Is it rude to decline using a house rule ?

[Keeganwilson]

I've had a few DMs now use the max damage houserule on a crit where as I would like to use the RAW way of doing crit damage and doubling the dice. Is it rude to decline the house rule?

[JellyPooga]

Flat out refuse? As in;

GM: "I'd like to use this House rule."
You: "Nope, I'm using RAW"

Yeah, kinda rude.

Opening a discussion on the subject in Session Zero? Not so rude.

[iTreeby]

It's not rude for games you gm. Most rules like that are adopted for a reason. If you want things to be done differently for some reason, you should have a discussion with them about what you think is lost or gained because of the house rule.

[GloatingSwine]

The GM gets to decide what rules apply to their table.

It doesn't matter what dice you want to roll, if the GM has decided that they're using max damage for crits that's what damage you actually do if you crit.

[stoutstien]

I've had a few DMs now use the max damage houserule on a crit where as I would like to use the RAW way of doing crit damage and doubling the dice. Is it rude to decline the house rule?

Before the game starts all house rules need by in from the players.
This particular rule can be used side by side with no issue so I doubt the DM would care.

[Zhorn]

This is one of those things that is the DM's call.
Their table, their rules.
Discussing it with them at session zero is always a good move.
If they didn't cover what house rules they were going to run with in session zero; then that's a good reason to talk to them about it when it first comes up (preferably outside of the game as to not derail the session). But even then it is still the DM's call.

Want to have a game run by the rules of your own choose? Run game as a DM.

[stoutstien]

Clarification: are crits just maxed weapon damage or max double weapon damage?

[Kane0]

Because of the dynamic between DM and players, you don't decline using it so much as contest it. It's not really rude to discuss rules with your DM unless you go about it rudely.

[Zetakya]

Rude? It depends on how you say it.

However, on some level you have to accept that your choice is between accepting the DMs house rules or finding a new table.

[rlc]

Depends on how it's handled. If everybody else is playing with that rule and you flat out refuse and throw a fit because of it, then it's definitely rude.

[Conradine]

Settle it in civil discussion outside gaming session.

[Tanarii]

Because of the dynamic between DM and players, you don't decline using it so much as contest it. It's not really rude to discuss rules with your DM unless you go about it rudely.
Right? The question doesn't even make sense as stated. You can decline to participate in a table, or contest (politely) a house rule you don't like by requesting a review or discussion.

[JellyPooga]

The GM gets to decide what rules apply to their table.

It doesn't matter what dice you want to roll, if the GM has decided that they're using max damage for crits that's what damage you actually do if you crit.

Fun fact; it's not just the GM, but everyone playing that get to decide what rules are being played by. It's a common misconception that the GM "owns" the game they're running any more than the players who are participating (unless the GM literally owns a copy of the rules and the others don't, I guess! :smalltongue:). All house rules shouod be discussed and approved (or compromised upon) by everyone playing. After all, if a GM runs a rule that a player is bot happy playing by, then that GM is probably doing something wrong somewhere along the line.

[Zetakya]

Clarification: are crits just maxed weapon damage or max double weapon damage?

This is a good question. Just Max Weapon Damage is statistically the average of twice the dice roll.

[Particle_Man]

Fun fact; it's not just the GM, but everyone playing that get to decide what rules are being played by. It's a common misconception that the GM "owns" the game they're running any more than the players who are participating (unless the GM literally owns a copy of the rules and the others don't, I guess! :smalltongue:). All house rules shouod be discussed and approved (or compromised upon) by everyone playing. After all, if a GM runs a rule that a player is bot happy playing by, then that GM is probably doing something wrong somewhere along the line.

Well where I am there is a dm shortage compared to players which gives the dms a lot more power wrt house rules. I have never seen a player reject a house rule.

[stoutstien]

Well where I am there is a dm shortage compared to players which gives the dms a lot more power wrt house rules. I have never seen a player reject a house rule.

Sounds like it's time for players to join us on the dark side of the GM screen... Embrace the math...

[Keeganwilson]

Clarification: are crits just maxed weapon damage or max double weapon damage?


They're just maxed weapon dice, so a d12 axe will do 12 plus strength

[stoutstien]

They're just maxed weapon dice, so a d12 axe will do 12 plus strength

Yea, u have some players who like the randomness others like the constant. This is a a rule that can function differently player to player.

[Randomthom]

This specific houserule is often used to speed gameplay up. A crit opener from a lvl 11 assassin's shortbow with purple-worm-poison-tipped arrows (I've witnessed this) is 2d6 (weapon) + 10d6 (sneak attack) + 24d6 (poison). If you're using the aforementioned houserule it is 6+30+72 = 108.

I'm guessing the DM likes to keep things fast-paced and that you like to roll all those lovely dice you spent your money on.

If you're quick with your mental arithmetic then perhaps they won't mind so much and I think that most of us can agree that rolling a fistful of dice is fun...

If you're not then you might be just wasting everyone else's time a bit.

[Zhorn]

I think that most of us can agree that rolling a fistful of dice is fun...

My dice goblin brain: plastic gems... shiny.... pretty.... make the fun click-clack sound :smalltongue:

[Xihirli]

Does this house-rule destroy or keep Brutal Critical? I.e., are Barbarians now better or worse?

[JNAProductions]

If you say, at session zero or before session one, "Hey [DM's name], can we talk about your crit houserule? I really prefer the RAW way of doing it, so can you explain why you made the change, and think about moving back to the RAW way?"
That's fine. You're voicing an issue, but doing so in a polite way and not forcing your will on someone else.

If you say, at session zero or before session one, "I'd rather not play with this houserule, so if you're gonna use it, I won't be playing."
That's a TOUCH more rude, but certainly doesn't pass the "rudeness" threshold. You're being a little more forceful, but you're still just stating your intent.

If you say, the first time you roll a crit, "I'm rolling double damage dice and NOT using max damage."
That's rude. You agreed to their houserule by playing at their table.

To summarize... Just talk to them-at session zero or out of the game before session one. Explain your complaint, ask for their rationale, and hopefully come to an agreement.

[False God]

Typically, I see the "it's just max damage" rule put into play for expediency reasons. While rolling more dice is often fun, it can slow the game down if you don't have your dice prepped for that possible crit, you have to go find it, borrow one, etc... So "max damage" bing bang boom.

So, if a player wanted to roll their double dice, it really depends on them. Are they quick about it? Can they roll quickly, add the numbers up and give me the results just as fast as if they had given me max damage? If they can, I probably wouldn't worry about it. If they can't, then I'd insist they use the house-rule. And of course, it depends on their attitude on the subject. "Hey DM I'd really prefer to roll two dice, is that cool?" and "Hey I don't care what you say bro I'm gonna roll an extra die."

The risk here is that Jojo rolling two dice has the potential to get double max damage, and while we all want to do the most damage possible, that can be unfair to the rest of the table. And folks who may not be quite so quick at rolling their dice may see Jojo rolling 16, 18, 20 damage on his d12 crits while they're capped at 12, and want to do it as well, but they're not quick like Jojo, and so they bog the game down.

I generally feel the rules at any table are ~80/20 DM/Player. The players get a say sure, but they don't have final say.

But extending this question outward: When DMing I would likely raise an eyebrow at any player who "declined" to use a houserule. Some of these may really be preference and ultimately optional, but some houserules are not. If I said "no wizards" and you bring a wizard, my next houserule might be "no you". While "politely declining" to play the way the DM would prefer may include the word "polite" it ultimately shows a disregard for the DM and potentially everyone else at the table. Depending on what houserule you're "politely declining" to follow.

[Naanomi]

It is a very slight nerf of crits on average (average on 2d12 is 13 after all), but probably not enough to notice in game play. If you are a crit-focused concept (Barbarian, half-Orc, Assassin, Champion, Hexblade) it may matter more

[Tanarii]

Fun fact; it's not just the GM, but everyone playing that get to decide what rules are being played by. It's a common misconception that the GM "owns" the game they're running any more than the players who are participating (unless the GM literally owns a copy of the rules and the others don't, I guess! :smalltongue:). All house rules shouod be discussed and approved (or compromised upon) by everyone playing. After all, if a GM runs a rule that a player is bot happy playing by, then that GM is probably doing something wrong somewhere along the line.
This works fine for a home game put together by a group of friends.

IMX for an open table campaign (typically in a high school, college campus, game store, or online environment), the DM does typically does "own" the campaign, and sets any house and character creation rules when creating the campaig prior to soliciting players. Players then agree to play by those house rules, or possibly request modifications, when they sign up to join the table.

If it's a closed table but solicited players campaign (I.e. one group of players), it's entirely possible it'll be somewhere in between, with an initial draft of house rules and character creation rules being decided upon in advance by the DM, and then being finalized as a group in a session 0.

[Quietus]

It's only rude if you make it a fight or interrupt the game. Ask politely before /after the game, or by text between games. Make your case, and accept the DM's ruling with grace.

[Jophiel]

Fun fact; it's not just the GM, but everyone playing that get to decide what rules are being played by. It's a common misconception that the GM "owns" the game they're running any more than the players who are participating
It's not a misconception, it's a reality in most cases where players are more replaceable (or can be left out) than DMs. In most places, players far outnumber DMs and while you can generally play with one less PC, it's hard to play with fewer than one DM. So the DM indeed has more input in how the rules will be set. Of course, the DM is also doing an outsized amount of work in running the game both during play sessions and between sessions so it doesn't seem unfair that he should be setting the rules that the game will run under.

[Friv]

It is a very slight nerf of crits on average (average on 2d12 is 13 after all), but probably not enough to notice in game play. If you are a crit-focused concept (Barbarian, half-Orc, Assassin, Champion, Hexblade) it may matter more

As long as modifiers are still being doubled, mind you. If you roll 1d12+5 damage, and crit, max damage is 17, whereas double damage is 2d12+10, averaging 23.

[JNAProductions]

As long as modifiers are still being doubled, mind you. If you roll 1d12+5 damage, and crit, max damage is 17, whereas double damage is 2d12+10, averaging 23.

You don't double mods on crits in 5E.

[Naanomi]

As long as modifiers are still being doubled, mind you. If you roll 1d12+5 damage, and crit, max damage is 17, whereas double damage is 2d12+10, averaging 23.
No I mean just the dice... the average roll on any given die is +.5 higher than halving the maximum result; so just maxing a single die is 1 point lower (on average) than rolling it twice and adding the results

As an easy illustration, imagine this rule with a hypothetical d1

[Brookshw]

Fun fact; it's not just the GM, but everyone playing that get to decide what rules are being played by.

That's a negative ghost rider, DM's table, DM's rules/rulings. That doesn't preclude discussion, buy in, accommodations and voting with your feet.

OP: not a problem to politely bring up the issue with most DMs (and those it is an issue with might not be worth playing with), but declining wholesale isn't viable.

