So, as a DM and player, I like to respect and use D&D rules as much as honourably possible within games. To the point of perhaps the occasional, non toxic rules lawyering or a tad bit of challenging of the rules that we have for our beloved game.
However - recently I find myself in a game ran by a DM who seems to have knowledge and understanding of the 5e system, and claims that his game is D&D 5e - ish. Ultimately, stats and abilities are still relevant. But almost everything else has been redone - I knew this before joining. And upon making a ridiculous character concept with a healthy amount of laughter with the DM - it's a good giggle! But not true D&D.
Upon playing, it's a similar principle. His world is something he's ran before, and has a lot of well built character concepts. However mechanically, as balanced as he has made it, it's not D&D. Because I was aware of this, and fortunately the worlds theme is light-hearted and comical any who (the world also isn't necessarily fantasy in theme, more modern day. Though I don't find this entirely relevant to the ultimate point of my thread) - I find myself just going with what the DM has made in entirety, and just having a laugh!
Now, the reason why this is strange for me? In a standard, stereotypical 5e D&D game, the DM does have ultimate say over the rules of course. But in a game that holds onto our rule system more properly, I am more prepared to challenge its usage, as DM and player. Whereas with my new groups world, knowing he's completely built a different thing...
I currently feel much more able to let the whole notion go, especially witnessing the fact that it's fairly made and balanced, despite being so loose.
Personally as a DM, I would loathe the notion of swaying too far out of a rule system - it's there for things to work, surely? Or I would at least find a RPG system that honours my concept best - and if there wasn't one, I would truly consider building my own RPG system! This is how these things are created to begin with!
Anywho, thank you for reading, and I'd love to hear some input or similar experiences!
For me it's about control over the story. DMs can overrule how things are "supposed" to go in order to keep things moving in the direction they want them to go. I have a DM that does this a lot, and I have also kind of just learned to let go and kind of go with the flow. I can handle it because I enjoy the other players and I have two other "proper" D&D games going, but I'm definitely less invested in the game and if it were the only one I was playing, I wouldn't be happy about it.
As a player, it's important for me to feel like I can affect the world. The rules set down a shared understanding of how the world works so that I can accurately predict the consequences of my choices and actions. If you don't have that information, your choices don't really have any weight. You're just flailing around in the dark and the DM is making all the decisions of how things are going to go. That can be fine for some laughs but it's missing the core of what makes D&D great IMO.
Rules also keep a fair playing field. Many of "the only limit is your imagination" approaches end up with your character's powers and abilities actually limited by how much you worry about hogging the spotlight. The imbalance comes not from lack of imagination or creativity, but the social/interpersonal etiquette of the people sitting at the table. If everyone's cool and mature and respectful it can go fine. But it only takes one person to mess up a game like that.
D&D has a lot of narrative freedom, but in essence, it's still a game to which's rules your table has agreed (or in your case -ish).
If the rules are static, you usually are clear, especially if they have been announced beforehand. If the rules arbitrarily change from situation to situation, you should expect some form of conflict to arise.
In a light hearted game that is story driven, you can get away with more, than say a tactical combat oriented one. Being able to count on the rules is more important to the latter than it is to the former.
I think the matter in Role-playing Games is always role-playing. Although it would be called Bunch-of-rules game, right?
What I mean is that narrative (and it has to be fun/dramatic/whatever) is always on the top of the intention on playing it. The rules system is a way to make that workable and not an arbitrary narration on any sides. I can write a book if I wish to narrate my own story, as do any other member in a table, but to built a narrative in a collaborative way we need some rule system to properly do it, and thats the whole thing on rulling a RPG.
