Hi! I’m a new DM and my group of coworkers decided to run a module for our first campaign. Half of my players are newbies while the other half are seasoned veterans of the game. I’m having a hard time teaching the newbies the ‘standard rules’, while also explaining “house rules”. I like to run things with slightly modified ‘house rules’ to make the game more interesting and realistic for my players. We all know that the standard rules are more like guidelines depending on what you want to do and where you want the campaign to go. One of my veteran players continues to be upset about the my “house rules” not always matching up with ‘standard rules’ or how their previous DM’s ran things. It is making it difficult for my new players to follow along with the game. Any pointers?
Sure. Go through all your house rules and for each house rule ask yourself "is this rule really worth the overhead of tracking and explaining it?", and toss every rule where the answer is anything but an unequivocal yes.
Oops I accidentally made a separate post instead lol. You my dear friend are currently playing a careful balancing act. There is a lot of nuance that you have to deal with when trying to manage these new and vet players, but to throw in an argumentative rule lawyer makes it all the more harder, as I am sure you are aware. The first thing you must do is PRIVATELY talk to this problem player in a respectful and understanding way. Make sure they understand that not every DM is like the last and we all run things differently, and despite not being "the official rules" what you say goes. Question for you though. Did you make it clear when enlisting players that there would be Homebrew rules mixed in? If NOT, then apologize for the slip and clarify that this is how it will be, and that you understand his frustration. If you DID, then kindly remind him that you made it very clear this is how things will be and you would appreciate his cooperation, as DMing is a very difficult task. Make sure he or she understands that you understand where they are coming from and see if you can make any compromises that might make this go down easier for the problem player. However, you must also convey that you are the DM and that (only if they are though) arguing with your rulings or set Rules during sessions is not cool and will get you all nowhere, and suggest having him message you after the session, as it would make things go smoother and easier for the newbies. As well as, (if the rules are not laid out clearly) make sure these Homebrew rules are posted and laid out so everyone can not only reference them, but so the problem player will not have to guess to what they are as this will make it easier. If they are then remind the player that you have made it clear from the beginning and would appreciate their understanding (The compromise should help with this). It is only when you handle this problem player well it make things slightly easier so you can give more focus on the newbies. Also encourage the vets to help the newbies when they can if not then maybe host a side Q/A session just for the newbies so you can see what they are confused on and fix those issues. To be brief. You must first address the problem player by being firm, fair, and clear (I highly recommend throwing in a compromise of some kind) then you can sort out the newbies by a side Q?A session. Think of the compromise as a sort of carrot to match your stick, the stick being you being firm, clear, and fair. As the carrot will help the player go along with the stick easier. Also if you are new remind them as it will play into their sympathy, well hopefully lol.
I would agree that the assessment of whether this is a problem player, or a problem rule, might be the most beneficial step. If the rules that you choose to use don't suit the players fun, simply don't use it. However, if the player is problematic with your rulings, not the actual rules, then it might be time to pull the individual aside and find out the crux of the issue and work towards a compromise.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
I agree with The_Drunken_Hermit. I might add that if its not too late it might be time for a "session 0" discussion where the rules, style of play and other game expectations are clearly described and discussed. This is the part where the table can come to an agreement of the rules and you can offer a compromise as has been suggested. If one of the players doesn't want to play after a group consensus has been reached then it should be understood this isn't the table for them. No D&D is better than Bad D&D! It sounds like the problem with one of your players isn't that they're a veteran but rather a journeyman player, they've played the game but only in a narrow context centered around a single DMs table. Hopefully they can take this opportunity to grow as a player and realize every table (and DM) has their own unique style and flair and thats part of what makes D&D fun!
It sounds like there either was no "Session 0" or it was sorely lacking in important info. As a couple folks have said, it isn't too late to pause for a moment and have one, to clarify any rule changes or varians you are going to be using. As DM you are free to explain why you're making the changes, or to simply state that's the way you will ahve it in your world. Full disclosure is always best concerning alternate rules. I would also make sure that anyone who wanted to change their build a bit at that time, could do so. Sometimes a build is around a certain rules arrangement and one alteration to one of the rules in the series could mess up the intended build.
