations of sessions). But that could just be my style of DMing.

[Bjarkmundur]

But I wonder why house rules were needed for a lot of these subjects. You could change monsters to reduce dmg at the first 2 levels or deal more later on. Same with characters, simply let session 0 go on for multiple sessions and create the story from there, wouldn't it have roughly the same effect? It would save the players from having to read everything and 'adapt'.

That's a very good question, and to be honest, I didn't know the answer before you asked.

I'm guessing it's more manageable for me to change the number of four pieces of paper, rather than individually rebalancing published material, which I am very fond of using. Its not that it's less work for me, its just less work overall, and I do believe there is some balance in published adventure modules and monsters, which I prefer to keep intact.

I don't understand the second bit. Session 0? If I understand you, it's probably because the world is so heavily built around the characters. I get over half of my inspirations regarding the world from hearing what my players decide to include in their backstory. It makes for a very personalised experience based on the player's expectations on what a fantasy world is, which I'm happy to expand upon.

[Strifer]

I don't understand the second bit. Session 0? If I understand you, it's probably because the world is so heavily built around the characters. I get over half of my inspirations regarding the world from hearing what my players decide to include in their backstory. It makes for a very personalised experience based on the player's expectations on what a fantasy world is, which I'm happy to expand upon.

I get the point better now so thank you for clarifying, my turn now. Session 0 is usually the session for character creation and discussing the parameters of the campaign. For a lot of people this is 1 session/a couple of hours. For my next campaign I'm thinking about roughly 5/6 sessions for character building, story discussions (RP vs Combat, sandbox vs linear, Sea/dungeon/city/wildlands setting, e.g.).

This is both for the players to get everyone on board and for me to get inspirations and let the characters (and their suggested arcs) into the story/campaign. I am playing princes of the apocalypse now and my players are on the last part (took 3 years). For the next story I have loads of ideas but also want to have them on board for them and allow them to indicate whether or not they like them. This negates the need for custom rules and prepares them to get into a specific mindset, which we discussed and agreed upon together.

[PhantomSoul]

For my next campaign I'm thinking about roughly 5/6 sessions for character building, story discussions (RP vs Combat, sandbox vs linear, Sea/dungeon/city/wildlands setting, e.g.).

Just for marketing, with that much time I'd pitch it as "hey let's grab coffee/drinks and chat about the campaign" instead of (to them) calling them sessions, and maybe bring in that they're helping to shape the story (and maybe the world). You might already be doing this, but just in case!

[Bjarkmundur]

I've always loved the idea of a group meet-up to talk about the campaign, but my friends are never up for delaying a session to make it happen.
This is why I usually have to help them make their characters and backstories via phone and IM individually.

[Strifer]

Just for marketing, with that much time I'd pitch it as "hey let's grab coffee/drinks and chat about the campaign" instead of (to them) calling them sessions, and maybe bring in that they're helping to shape the story (and maybe the world). You might already be doing this, but just in case!

I get your point, it is pretty much the same but by calling it a session we get more work done ;). But I will put at least some encounter or RP with a NPC which is flushed out to get some DnD going.


I've always loved the idea of a group meet-up to talk about the campaign, but my friends are never up for delaying a session to make it happen.
This is why I usually have to help them make their characters and backstories via phone and IM individually.

My last 3 campaigns started like that or maybe finalizing 1 PC on the start date. During this campaign however in noticing that some PC are much more integrated and the campaign started out sandbox and ended pretty much dungeon crawl, 1 of my players doesn't like the crawl and is waiting for 'it to be over'. This could have been circumvented... (both by earlier discussions and by adding more RP in general and/or for his chars in perticular)

Another group of mine kind of fell apart. Meta gaming, distracted players and "gaming against the DM" instead of with me. This made the sessions not a lot of fun for me which was why I quit it. But speaking to some of the players openly about it revealed that they would have liked to play another way bud it was hard with the party composition and with established status quo in the sessions.

Both of these indicate to me (and have persuaded me) to take session 0 very seriously and If players don't want to take the time to discuss the campaign which will probably take more than a year, then why play it with them at all? At least in my case it will lead to less frustration and more openness.