For that matter, I would recomend you a video called "Language, Not Rules" from Mathew Coville, avaliable on his youtube channel. Thats pretty enlighten on the role of the rules on RPGs
I'm generally of the opinion that homebrew is great and fantastic and all that, but that it should be codified and presented to the players in advance to the game. If all of his many changes are written down, and he follows them, then you should be good. Otherwise the game is less game and more narrative exercise. Which can be fine for some people, but not typically what people interested in D&D are looking for specifically. So, yeah, how well codified are his rule changes? Is it all written in a doc or something you could familiarize yourself with, or, is he just ad-hoc making rules up as he goes? Those two things paint entirely different pictures.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Houseruling and homebrewing any game is okay to some extent, but if overly done to the point where the original game is barely recognizeable, then it can be problematic and challenge people's expectations of the game they intended to play vs what it has become. It can significantly affect users experience.
I prefer sticking to 5E rules as much as i can, and make clear of the variant rules, houserules and homebrew materials i use in advance so that we're all on the same pages.
As long as the social contract is clear in advance it can work, but players wanting to play D&D typically don’t want to play a home brew that’s “like D&D.” Some groups may prefer Pathfinder or some other rule set, or a different edition.
I usually find it’s best to just find the game that’s the “right fit,” whatever that rule system is, instead of tweaking something to be something it isn’t. If a game of D&D is heavily house ruled to be more “gritty” switching to a system that supports that better is probably the way to go.
Not sure if this was germane to your situation, or not.
Not gonna lie I am raising an eyebrow at the “Not True D&D” statement. One of the rules of d&d is literally change the rules if they don’t work for you, or ignore them entirely.
i am glad you enjoyed a different playstyle, and that’s what it is. A different style. It’s as true to D&D as the most by the books game that’s existed.
as long as everyone knows what to expect, no boundaries are crossed and everyone has fun then that sounds like true d&d to me. Some rules and structure may be exactly what some people enjoy, and others may want to take parts and make something partly new. And that may work for some and be completely not what others want and that’s fine. But it’s just different preferences.
Really, the notion of “take the D&D rules and make them whatever you want” isn’t inherently bad but it does more harm than good. There are more tabletop rpg systems out there than D&D, dozens, if not hundreds, including all the various editions of games.
If a group is heavily house ruling D&D to be something it’s not that’s a very good sign they should look to a different system altogether, not to continue to try to bend D&D in strange directions.
If a group is heavily house ruling D&D to be something it’s not that’s a very good sign they should look to a different system altogether, not to continue to try to bend D&D in strange directions.
What if 3 changes make it the perfect system for you and your table? Ok, 3 is good, what if 7 changes make it perfect for you and your table? Still okay? Okay what if 15 changes make it perfect? 20? 30? When is the line and why are we drawing one?
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
That’s really up to the group. If enough changes are in play to make the game something it’s not there is a very good chance a different rpg system would be a better fit for the needs of that group.
I’ve been in that situation myself, playing a heavily hacked and house ruled D&D game. We discovered that what we wanted at the time wasn’t D&D. This was a prior edition, but it still applies. Each campaign has different needs. More often than not the answer isn’t to try to make one tool fit every job but to use the right tool for the job.
If a group is heavily house ruling D&D to be something it’s not that’s a very good sign they should look to a different system altogether, not to continue to try to bend D&D in strange directions.
What if 3 changes make it the perfect system for you and your table? Ok, 3 is good, what if 7 changes make it perfect for you and your table? Still okay? Okay what if 15 changes make it perfect? 20? 30? When is the line and why are we drawing one?
Because if I houserule 5e to the point of being identical to STA's 2d20 system, why am I even bothering with 5e at all, why not just go with the 2d20 system to begin with?
I mean, do what you want and what works for you, but if someone is doing more than just tweaking or modifying the underlying system...why aren't they just using another system that suits them better? Or invent it. The premises of 5e are made with the assumption that you are using 5e, so the more you change it and take it away from 5e, the less they'll work well together. At some point, it's just better to build from the ground up or to just use something else that has those thought processes as part of its design philosophy.