This should silence the complaint from the Rules Lawyer, BUT, I would encourage them to help the new players understand at times, that RaW, it might work differently so always talk to the DM when you have any questions. This also helps demonstrate to the new players some of the sidebar stuff about playing D&D, such as asking the DM when joining a campaign if there are any hose rules or homebrew bits they should be aware of. I personally adore house rules and homebrew tweaks to rules, but I do like to be advised early on if a rule is going to be employed/changed/ignored or altered.
An example I use in my campaign is for our Aarakocra Ranger. When he's flying, he is at disadvantage for his ranged attacks. This is to reign in the benefit of flight a bit and my rationale is that his flight isn't a silky smooth ride. Thus far, zero issue, he accepted and agreed to it, so he flies up to a limb or some of the such elevated platform (of which there seems to be one available quite often) and shoots from there. If a player is told early on something about their skill/ability/character might do or not do something not specifically outlined, they can decide if it's still workable and then play within this newer rule or guideline. Lack of communication is a pain in the butt, so I vote a new Session 0 for your group and crush all the questions in one fell swoop.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
I always talk through my house rules with my players, and we discuss whether the rule makes the game more or less fun.
For example, we use (a fairly commonly used) homebrew critical hit rule - instead of double dice, you roll the dice, then add the maximum roll of the dice. This ensures all crits are big (and way bigger on average than the standard rules). Monsters and players alike abide by it: and all my players like these rules, so cool!
I have previously suggested another house rule to stop whack-a-mole gameplay. After failing a death saving throw, the character does not recover the failed ones, even if they regain hitpoints, so you can be walking around on 1 or 2 death saves. They thought this was too much, and we compromised on recovering 1 failure on a short rest, and 2 on a long rest.
If your players don't like your house rules, don't run them, or suggest that you'll run them for a couple of sessions and then everyone can decide if they like them or not. Don't just force house rules on players, since they may hinder their fun which means it's a bad house rule, and never spring a house rule on them, e.g. "Actually I rule that polymorph can be a maximum CR4 creature..." etc. This messes with reasonable expectations.
So if I have new players I will almost always start a game with levels 1-3, and sometimes 4, as "tutorial mode". This usually means the first 2-3 sessions are a primer to the game and my DM style. New and experienced players benefit from this. Ideally the experienced players will sort of be able to add further coaching to the new players, and the DM can watch the party dynamic coalesce.
Presentations and objections to house rules. How are these rules being addressed? Does the player want to take an action; but the DM interjects, "well, actually I do things a little differently"? If you have experienced players, you really need to articulate those differences from the RAW ahead of the game (session 0, ideally before character generation if your rulings will impact how a player may play their character) if these are things you insist on. If you're thinking/ruling on the fly, you should introduce the ruling as a "how about this?" and present what you see as the need for the ruling (speeds up combat, adds realism, makes a "boring" part of the game more interesting, whatever) and then introduce what you'd like to do. And do so with an open mind, yes as a DM you get final ruling, but are you sure your house rules are any good? Also keep in mind what worked well at one table isn't a universal.
The problem with rules not being articulated ahead of the game that affect core parts of the game like combat and spell casting is that your NPCs will de facto "game" a system upon which you're the only one with a solid handle. And players would have a right to strongly disagree.
In the end I have a hard time determining your best course of action because you explain the problem simply as "experienced players, or one experienced player has a problem with my house rules." Now there are D&D "purists" out there who are allergic to any and all modification, but experienced players also may see what you're doing house-ruled, have played in similar scenarios under different rules, and either had more fun or thought it was a more fair game. At the end of it, a DM needs to keep an open mind, even to their own deliberations. But again, the conflict at your game is framed abstractly so it's hard to validate or even assess the basis for your or the players' stances.
