Should the DM reveal homebrew and house rules in advance?

[MartinHarper]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5018997#post5018997
In this thread, I read the suggestion that a good DM will reveal house rules and homebrewed stuff before the game starts. If he has to house rule mid-campaign, he will introduce those rules at the beginning of the session and explain them in full.

My immediate reaction is that a lot of homebrewed stuff is going to be monsters and items and traps and things that the players shouldn't have any knowledge of until their characters experience them.
Additionally, I don't think my players really care about the rules in the first place, so I think there'd be a real danger in boring them with up front house rules.

Is this just down to different player types? Have folks experienced players who had a pressing need to know every rule in detail?

[Beleriphon]

Is this just down to different player types? Have folks experienced players who had a pressing need to know every rule in detail?

I would think so, at least those rules that directly affect them. After reading the rules, and understanding how they work in relation to my character I'd expect to know whether or not a specific rule works the way its presented as standard.

For example if you change the way jump rules work, and I assume that jumping works as normal only to discover that it doesn't when the first time I need to jump then there is a problem.

[kamikasei]

There is an obvious and huge difference between the players knowing the builds, homebrewed abilities, feats etc. that their opponents are using and knowing that their own abilities work differently than the rules describe. One is keeping the MM out of their hands, the other is denying them a read of the PHB.

There is an overlap where homebrewed feats, say, may be of interest to the players, or some useful magical item may be a common possession of NPCs and the party might like to get their own (though this would only matter if it's something they'd want from the very start of the game). A given bit of homebrew may or may not make sense as a "restricted" item in the game world, or perhaps it should be open to the players. House rules, though, since they will generally affect the players' own abilities, definitely need to be made known up front.

[Esclados]

Homebrewed traps or items or monsters, absolutely not, though appropriate Knowledge skills should work normally on them. If you introduce a new type of undead, a good Knowledge(religion) should still be able to score you some info on it when you encounter it.

As Beleriphon says though, any specific changes to the system (all jump distances are halved!) should be introduced upfront, because not only will it screw you in the moment when you try to jump over a chasm, but your character should also know how far he can jump.

[Gralamin]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5018997#post5018997
In this thread, I read the suggestion that a good DM will reveal house rules and homebrewed stuff before the game starts. If he has to house rule mid-campaign, he will introduce those rules at the beginning of the session and explain them in full.

My immediate reaction is that a lot of homebrewed stuff is going to be monsters and items and traps and things that the players shouldn't have any knowledge of until their characters experience them.
Additionally, I don't think my players really care about the rules in the first place, so I think there'd be a real danger in boring them with up front house rules.

Is this just down to different player types? Have folks experienced players who had a pressing need to know every rule in detail?

I would say anything that anything only the DM should have knowledge of (Ie: Traps and Monsters) do not need to be explained unless they have rules that drastically alter combat for whatever reason. Then at the beginning of the combat you tell the players exactly how these alter the normal rules.

Basically, the rules exist for the PCs to have a good idea of what they can do at a base. Any time that is changed, the players have a right to know.

[BizzaroStormy]

Definately.

Things like mosnters, items, traps, ect. should be kept hidden but actual rules like variations upon skills or the triple 20 rule should be told to the players ahead of time.

[Torque]

If it affects anything in the PHB, yes. If it affects anything that has already happened in this campaign, yes. If it affects anything that a character in this campaign would know due to their class, race, background, or skills, yes. Everything else, no.

[TheThan]

Being the person, who suggested it, let me clarify.

House rules that directly affect the players, such as a change in the way the dodge feat works (a common houserule) should be explained. Players need to know how the rules work in order to play the game. If those rules are changed, then the players need to be informed of the change so they can still be able to play the game (without confusion and whatnot).


A lot of homebrewed materials are classes, player races, magic spells and the like. Which are all things players may want to use. So it’s fair to inform them of all their options, so they can design characters to fit into the style of game the Dm is presenting. Such things as monsters and traps are fine if they are not revealed. But there should be some hints that things are not what they seem. Something as simple and vague as “I’m using some homebrewed monsters”. The players will know that the Dm is not trying to cheat them, and they will be more willing to go with it if they know that the Dm has got something they’ve never seen ready and that the Dm is not pulling something out of his ass.

This is the approach I use. I detail the rules I have changed, and mention that I will be using homebrewed monsters on occasion. Which means my players know that I am purposefully drifting away from the monster manuals and the core rules. When I come across something that I didn’t expect, I let it ride and come up with a viable solution for it later. Then I explain the new rule(s) at the start of the next session. It works for me, and the players that I have are very happy with it.

[Calinero]

I agree with the general consensus of the people in this thread. Good job, internet!

It would be silly to tell the players every single homebrew character you're making, because that would be giving away a threat and could take a while. It's totally fair to use a homebrew monster without giving them a sheet for it. However, if there are any rules you have altered considering the structure of a fight, or that affect the gameplay of a player's character, they should know in advance. Otherwise it could come across as if you're making up new rules as you go.

[Jayabalard]

I don't have a problem with GM's making off the cuff rulings, even if those break, or disagree with the rules; nor do I necessarily worry about consistency in those rulings. So I don't have a problem with the GM introducing new house rules without running it by the players first.

There's was an interesting thread recently about that sort of thing: [Generic] Consistent Rulings (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89204&highlight=consistency)

[Torque]

I don't think the players should ever be able to take it for granted that, for example, dragons can't breath underwater, or that they know the entire zoology of the world because they've read up their Monster Manuals. I likewise take it for granted that the players expect some hombrewed monsters and NPC spells amongst many other things without being specifically warned.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

I don't have a problem with GM's making off the cuff rulings, even if those break, or disagree with the rules; nor do I necessarily worry about consistency in those rulings. So I don't have a problem with the GM introducing new house rules without running it by the players first.My problem with this arises when the GM says that my character isn't able to do what I thought he was capable of. It's fine for the enemy to be able to do something that I didn't know about, it's not fine for my run to only be x3 when I had no reason, OoC or in-game to suspect the change. The rules are the physics of the world and one of the few ways as a player I can understand the world. Change them, and from my characters perspective, physics just broke. It breaks immersion when you can't expect, in-character, for the world to work the way you [i]know[i] it does. It's why I'm considering leaving an IRL game now, I can't play a game without knowing how gravity works.