Nothing wrong with changing 5e to suit your needs, but it's just logical to see if there's something more naturally suited to what you want.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Really, the notion of “take the D&D rules and make them whatever you want” isn’t inherently bad but it does more harm than good. There are more tabletop rpg systems out there than D&D, dozens, if not hundreds, including all the various editions of games.
If a group is heavily house ruling D&D to be something it’s not that’s a very good sign they should look to a different system altogether, not to continue to try to bend D&D in strange directions.
Not sure I believe that. there is some bad homebrew out there but man there is some good too. And WOTC is actually doing a revamp of the basic rules because change somethings does make things better. There is a good foundation here. The stat blocks work. There is good stuff here. I think you might be making a bigger deal of the changes people do in their games.
I am also very curious where your basis for "does more harm than good" comes from. There are literally videos about the best rules to tweak. There are active discussions of fun extra mechanics to add. There are obviously bad ones but that doesn't mean lots of them don't add a fresh twist on what we already have. If you like 5e but want it to be more crunchy, why learn an entire new system if you like MOST of what you have. Just add crunch
I would rather play five different rpg systems than five sets of house rules for a single system. House rules and homebrew prevent groups from experimenting outside of D&D. They usually find a better fit for the campaign with a rule system dedicated to whatever style they are going for than by hacking D&D to be all things.
Before trying house rules or homebrew look to Warhammer or Pathfinder or Ars Magica or any of the dozens of alternatives. It’s a great experience to try something fresh, and certainly better than forcing a tool that isn’t appropriate for the job. You can sharpen the prongs of a hammer but you’re still better off with a scalpel for some things.
D&D is ideal for D&D. If you want something different out of it, try something different first before hacking D&D.
People seem to forget that ultimate the core rules of D&D are like a "game engine with some free assets" - the DM is free to take the engine and change/build whatever they want. This is also how Pathfinder got made, by the way - they took the core d20 game engine stemming from 3e and revamped to make Pathfinder, and WotC did the same to make their own variant which was 3.5 e -- this is why 3.5 and Pathfinder are very similar and why even Pathfinder 2E continues to be a "D&D variant" game - because it literally is.
There is no "not true D&D" - D&D is a base system, which can be changed. There's even a note specifically stating the core rules are only guidelines and it's up to the DM to change what they want for their own games.
There are other games out there that take the D&D's basic d20 'game engine' and made it into their own D&D variant game.
If your DM has done this - props to them. It's still D&D. It may not be a version you prefer, which is perfectly fine, but D&D isn't "these are the rules, do nothing else or it isn't D&D" -- it's just an engine, make of it as you want.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
This robs a group of the opportunity to experience what other rpg systems have to offer. There are great systems built for specific styles of games. These provide a better experience than trying to change D&D, just like how you’d have an awkward time trying to make the White Wolf storyteller system work for a dungeon crawl.
Any game can be changed by a DM. While every editions of the game have been all D&D roleplaying game, they have been sometimes quite different mechanically speaking and what the play experience feels like. A game of 1E vs 4E leads to different experiences despite all being D&D.
But 5E is a turnkey D&D game, not a game that must be customized at the base to even work. It was designed to work fine as it and many players have such expectations. Therefore, while DMs can modify it to their heart's content, this will change what others may expect from playing a 5E D&D game with a heavily homebrewed version.
This robs a group of the opportunity to experience what other rpg systems have to offer. There are great systems built for specific styles of games. These provide a better experience than trying to change D&D, just like how you’d have an awkward time trying to make the White Wolf storyteller system work for a dungeon crawl.
That is one way to look at it. The other way is someone can try a bit of spice without the learning curve of an entire new system. You make it sound like new systems don't require a group of people to learn entirely new rules. I mean just take a look at call of cthulu. That is a MASSIVE book. Sure its an outstanding book for horror but if people just want a little bit of horror in your D&D why force someone to just learn that entire system.
They may enjoy the new system. But that is also an obscene amount of work and after learning D&D once I am not sure I would want to do it again for just a few elements. I would only do that for a system that is very different.