Hi! I’m a new DM and my group of coworkers decided to run a module for our first campaign. Half of my players are newbies while the other half are seasoned veterans of the game. I’m having a hard time teaching the newbies the ‘standard rules’, while also explaining “house rules”. I like to run things with slightly modified ‘house rules’ to make the game more interesting and realistic for my players. We all know that the standard rules are more like guidelines depending on what you want to do and where you want the campaign to go. One of my veteran players continues to be upset about the my “house rules” not always matching up with ‘standard rules’ or how their previous DM’s ran things. It is making it difficult for my new players to follow along with the game. Any pointers?
Sure. Go through all your house rules and for each house rule ask yourself "is this rule really worth the overhead of tracking and explaining it?", and toss every rule where the answer is anything but an unequivocal yes.
Oops I accidentally made a separate post instead lol. You my dear friend are currently playing a careful balancing act. There is a lot of nuance that you have to deal with when trying to manage these new and vet players, but to throw in an argumentative rule lawyer makes it all the more harder, as I am sure you are aware. The first thing you must do is PRIVATELY talk to this problem player in a respectful and understanding way. Make sure they understand that not every DM is like the last and we all run things differently, and despite not being "the official rules" what you say goes. Question for you though. Did you make it clear when enlisting players that there would be Homebrew rules mixed in? If NOT, then apologize for the slip and clarify that this is how it will be, and that you understand his frustration. If you DID, then kindly remind him that you made it very clear this is how things will be and you would appreciate his cooperation, as DMing is a very difficult task. Make sure he or she understands that you understand where they are coming from and see if you can make any compromises that might make this go down easier for the problem player. However, you must also convey that you are the DM and that (only if they are though) arguing with your rulings or set Rules during sessions is not cool and will get you all nowhere, and suggest having him message you after the session, as it would make things go smoother and easier for the newbies. As well as, (if the rules are not laid out clearly) make sure these Homebrew rules are posted and laid out so everyone can not only reference them, but so the problem player will not have to guess to what they are as this will make it easier. If they are then remind the player that you have made it clear from the beginning and would appreciate their understanding (The compromise should help with this). It is only when you handle this problem player well it make things slightly easier so you can give more focus on the newbies. Also encourage the vets to help the newbies when they can if not then maybe host a side Q/A session just for the newbies so you can see what they are confused on and fix those issues. To be brief. You must first address the problem player by being firm, fair, and clear (I highly recommend throwing in a compromise of some kind) then you can sort out the newbies by a side Q?A session. Think of the compromise as a sort of carrot to match your stick, the stick being you being firm, clear, and fair. As the carrot will help the player go along with the stick easier. Also if you are new remind them as it will play into their sympathy, well hopefully lol.
I would agree that the assessment of whether this is a problem player, or a problem rule, might be the most beneficial step. If the rules that you choose to use don't suit the players fun, simply don't use it. However, if the player is problematic with your rulings, not the actual rules, then it might be time to pull the individual aside and find out the crux of the issue and work towards a compromise.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
I agree with The_Drunken_Hermit. I might add that if its not too late it might be time for a "session 0" discussion where the rules, style of play and other game expectations are clearly described and discussed. This is the part where the table can come to an agreement of the rules and you can offer a compromise as has been suggested. If one of the players doesn't want to play after a group consensus has been reached then it should be understood this isn't the table for them. No D&D is better than Bad D&D! It sounds like the problem with one of your players isn't that they're a veteran but rather a journeyman player, they've played the game but only in a narrow context centered around a single DMs table. Hopefully they can take this opportunity to grow as a player and realize every table (and DM) has their own unique style and flair and thats part of what makes D&D fun!
It sounds like there either was no "Session 0" or it was sorely lacking in important info. As a couple folks have said, it isn't too late to pause for a moment and have one, to clarify any rule changes or varians you are going to be using. As DM you are free to explain why you're making the changes, or to simply state that's the way you will ahve it in your world. Full disclosure is always best concerning alternate rules. I would also make sure that anyone who wanted to change their build a bit at that time, could do so. Sometimes a build is around a certain rules arrangement and one alteration to one of the rules in the series could mess up the intended build.