[Tvtyrant]

I've had a few DMs now use the max damage houserule on a crit where as I would like to use the RAW way of doing crit damage and doubling the dice. Is it rude to decline the house rule?

What do you mean by "decline the house rule?" Because if you mean "insist on the book rule" you are likely going to be asked to leave or not invited next time. The game only works if people agree to follow the same rules.

If you are in a situation where you would rather not play than use house rules, just ask if they use houserules and walk until you find a DM that doesn't.

[Christian]

Is it rude to decline a player declining using your house rule?

I mean, this one, the DM could handle silently, and the player would probably never know that their dice-rolling was completely meaningless.

"Crit! I do (rolls 2d10) 7 plus 9 plus my bonus of 8, 24 points of damage!"

[DM subtracts 18 points from the monster's hit point total] "OK."

[Rukelnikov]

What do you mean by "decline the house rule?" Because if you mean "insist on the book rule" you are likely going to be asked to leave or not invited next time. The game only works if people agree to follow the same rules.

If you are in a situation where you would rather not play than use house rules, just ask if they use houserules and walk until you find a DM that doesn't.

You'll likely have to walk for a veeeeeeeery long time, I literally know 0 DMs that don't use house rules.

[JNAProductions]

Is it rude to decline a player declining using your house rule?

I mean, this one, the DM could handle silently, and the player would probably never know that their dice-rolling was completely meaningless.

"Crit! I do (rolls 2d10) 7 plus 9 plus my bonus of 8, 24 points of damage!"

[DM subtracts 18 points from the monster's hit point total] "OK."

Yes. You should be honest with your players-NPCs can lie their asses off, but the DM should be honest.

[Bjarkmundur]

I personally really don't like surprise house rules, so I ask to get all house rules in advance, preferably in written form.

However, if a DM uses house rules, I know I have some leeway. This usually means I might make a suggestion for some character specific house rules. In this context, I might ask "Can I add a bullet to my Sharpshooter feat that if I crit while using the -5/+10 effect, I get to roll all damage dice twice instead of maxing them? I just really like rolling a bunch of dice, and it adds to my enjoyment at the table. I'd also really like if my weapon could do 2d4 instead of 1d8, but I think that's a little bit too much to ask for."

Wait, doesn't maxing damage dice (2d10=20) and rolling double dice (4d10 = avg 4x5 = 20) have the same results?

[Rukelnikov]

I personally really don't like surprise house rules, so I ask to get all house rules in advance, preferably in written form.

However, if a DM uses house rules, I know I have some leeway. This usually means I might make a suggestion for some character specific house rules. In this context, I might ask "Can I add a bullet to my Sharpshooter feat that if I crit while using the -5/+10 effect, I get to roll all damage dice twice instead of maxing them? I just really like rolling a bunch of dice, and it adds to my enjoyment at the table. I'd also really like if my weapon could do 2d4 instead of 1d8, but I think that's a little bit too much to ask for."

Wait, doesn't maxing damage dice (2d10=20) and rolling double dice (4d10 = avg 4x5 = 20) have the same results?

4d10 avg = 4 * 5.5 = 22

To quickly calc the average of a standard die just add 1 + #sides, and divide by 2

[Christian]

Wait, doesn't maxing damage dice (2d10=20) and rolling double dice (4d10 = avg 4x5 = 20) have the same results?
Close, but not exactly. Average roll on a d10 is actually 5.5, not 5; so maxing dice rather than rolling twice decreases average crit damage by 1 per base die rolled.

That said, that's the basic idea. Max damage rather than rolling twice on a crit is basically the same in the long run, but decreases variance and speeds up gameplay (in theory).

[OldTrees1]

So far this thread has been talking about houserules with a mandatory effect. Due in part to the OP's example.

Expanding upon that to houserules with an optional effect:
A) You may take max damage (& +1 damage per die to fix the math) rather than rolling on a crit.
B) When you fail spectacularly, you may adopt a disadvantage and gain inspiration.

In these cases the DM created the houserule because they thought it would improve the game. Since it is an optional rule, declining it once is not rude. If you consistently decline the houserule then it might be inferred that you are rejecting their attempt. In those cases I suggest using "soft language" to communicate that you value the attempt even if the optional rule is consistently not a good fit for your character's situations.

[Zetakya]

No I mean just the dice... the average roll on any given die is +.5 higher than halving the maximum result; so just maxing a single die is 1 point lower (on average) than rolling it twice and adding the results

As an easy illustration, imagine this rule with a hypothetical d1

You are right in every case *except* a hypothetical d1, which has max and average of 1.

[Gryndle]

I've had a few DMs now use the max damage houserule on a crit where as I would like to use the RAW way of doing crit damage and doubling the dice. Is it rude to decline the house rule?

if it s a rule that has been agreed to by the table, then yeah it is rude to not use it. Kinda sets you up as candidate for special snowflake. BUT, if its simply an alternative that the GM has put forth, then no, not rude at all to politely decline and use RAW

[Tvtyrant]

You'll likely have to walk for a veeeeeeeery long time, I literally know 0 DMs that don't use house rules.

I totally agree. The player is also welcome to DM themselves; DMing takes tremendously more effort than playing. Declining the DM is the same as moving on to another group.

[Brookshw]

So far this thread has been talking about houserules with a mandatory effect. Due in part to the OP's example.

Expanding upon that to houserules with an optional effect:
A) You may take max damage (& +1 damage per die to fix the math) rather than rolling on a crit.
B) When you fail spectacularly, you may adopt a disadvantage and gain inspiration.

In these cases the DM created the houserule because they thought it would improve the game. Since it is an optional rule, declining it once is not rude. If you consistently decline the houserule then it might be inferred that you are rejecting their attempt. In those cases I suggest using "soft language" to communicate that you value the attempt even if the optional rule is consistently not a good fit for your character's situations.

Ehhhh....splitting hairs time. You aren't declining the rule, you're electing to exercise a permissive rights that exists within its scope. You're still subject to the rule. Not quite the same thing.

[PhantomSoul]

That said, that's the basic idea. Max damage rather than rolling twice on a crit is basically the same in the long run, but decreases variance and speeds up gameplay (in theory).

Speeding up gameplay is good, but almost all games I've been in have had house rules for crits even in cases where it's not really faster -- it's also because it sucks to roll low on the dice and do less damage on a crit than you could often do without it. (It's part of "decreases variance" in this case, but for the tables I've been at it's been the main motivation.) The only group I've encountered in real life not using modified crit rules is one where basically all players are new and the DM hasn't played in a long time, so it's by-the-books as the starting point.

For the math, though, the max-die is pretty much the same on average in the long run. It's great, but if you talk to the DM you might even be able to personally not use the rule if you'd rather not in this case (though I'd base that decision partly on what the combination of players is). But overall, like others have said, it's really only rude if done rudely! :)

[AvatarVecna]

Yes. You should be honest with your players-NPCs can lie their asses off, but the DM should be honest.

This is a case where the lie is kinda unnecessary but could potentially avoidnan argument. The honest version of this same approach would be to tell the player "You can roll all the dice you want when you roll a crit, but at the end of day I'm the one marking hit points off the monster. If you roll the dice, tell me the total you rolled, and I mark of max hit damage anyway, what are you gonna do about it?"

[Misterwhisper]

That is a very boring rule, and really hurts martial characters.

If rolling a crit is only doing max dice damage they screws up a lot of things.

Weapon damage die makes a huge difference.

If I am using a dagger I would have a 25% chance to just roll max damage anyway so who cares if I crit.

It also means you can never roll more damage than a normal attack would do which really takes the impressiveness out of it.

Statistically you would have a much better chance to just roll max damage normally than you would to crit unless you are a champion or hexblade.

It also kind of screws over the barbarian and rogue.

[JNAProductions]

That is a very boring rule, and really hurts martial characters.

If rolling a crit is only doing max dice damage they screws up a lot of things.

Weapon damage die makes a huge difference.

If I am using a dagger I would have a 25% chance to just roll max damage anyway so who cares if I crit.

It also means you can never roll more damage than a normal attack would do which really takes the impressiveness out of it.

Statistically you would have a much better chance to just roll max damage normally than you would to crit unless you are a champion or hexblade.

It also kind of screws over the barbarian and rogue.

For reference, a Rogue does, with this house rule and a shortsword on a crit:

15 damage at level 1
28 at level 5
47 at level 11
71 at level 20

As opposed to, sans houserule, an average of:

17 at level 1
32 at level 5
54 at level 11
82 at level 20

Seems like a big difference, I guess. But considering how rarely crits come up...

Oh, and for fun, here are the odds of doing LESS damage on a crit at those levels!

Level 1: 23.92%
Level 5: 17.89%
Level 11: 12.15%
Level 20: 7.59%

Edit: More maths! The general assumption is that you hit on an 8 or better against most foes.

That means that your DPR is, unless a Champion Fighter, (Number of Attacks)((.6*Hit Damage)+(.05*Crit Damage))=Damage Per Round.

For a Rogue, here's what those numbers look like RAW:

6.85 at level 1
12.4 at level 5
17.4 at level 11
30.2 at level 20

With the houserule, those numbers drop to:

6.75 at level 1
12.2 at level 5
17.05 at level 11
29.65 at level 20

For a percentage loss of DPR, as represented by 100((Old DPR)/(New DPR)-1)=Percentage loss.

1.48% at level 1
1.64% at level 5
2.05% at level 11
1.85% at level 20

If you're bothered by an about 2% loss in DPR... You must have a CUTTHROAT table.

[Tanarii]

It also kind of screws over the barbarian and rogue.
Rogues are far more likely than many other classes to roll very close to the average (or max + 1/2 number of dice) damage than most other classes. They roll so many dice it's a tight bell curve.

For example, at level 5 with a shortsword, the standard deviation from the average of 28+mod of is +/-5. Meanwhile a Barbarian with a Greataxe is also +/-5 from an average of 13. Much 'wilder' on any given crit, although of course the overall variation is less because of multiple attacks.

[zinycor]

The GM gets to decide what rules apply to their table.

It doesn't matter what dice you want to roll, if the GM has decided that they're using max damage for crits that's what damage you actually do if you crit.

NO! Absolutely no!

The table (Gm and players) agrees on the rules the game runs on. If the GM wants to play with a houserule, the GM needs the player's approval. Likewise, if a player doesn't like a rule at the table, he can be in it up to the table and find a solution at it.

[Misterwhisper]

For reference, a Rogue does, with this house rule and a shortsword on a crit:

15 damage at level 1
28 at level 5
47 at level 11
71 at level 20

As opposed to, sans houserule, an average of:

17 at level 1
32 at level 5
54 at level 11
82 at level 20

Seems like a big difference, I guess. But considering how rarely crits come up...

Oh, and for fun, here are the odds of doing LESS damage on a crit at those levels!