I’d recommend you don’t undersell yourself or your group’s capacity for adaptation. Try Castles and Crusades, try Hackmaster, try Pathfinder, Runequest, older editions of D&D.
The hobby has so much to offer. Limiting a group to just one system and then hacking it is a much poorer experience of what RPGs can offer than using systems geared towards the style you want to play in.
For me, there are for me key elements that if modified will alter the expectation and play experience more significantly, mainly the attack, saving throw or skill resolution mechanic, spellcasting slot, initiative and turn order, action economy etc
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hello there!
So, as a DM and player, I like to respect and use D&D rules as much as honourably possible within games. To the point of perhaps the occasional, non toxic rules lawyering or a tad bit of challenging of the rules that we have for our beloved game.
However - recently I find myself in a game ran by a DM who seems to have knowledge and understanding of the 5e system, and claims that his game is D&D 5e - ish.
Ultimately, stats and abilities are still relevant. But almost everything else has been redone - I knew this before joining. And upon making a ridiculous character concept with a healthy amount of laughter with the DM - it's a good giggle! But not true D&D.
Upon playing, it's a similar principle. His world is something he's ran before, and has a lot of well built character concepts. However mechanically, as balanced as he has made it, it's not D&D.
Because I was aware of this, and fortunately the worlds theme is light-hearted and comical any who (the world also isn't necessarily fantasy in theme, more modern day. Though I don't find this entirely relevant to the ultimate point of my thread) - I find myself just going with what the DM has made in entirety, and just having a laugh!
Now, the reason why this is strange for me? In a standard, stereotypical 5e D&D game, the DM does have ultimate say over the rules of course. But in a game that holds onto our rule system more properly, I am more prepared to challenge its usage, as DM and player. Whereas with my new groups world, knowing he's completely built a different thing...
I currently feel much more able to let the whole notion go, especially witnessing the fact that it's fairly made and balanced, despite being so loose.
Personally as a DM, I would loathe the notion of swaying too far out of a rule system - it's there for things to work, surely? Or I would at least find a RPG system that honours my concept best - and if there wasn't one, I would truly consider building my own RPG system! This is how these things are created to begin with!
Anywho, thank you for reading, and I'd love to hear some input or similar experiences!
Pronouns: (They/Them)
For me it's about control over the story. DMs can overrule how things are "supposed" to go in order to keep things moving in the direction they want them to go. I have a DM that does this a lot, and I have also kind of just learned to let go and kind of go with the flow. I can handle it because I enjoy the other players and I have two other "proper" D&D games going, but I'm definitely less invested in the game and if it were the only one I was playing, I wouldn't be happy about it.
As a player, it's important for me to feel like I can affect the world. The rules set down a shared understanding of how the world works so that I can accurately predict the consequences of my choices and actions. If you don't have that information, your choices don't really have any weight. You're just flailing around in the dark and the DM is making all the decisions of how things are going to go. That can be fine for some laughs but it's missing the core of what makes D&D great IMO.
Rules also keep a fair playing field. Many of "the only limit is your imagination" approaches end up with your character's powers and abilities actually limited by how much you worry about hogging the spotlight. The imbalance comes not from lack of imagination or creativity, but the social/interpersonal etiquette of the people sitting at the table. If everyone's cool and mature and respectful it can go fine. But it only takes one person to mess up a game like that.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
D&D has a lot of narrative freedom, but in essence, it's still a game to which's rules your table has agreed (or in your case -ish).
If the rules are static, you usually are clear, especially if they have been announced beforehand. If the rules arbitrarily change from situation to situation, you should expect some form of conflict to arise.
In a light hearted game that is story driven, you can get away with more, than say a tactical combat oriented one. Being able to count on the rules is more important to the latter than it is to the former.
More Interesting Lock Picking Rules
I think the matter in Role-playing Games is always role-playing. Although it would be called Bunch-of-rules game, right?