This should silence the complaint from the Rules Lawyer, BUT, I would encourage them to help the new players understand at times, that RaW, it might work differently so always talk to the DM when you have any questions. This also helps demonstrate to the new players some of the sidebar stuff about playing D&D, such as asking the DM when joining a campaign if there are any hose rules or homebrew bits they should be aware of. I personally adore house rules and homebrew tweaks to rules, but I do like to be advised early on if a rule is going to be employed/changed/ignored or altered.
An example I use in my campaign is for our Aarakocra Ranger. When he's flying, he is at disadvantage for his ranged attacks. This is to reign in the benefit of flight a bit and my rationale is that his flight isn't a silky smooth ride. Thus far, zero issue, he accepted and agreed to it, so he flies up to a limb or some of the such elevated platform (of which there seems to be one available quite often) and shoots from there. If a player is told early on something about their skill/ability/character might do or not do something not specifically outlined, they can decide if it's still workable and then play within this newer rule or guideline. Lack of communication is a pain in the butt, so I vote a new Session 0 for your group and crush all the questions in one fell swoop.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
I always talk through my house rules with my players, and we discuss whether the rule makes the game more or less fun.
For example, we use (a fairly commonly used) homebrew critical hit rule - instead of double dice, you roll the dice, then add the maximum roll of the dice. This ensures all crits are big (and way bigger on average than the standard rules). Monsters and players alike abide by it: and all my players like these rules, so cool!
I have previously suggested another house rule to stop whack-a-mole gameplay. After failing a death saving throw, the character does not recover the failed ones, even if they regain hitpoints, so you can be walking around on 1 or 2 death saves. They thought this was too much, and we compromised on recovering 1 failure on a short rest, and 2 on a long rest.
If your players don't like your house rules, don't run them, or suggest that you'll run them for a couple of sessions and then everyone can decide if they like them or not. Don't just force house rules on players, since they may hinder their fun which means it's a bad house rule, and never spring a house rule on them, e.g. "Actually I rule that polymorph can be a maximum CR4 creature..." etc. This messes with reasonable expectations.
So if I have new players I will almost always start a game with levels 1-3, and sometimes 4, as "tutorial mode". This usually means the first 2-3 sessions are a primer to the game and my DM style. New and experienced players benefit from this. Ideally the experienced players will sort of be able to add further coaching to the new players, and the DM can watch the party dynamic coalesce.
Presentations and objections to house rules. How are these rules being addressed? Does the player want to take an action; but the DM interjects, "well, actually I do things a little differently"? If you have experienced players, you really need to articulate those differences from the RAW ahead of the game (session 0, ideally before character generation if your rulings will impact how a player may play their character) if these are things you insist on. If you're thinking/ruling on the fly, you should introduce the ruling as a "how about this?" and present what you see as the need for the ruling (speeds up combat, adds realism, makes a "boring" part of the game more interesting, whatever) and then introduce what you'd like to do. And do so with an open mind, yes as a DM you get final ruling, but are you sure your house rules are any good? Also keep in mind what worked well at one table isn't a universal.
The problem with rules not being articulated ahead of the game that affect core parts of the game like combat and spell casting is that your NPCs will de facto "game" a system upon which you're the only one with a solid handle. And players would have a right to strongly disagree.
In the end I have a hard time determining your best course of action because you explain the problem simply as "experienced players, or one experienced player has a problem with my house rules." Now there are D&D "purists" out there who are allergic to any and all modification, but experienced players also may see what you're doing house-ruled, have played in similar scenarios under different rules, and either had more fun or thought it was a more fair game. At the end of it, a DM needs to keep an open mind, even to their own deliberations. But again, the conflict at your game is framed abstractly so it's hard to validate or even assess the basis for your or the players' stances.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.