Level 1: 23.92%
Level 5: 17.89%
Level 11: 12.15%
Level 20: 7.59%

Edit: More maths! The general assumption is that you hit on an 8 or better against most foes.

That means that your DPR is, unless a Champion Fighter, (Number of Attacks)((.6*Hit Damage)+(.05*Crit Damage))=Damage Per Round.

For a Rogue, here's what those numbers look like RAW:

6.85 at level 1
12.4 at level 5
17.4 at level 11
30.2 at level 20

With the houserule, those numbers drop to:

6.75 at level 1
12.2 at level 5
17.05 at level 11
29.65 at level 20

For a percentage loss of DPR, as represented by 100((Old DPR)/(New DPR)-1)=Percentage loss.

1.48% at level 1
1.64% at level 5
2.05% at level 11
1.85% at level 20

If you're bothered by an about 2% loss in DPR... You must have a CUTTHROAT table.

It is the concept that a crit has no chance to do more damage than any normal strike and that any normal strike can just roll max anyway that bothers me.

[JNAProductions]

NO! Absolutely no!

The table (Gm and players) agrees on the rules the game runs on. If the GM wants to play with a houserule, the GM needs the player's approval. Likewise, if a player doesn't like a rule at the table, he can be in it up to the table and find a solution at it.

Right, but the DM is the final decider.

They're pretty much always putting in the most effort and have the most on their plate, what with running the entire world and everything. I can 100% agree that a DM who hands down rules like imperial edicts and refuses to listen to their players is a horrid DM. But at the same time, a good DM will ALSO know when to say "I've listened to what you have to say, and I appreciate the passion, but this is my decision." ESPECIALLY when it comes to the actual sessions themselves.


It is the concept that a crit has no chance to do more damage than any normal strike and that any normal strike can just roll max anyway

You want to know the odds of a Rogue at 5th level doing max damage? Assuming a shortsword.

It's less a tenth of a percent.

At level 11?
Less than one percent of a percent of a percent. About 1 in 300,000.

Level 20?
Less than one in 300 million.

At level 1 and 2, it's at least slightly under 3%.

[zinycor]

Right, but the DM is the final decider.

They're pretty much always putting in the most effort and have the most on their plate, what with running the entire world and everything. I can 100% agree that a DM who hands down rules like imperial edicts and refuses to listen to their players is a horrid DM. But at the same time, a good DM will ALSO know when to say "I've listened to what you have to say, and I appreciate the passion, but this is my decision." ESPECIALLY when it comes to the actual sessions .

And, with al due respect, I would walk away from that GM.

[JNAProductions]

And, with al due respect, I would walk away from that GM.

Just to be clear-I'm talking about at the table, in a session (not session zero, an actual gameplay session) the hypothetical you is arguing about a houserule. If the DM said "I'm making a decision now, and it's final," you'd walk away?

Because, to be clear again, I 100% believe a DM should listen to their players and make sure everyone has a fun time at the table, including modifying houserules or the RAW if need be. But at the same time, a final decision has to be made, or you'll never play.

[Maelynn]

The GM gets to decide what rules apply to their table.

It doesn't matter what dice you want to roll, if the GM has decided that they're using max damage for crits that's what damage you actually do if you crit.

NO! Absolutely no!

The table (Gm and players) agrees on the rules the game runs on. If the GM wants to play with a houserule, the GM needs the player's approval. Likewise, if a player doesn't like a rule at the table, he can be in it up to the table and find a solution at it.

My, don't we feel strong about this one.

I could very well say I don't care what you say yes or no to; it's my table and as such my prerogative. But I won't, because to each their own. I respect your opinion.

As a DM, I don't lay down the rules at session 0. Why not? Because a lot of house rules spring into existence during play. I can't foresee them all, and we'll see how we deal with them by the time we get there.

To me, it's often a majority 'vote' - they have a voice and I listen, might even adhere to a majority, but I do get the last say. So far I haven't once had someone not agree or stand down, because they all appreciate that I took the time to listen before making my decision and think I rule fairly.

If you want to make a D&D table a democracy where everybody has an equal say, fine. Your table, your prerogative. But you don't get to decide for (and certainly not shout at) someone who has a different method at their respective table. If we're talking about rude, this is a good example.

[Tvtyrant]

And, with al due respect, I would walk away from that GM.

That seems the appropriate response on both sides. If a player demanded that the rules work the way they insist I would want them to find a new group that matches their game expectations.

[zinycor]

Just to be clear-I'm talking about at the table, in a session (not session zero, an actual gameplay session) the hypothetical you is arguing about a houserule. If the DM said "I'm making a decision now, and it's final," you'd walk away?

Because, to be clear again, I 100% believe a DM should listen to their players and make sure everyone has a fun time at the table, including modifying houserules or the RAW if need be. But at the same time, a final decision has to be made, or you'll never play.

This might be a semantics issue. What do you mean by FINAL? Because I am all for rulings made on the fly to keep the game moving. But a GM making a FINAL decision by himself regarding the rules we all are using, while disregarding others opinions, would be, and has been, grounds for me leaving the table.


That seems the appropriate response on both sides. If a player demanded that the rules work the way they insist I would want them to find a new group that matches their game expectations.

I agree

[JNAProductions]

This might be a semantics issue. What do you mean by FINAL? Because I am all for rulings made on the fly to keep the game moving. But a GM making a FINAL decision by himself regarding the rules we all are using, while disregarding others opinions, would be, and has been, grounds for me leaving the table.

That's not at all what I mean.

I mean a decision that's made after the players have had a chance to have their input, but with the idea of keeping the game moving in mind. (Obviously session zero has a much, MUCH longer tolerance for rules discussions than actual gameplay time.)

I do NOT think a DM should just unilaterally declare something and run roughshod over their players who might object, but at the same time, the DM does have final say. For a houserule such as the one under discussion, if I had major objections to it (I don't really, but if I did) I'd ask the DM for their rationale for including the rule, see if they'd be willing to change it, and talk to them like an adult. But, if they chose not to change, I'd still play at the table with a minor houserule like this. If it's major enough to make me not want to play, I'd tell the DM "Hey, [HOUSERULE X] is going to make the game not fun for me, so I don't think I'll be playing." And not play.

[JellyPooga]

My, don't we feel strong about this one.

I could very well say I don't care what you say yes or no to; it's my table and as such my prerogative. But I won't, because to each their own. I respect your opinion.

As a DM, I don't lay down the rules at session 0. Why not? Because a lot of house rules spring into existence during play. I can't foresee them all, and we'll see how we deal with them by the time we get there.

To me, it's often a majority 'vote' - they have a voice and I listen, might even adhere to a majority, but I do get the last say. So far I haven't once had someone not agree or stand down, because they all appreciate that I took the time to listen before making my decision and think I rule fairly.

If you want to make a D&D table a democracy where everybody has an equal say, fine. Your table, your prerogative. But you don't get to decide for (and certainly not shout at) someone who has a different method at their respective table. If we're talking about rude, this is a good example.

It's terms like "my game" or "my table" that get a lot of peoples hackles up (my own included). As I mentioned earlier, the GM is just another player in the grand scheme of things. Yes, the GM is the final arbiter of the rules. Yes, the GM usually (not always) puts the most effort into making the game run (smoothly or otherwise). That does not give the GM any right whatsoever to dictate that the other players must play by any given rule; the rules any players play by are a social contract. If the players (GM and PC alike) decide to bend or alter the rules (i.e. houserule), they must all agree. A GM that insists on playing with a given houserule without the consent of the other players is being as rude as a player that flat refuses to compromise on the rules that they want to play by.

This is not to say a GM can't make rules or rulings on the fly; doing so is a skill learned by any good GM. For the ease of play, such is how a game runs. That does not mean the GM has the prerogative to enforce that rule if a player dislikes it; the rule must still be agreed upon and it is a players prerogative to argue such a call if they feel the ruling unfair or against the spirit of the game.

A GM who treats their game like a dictatorship should expect revolution.

[zinycor]

That's not at all what I mean.

I mean a decision that's made after the players have had a chance to have their input, but with the idea of keeping the game moving in mind. (Obviously session zero has a much, MUCH longer tolerance for rules discussions than actual gameplay time.)

I do NOT think a DM should just unilaterally declare something and run roughshod over their players who might object, but at the same time, the DM does have final say. For a houserule such as the one under discussion, if I had major objections to it (I don't really, but if I did) I'd ask the DM for their rationale for including the rule, see if they'd be willing to change it, and talk to them like an adult. But, if they chose not to change, I'd still play at the table with a minor houserule like this. If it's major enough to make me not want to play, I'd tell the DM "Hey, [HOUSERULE X] is going to make the game not fun for me, so I don't think I'll be playing." And not play.

And I don't think the GM has final say, I believe the table has final say.

For me, the fact that a GM would think that he had final say over the rules, would mean me walking out of the table.

[Quietus]

Oh, an addition to my earlier "politely ask" response - I do have to admit that I would be just petty enough that if the DM said "no, this is a hard and fast house rule", I would probably make a point of abusing it just a little. Half orc barbarian with a great axe, to maximize as many dice as I could.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And I don't think the GM has final say, I believe the table has final say.

For me, the fact that a GM would think that he had final say over the rules, would mean me walking out of the table.

You do realize that the printed rules assign total authority over the rules to the DM? That, by RAW, you're demanding power that isn't yours to demand? That is, you're unilaterally insistent on a house rule?

Now, having said that, I do personally believe that the table should have consensus where possible. In the end, though, a decision must be reached and if consensus is not reachable in a reasonable amount of time, the DM should make a decision and everyone should move on and talk about it later, out of game.

[zinycor]

You do realize that the printed rules assign total authority over the rules to the DM? That, by RAW, you're demanding power that isn't yours to demand? That is, you're unilaterally insistent on a house rule?

Now, having said that, I do personally believe that the table should have consensus where possible. In the end, though, a decision must be reached and if consensus is not reachable in a reasonable amount of time, the DM should make a decision and everyone should move on and talk about it later, out of game.

I do, and agree with you.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I do, and agree with you.

So why is it ok for you to demand a house rule, but not for anyone else?

[zinycor]

So why is it ok for you to demand a house rule, but not for anyone else?

Did I imply that?

[Fable Wright]

I'll throw out there (having not read the thread) that this house rule would make one of the Assassin Rogue's features superfluous. They have a feature to ensure auto-crits, and a separate feature to ensure max damage on those crits. Taking that distinction off the table is offputting.

...That said, while this decreases the average damage, it also means that no crit is a disappointment. Doubling a 1 on a damage die is no fun.

[JNAProductions]

I'll throw out there (having not read the thread) that this house rule would make one of the Assassin Rogue's features superfluous. They have a feature to ensure auto-crits, and a separate feature to ensure max damage on those crits. Taking that distinction off the table is offputting.