What I mean is that narrative (and it has to be fun/dramatic/whatever) is always on the top of the intention on playing it. The rules system is a way to make that workable and not an arbitrary narration on any sides. I can write a book if I wish to narrate my own story, as do any other member in a table, but to built a narrative in a collaborative way we need some rule system to properly do it, and thats the whole thing on rulling a RPG.
For that matter, I would recomend you a video called "Language, Not Rules" from Mathew Coville, avaliable on his youtube channel. Thats pretty enlighten on the role of the rules on RPGs
I'm generally of the opinion that homebrew is great and fantastic and all that, but that it should be codified and presented to the players in advance to the game. If all of his many changes are written down, and he follows them, then you should be good. Otherwise the game is less game and more narrative exercise. Which can be fine for some people, but not typically what people interested in D&D are looking for specifically. So, yeah, how well codified are his rule changes? Is it all written in a doc or something you could familiarize yourself with, or, is he just ad-hoc making rules up as he goes? Those two things paint entirely different pictures.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Houseruling and homebrewing any game is okay to some extent, but if overly done to the point where the original game is barely recognizeable, then it can be problematic and challenge people's expectations of the game they intended to play vs what it has become. It can significantly affect users experience.
I prefer sticking to 5E rules as much as i can, and make clear of the variant rules, houserules and homebrew materials i use in advance so that we're all on the same pages.
As long as the social contract is clear in advance it can work, but players wanting to play D&D typically don’t want to play a home brew that’s “like D&D.” Some groups may prefer Pathfinder or some other rule set, or a different edition.
I usually find it’s best to just find the game that’s the “right fit,” whatever that rule system is, instead of tweaking something to be something it isn’t. If a game of D&D is heavily house ruled to be more “gritty” switching to a system that supports that better is probably the way to go.
Not sure if this was germane to your situation, or not.
Not gonna lie I am raising an eyebrow at the “Not True D&D” statement. One of the rules of d&d is literally change the rules if they don’t work for you, or ignore them entirely.
i am glad you enjoyed a different playstyle, and that’s what it is. A different style. It’s as true to D&D as the most by the books game that’s existed.
as long as everyone knows what to expect, no boundaries are crossed and everyone has fun then that sounds like true d&d to me. Some rules and structure may be exactly what some people enjoy, and others may want to take parts and make something partly new. And that may work for some and be completely not what others want and that’s fine. But it’s just different preferences.
Really, the notion of “take the D&D rules and make them whatever you want” isn’t inherently bad but it does more harm than good. There are more tabletop rpg systems out there than D&D, dozens, if not hundreds, including all the various editions of games.
If a group is heavily house ruling D&D to be something it’s not that’s a very good sign they should look to a different system altogether, not to continue to try to bend D&D in strange directions.
What if 3 changes make it the perfect system for you and your table? Ok, 3 is good, what if 7 changes make it perfect for you and your table? Still okay? Okay what if 15 changes make it perfect? 20? 30? When is the line and why are we drawing one?
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
That’s really up to the group. If enough changes are in play to make the game something it’s not there is a very good chance a different rpg system would be a better fit for the needs of that group.
I’ve been in that situation myself, playing a heavily hacked and house ruled D&D game. We discovered that what we wanted at the time wasn’t D&D. This was a prior edition, but it still applies. Each campaign has different needs. More often than not the answer isn’t to try to make one tool fit every job but to use the right tool for the job.
Because if I houserule 5e to the point of being identical to STA's 2d20 system, why am I even bothering with 5e at all, why not just go with the 2d20 system to begin with?
I mean, do what you want and what works for you, but if someone is doing more than just tweaking or modifying the underlying system...why aren't they just using another system that suits them better? Or invent it. The premises of 5e are made with the assumption that you are using 5e, so the more you change it and take it away from 5e, the less they'll work well together. At some point, it's just better to build from the ground up or to just use something else that has those thought processes as part of its design philosophy.