[Yakk]

So divide the game into two pieces.

The Players and the DM each have primary control over one of these two pieces.

The Players have control over their characters. This includes "my character is a long-jumping champion", or "she has a silver tongue", or "he can support himself hiring himself out as a guard". The rules about character creation are those that the player uses to define the character that they project into your game.

The DM has control over the world. This includes the type of creatures, the abilities of NPCs, the economy, the consequences of character actions, etc.

Now, while the DM can project the world changes to cause fine-tuned changes in the player's domain, this can be considered impolite. By doing this, you can rob the player of the feeling that they have control over their character.

Ie, while "the world has stronger gravity, so you can jump half as far" is technically a world-feature that impacts the player's character, not having this spelled out before hand means that the player, when designing their character, had a false image of the character's capabilities -- in short, the DM has projected themselves into the player's domain, and interfered with it.

However, if those kind of house rules are clear and agreed upon by DM and player before hand, the problem goes away.

House rules that _do not_ exist in the player's domain -- types of undead, etc -- and that do not cause capability failure on the part of a player's character, are exactly the kind of house rules that in no sense need to be shared before hand.

That make sense?

Now, you can play with this. In D&D, it is often presumed that character advancement is part of the player's domain -- including what spells are out there. It could easily change to a matter of "there aren't any general-purpose polymorph spells out there" as a matter of the world. But these kind of things can cause problems, as they are projections into the player-domain.

It is better to just explain it before hand, or even better, to have implicit trust between the Players and DMs that things will work out and not be arbitrary... However, doing this kind of thing can build that trust.

[Jayabalard]

Change them, and from my characters perspective, physics just broke. I don't see a problem with this; we're talking mostly about D&D here, so a fantasy based setting. Your character has only the most generalized idea of how physics work, and since we have magic, there's no reason to necessarily assume that those rules of physics that we do understand remain consistently enforced.

[MartinHarper]

One example I ran into was 4e Stealth, which was broken on release. It's now been officially errata'd. I spent some time figuring out a house rule / interpretation that made 4e Stealth playable, and let the party Rogue know. The Rogue player told me that I was wasting my time (and his?) by changing the rules without knowing whether he was even going to use Stealth. I think he'd have preferred that I let the party know how Stealth works as and when it comes up. Even now, I think I'm the only one in our group who has read the 4e Stealth errata.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

I don't see a problem with this; we're talking mostly about D&D here, so a fantasy based setting. Your character has only the most generalized idea of how physics work, and since we have magic, there's no reason to necessarily assume that those rules of physics that we do understand remain consistently enforced.But I would KNOW this. In-character, if some of the time I couldn't run as fast, even if I wasn't sure why, as a person who lives in that world, I'd know. A character should be able to at least understand the basics of how the world functions. If as a player I don't know which rules apply, it hinders my role-playing, because my character would know. I don't care about stuff that my character wouldn't know(undead types and the like) unless there's a reason my character would know that. In essence, my problem is that all I know of the world, out of character, is the rulebooks and what the DM tells me. My character, however, has lived in this world all his life, and would know a lot more about how stuff works than I do. Making it so I know less without even telling me isn't going to help RP any.

[Nohwl]

players should know about changes to things that they will be using. do you roll dice a certian way for character creation? i do 4d6 reroll any ones and drop the lowest. i know a dm who told me to not take any stats under 10 in his games.

[Jayabalard]

But I would KNOW this. In-character, if some of the time I couldn't run as fast, even if I wasn't sure why, as a person who lives in that world, I'd know. How is this unrealistic in any way? In real life, some times I can run faster than others. Sometimes one horse wins a race, and a different one wins the next.

If a GM is making rulings or houserules in ways that don't make any sense, then they are being a poor GM for doing it in a way that doesn't make any sense... unless of course, it's not supposed to make sense (which is often the case when you start adding magic into the mix). The on-the-spot-rulings aren't in and of themselves the actual problem.

[BardicDuelist]

Any rules that would affect the way a player would make or play his character (such as changes to skills, combat, new feats, changes to class features, or how these things interact) the players need to know. If they go to grapple, but grappling doesn't work the way described, they should know. If a spell has a different effect, players should know. It's not fair for a player to find out that you're using a house rule that says skills automatically fail on the roll of a one (in 3e), players should know, because that skill check that is now certain may not be.

If you made a new monster, item, or trap, they players shouldn't know about it. They should be able to use knowledge checks to find out as much as they could about a monster from a new book, or one they don't know about before by using a knowledge check, but you don't have to hand them the stat block, just like you probably don't hand them the monster manual with the monsters you use book marked.

[Matthew]

Depends entirely on the individuals in the group. Some people have a strong interest in rules changes, others don't care one jot. "So, I am using some house rules... you guys want to hear about them?"

[DeathQuaker]

What it all boils down to is being consistent with your rulings, and making sure that everyone is playing by the same rules.

If I change how a skill or feat or spell works, the players need to know that, for two reasons:

1) So they can build their character with those rules in mind (e.g., if I increase difficulties for the Craft: Underwater Basketweaving Skill, my Gnomish Underwater Basketweaving Master needs to be aware of that to make sure his character is effective).

2) To avoid middle-of-the-session arguments which waste time and frustrate players and GM alike.

Player: But last week you said the DC to Craft Underwater Basketweaving was 20!
DM: Yes, but now it's 25.
Player: Why?
DM: Because I said so.

See how that doesn't work very well?

As for on-the-fly rulings, these will inevitably happen. It's best to note what you ruled so after the session is over you can formalize it into a fair rule the group can abide by later on.