...That said, while this decreases the average damage, it also means that no crit is a disappointment. Doubling a 1 on a damage die is no fun.

They do not. They have an auto-crit feature and an advantage on attacks against opponents who haven't acted yet.

They do NOT, to my knowledge, have any feature that increases damage on a crit.

I guess Death Strike counts? But that'd work just fine with this rule-you'd do double max damage.

[Pex]

It's not a misconception, it's a reality in most cases where players are more replaceable (or can be left out) than DMs. In most places, players far outnumber DMs and while you can generally play with one less PC, it's hard to play with fewer than one DM. So the DM indeed has more input in how the rules will be set. Of course, the DM is also doing an outsized amount of work in running the game both during play sessions and between sessions so it doesn't seem unfair that he should be setting the rules that the game will run under.

True. What the DM says goes, but if he says enough stupid stuff the players go too. The DM can self-righteously declare his house rules as absolutely perfect in every way, but it means nothing if he has no players because of them. The DM correctly has the final decision, but if he never listens to his players and even, sometimes, agree to what they want is not a DM worth playing with. The DM maintains his right to say No and use his rules. It's a question of not abusing it. It's the DM's campaign, but it's everyone's game.

[JNAProductions]

True. What the DM says goes, but if he says enough stupid stuff the players go too. The DM can self-righteously declare his house rules as absolutely perfect in every way, but it means nothing if he has no players because of them. The DM correctly has the final decision, but if he never listens to his players and even, sometimes, agree to what they want is not a DM worth playing with. The DM maintains his right to say No and use his rules. It's a question of not abusing it. It's the DM's campaign, but it's everyone's game.

Good post here. Good stuff contained within.

[Tanarii]

NO! Absolutely no!

The table (Gm and players) agrees on the rules the game runs on. If the GM wants to play with a houserule, the GM needs the player's approval. Likewise, if a player doesn't like a rule at the table, he can be in it up to the table and find a solution at it.This isn't some kind of universal rule. It works okay for a group of friends, and may even be the best rule at such a table. But it doesn't work well at all for an open table campaign with different groups of players in different sessions. A far more common rule for that kind of campaign is that the GM(s) create the campaign and decide the rules of the game, and the players decide if they want to try and join the campaign.

[zinycor]

This isn't some kind of universal rule. It works okay for a group of friends, and may even be the best rule at such a table. But it doesn't work well at all for an open table campaign with different groups of players in different sessions. A far more common rule for that kind of campaign is that the GM(s) create the campaign and decide the rules of the game, and the players decide if they want to try and join the campaign.

Isn't it even more common for those groups to play RAW and having close to no house rules? IME on those groups all house rules have been extremely minor, told before joining that table, and on occasion have been modified upon request.

Now, I'll admit that my experience in that environment is very limited, and may not be representative of the majority.

[ATHATH]

This is a good question. Just Max Weapon Damage is statistically the average of twice the dice roll.
Actually, that's not quite true.

The average result from a roll of 2d6 is 7, but 1d6 maximized is just 6.

[Duff]

Fun fact; it's not just the GM, but everyone playing that get to decide what rules are being played by. It's a common misconception that the GM "owns" the game they're running any more than the players who are participating (unless the GM literally owns a copy of the rules and the others don't, I guess! :smalltongue:). All house rules shouod be discussed and approved (or compromised upon) by everyone playing. After all, if a GM runs a rule that a player is bot happy playing by, then that GM is probably doing something wrong somewhere along the line.

Yes and no. If a player leaves the game, the game continues whereas if the GM walks away, that game is finished. But each person at the table has to agree to the same set of rules for the game to work. It's always better if this is negotiated but the GM's role of running the game makes them responsible for interpreting and applying the rules, which merges with introducing house rules.

[Tanarii]

Isn't it even more common for those groups to play RAW and having close to no house rules? IME on those groups all house rules have been extremely minor, told before joining that table, and on occasion have been modified upon request.

Oh, for sure. I was just pointing out that your statement holds best true as a working system (IMO) in a group of friends getting together to start a new game. Or possibly a long time table for new house rules in an existing campaign. Certainly that's very common, enough so that it's probably fair to consider it the most common style of play.

Usually open table DMs soliciting players, be they single party or rotating players, are most common at schools and game shops. And the latter have a history of frequently being official play, all the way back to RPGA. Of course nowadays there are also online games soliciting players, so they're becoming more common.

[DarkKnightJin]

Haven't read the whole thread(sorry), but I'm personally probably going to rin a variant of this:
On a crit, it's max damage, with the weapon dice being rolled again.
This will keep Paladin and Rogue from having to roll a bunch of dice and adding them up, but still lets them do a good chunk of damage.

I feel that's a reasonable compromise.

[MeeposFire]

Rude really isn't the word. You actually do not get to decline using a house rule. It is the rule for the table you cannot decline it than you could decline any other rule such as the ones in the book. As a player you can request that the table not use that rule (preferably not during the game but rather before or after the game) but if the DM decides that is going to be the rule then that is the rule.

What would be rude would be to disrupt the game over the rule. Once the final decision has been made (and to me a good DM will take into account the wishes of his players and any points being brought up but the final choice is up to the DM, just because all the players want to start with a billion gold does not mean that I as the DM need to relent to that wish) you as the player have two options accept it and play or so no thank you this is not the table that I want to play at and leave (I would be nice about it of course this does nto sound like a DM trying to be a jerk so no reason to be mean about it).

This is similar to a DM saying this is a no feat game or a no multiclass game with the only caveat that this is an actual houserule rather than choosing not to use an optional rule but the concept is the same for the purposes of this question.

[Particle_Man]

And I don't think the GM has final say, I believe the table has final say.

For me, the fact that a GM would think that he had final say over the rules, would mean me walking out of the table.

And the game would continue on without you, using the gm’s house rule. Indeed, in some areas this might mean you don’t get to play at all if there are no other GMs running games you want to play and that have a space available for you. In what way is that not the GM having the final say? It would take *all* actual and potential players having the same objection to that house rule before the game of the GM stops using the GM’s house rule. And with there being so many players and relatively few GMs that seems unrealistic.

[Tanarii]

This is similar to a DM saying this is a no feat game or a no multiclass game with the only caveat that this is an actual houserule rather than choosing not to use an optional rule but the concept is the same for the purposes of this question.Wierdly, for some players is more acceptable to create house rules than to "take away" those two optional rules. :smallamused:

[Kurt Kurageous]

IMO, the DM is the game.

In general, those most responsible for the outcomes get to make the rules. That's how it is, whether you've ever realized it or not.

I use a mod crit house rule. I justify it by saying "no sad trombone solos." I believe a crit should be a special event, even potentially a turning point in a fight.

For a crit at my table, you roll your damage dice and d20 at the same time. A crit means the weapon (only, not poison) does damage equal to the maximum possible plus the amount you rolled BEFORE modifications (STR/DEX/magic plusses/circumstantial). So the above 'with poison' example doesn't work as that poster describes.

Remember, every time anyone rolls a die, the game grinds to a halt. 5e combats are taking waaaay too long to resolve. Players are checking out to their phones until they are up again. And that's the opposite of how combat should be. We've made a game where a social interaction engages the entire party, but a life and death struggle is boring. Something is wrong. And it's up to the DM to fix it. Because they are the game.

[Tanarii]

Remember, every time anyone rolls a die, the game grinds to a halt. 5e combats are taking waaaay too long to resolve. Players are checking out to their phones until they are up again. And that's the opposite of how combat should be. We've made a game where a social interaction engages the entire party, but a life and death struggle is boring. Something is wrong. And it's up to the DM to fix it. Because they are the game.
Rolling damage dice with attacks or making it so Crits don't need to roll addiction dice is like trying to put a band aid on the titanic. It doesn't address the problem in any significant manner.

The problem resulting in slow combat is slow players and DMs making slow decisions. I run apparently very fast combats (typically no more than 15-20 minutes for a Medium fight and 30-40 for a Deadly one) and I certainly don't mess around with these pointless not-at-all time saving "tricks" for physical combatants. What I do is control the pacing, keeping it fast: know what you're going to do ahead of time, or choose to do something quickly. Both at the DM and the PC.

[JellyPooga]

Rolling damage dice with attacks or making it so Crits don't need to roll addiction dice is like trying to put a band aid on the titanic. It doesn't address the problem in any significant manner.

The problem resulting in slow combat is slow players and DMs making slow decisions. I run apparently very fast combats (typically no more than 15-20 minutes for a Medium fight and 30-40 for a Deadly one) and I certainly don't mess around with these pointless not-at-all time saving "tricks" for physical combatants. What I do is control the pacing, keeping it fast: know what you're going to do ahead of time, or choose to do something quickly. Both at the DM and the PC.

Second this. If players are on their phones or otherwise not engaging with the game, that's what's slowing your combats down. Even when it's not your turn, you should be assessing the situation, looking out for possible Reactions that might be applicable, planning your next turn, etc. Player that don't want to play shouldn't be at the table (IMO).

In response to the "No GM, no game" (aka "The GM is the game" aka "The Judge Dredd") argument, the same can be said of players just as easily. A GM without players isn't going to get any more gaming done than a player without a GM. GMs that get draconian and/or precious about their "lauded" position behind the screen are very often those that I simply won't want to play with; it's not a power-trip, it's a game. Yes, players should respect the decisions of the GM, once made, as the rules arbiter, but that doesn't mean they have to choose between accepting every ruling or houserule without any input and walking away from the table in search of another game.

[Gallowglass]

The OP should take the time and mental effort to read "Bartleby the Scrivener"

I am absolutely gobsmacked at the idea that he/she believes that they have the "right" or "ability" to just say "No thanks, I prefer not to" to a table rule, even a house rule. Not "Is it rude for me to engage the DM and ask if they are willing to rethink it" or "Is it rude for me to ask the table if we can vote on it" but "Is it rude for me to just play my own game by my own rules regardless of everyone else."

What's next. "Hey why are you rulling that d12 for damage on your dagger?" "Oh, I just prefer to."

[Brookshw]

Second this. If players are on their phones or otherwise not engaging with the game, that's what's slowing your combats down. Even when it's not your turn, you should be assessing the situation, looking out for possible Reactions that might be applicable, planning your next turn, etc. Player that don't want to play shouldn't be at the table (IMO). Completely agreed. I'd also add that one of the most common and, IMO, unreasonable slow downs I've observed is players trying to have lengthy tactical back and forth discussions during a combat. I'm not talking about a short statement like "hey cleric, X is down, can you heal them?", but rather extended back and forth of "if I do this will you do this? No? Okay, how about this? Oh, you want to do that if I do this?"(you get the idea, an actual conversation).*

*distinguished from helping a new player understand what their abilities are and do, no problem to be a helpful player and suggest or explain to a new player what some of their options are or how things work (that's something I'd probably give you an inspiration point for).