Nothing wrong with changing 5e to suit your needs, but it's just logical to see if there's something more naturally suited to what you want.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Not sure I believe that. there is some bad homebrew out there but man there is some good too. And WOTC is actually doing a revamp of the basic rules because change somethings does make things better. There is a good foundation here. The stat blocks work. There is good stuff here. I think you might be making a bigger deal of the changes people do in their games.
I am also very curious where your basis for "does more harm than good" comes from. There are literally videos about the best rules to tweak. There are active discussions of fun extra mechanics to add. There are obviously bad ones but that doesn't mean lots of them don't add a fresh twist on what we already have. If you like 5e but want it to be more crunchy, why learn an entire new system if you like MOST of what you have. Just add crunch
I would rather play five different rpg systems than five sets of house rules for a single system. House rules and homebrew prevent groups from experimenting outside of D&D. They usually find a better fit for the campaign with a rule system dedicated to whatever style they are going for than by hacking D&D to be all things.
Before trying house rules or homebrew look to Warhammer or Pathfinder or Ars Magica or any of the dozens of alternatives. It’s a great experience to try something fresh, and certainly better than forcing a tool that isn’t appropriate for the job. You can sharpen the prongs of a hammer but you’re still better off with a scalpel for some things.
D&D is ideal for D&D. If you want something different out of it, try something different first before hacking D&D.
This happens a lot.
People seem to forget that ultimate the core rules of D&D are like a "game engine with some free assets" - the DM is free to take the engine and change/build whatever they want. This is also how Pathfinder got made, by the way - they took the core d20 game engine stemming from 3e and revamped to make Pathfinder, and WotC did the same to make their own variant which was 3.5 e -- this is why 3.5 and Pathfinder are very similar and why even Pathfinder 2E continues to be a "D&D variant" game - because it literally is.
There is no "not true D&D" - D&D is a base system, which can be changed. There's even a note specifically stating the core rules are only guidelines and it's up to the DM to change what they want for their own games.
There are other games out there that take the D&D's basic d20 'game engine' and made it into their own D&D variant game.
If your DM has done this - props to them. It's still D&D. It may not be a version you prefer, which is perfectly fine, but D&D isn't "these are the rules, do nothing else or it isn't D&D" -- it's just an engine, make of it as you want.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
This robs a group of the opportunity to experience what other rpg systems have to offer. There are great systems built for specific styles of games. These provide a better experience than trying to change D&D, just like how you’d have an awkward time trying to make the White Wolf storyteller system work for a dungeon crawl.
Any game can be changed by a DM. While every editions of the game have been all D&D roleplaying game, they have been sometimes quite different mechanically speaking and what the play experience feels like. A game of 1E vs 4E leads to different experiences despite all being D&D.
But 5E is a turnkey D&D game, not a game that must be customized at the base to even work. It was designed to work fine as it and many players have such expectations. Therefore, while DMs can modify it to their heart's content, this will change what others may expect from playing a 5E D&D game with a heavily homebrewed version.
That is one way to look at it. The other way is someone can try a bit of spice without the learning curve of an entire new system. You make it sound like new systems don't require a group of people to learn entirely new rules. I mean just take a look at call of cthulu. That is a MASSIVE book. Sure its an outstanding book for horror but if people just want a little bit of horror in your D&D why force someone to just learn that entire system.
They may enjoy the new system. But that is also an obscene amount of work and after learning D&D once I am not sure I would want to do it again for just a few elements. I would only do that for a system that is very different.
I’d recommend you don’t undersell yourself or your group’s capacity for adaptation. Try Castles and Crusades, try Hackmaster, try Pathfinder, Runequest, older editions of D&D.
The hobby has so much to offer. Limiting a group to just one system and then hacking it is a much poorer experience of what RPGs can offer than using systems geared towards the style you want to play in.
For me, there are for me key elements that if modified will alter the expectation and play experience more significantly, mainly the attack, saving throw or skill resolution mechanic, spellcasting slot, initiative and turn order, action economy etc