I personally also think whatever is available to me should be available to the players--and vice versa. So yes, on one hand, you can have the Broken Purple Monkey Dance Feat. And when I attack you with 1000 Broken Purple Monkey Dancers, you might be sad. On the other hand, you still may be able to use the Purple Monkey Dance in a way to solve a fantastic problem in a way I didn't imagine, so bonus rewards for you for being clever. :smallsmile:

That leads to note three:

Houserules and homebrew items should aid players in their efforts as much as it allows the GMs to challenge the players in new ways. They should not exist to screw people over and make them upset.

If I suprise my players with a monster, it's because I was clever with existing feats and builds they knew existed. I may attack them with a monster whose hit dice are increased from the standard monster manual entry; I don't need to tell them that--they just know the monster exists and apparently this is an especially tough version. But if the monster uses a fantastic feat that helps hurt a party member, yes, actually, that feat WILL be on my list of allowed feats available to my players at all times, even if they aren't using it. Why? Because that's my personal sense of what is fair.

Now, in the case of a new monster I want to make up, no, I of course I won't share the exact statblock with the party (I never share statblocks. Who would?). But I will fluff-wise give them tales of the Grim Florpletweezer so they know they might come up against something unusual. And even then, the Grim Florpletweezer is going to abide by the rules of the game and make sense within the players' understanding of the mechanics. Because I want to shake it up and make it exciting for them, not crush them with the Grim Florpetweezer's Impossible Multi-Acid-Attack Feat of Awesomeness no one will ever Defeat or Duplicate, because frankly, that's not fun for either of us.

My goal as GM is to provide the players challenges that are exciting for them to try to overcome, not crush their petty little souls and make them weep for not being to beat my "augmented" Elemental Tarrasque-Lich who gets 100 attacks a round because of this feat I made up five minutes ago.

Note four:
The reason all of this is called for, and the reason people say, "DMs should give house rules up front" because there ARE unfortunately what one might call "competitive" GMs who think it's their job to crush their players' souls and not let anyone have fun. Reminding everyone should start on a fair playing field is unfortunately sometimes necessary.

Note five:
Dungeons and Dragons and all other RPGs are cooperative games, not competitive ones. Setting forth fair and consistent rules ensures the game will be played with enthusiasm, rather than having all gamers secretly plot to destroy your stuff. :smallsmile:

[sapphail]

@ Deathquaker - well said. :smalltongue:

Basically, if it's anything core that the players do need to know to play the game (as in the jump rules mentioned earlier), then they really should be told up front, whereas if you're tweaking a monster or anything else that falls into the DM's realm that the players wouldn't normally know about anyway, no need to disclose. :smallwink:

[kamikasei]

Depends entirely on the individuals in the group. Some people have a strong interest in rules changes, others don't care one jot. "So, I am using some house rules... you guys want to hear about them?"

Well, of course, if the players don't care about the rules in the books then there's no need to bore them with your changes, just tell them what they need to roll and add whenever it comes up. Assuming the players do want to have an idea of what their options are without having to ask the DM, though, better to tell them in advance rather than mid-session whether those options may have changed.

[valadil]

Right. You don't want to change how basic parts of the game work without telling the players. If you use the Giant's diplomacy rules because they make more sense than the RAW ones, your players should know before they try to use diplomacy. On the contrary, an extraplanar creature that they've never seen before should be full of surprises.

Players should be aware of mechanics. They should not (necessarily) be aware of content.

[skywalker]

I have a mixed opinion here, no, players shouldn't know every stat block out of the Monster Manual. On the other hand, most players spend time thumbing through it for various myriad reasons(Mounts, Summons, Polymorph, Wildshape, etc.), and it's probably they're going to see some things that, in a perfect world, they should not. Some people have very good memories. Some people DM and play. There are a number of ways for players to get knowledge of monsters. I know in my first D&D campaign(which was also the DM's first campaign) we would go home after the session and open up the SRD and see what we had fought. If something was homebrewed, especially if it had killed us(or would've killed us without a Deus), we would bring to the DM's attention that he had probably powered that thing up a little too much and he might want to stick to the standard MM for a while so we didn't get too upset.

I think my point here is, I think a simple "I'm using some homebrew" is fine before the game starts, altho if it's an option that could be available to players, they should definitely be given the opportunity to incorporate it into their characters. After a session, especially if a near-TPK or TPK results, you'd better be damned ready to lay that homebrew down on the table and say "this is why I thought it was balanced" or "I screwed up." As a DM, I would be completely ready to do that.

[Jayabalard]

See how that doesn't work very well?Not really. It's perfectly reasonable for DC's to fluctuate based on lots of minor differences that may or may not be noticeable to the character. I don't really see any reason for a player to know a specific number for it; a general text description of your character's confidence is more than sufficient.


there ARE unfortunately what one might call "competitive" GMs who think it's their job to crush their players' souls and not let anyone have fun. Easy solution: Don't play with those people. They're pretty easy to identify.

[MartinHarper]

Depends entirely on the individuals in the group. Some people have a strong interest in rules changes, others don't care one jot. "So, I am using some house rules... you guys want to hear about them?"

Yeah, I think my players basically don't care, beyond a rough appreciation that they have some powers they can use, some skills they can use, and they can make stuff up and let me improvise some mechanics.


If a spell has a different effect, players should know.

In the 3.5 game I play in, I cast Mirror Image for the first time... and discovered that there were now four gnome bards on the board, in different squares, all seemingly identical, and only the DM knew which one was really me. Now, I'm one of those players who likes to know the rules up front, so this was something of an unwelcome surprise. On the other hand, this is the first time my bard has cast the spell, and he somehow learnt it in the middle of a dungeon, so I find it hard to justify why he should know in advance exactly how his magic is going to work. After all, it is magic, not science.

[AstralFire]

After all, it is magic, not science.

Within the context of the game world, magic is a science - frankly, magical effects are more repeatable with little interference than some physics effects.

[DeathQuaker]

Not really. It's perfectly reasonable for DC's to fluctuate based on lots of minor differences that may or may not be noticeable to the character.