[Man_Over_Game]

In response to the "No GM, no game" (aka "The GM is the game" aka "The Judge Dredd") argument, the same can be said of players just as easily. A GM without players isn't going to get any more gaming done than a player without a GM. GMs that get draconian and/or precious about their "lauded" position behind the screen are very often those that I simply won't want to play with; it's not a power-trip, it's a game. Yes, players should respect the decisions of the GM, once made, as the rules arbiter, but that doesn't mean they have to choose between accepting every ruling or houserule without any input and walking away from the table in search of another game.

The fact is, though, DMs are in much more demand than players. Go make a posting about DMing a campaign on Roll20. Don't mention your experience, houserules, nothing. Just mention that you're starting a campaign based on Faerun in, say, a week. I guarantee you'll hit 20 requests before the end of the day.

Don't get me wrong, I think everyone should compromise. But this is something the player should have agreed to beforehand.

That is, don't play with DMs who make constant houserules mid-game. If they can't list their houserules before you join their campaign, probably best to walk away. A DM that doesn't mention the difference between a made up rule and an actual rule is probably a DM that doesn't know the difference, and I'm not sure if I want a DM who's a worse player than me.

Still, though, best to determine if a mediocre DM is better than none. Many on the internet would say "No", but reality is a lot less simple.

[zinycor]

And the game would continue on without you, using the gm’s house rule. Indeed, in some areas this might mean you don’t get to play at all if there are no other GMs running games you want to play and that have a space available for you. In what way is that not the GM having the final say? It would take *all* actual and potential players having the same objection to that house rule before the game of the GM stops using the GM’s house rule. And with there being so many players and relatively few GMs that seems unrealistic.
(Emphasis mine)
And I am perfectly fine with that.

[Tanarii]

(aka "The GM is the game" aka "The Judge Dredd")I'm dying 😂😂😂


A GM without players isn't going to get any more gaming done than a player without a GM.This is true for many reasons, not just power-tripping. For example, before I started my campaign with 5e, I tried to launch it as a BECMI campaign. I didn't even get enough takers for a single party to commit to any given time slot. No players, no BECMI campaign.


Completely agreed. I'd also add that one of the most common and, IMO, unreasonable slow downs I've observed is players trying to have lengthy tactical back and forth discussions during a combat. I'm not talking about a short statement like "hey cleric, X is down, can you heal them?", but rather extended back and forth of "if I do this will you do this? No? Okay, how about this? Oh, you want to do that if I do this?"(you get the idea, an actual conversation).*Oh god, this is a worse time sink than the one person who just mutters that all under their breath as they try to decide. Otoh the other players are technically engaged ... they're busy discussing tactics instead of reading their phone. Now if only they'd do it before the life and death situation in which they for some weird reason expect the enemy to stand there and respect their team huddle ...

[zinycor]

Completely agreed. I'd also add that one of the most common and, IMO, unreasonable slow downs I've observed is players trying to have lengthy tactical back and forth discussions during a combat. I'm not talking about a short statement like "hey cleric, X is down, can you heal them?", but rather extended back and forth of "if I do this will you do this? No? Okay, how about this? Oh, you want to do that if I do this?"(you get the idea, an actual conversation).*

*distinguished from helping a new player understand what their abilities are and do, no problem to be a helpful player and suggest or explain to a new player what some of their options are or how things work (that's something I'd probably give you an inspiration point for).

There are few things I love more in RPGs that making very complex plans that fail at the first steps. So many fond memories and hearty laughs.

[Man_Over_Game]

There are few things I love more in RPGs that making very complex plans that fail at the first steps. So many fond memories and hearty laughs.

Ugh, been there, very recently.

Was a Warlock with Actor and Mask of Many Faces. We had to assassinate a crime boss in her own home without making much noise. So I stole the identity of one of the guards on patrol at night so we could try to invade during the day.

Day comes, Druid polymorphs me and herself into spiders, we get into their basement. I work my way up and shift into the guy. Unfortunately, the bad guys picked up on the fact that the guy had left, and I...just came from the basement. So they tied me up, tortured me, my friends tried to bust me out using some half-assed invisibility tactics, the boss throws a consumable that summons a fire elemental, her house starts burning, we're now all fighting various bandits in a burning hideout in the middle of downtown Mirabar, the crime boss flees, and our ranger wearing boots of flight chases her down and shoots her dead in the street while flying in the air.

You know, covert.

[zinycor]

Ugh, been there, very recently.

Was a Warlock with Actor and Mask of Many Faces. We had to assassinate a crime boss in her own home without making much noise. So I stole the identity of one of the guards on patrol at night so we could try to invade during the day.

Day comes, Druid polymorphs me and herself into spiders, we get into their basement. I work my way up and shift into the guy. Unfortunately, the bad guys picked up on the fact that the guy had left, and I...just came from the basement. So they tied me up, tortured me, my friends tried to bust me out using some half-assed invisibility tactics, the boss throws a consumable that summons a fire elemental, her house starts burning, we're all fighting various bandits in a burning mansion, the crime boss flees, and our ranger wearing boots of flight chases her down and shoots her dead in the street while flying in the air.

You know, covert.

That seems like something that would happen at my table, hope you enjoyed that disaster :smallbiggrin: I know I would.

[MoiMagnus]

Otoh the other players are technically engaged ... they're busy discussing tactics instead of reading their phone. Now if only they'd do it before the life and death situation in which they for some weird reason expect the enemy to stand there and respect their team huddle ...

I totally see my group of players here. But don't expect me to "do it before the life and death situation". I'm the kind of players that LOVE doing tactical discussion and optimizing numbers, but HATE having to anticipate what will happen. (So yes, our team blindly goes into problems, and then try to cleverly get out of them).

So any planing ahead is for oscillating between an uncomfortable analysis paralysis and boredom, while I do enjoy tactical discussions "while the enemy there and respect [my] team huddle".

[So, I would be a pretty mediocre strategist or fighter in real life, but fortunately for me a RPG doesn't care all that much about real life, so the DM can create a world where our team is somehow not punished for our obvious lack of planing]

[Particle_Man]

I'm dying 😂😂😂

This is true for many reasons, not just power-tripping. For example, before I started my campaign with 5e, I tried to launch it as a BECMI campaign. I didn't even get enough takers for a single party to commit to any given time slot. No players, no BECMI campaign.

Fair. I should say that there is a 5e D&D DM shortage. :smallbiggrin:

[Brookshw]

Otoh the other players are technically engaged ... they're busy discussing tactics instead of reading their phone. Otooh, some players sit there while two tie up the whole game with their discussion. Poor Timmy just wants to go hit the guy with his axe, he doesn't need to wait 5 minutes while two players discuss different spell options. Sometimes also detracts from the immersion and suspense of the combat. To stay on topic, this is one of the few areas where I've been happy to bring down the DM gavel (no, I don't care if talking's a free action. Free action or not, you're not having a conversation the length of the State of the Union in a six second round while other players are waiting)


There are few things I love more in RPGs that making very complex plans that fail at the first steps. So many fond memories and hearty laughs.

Absolutely :smallbiggrin:

[PhoenixPhyre]

Otooh, some players sit there while two tie up the whole game with their discussion. Poor Timmy just wants to go hit the guy with his axe, he doesn't need to wait 5 minutes while two players discuss different spell options. Sometimes also detracts from the immersion and suspense of the combat. To stay on topic, this is one of the few areas where I've been happy to bring down the DM gavel (no, I don't care if talking's a free action. Free action or not, you're not having a conversation the length of the State of the Union in a six second round while other players are waiting)


And frequently, IMX, it comes down to one player trying to play someone else's character for them, whether they intend it to be that way or not. I find that by removing the idea that every possible action has to be as optimal as possible for success and encouraging people to take quick, in-character actions the game plays way smoother, faster, and most people (except those who want to micromanage others) have more fun.

[zinycor]

At my table we have ruled that all those long discussions for tactics are done before rolling initiative (or the equivalent for whatever game we are playing at the time) during combat you get a minute on your turn to pick your spell, if not, you default to dodge action.

[SpikeFightwicky]

At my table we have ruled that all those long discussions for tactics are done before rolling initiative (or the equivalent for whatever game we are playing at the time) during combat you get a minute on your turn to pick your spell, if not, you default to dodge action.

I'd like something like that, but more "chess clock" style so you can use your extra time later. So many times my turn takes all of... 20 seconds? I roll my first attack > miss. Second attack > miss. Next! If I could bank that time and then later on use it to plan a bit better that would be great! Instead I have to wait 5 minutes while half the table decides how to properly place a fireball or which targets take which fire blast shot :smallsigh: Then when I take more than my usual time, people get antsy! It's all relative, I guess :smallbiggrin:

[zinycor]

I'd like something like that, but more "chess clock" style so you can use your extra time later. So many times my turn takes all of... 20 seconds? I roll my first attack > miss. Second attack > miss. Next! If I could bank that time and then later on use it to plan a bit better that would be great! Instead I have to wait 5 minutes while half the table decides how to properly place a fireball or which targets take which fire blast shot :smallsigh: Then when I take more than my usual time, people get antsy! It's all relative, I guess :smallbiggrin:

We are pretty lenient with the time thing, and only bring it up when someone is taking longer than usual. Usually the wizards.

[Tanarii]

I totally see my group of players here. But don't expect me to "do it before the life and death situation". I'm the kind of players that LOVE doing tactical discussion and optimizing numbers, but HATE having to anticipate what will happen. (So yes, our team blindly goes into problems, and then try to cleverly get out of them).
Yeah it's fine if everyone is that kind of player. It's time well spent doing what they love. As long as, as two posters said above, it's not two players time-hogging the entire group, or someone back-seat-driving other PC.

I do know a lot of people that enjoy this kind of thing. We play tactical board games to scratch that itch, which I definitely have myself from time to time. I've just learned it's not what most people want out of D&D / RPGs. Even when I'm running it out of a game shop right next door to a college, so a haven for the kind of guy (and it's almost always guys) that love a good tactical geek-out.

[MeeposFire]

Fair. I should say that there is a 5e D&D DM shortage. :smallbiggrin:

In my experience there has always been a shortage of DMs as compared to players.

[zinycor]

In my experience there has always been a shortage of DMs as compared to players.

Never understood this, like players aren't able to GM.

[JNAProductions]

Never understood this, like players aren't able to GM.

A lot of players either don't have the skill or don't have the desire. Probably more the latter than the former.

But it's generally harder to find a DM than it is to find players. Not always, but generally.

[Man_Over_Game]

Never understood this, like players aren't able to GM.

A good DM spends a few days a month working on a session. A good player spends a few hours.

[JNAProductions]

A good DM spends a few days a month working on a session. A good player spends a few hours.