You are picking at a tree, hon, when I'm talking about a forest. First, it was an EXAMPLE, just to provide an idea of what kind of arguments might occur that are not usually necessary. I chose a non-existent and silly skill to help illustrate that the particular detail was not important, but apparently I failed to avoid pedantry as I had hoped. I fail.

Second, the more important part of the argument relates to the line, "Because I said so." Of course skill DCs fluctuate. But usually in the case of that, it's a matter of saying, FOR EXAMPLE, "Okay, there's slippery algae that's making it hard to hold onto your basket fronds, so the DC's going to be 25 this time." What I was getting at is the idea of a DM ARBITRARILY making things more difficult for his players just because he can.

Change the dialogue as you see fit; the point remains: be clear with your rules and you will avoid pointless argument later.

[Matthew]

Well, of course, if the players don't care about the rules in the books then there's no need to bore them with your changes, just tell them what they need to roll and add whenever it comes up. Assuming the players do want to have an idea of what their options are without having to ask the DM, though, better to tell them in advance rather than mid-session whether those options may have changed.

It's not a binary equation. Some rules interest players, others don't.

[BRC]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5018997#post5018997
In this thread, I read the suggestion that a good DM will reveal house rules and homebrewed stuff before the game starts. If he has to house rule mid-campaign, he will introduce those rules at the beginning of the session and explain them in full.

My immediate reaction is that a lot of homebrewed stuff is going to be monsters and items and traps and things that the players shouldn't have any knowledge of until their characters experience them.
Additionally, I don't think my players really care about the rules in the first place, so I think there'd be a real danger in boring them with up front house rules.

Is this just down to different player types? Have folks experienced players who had a pressing need to know every rule in detail?
Yes, very yes. Preferably house rules should be revealed before characters are made. Springing a house rule on players mid-game screams of bad DMing.
Player: Alright, I'll grapple the wizard so he can't cast.
DM: (Looks at said wizard's grapple score) umm... You can't, because.... Your wielding a weapon!
Player: Huh, the grapple rules don't say anything about not being able to grapple with a weapon.
DM:It's a houserule
Player: Well, I'm finding a new house.

[Epinephrine]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5018997#post5018997
In this thread, I read the suggestion that a good DM will reveal house rules and homebrewed stuff before the game starts. If he has to house rule mid-campaign, he will introduce those rules at the beginning of the session and explain them in full.

My immediate reaction is that a lot of homebrewed stuff is going to be monsters and items and traps and things that the players shouldn't have any knowledge of until their characters experience them.
Additionally, I don't think my players really care about the rules in the first place, so I think there'd be a real danger in boring them with up front house rules.

Is this just down to different player types? Have folks experienced players who had a pressing need to know every rule in detail?

I like consistency, but I certainly don't need to know all the houserules ahead of time - just the ones that will likely come up.

Sometimes we'll just make a temporary ruling in session, then pound out a better rule over beers.

Sometimes we change the way things work - if it affects players, we typically weigh everyone's opinions, and offer a chance to retrain or whatever*.

Sure, it's annoying when for some reason the DM decides that the Mirror Images the enemy is using fool Blindsense/Blindsight. But as long as we can use it back, I don't mind too much.

Good communication, and respect for one another are the keys. You're together to have fun.


*For example, the DM decided that touch attacks and power attack are too much of a problem, and you can't make a power attack while using a touch attack now. This made our Barbarian's necklace that allowed him to make an attack as a touch attack less useful, so the DM asked him if he would have chosen something else. Surprise surprise, we have a role-playing encounter in which he sacrifices his necklace to appease a fey noble, and is then rewarded for his action with a different item that he'd been thinking of having enchanted.

[skywalker]

In the 3.5 game I play in, I cast Mirror Image for the first time... and discovered that there were now four gnome bards on the board, in different squares, all seemingly identical, and only the DM knew which one was really me. Now, I'm one of those players who likes to know the rules up front, so this was something of an unwelcome surprise. On the other hand, this is the first time my bard has cast the spell, and he somehow learnt it in the middle of a dungeon, so I find it hard to justify why he should know in advance exactly how his magic is going to work. After all, it is magic, not science.

Are you saying even you didn't know which one was you?

How does this make sense? I decided to cast a spell and now I've forgotten which me is the real me?

EDIT@^: I love your user name.

[Jayabalard]

How does this make sense? You see the world from all 4 point of view. You don't forget anything. You may be in any one of the 4 spots


Within the context of the game world, magic is a science Not at all. Magic is not necessarily consistent; in fact, it's absolutely fine for magic to be wildly inconsistent for no reason whatsoever.


You are picking at a tree, hon, when I'm talking about a forest. <Snip>What I was getting at is the idea of a DM ARBITRARILY making things more difficult for his players just because he can. I don't agree with your specific example, nor do I agree that with it's generalization. The problem you're talking about here, and attributing to inconsistent rulings of the GM, is strictly the result of a GM going out of his way to screw over the players; the means he uses to do so is immaterial. Whether his rulings are consistent or not, or whether the player's know the changes to the RAW up front or not is not, in and of itself, an issue.

[Torque]

Within the context of the game world, magic is a science - frankly, magical effects are more repeatable with little interference than some physics effects.
Tell that to the magic user who's just watched a monk roll away from a 10d fireball totally unharmed! I mena, he's just a guy in his pyjamas!

Even within D&D, magic fails or succeeds fairly randomly from the PoV of the characters and it can be much more random in other settings and games.

[MartinHarper]

DM: (Looks at said wizard's grapple score) umm... You can't, because.... You're wielding a weapon!

This is reminiscent of Chainmail Bikini's "you can't cast while falling". I think we can all agree that it sucks when the DM makes up dumb house rules on the spot to restrict player choice and/or kill the PCs. What if the DM has house rules, or just rough thoughts like 'if the PCs do X, I'll need to make some house rules for it', without sharing those with the players in advance?


Are you saying even you didn't know which one was you?

Yes. There were four miniatures (well, tokens) on the board, and one of them was me, and the other three were illusions, and I found out which if one of them got hit, and nobody in the party, players or characters, knew which was which.
I like Jay's explanation. I'd assumed it was some interesting interaction of illusion magic with the gnome pysche, similar to the plastic hand illusion in real world humans. I should email the DM before the next game.


I love your user name.

Thanks! :)

[AstralFire]

Tell that to the magic user who's just watched a monk roll away from a 10d fireball totally unharmed! I mena, he's just a guy in his pyjamas!

Even within D&D, magic fails or succeeds fairly randomly from the PoV of the characters and it can be much more random in other settings and games.

That's like saying physics fails everytime someone dodges a gunshot.

Everything else in the area was affected as normal.

[LibraryOgre]

So far as rules go, yes. If you're changing how grapple works, or how Improved Grab works, you should let players know... those are the facts of their world. If you're introducing new creatures, or special, NPC-only, PrCs, I don't think you need to tell them.

[Raum]

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5018997#post5018997
In this thread, I read the suggestion that a good DM will reveal house rules and homebrewed stuff before the game starts. If he has to house rule mid-campaign, he will introduce those rules at the beginning of the session and explain them in full.

My immediate reaction is that a lot of homebrewed stuff is going to be monsters and items and traps and things that the players shouldn't have any knowledge of until their characters experience them. "monsters and items and traps and things" != rules.

Additionally, I don't think my players really care about the rules in the first place, so I think there'd be a real danger in boring them with up front house rules.It's easy to provide a list of rule changes and let them choose to read or not. May be worth pointing out any which fundamentally change play to ensure they get read.


Is this just down to different player types? Have folks experienced players who had a pressing need to know every rule in detail?It's a game. A role playing game but a game. Knowing rules governing characters is just as important as knowing character background and personality. Hard to game without the former and hard to role play without the latter.

[Curmudgeon]

If you're introducing new creatures, or special, NPC-only, PrCs, I don't think you need to tell them.
I've got to disagree with you on this point. If there's some significant advantage that this PrC provides (such as a continuous Mind Blank effect from level 1) that's not available to the PCs, they should at least know about its existence and generally what makes it so special. It's like random criminals knowing that Delta Force exists and these soldiers are highly skilled; they'd at least know enough to have qualms about trying to knock off an on-post bank where Delta Force is training.

[LibraryOgre]

I've got to disagree with you on this point. If there's some significant advantage that this PrC provides (such as a continuous Mind Blank effect from level 1) that's not available to the PCs, they should at least know about its existence and generally what makes it so special. It's like random criminals knowing that Delta Force exists and these soldiers are highly skilled; they'd at least know enough to have qualms about trying to knock off an on-post bank where Delta Force is training.

True; I was not referring, necessarily, to their existence (which can come from role-playing or pre-game infodump), but to the rules behind them.

[Reinboom]

Note five:
Dungeons and Dragons and all other RPGs are cooperative games, not competitive ones. Setting forth fair and consistent rules ensures the game will be played with enthusiasm, rather than having all gamers secretly plot to destroy your stuff. :smallsmile:

I agreed with everything said from this post, except this. Paranoia. :smalltongue:


"monsters and items and traps and things" != rules.
It's easy to provide a list of rule changes and let them choose to read or not. May be worth pointing out any which fundamentally change play to ensure they get read.

It's a game. A role playing game but a game. Knowing rules governing characters is just as important as knowing character background and personality. Hard to game without the former and hard to role play without the latter.

I also emphasize on the "just putting it in a list" (or a website) tactic.
Also, if they state that you are just wasting your time, it would be wise to inform them they are wasting both yours and their time by suggesting you are wasting yours.

[Curmudgeon]

True; I was not referring, necessarily, to their existence (which can come from role-playing or pre-game infodump), but to the rules behind them. Oh, absolutely. Knowing that this NPC-only PrC provides a continuous Mind Blank effect is something that the PCs would reasonably have heard of. Knowing that the PrC's entry requirements include the Slippery Mind class feature and 5 ranks in Profession: Underwater Basketweaver isn't required information.

[DeathQuaker]

I agreed with everything said from this post, except this. Paranoia. :smalltongue:

Your dissension shows an inability to cooperate and work with your fellow citizens, and therefore I must kill you. Hail Computer!!:smallbiggrin:

[Zeful]

Oh, absolutely. Knowing that this NPC-only PrC provides a continuous Mind Blank effect is something that the PCs would reasonably have heard of.
How? I could see it coming up after the start of the game, but I don't see how anyone, PC or otherwise would know this information offhand without being A.)a member of the PrC themselves B.)an apprentice to a member of the PrC.
Seeing as it's NPC only, neither situation is applicable to the PCs.

However a list of all the changes to player portion of the ruleset, as well as general availability of items; Yes, they should be given that information. Homebrewed material; Dependent on the situation and material in question. I generally have an idea what is "commonly" available, be it feats, magic items, or PrCs. Anything outside of that requires relevant Knowledge Checks to even hear rumors of.

[Curmudgeon]

How? I could see it coming up after the start of the game, but I don't see how anyone, PC or otherwise would know this information offhand without being A.)a member of the PrC themselves B.)an apprentice to a member of the PrC.
If there's an NPC-only PrC, it's in that category because the DM wants to restrict access to the PCs. I can't think of any reason for that other than that it grants some sort of ability that the DM doesn't want the PCs to have. That's fine.

What isn't fine is to both have this unavailable power exist, and not allow the PCs to know about its existence. If they're caught unaware and the power is used against them, the players have good reason to call "foul". It's even worse for a player to work at developing their PC within the known limits of the game, but have that PC's abilities be rendered useless by an undisclosed NPC power. So to be fair, the DM needs to disclose the existence of this house PrC before the players create their characters.

Details don't need to be given; just some vague disclosure about a "secret spy force that's got prodigious defenses against mental attacks" due to "training that's unavailable to most people" (code for continuous Mind Blank as a PrC ability). This lets players know that creating a specialist Enchanter, or a Cleric with the Madness domain, might end up being frustrating for them.