Which is probably why I don't consider myself more than a mediocre DM. I don't have the patience to sit down and hash out an adventure, but also am not the best at improv.

My players say they have fun, and I believe them, so clearly I'm doing SOMETHING right, but I know I can do better.

[Friv]

A good DM spends a few days a month working on a session. A good player spends a few hours.

Honestly, that's a pretty D&D-specific generalization.

These days, if a game system requires me to spend a few days a month just working on a session, it's a game system that I do not want to run. More than an hour of prep time for a week's session is more than I want to spend, not counting the extra time for initial story setup at the beginning of the campaign.

[Brookshw]

Never understood this, like players aren't able to GM.

Sure, but able and willing are two different things, right? For example, I have a player who's been in my games for close to two decades. He's never once offered to run a session, let alone anything more.

[Man_Over_Game]

Honestly, that's a pretty D&D-specific generalization.

These days, if a game system requires me to spend a few days a month just working on a session, it's a game system that I do not want to run. More than an hour of prep time for a week's session is more than I want to spend, not counting the extra time for initial story setup at the beginning of the campaign.

Right, I mean it's going to depend on how often you guys play. Realistically, I don't think anyone expects a weekly game to require more than an hour's worth of attention. The point I was trying to make, though, is that being a DM, a decent DM, has you consider more than what a player does.

A DM has to worry about suspense in-and-out of combat, balancing enemies, creating thematic NPCs, the power level between players and enemies, the power level between players and players, the interactions between enemies and enemies, how organic and growing the world is, how the players' backstories and actions are relevant to the world. You're a playwright, an actor, a manager and so much more.

A DM might not be writing stuff down, but we're usually busy thinking about the campaign anyway, in the shower, before we sleep, as we commute to work. If a player stops thinking about their character, then nobody will care because the DM will do a lot of the heavy lifting for your thinking/plot in the next session. If the DM stops thinking about the campaign, the game stops.

It's a lot of pressure, and it's no wonder that DMs are in short supply.

[Chronos]

One way this rule could be an issue (in addition to the slightly lower average damage) is if a player has some other ability that maximizes a die roll. Say, a tempest cleric who picked up Chromatic Orb somehow (choosing lightning damage), rolls a crit, and then wants to spend a Channel Divinity to improve it further.

[Man_Over_Game]

One way this rule could be an issue (in addition to the slightly lower average damage) is if a player has some other ability that maximizes a die roll. Say, a tempest cleric who picked up Chromatic Orb somehow (choosing lightning damage), rolls a crit, and then wants to spend a Channel Divinity to improve it further.

Honestly, a bigger culprit would be Paladins. But I think the topic itself is more about figuring out when DMs are allowed to be wrong and when they're allowed to be right.

[MeeposFire]

Never understood this, like players aren't able to GM.

It is not that players can't. It is that many players won't.

Some will not because they are not ready. Others will not because they do not feel that they are ready.

Others will not because they do not like being nominally in charge of a group or having to deal with players (which can be difficult in some groups especially if you are friends). Some do not like making decisions. Some hate being on the spot all the time.

Also you have to prepare for every game. A player does not really have to do that once your character is set for the next session you are done. The DM has to keep working and then during the game you end up doing the most work again. Some will not like that and if you do not have a lot of experience with DMing it can take even longer to prepare and even more difficult during the game. People often expect the DM to know the rules the best even if they don't.

Dming requires more in general and that means there will be less people able and willing to take that mantle on. It is also often thankless. A good or even great DM often gets little recognition of that during a game but one that is struggling will get a lot of heat so that also drives people away too.



Considering the question I just have to wonder have you DMed often (no problem if you do not but I am curious).

[zinycor]

Yes, I often GM for my group, but we rotate GM duties, and with only 2 exceptions everyone is fine and ready to GM whenever the current game is done.

I also was part of another table, where only one person was ever the GM, which was obviously flawed and ridiculous. Didn't think that was the case for most tables.

[zinycor]

It is also often thankless. A good or even great DM often gets little recognition of that during a game but one that is struggling will get a lot of heat so that also drives people away .

Seems like you have some very demanding players, weird. In my experience, GMing is a lot of fun on its own, and often is looked at with admiration and respect. Also at my group we make an effort to be transparent in our decision making as GM so others can understand it.

As an advice I would advice you to try and be more open to your players, show them how fun it is, explain your choices, and be patient and positive when they try to GM. Do that and soon your group will be full of GMs.

[Tanarii]

Yes, I often GM for my group, but we rotate GM duties, and with only 2 exceptions everyone is fine and ready to GM whenever the current game is done.

I also was part of another table, where only one person was ever the GM, which was obviously flawed and ridiculous. Didn't think that was the case for most tables.
That explains why you have such an extreme view. Your relatively uncommon in the world of gaming table experience is something you think is normal.

I have the same problem with official play tables, open tables, and game-stores-near-colleges tables. I often think my experiences from the last two decades I left college is the norm.

I try to keep an eye on my resulting bias. I highly recommend it.

[zinycor]

That explains why you have such an extreme view. Your relatively uncommon in the world of gaming table experience is something you think is normal.

I have the same problem with official play tables, open tables, and game-stores-near-colleges tables. I often think my experiences from the last two decades I left college is the norm.

I try to keep an eye on my resulting bias. I highly recommend it.

I don't follow

[Particle_Man]

I don't follow

He means that having one person be GM instead of rotating GMs is the norm, not an aberration. If you think that this is flawed and ridiculous that doesn’t change the fact that most tables work this way - hence the GM shortage, hence there being more power with the GM, hence most players going along with a GM’s house rules, hence it being rude to impossible for a player to say “I won’t abide by that house rule, GM!”

I mean, I hate fumble rules with a passion, but I still play under GMs that use fumble rules because the pluses outweigh that minus.

[zinycor]

He means that having one person be GM instead of rotating GMs is the norm, not an aberration. If you think that this is flawed and ridiculous that doesn’t change the fact that most tables work this way - hence the GM shortage, hence there being more power with the GM, hence most players going along with a GM’s house rules, hence it being rude to impossible for a player to say “I won’t abide by that house rule, GM!”

Oh! I see. It's a systematic problem then... I'll create a thread specially for this then.

[Zhorn]

edit: too slow on the reply :smalleek:


I don't follow
They mean that your views are shaped by having a table where a large portion of the players are ready and willing to DM. You're lucky.
Most tables tend to be comprised of players that don't want to DM (for various reasons).


I also was part of another table, where only one person was ever the GM, which was obviously flawed and ridiculous. Didn't think that was the case for most tables.
Not knowing the context of that table, I cannot speak to whether is was or was not ridiculous.

For most tables, only having the one person being DM capable is flawed, but it's normally not a role that is being gatekept in any way. DM's like to be players too, and you'll be hard pushed to find a DM that doesn't want to let someone else DM once in a while. Unfortunately because of the DM shortage, some times the only way we can ever have a game at all is to be the one to step up to DM.
Running the game means setting the rules.
And if a player wants to set the rules, why are they not DMing instead?

[PhoenixPhyre]

I may be the exception, but I prefer to DM. I'm happy to play, but I love to DM more. Part of it is world-building--I care more about the broad strokes than developing this one character. I have a world where all my campaigns are set, and I love to see it grow and change as different groups meddle in different places. Part of it is that I get ADD when people take forever to act[1], and as DM I can provide incentives to keep things moving.

[1] I don't like heist style, where everything is exhaustively planned out in advance. Dealing with the snowball of consequences is a large part of the fun for me.

[zinycor]

edit: too slow on the reply :smalleek:


They mean that your views are shaped by having a table where a large portion of the players are ready and willing to DM. You're lucky.
Most tables tend to be comprised of players that don't want to DM (for various reasons).


Not knowing the context of that table, I cannot speak to whether is was or was not ridiculous.

For most tables, only having the one person being DM capable is flawed, but it's normally not a role that is being gatekept in any way. DM's like to be players too, and you'll be hard pushed to find a DM that doesn't want to let someone else DM once in a while. Unfortunately because of the DM shortage, some times the only way we can ever have a game at all is to be the one to step up to DM.
Running the game means setting the rules.
And if a player wants to set the rules, why are they not DMing instead?

I see.. Well that certainly is a way of looking at the game. As for


And if a player wants to set the rules, why are they not DMing instead

If you asked that question at my table, you would be laughed at, and then another player would take the role GM by the next session (or that very same session if it was early enough).
In my opinion, running the game, means running the game. Nothing else.

[SpikeFightwicky]

I may be the exception, but I prefer to DM. I'm happy to play, but I love to DM more. Part of it is world-building--I care more about the broad strokes than developing this one character. I have a world where all my campaigns are set, and I love to see it grow and change as different groups meddle in different places. Part of it is that I get ADD when people take forever to act[1], and as DM I can provide incentives to keep things moving.

[1] I don't like heist style, where everything is exhaustively planned out in advance. Dealing with the snowball of consequences is a large part of the fun for me.

I'm the the same. I always prefer DMing. I'm very timid as a player for some reason (though I enjoy characters that are typically "face" types :smallconfused:), but very engaged as a DM. Maybe keeping track of one PC isn't as stimulating as all the NPCs for me :smallbiggrin: I'm also great at improv for if when things don't go as expected.


If you asked that question at my table, you would be laughed at, and then another player would take the role GM by the next session (or that very same session if it was early enough).
In my opinion, running the game, means running the game. Nothing else.

I find this bizarre. Unless you're all clones, wouldn't that be the equivalent of changing directors every few scenes? Do all the players know the story / setting from start to finish? I feel like this would jarring from a narrative perspective. I'm curious how it works out. Also, I'm coming from a place where I'm the only one that wants to DM :smallbiggrin:

[OldTrees1]

That explains why you have such an extreme view. Your relatively uncommon in the world of gaming table experience is something you think is normal.
How common / uncommon is it to have multiple people willing and capable of GMing in a group?

I can describe many factors encouraging 1 GM groups to change into 2+ GM groups. I have seen that transition play out time and time again.

Likewise I hear lots of problem stories about 1 GM groups, which at riddled with suggestions either for or assuming a 2+ GM group.

Are you a GM? Does being a GM / not being a GM affect the frequency of observing groups with 2+ GMs?

[zinycor]

I find this bizarre. Unless you're all clones, wouldn't that be the equivalent of changing directors every few scenes? Do all the players know the story / setting from start to finish? I feel like this would jarring from a narrative perspective. I'm curious how it works out. Also, I'm coming from a place where I'm the only one that wants to DM :smallbiggrin:

We all run different games on settings of our own.

I like to run games in very rules centric way, rewarding optimal decisions, and system mastery, therefore I GM for DnD games. A friend of mine is focused on big plots, puzzles, weird characters with flamboyant personalities, so he mainly GMs for fate accelerated games. Another friend loves science fiction and likes to make his games very over the top, so he mostly runs fading suns and is very generous with loot and powers.

In the end it works out quite well, and every game is a dialogue and consensus. On my experience the games have been enriched by this, since I now know how to best please my players and allow myself to be surprised on the twist and turns that my campaign takes.

[Brookshw]

I may be the exception, but I prefer to DM. I'm happy to play, but I love to DM more. Part of it is world-building--I care more about the broad strokes than developing this one character.

I'm with you on that. Sure, it's fun to step away and be a player for a bit, but I enjoy the creativity that goes with world/adventure building more.

[MoiMagnus]

I also was part of another table, where only one person was ever the GM, which was obviously flawed and ridiculous. Didn't think that was the case for most tables.

From my experience and observation, here are the "de facto" responsibilities of the GM:

Finding a place to play.
Finding players, contacting them to know if their interested in joining the table, potentially choosing who to contact if there is too many of them.
Finding a time period where everyone is free. Dealing with players possibly having to leave for few month for personal reasons or holidays.
Creating a universe.
Creating a plot-line of what happen if the players just want to follow the story. Including secrets to uncovers, traitors, hidden stuff, ...
Maintaining all the universe consistent (as they are the only one with all the knowledge)
Finding a RPG system (the GM is likely the only one who bough RPG books)
Learning the chosen RPG system (the GM is frequently the only one who read the books, and gave to the player a quick "how to play" explanation while helping the players to create their characters)
Tweaking the RPG system to match the universe and the intended playstyle of the campaign, if needed.
During the session, acting as an organiser, an arbiter for every inter-player conflict, and a judge for any decision concerning the campaign.
Somehow managing not to have a burn out.


Why is that? Because most RPG campaign are created as follows: the GM create a campaign and then search for players. There is a clear asymmetry as the GM is the only reason why the table exist, and the table would probably dissolve if the GM stop organising it.

While it is likely your RPG group was created in the reverse way: a group of friends that decided to play some RPG together, and then tried to decide what to do. (Which mean there is no real asymmetry between you, which make rotating GM far easier)

[zinycor]

While it is likely your RPG group was created in the reverse way: a group of friends that decided to play some RPG together, and then tried to decide what to do. (Which mean there is no real asymmetry between you, which make rotating GM far easier)

That's absolutely correct, and that may very well be the reason for a better understanding.

[MeeposFire]

Seems like you have some very demanding players, weird. In my experience, GMing is a lot of fun on its own, and often is looked at with admiration and respect. Also at my group we make an effort to be transparent in our decision making as GM so others can understand it.

As an advice I would advice you to try and be more open to your players, show them how fun it is, explain your choices, and be patient and positive when they try to GM. Do that and soon your group will be full of GMs.

Nah the people that played PCs in my group have been mostly pretty easy but I know the challenges that many DMs face in their games.

There is generally more pressure on a DM than a player and more responsibilities. I have seen many a person try to DM and it does not go well and they decide to not try again which is unfortunate because failure is a good teacher in this regard. My first game was a complete failure but I gave it another go and over time I have had a lot of success being a DM but many people will not come back after a game like that and others will be too afraid to try.

Having a group of players that can and do switch DM jobs is relatively uncommon though very nice to have because it allows for people to take a break from being a DM which can help prevent burn out.

[Steel Mirror]

I also was part of another table, where only one person was ever the GM, which was obviously flawed and ridiculous. Didn't think that was the case for most tables.
I was just reading this thread and not posting myself, but I do feel the need to defend my table and others who play similarly from this comment.

To be clear, the way your table does it sounds cool and very fun. As long as you guys are enjoying it, you are doing it right!

But to say that others who do it differently are "obviously flawed and ridiculous" isn't just wrong, it's actually insulting. I'm not sure if you meant it to be so, but any declaration of "I do it the right way and everyone else is wrong, even if they don't realize it" is the old badwrongfun argument, which always gets my goat. (pardon my strong language)

In my old group, I played with my girlfriend at the time. I'm usually a GM, but in the playgroup I was introducing her to the game, so I didn't want to be GM, I wanted to be a fellow player. Two other players were another couple, both of whom loved gaming and one of whom was often a GM as well, but she was burnt out from a previous long-running campaign and wanted to take it easy for a while. The last player had no interest in GMing at all, he just always wanted to play wizards and make the biggest 'splosions possible.

In that dynamic, the one guy who GMed every game was valuable as gold, since none of the rest of us were in the position or had the inclination to do so. And it was a fantastic game! I hope that doesn't seem "flawed and ridiculous" to you, and if it does, then I am at least happy that you found a group that is organized in a way that lets you enjoy the game to the fullest. Hopefully you can feel the same about others who play the game differently than you do!

[KorvinStarmast]

Fun fact; it's not just the GM, but everyone playing that get to decide what rules are being played by. Suggest you read page 6 of the PHB.

And I don't think the GM has final say, I believe the table has final say. Depends on the table. (I do like to discuss house rules ahead of time, since most of the players I play with are experienced.) The key is to be sure people are aware of house rules.
For me, the fact that a GM would think that he had final say over the rules, would mean me walking out of the table. This is D&D, it is DM. You walking is also fine. Fun tends to be where we find it; we can't force fun.
You do realize that the printed rules assign total authority over the rules to the DM? That, by RAW, you're demanding power that isn't yours to demand? There are a lot of shrill voices on the internet who don't actually read the books.
Rude really isn't the word. You actually do not get to decline using a house rule. Concisely and nicely put. Tips Cap

I am absolutely gobsmacked at the idea that he/she believes that they have the "right" or "ability" to just say "No thanks, I prefer not to" to a table rule, even a house rule. Not "Is it rude for me to engage the DM and ask if they are willing to rethink it" or "Is it rude for me to ask the table if we can vote on it" but "Is it rude for me to just play my own game by my own rules regardless of everyone else."

What's next. "Hey why are you rulling that d12 for damage on your dagger?" "Oh, I just prefer to." *chuckle*

Honestly, that's a pretty D&D-specific generalization. Hello, you are in a thread on a D&D 5e sub forum. For general role playing games, try a different forum. (PS: we played Honey Heist last night, and it was a real hoot. I highly recommend it. And, bonus, it's rules-light).

He means that having one person be GM instead of rotating GMs is the norm, not an aberration.

I mean, I hate fumble rules with a passion, but I still play under GMs that use fumble rules because the pluses outweigh that minus. Yeah, my brother uses them, still, in 5e, and I hate it but I put up with it.

@Steel Mirror: great post. :)

[zinycor]

I was just reading this thread and not posting myself, but I do feel the need to defend my table and others who play similarly from this comment.

To be clear, the way your table does it sounds cool and very fun. As long as you guys are enjoying it, you are doing it right!

But to say that others who do it differently are "obviously flawed and ridiculous" isn't just wrong, it's actually insulting. I'm not sure if you meant it to be so, but any declaration of "I do it the right way and everyone else is wrong, even if they don't realize it" is the old badwrongfun argument, which always gets my goat. (pardon my strong language)

In my old group, I played with my girlfriend at the time. I'm usually a GM, but in the playgroup I was introducing her to the game, so I didn't want to be GM, I wanted to be a fellow player. Two other players were another couple, both of whom loved gaming and one of whom was often a GM as well, but she was burnt out from a previous long-running campaign and wanted to take it easy for a while. The last player had no interest in GMing at all, he just always wanted to play wizards and make the biggest 'splosions possible.

In that dynamic, the one guy who GMed every game was valuable as gold, since none of the rest of us were in the position or had the inclination to do so. And it was a fantastic game! I hope that doesn't seem "flawed and ridiculous" to you, and if it does, then I am at least happy that you found a group that is organized in a way that lets you enjoy the game to the fullest. Hopefully you can feel the same about others who play the game differently than you do!

Sorry if I offended you, wasn't my intention to do so.

My critique was meant for groups who only had one GM and would only ever have that one GM, by design. Which was the case for the group I left.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Sorry if I offended you, wasn't my intention to do so.

My critique was meant for groups who only had one GM and would only ever have that one GM, by design. Which was the case for the group I left.

Even then, it's too broad of a critique. You had a bad group (by your standards). But not all (or even most) single-DM groups are bad, and what is bad to one may not be to another.

[zinycor]

Even then, it's too broad of a critique. You had a bad group (by your standards). But not all (or even most) single-DM groups are bad, and what is bad to one may not be to another.

I disagree, I believe that, at best, every single-DM group is flawed.

But you are free to disagree with me.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I disagree, I believe that, at best, every single-DM group is flawed.

But you are free to disagree with me.

Yes I am, and yes I do, unless you extend that to all groups are flawed in some way. Because no one (and so no group) is perfect.

Unless you define "flawed" as "not to my taste", I don't think there's an objective criteria by which you can establish that one style is uniformly worse than another. I've had way worse experiences with multi-DM groups, for one thing. Each style has differences, both positive and negative. The "right" way is whatever the group wants.

[Lille]

I disagree, I believe that, at best, every single-DM group is flawed.

But you are free to disagree with me.

Could you explain why you consider it flawed? Because if given without any explanation, your statement really doesn't mean much of anything. I understand why you might feel that way - at least, I have a few guesses - but this discussion would be a fair bit simpler if you make your reasons clear.

[Steel Mirror]

Sorry if I offended you, wasn't my intention to do so.Not offended, but certainly irked enough that I felt the need to post. No hard feelings though!

I don't agree at all with you that people who have different gaming preferences are somehow inherently flawed, but so long as you have a table that makes you happy and I have a table that makes me happy, our disagreement doesn't have to step on anyone's fun. Happy gaming!

I feel I should at least reply to the OP while I'm here, just for the sake of forum karma and not derailing the thread completely. I agree with all those that say that the GM usually does set the houserules. A good GM will listen to the players and try to reach accommodations that please everyone, but in the end the buck needs to stop somewhere, and in all the D&D games I've played in, that person is the GM. As a player you need to decide how much of that you are willing to take, and when it becomes too much and it's better for everyone for you to leave the game, and that is your prerogative.

But while I do agree with a lot of people that some GMs turn their position into a power trip, I also think that players aren't immune to that tendency as well. At a certain point, you have to ask yourself: are you being rational about objecting to how your GM applies a houserule about stacking spell modifiers (just to choose an example that I actually started a huge argument about once as a player, and cringe when I recall how worked up I got), or are you just on a power-trip of your own, and upset that the GM isn't prioritizing your fun in that moment? GMs aren't the only ones who let their ego get in the way of just trying to have fun with everyone in a game. It's important to be able to just let things go sometimes, even if you know you are right, because having the argument may not be worth it when you can just move on and have fun with the rest of the game.