[Waspinator]

If you're changing basic game mechanics, tell them.

If you're homebrewing a monster, however, you probably don't want to tell them beforehand since half the point of homebrewing a monster is to keep things interesting. If I've made up lunar mutant dragon with a heart as black as coal and a weakness to crickets, the players are going to have to figure out what the slag that thing is in-character!

[Hawriel]

I agreed with everything said from this post, except this. Paranoia. :smalltongue:



I also emphasize on the "just putting it in a list" (or a website) tactic.
Also, if they state that you are just wasting your time, it would be wise to inform them they are wasting both yours and their time by suggesting you are wasting yours.

Well not just Paranoia. Shadowrun and white wolf's vampire/warewolf settings are set up for alot of PC VS PC shinanagins.

House rules are pritty much a GM's or player group Erreta on the core rules of the game. If you have alot of house rules write them down. Keep them organized in a homebrew players guide kinda way. Easy to print out and hand to new players. All you have to do is say 'hay new guy/gal I have house rules that I think are better than the RAW. I printed them out please look them over." Thats it. Your not giving away info that is GM perogative like monsters, traps, NPC info or somthing similar. The new Jump skill should be in there, or the deplomacy changes. If you have a player that wants to make an olympic level long jumper point out the rule change. If that is not the players goal the change is still there for them to read. It just isnt important untill a jump check is needed. In which a revew of the house rules should be given so the player can be informed. The player may be able to do what they wanted or might pick somthing els. Eather way the PC would still 'know' his abilities and how they work in the world. That character would know if he could make the jump or not and act acordingly.

[Kaihaku]

It depends completely on what the homebrew and houserule material is. If you handle 20s in a different way or treat spell resistance differently then you should let them know. If you're revealing a secret powerful monster, then of course not.

[AstralFire]

If there's an NPC-only PrC, it's in that category because the DM wants to restrict access to the PCs. I can't think of any reason for that other than that it grants some sort of ability that the DM doesn't want the PCs to have. That's fine.

What isn't fine is to both have this unavailable power exist, and not allow the PCs to know about its existence. If they're caught unaware and the power is used against them, the players have good reason to call "foul". It's even worse for a player to work at developing their PC within the known limits of the game, but have that PC's abilities be rendered useless by an undisclosed NPC power. So to be fair, the DM needs to disclose the existence of this house PrC before the players create their characters.

Details don't need to be given; just some vague disclosure about a "secret spy force that's got prodigious defenses against mental attacks" due to "training that's unavailable to most people" (code for continuous Mind Blank as a PrC ability). This lets players know that creating a specialist Enchanter, or a Cleric with the Madness domain, might end up being frustrating for them.

I can't agree with your words, only your sentiment.

It is generally good to let the PCs know if they will be facing lots of enemies throughout the campaign that can negate a primary tactic of theirs when they are in the design stage. Monsters or PrCs.

However, I reserve the right to make up PrCs with cool powers and not allow the PCs to know about it if those powers don't do much in the way of negating one of their key (emphasis on key) skills and they're rare. I'll usually allow them access just because I like to give them more tools to play with, but there may be a specific reason I want them not to know.

Mind Blank is a great example. It wouldn't even come up most of the time with a kick-in-the-door party with a blasty sorcerer etc. With such a group, I'd reserve that knowledge as a surprise if they decide to wade into political intrigue. But if it was a political intrigue game, then I'd make certain that they knew, just as I tell rogues if we're going to be using a lot of... well, I don't really have much crit immune these days, I've houseruled them except oozes to be subject to it, but yeah.

[Oslecamo]

In my games, the PCs know how their characters work. Everything else, they have to work to find out. Either by skills, asking the right questions to the right NPCs or simply experiencing them themselves.

I reserve myself the right of making party teleport proof cities, handling out special powers to special NPCs and making the gnomes a race of bloodthirty brutal deadly hunters of other humanoid races.

And no, knowledge skills alone won't give you the DNA, life story, and curriculum of the BBEG. Specially of the BBEG.

[Erom]

God, my players would murder me if I sprung something, even a creature type, on them mid game. We do the "you have till the first initiative dice is rolled to reveal everything or it doesn't exist in the world" thing. Then again, we play mostly roll-playing tactical games, so in-character, out-of-character knowledge is rarely enforced.

[AstralFire]

I reserve myself the right of ... making the gnomes a race of bloodthirty brutal deadly hunters of other humanoid races.

...Wouldn't it be logical that they are aware of this unless their character lived in an area that never encountered or even heard of a gnome?

[Erom]

Once I played a game where the DM announced after character creation that in his world dwarven, gnomish, and halfling society had been wiped out and the only way we could play any of those races was to slaves of the other human or elven characters.

And half of us had picked dwarves.

[Oslecamo]

...Wouldn't it be logical that they are aware of this unless their character lived in an area that never encountered or even heard of a gnome?

Not if gnomes hide those characteristics and keep all their kills secrets, slowly ploting to destroy all the other races. Hey, it could be the focus of the campaign.

Imagine the party's look of suprise when it wasn't the dragons or orc raiders who made all the bloodshed in that kingdom! It was that inocent looking gnome family! And now the party must seek proofs to make the kingdom take measures before the gnome infestation spreads too deep!

[Diamondeye]

I see there basically being 3 issues:

1) Is the change an addition/homebrew versus a change to something existing?

2) Is the change to something the players/characters used or had access to, or is it to something they've never had access to?

3) Why is it occuring?

The third one is the big one for me. If you're making a change because the players are trying to "press the WIN button" with some power, ability or tactic, make it clear that you're changing it because it's trivializing everything. The players have as much responsibility as the DM to avoid adversarial play. It's perfectly logical for characters to want to easily defeat challenges in-game, but players should appreciate being challenged. If they are getting upset at the fact that you're "nerfing" something when it's allowed them to trivialize a lot of your work,, you should point out to them that it's no fun for you to invent adventures they can just waltz through.