[Arkhios]

To avoid pointing fingers towards anyone, I'm addressing this on a general level:

Whether private groups are able to form on a short notice and without a fuss depends a lot on the general population of where you're living in. In countries with smaller populations than United States, for example, the player bases are unquestionably much smaller as well. In a smaller player base, it's much more difficult to find a private group that is a perfect match to your preferences. If a GM has an opinion stronger than yours about a house rule, and you can easily decide not to play in that particular GM's table and find another table quickly, then good for you. That, however, is not possible everywhere. Somewhere such a decision might easily mean you either have a game - or none at all.

I agree that the GM is a "player" at the table just as much as the players are, but the big difference is in how much work the roles take in comparison to each other.

An individual player has to take care about their character and their character alone (and should leave it there, instead of fingering others' characters as well, if you ask me), plus the rules that everyone at the table use, of course.
A GM has to take care of the campaign world, NPC's involved with PC's, each PC in order to see that they fit in the campaign, Monsters, setting lore, multiple statblocks in a combat, dozens of different abilities depending on those statblocks, AND same rules that the players use to be able to be the final arbiter of those rules.

If a GM wants to introduce a house rule for his table, it's likely done to make his work easier for him. However, such decisions, like the critical hit damage method, should be made in session zero, or if not possible, between sessions - not during session.

Still, sometimes during session a GM might realize something they didn't think of beforehand, and might want to handle it differently from there on. Still, it's fair towards the group to discuss about it first (note: not argue; discuss). Diplomacy works both ways, however. Each participants should seriously consider what the others have to say; not outright refuse without even thinking it through.

To conclude, a GM has a lot more to work with than each individual player. Players should seriously take that into account before going on a fit about some house rules in effect. But, GM's should listen to their players' concerns as well, and try to reach a reasonable compromise at the very least. And, I repeat, this should be done between sessions (or, if possible, during "session zero").

Then there's the fact that playing a game around a table with other people inevitably involves social interaction between friends, or at least with people who don't hate each other to begin with (if you hated any of them, you probably shouldn't spend time with them, right? :smallbiggrin:). Being inconsiderate is going to hurt, not only your relations with the other people, but quite possibly their feelings as well. Hurt feelings are just as serious, if not more than physical wounds. They might take even longer to heal. And, burnt bridges might take forever to rebuild, as well.

More to the topic at hand, I would consider it a bit rude to outright decline using a house rule without considering the "why" of it. The GM might have a good reason (in their opinion at least) for this decision.

If the reason for this was to make the game run smoother, it might be worth suggesting that only the GM would use the "maximum average" for a critical damage (considering the amount of creatures they have to handle, it's completely reasonable to be honest), while players would get to roll their crits as normal. This way, the GM could just write it down once for each creature, and then only determine if they hit or not. As per usual, monsters already tend to have an average damage they deal when they hit, and normally GM should only roll the creature's normal damage die as a bonus to that average when creatures crit. Using an average for both hit and crit instead isn't game breaking, but would certainly make it smoother for GM.

[Mordaedil]

As far as house-rules go, in normal play it sounds like it'll be ultimately either better than doubling the dice or just slightly worse on average.

There's a few questions I'd have with regards to it, like what happens with the barbarians brutal critical with this rule? Does he get to double? Does he add half his weapon damage? Does he roll one of the weapon dice, but max the other?

That said, you have to abide by the same rules as the rest of the table, but you are still allowed to ask why certain rules are what they are.

[SpikeFightwicky]

We all run different games on settings of our own.

I like to run games in very rules centric way, rewarding optimal decisions, and system mastery, therefore I GM for DnD games. A friend of mine is focused on big plots, puzzles, weird characters with flamboyant personalities, so he mainly GMs for fate accelerated games. Another friend loves science fiction and likes to make his games very over the top, so he mostly runs fading suns and is very generous with loot and powers.

In the end it works out quite well, and every game is a dialogue and consensus. On my experience the games have been enriched by this, since I now know how to best please my players and allow myself to be surprised on the twist and turns that my campaign takes.

Yeah I can get behind that. Sounds pretty seamless, actually! In my groups I'm usually either running it from the start, or taking over after someone who wants to try has a go and isn't too thrilled about being the DM. My only issue is that once in a blue moon I'll get a character concept I want to try, but have to wait a long time before I can be a PC.

[Keravath]

I disagree, I believe that, at best, every single-DM group is flawed.

But you are free to disagree with me.

I'd have to add my voice to those disagreeing with you :)

I've played/DMed groups where folks mostly preferred playing or where the others were DMs. I've played with a group where one week we ran my game and alternating weeks we ran a game run by one of the other players. I've run a game that lasted several years on a single campaign. I've played in games that ran several years in a single campaign.

I'm not sure I have ever played in a shared campaign setting with multiple DMs taking turns or sharing the DMing.

Claiming that single DM groups are inherently flawed just doesn't match my play experience in ANY way, shape or form.

There are good groups and bad groups.

Groups where some players and DMs don't get along.

I have played with DMs whose play style, rulings, or rule choices I either disagreed with or just didn't understand since they didn't seem to make any sense in the context of the narrative that the DM was creating. I just dropped out of those groups. I have had experiences with players that were just bad from both the player and DM perspective. There are players who have no clue about their character capabilities and others who want to exploit any possible loophole in the rules. I have had players that get upset when their triple backflip summersault onto the galloping horse while swinging their sword at the bad guy didn't work out ... players who think the impossible should ALWAYS be possible (instead of mostly :) ) ... and players who always want to be the center of attention.

However, these are all group dynamic issues and have nothing to do with whether there is one dedicated DM or an alternating group of DMs. In fact, the only real advantage to having a rotating group of DMs is that they tend to understand the rules better and are more aware of their character capabilities on average (though this can also lead to more rules "discussions" when the DMs disagree on an interpretation ... however, the DM running the game gets the final say so it usually isn't a big deal).

In conclusion :), I absolutely disagree with the statement that a multiple DM game is in any way superior to a game run by a single DM. The DMs ability and not the quantity of DMs is much more significant.

However, perhaps you had a specific reason that wasn't clear for the comments you made.

[Willie the Duck]

This is one of those things that I am torn between thinking, "this is an internet tempest in a teapot," and, "this is a right of passage as a gamer." I say that because:
1) If tyrannical DMs, or unpleasable players were as common in the wild as internet forum argumentsdiscussions implied, the game would not have the staying power (and certainly the renewed culture of game-with-relative-strangers that is now in resurgence) that it does.
and
2) We have all had an experience with 'that DM'/'that player.'

As to house rules, I think it would be less contentious if we used the term 'table rules.' As in these are the rules at this table. Because we have those all-the-time, and their very rarely controversial. If you're sitting down to play poker, you have to establish all sorts of rules ahead of time (which type of poker, to begin with, but also rulings on edge cases, or even genuine 'and for this session we will...' type things like wild cards). You say, "Want to play Monopoly?," and if you're at all smart about it, you hammer out very quickly whether there is going to be a payout on Free Parking. In those cases, there is even less of a clear precedence on final say, since there isn't anyone specifically assigned to arbitrate the rules (does the banker on Monopoly get to dictate the Free Parking rules or the guy who owns the poker chips get to decide if you are playing with 3s wild? Not really). Yet somehow we're all pretty much okay with 'well, someone proposes playing XYZ with variants ABC, but no one is forced to play, and can propose alternatives, and everyone is likely to have to make some compromises to get a quorum of people together to play but overall it somehow usually works out' in those instances.

Regardless, I agree with the earlier statements that you aren't really declining a house rule, so much as contesting it or negotiating its implementation (hopefully before it comes up in-game).

[PhoenixPhyre]

As to house rules, I think it would be less contentious if we used the term 'table rules.' As in these are the rules at this table. Because we have those all-the-time, and their very rarely controversial.

IMO, all rules are table rules, and there isn't any difference in "strength" or "officialness" between the rules that come printed in some book by some designer and the rules that a table decides (however they decided to decide that) to use on their own.

I often see "house rule" used as a dismissive statement, and also see people talk up the printed rules (usually in the form of RAW) as being "more important" or "more binding". They're all just rules. All have equal weight once agreed to. And if you can't agree on what the rules are and how new rules are to be added/existing rules are to be changed, don't play.

Unlike poker or Monopoly, however, RPGs are open-ended. Situations can and will arise that are not adequately covered by the existing rule-set or for which the existing rule-set is a poor match. That does not necessarily mean that the rule-set is bad, merely that it's (by definition) unable to cover everything. So new rules have to be added or existing rules changed. So some of the key meta-rules to be decided before game start are "who gets to change the rule-set, and what process must be followed to do so". By default, the printed rules of D&D (5e at least) default that to "The DM, at his/her unreviewable discretion." Just like any rule, that's subject to change, however. Most DMs delegate at least part of that discretion or at least open it up to table discussion before making a call. That, in and of itself, is a non-default-rule (ie what most people call a "house rule")

[JNAProductions]

IMO, all rules are table rules, and there isn't any difference in "strength" or "officialness" between the rules that come printed in some book by some designer and the rules that a table decides (however they decided to decide that) to use on their own.

I often see "house rule" used as a dismissive statement, and also see people talk up the printed rules (usually in the form of RAW) as being "more important" or "more binding". They're all just rules. All have equal weight once agreed to. And if you can't agree on what the rules are and how new rules are to be added/existing rules are to be changed, don't play.

Unlike poker or Monopoly, however, RPGs are open-ended. Situations can and will arise that are not adequately covered by the existing rule-set or for which the existing rule-set is a poor match. That does not necessarily mean that the rule-set is bad, merely that it's (by definition) unable to cover everything. So new rules have to be added or existing rules changed. So some of the key meta-rules to be decided before game start are "who gets to change the rule-set, and what process must be followed to do so". By default, the printed rules of D&D (5e at least) default that to "The DM, at his/her unreviewable discretion." Just like any rule, that's subject to change, however. Most DMs delegate at least part of that discretion or at least open it up to table discussion before making a call. That, in and of itself, is a non-default-rule (ie what most people call a "house rule")

The printed rules are common ground. They're something that people from different places in the world who've never gamed together can share and talk about, whereas houserules are not, generally speaking.

That doesn't make the printed rules better for YOUR game, but it makes them a heck of a lot better for forum discussion.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The printed rules are common ground. They're something that people from different places in the world who've never gamed together can share and talk about, whereas houserules are not, generally speaking.

That doesn't make the printed rules better for YOUR game, but it makes them a heck of a lot better for forum discussion.

I have yet to find any of the rules-based discussion on any forum to be meaningful. For a supposed common ground, there's lots of arguing over minutiae and "I think it means...". A focus on written rules leads, in my experience, to more contention and weaponization of those rules. Using them to prove someone wrong or win arguments, not find areas of mutual enjoyment.

I have found the parts about experiences in play, experiences with rulings and house rules and other non-book bound stuff to be useful, however.

So I guess my experience doesn't match yours.