If you're changing it because it's hard to understand, time-consuming, convoluted, or something, they probably won't disagree.

Regardless, I think changes should, for the most part, be worked out between sessions, and presented at the next one. If it really involves something becomeing harder to do (say, you increase the DC for all Tumble checks to stop a certain player Tumbling his way past a whole bunch of problems with impunity) and he complains that "the physics of the world" changed, just explain that they didn't; he just happened to be really lucky up to this point.

[Zeful]

What isn't fine is to both have this unavailable power exist, and not allow the PCs to know about its existence. If they're caught unaware and the power is used against them, the players have good reason to call "foul". It's even worse for a player to work at developing their PC within the known limits of the game, but have that PC's abilities be rendered useless by an undisclosed NPC power. So to be fair, the DM needs to disclose the existence of this house PrC before the players create their characters.

Details don't need to be given; just some vague disclosure about a "secret spy force that's got prodigious defenses against mental attacks" due to "training that's unavailable to most people" (code for continuous Mind Blank as a PrC ability). This lets players know that creating a specialist Enchanter, or a Cleric with the Madness domain, might end up being frustrating for them.

So even a secret spy force which the common people don't know about, still has it's secrets divulged. I don't agree with this. Secret spy forces are just that, secret. I'm talking only the sovereign of the land and the guys that train the force are the only people that know. The PCs only know after the game has included one for the first time.

Now if the campaign (arc) revolves around this group, then yes it's reasonable for the PCs to be able to gather information as normal (with DCs starting at 20+ of course), after all they're looking for the group.

[Jayabalard]

I like Jay's explanation. I'd assumed it was some interesting interaction of illusion magic with the gnome pysche, similar to the plastic hand illusion in real world humans. I should email the DM before the next game.Not bad for just pulling that out of my arse; I was kind of thinking that he was treating you as if you were in some sort of quantum state where you really are both there and not there until the image gets hit. After one of the images gets hit, the probability wave collapses and you know about that particular one.


just some vague disclosure about a "secret spy force that's got prodigious defenses against mental attacks" due to "training that's unavailable to most people" (code for continuous Mind Blank as a PrC ability). They don't sound like a very good secret spy force if people know that about them.

[Tsotha-lanti]

Not bad for just pulling that out of my arse; I was kind of thinking that he was treating you as if you were in some sort of quantum state where you really are both there and not there until the image gets hit. After one of the images gets hit, the probability wave collapses and you know about that particular one.

Maybe it's actually a divination spell directed at everyone who can see you: they become aware of your momentum to an exceptional degree, but consequently become unsure of your location.


Not if gnomes hide those characteristics and keep all their kills secrets, slowly ploting to destroy all the other races. Hey, it could be the focus of the campaign.

None of this really affects the players or their PCs mechanically, though. I assume you'd tell them that they can't play gnomes, and that's all they'd really need to know.

[MartinHarper]

Once I played a game where the DM announced after character creation that in his world dwarven, gnomish, and halfling society had been wiped out and the only way we could play any of those races was to slaves of the other human or elven characters.

And half of us had picked dwarves.

Eww.
I suppose there is a degree of reality there, in that most slaves aren't slaves by choice.

[BRC]

Eww.
I suppose there is a degree of reality there, in that most slaves aren't slaves by choice.

well yeah, but the players are choosing characters they want to play. You might as well have a DM forbid a player from being a sorceror because "You don't get to chose if you have draconic blood", or not letting players choose their races because "you don't get to chose you your parents are", or not letting players assign their stats.

[Curmudgeon]

So even a secret spy force which the common people don't know about, still has it's secrets divulged. I don't agree with this. Secret spy forces are just that, secret. The "Secret" in groups like "Secret Police" indicates the identity of the members, location of facilities, and so on are not disclosed. But everybody knows the Secret Police Force exists, and at least rumors about how they operate.

We all know the CIA exists. We know some of what they do, and suspect some more. Yet very few people can identify CIA field agents.

[Jayabalard]

But everybody knows the Secret Police Force exists, and at least rumors about how they operate.Knowing rumors does not mean that anything that you know is actually true; they're just rumors.


We all know the CIA exists. We know some of what they do, and suspect some more. Yet very few people can identify CIA field agents.The CIA isn't a secret spy organization. It's a well known spy organization.

[Diamondeye]

It is, but you still can't identify CIA agents (or, for that matter, anyone working at the CIA in any capacity) just by looking at them unless they happen to be wearing a badge at the time, or going through the gate at Langley.

[Zeful]

The "Secret" in groups like "Secret Police" indicates the identity of the members, location of facilities, and so on are not disclosed. But everybody knows the Secret Police Force exists, and at least rumors about how they operate.

We all know the CIA exists. We know some of what they do, and suspect some more. Yet very few people can identify CIA field agents.

Except most medieval societies don't have that level of disclosure. Modern societies do because of the things like the "Freedom of Information Act" and the gov't financial records which are public record. Why would any king allow a peasant to know how many [insert currency here] he has in his treasury? Or how many men are enlisted into his army? That's information that could threaten the security of a nation, cause wars and so on. There's no reason for the that kind of information to go beyond the King and his advisers, and in fact doing so is an offense punishable by death.

[Roderick_BR]

How is this unrealistic in any way? In real life, some times I can run faster than others. Sometimes one horse wins a race, and a different one wins the next.

If a GM is making rulings or houserules in ways that don't make any sense, then they are being a poor GM for doing it in a way that doesn't make any sense... unless of course, it's not supposed to make sense (which is often the case when you start adding magic into the mix). The on-the-spot-rulings aren't in and of themselves the actual problem.
Unrealistic changes are the following: One day, you cast a grease spell on some goblins, counting with their hampered movement. Then in other game, when you say you'll do it, the DM suddenly says that the goblins easily walked over it and killed your char. For a minute, you just curse your bad luck (or DM evilness) for having goblins with ranks in balance... then the DM tells you that he just changed a rule in the game, especifically how the Sleep spell works, and not it doesn't need balance checks. You'll feel cheated, because you was not informed of that before hand.
If the DM just had goblins with ranks in balance, or some special ability/magic/item that makes them immune to it or even just lucked out in their rolls, he doesn't need to tell you (you may or may never find out in-game), but by changing something that affects your character, without explaination, like saying that something changed AFTER you made your character... well, that sounds like a cheap DM trick. No, it was not a "a wizard did" it, or a general weakening on the spells. It was just the DM throwing in a house rule without telling you. THAT is bad DMing.

[BRC]

Except most medieval societies don't have that level of disclosure. Modern societies do because of the things like the "Freedom of Information Act" and the gov't financial records which are public record. Why would any king allow a peasant to know how many [insert currency here] he has in his treasury? Or how many men are enlisted into his army? That's information that could threaten the security of a nation, cause wars and so on. There's no reason for the that kind of information to go beyond the King and his advisers, and in fact doing so is an offense punishable by death.
Often the existance of secret police forces is revealed, but no details. This is because alot of their power comes from peoples fear of them.
Take, for example, the Thought Police from 1984, they mainly keep people in line because everybody knows that the Thought Police could be watching them at any time.


Let's take that medival society, A paranoid king builds up a secret police force who he calls his "Dagger Knights", they report directly to the king and are given leave to do what they deem necessary to ensure the stability of the realm. Now, obviously nobody outside the knights knows how to identify a Dagger Knight, or knows where they meet, or what codes they use, or their methods, ect ect.

However, everybody knows they exist, so that when the rebels hear somebody shout "We are the Dagger Knights, you are surrounded, come out and we may show mercy" the rebels get scared. Their thought isn't "Who are the dagger knights" but "Oh Shi-".

Also, A truly secret police force can only stop crimes by catching criminals, one whose existance is known can stop crimes as people think "If I do it, the dagger knights will catch me."

[huttj509]

Re: organizations

Say there's a secret police active.

If the PCs just got there, they might not know about it yet.

If the PCs have been there for a while, but the secret police just started acting, they might not know about it yet.

If the organization's been active for years, it could show in the populace. Hesitation about certain topics, rumors of folks disappearing in the night after having spoken against the king, what have you, if not knowledge that the secret police exist and are watching.

For the mind blank PrC, if the enemy's immune to a major tactic the PCs use, regardless of the reason, they probably aren't the first to try using it, unless the BBEG's been watching the PCs and planning to specifically counter them. In the former case, there may be rumors (he was on stage last month, and 3 wizards suddenly sent magic fire flying through the air, and he didn't even blink! And that mesmerism who was taking control of folks last week couldn't even faze him!).

In the latter case, when the PCs try and fail, the BBEG could gloat about how he knew they'd try that, and point to his helm of mind blanking or whatever before launching his response. Or even just "I'm a Toydarian, Jedi mind tricks don't work on me." Note that in that case it's not the DM saying "he's immune because of what he is, tough." It's the NPC saying "I'm immune to that because of what I am, nice try." Heck, Obi Wan didn't know toydarians were immune to the jedi mind trick, so there could be a sect of folks trained in mind blanking that the pc's don't know about....until they encounter one.

[Jayabalard]

Unrealistic changes are the followingSo, you're agreeing that Sstoopidtallkid's examples were not unrealistic in any way?

on a side note, your example doesn't make much sense.


It was just the DM throwing in a house rule without telling you. THAT is bad DMing.I don't agree that your example shows that the DM making rulings on the fly is the cause of him being a bad DM; it just happens to be the means that particular bad DM used in that particular example. No amount of rules (RAW, house, whatever) will protect you from that sort of person.


For the mind blank PrC, if the enemy's immune to a major tactic the PCs use, regardless of the reason, they probably aren't the first to try using it, unless the BBEG's been watching the PCs and planning to specifically counter them.Not the first to try it doesn't necessarily mean that the PC's have any idea that they have that ability. Most likely, anyone who has tried mind affecting stuff on them falls into the "didn't pass on the information because they depending on mind affecting stuff to win and are therefore dead" category, and anyone who hasn't tried mind affecting stuff on them wouldn't know that they are immune to it. It may be quite reasonable for an ability like that to be unknown to the PC's.

I realize you aren't taking that same hard line, but keep in mind that this particular example is from someone saying that the PC's should always be made aware of this information.

[Zeful]

Often the existance of secret police forces is revealed, but no details. This is because alot of their power comes from peoples fear of them.
Take, for example, the Thought Police from 1984, they mainly keep people in line because everybody knows that the Thought Police could be watching them at any time.


Let's take that medival society, A paranoid king builds up a secret police force who he calls his "Dagger Knights", they report directly to the king and are given leave to do what they deem necessary to ensure the stability of the realm. Now, obviously nobody outside the knights knows how to identify a Dagger Knight, or knows where they meet, or what codes they use, or their methods, ect ect.

However, everybody knows they exist, so that when the rebels hear somebody shout "We are the Dagger Knights, you are surrounded, come out and we may show mercy" the rebels get scared. Their thought isn't "Who are the dagger knights" but "Oh Shi-".

Also, A truly secret police force can only stop crimes by catching criminals, one whose existance is known can stop crimes as people think "If I do it, the dagger knights will catch me."

Good point. But then PrC don't always translate into organizations. Still a very good point.

[Tormsskull]

If I change anything that is going to directly impact the player, such as hit points per level, number of spells allowed, etc, then I will let them know before hand.

PrCs that the players have never heard of are definitely allowed. Spells that the players have never heard of are definitely allowed. Feats that the...you get the idea.

I tell all of my players upfront a few things.
1.) This is a role-playing game, not an optimizing game. If you derive all of your fun by optimizing characters, 'building' characters, etc, you will probably not have fun in my campaign.
2.) No matter how powerful your character gets, there will always be someone more powerful.
3.) Things are not always as they seem.