Worst REAL house rules you've used

[Velaryon]

Enemies are now represented with chocolate, whosoever kills the enemy gets the chocolate.

What makes this one of the worst? Is it because certain characters get more chocolate than others this way?

[Cozzer]

In general, in a game such as D&D, I believe granting bonuses to whoever finihses an enemy is extremely wrong, since the point is contributing to the victory, not kill-stealing for EXP or whatever. But with chocolate it's just a funny harmless quirk of the game, I would say. Unless the players take chocolate very seriously, I guess.

(Now I'm picturing players being like, "Sorry guys, I need to play a bard or a cleric this time, I'm on a diet").

[Luccan]

What makes this one of the worst? Is it because certain characters get more chocolate than others this way?

My guess would be it is a bonus reward (delicious chocolate specifically), which does on some level encourage focusing on being the person to kill a monster, rather than working together to defeat your foes. Or they got melty.

Edit: On top of that, there's really no reason to do this extra incentive. If you're party isn't accomplishing things because they enjoy the adventure, then you have a different problem. At best this just warps the objective of a cooperative RPG.

[Anonymouswizard]

Edit: On top of that, there's really no reason to do this extra incentive. If you're party isn't accomplishing things because they enjoy the adventure, then you have a different problem. At best this just warps the objective of a cooperative RPG.

Notably I've noticed that using something edible for metagame currency encourages players to actually spend them. Otherwise I tend to see players ending the game with them all saved up 'just in case'.

[Luccan]

Notably I've noticed that using something edible for metagame currency encourages players to actually spend them. Otherwise I tend to see players ending the game with them all saved up 'just in case'.

Sure, but it isn't really a currency. It's not like 5e's inspiration, you aren't getting anything in-game. It's purely an out of game reward that's encouraging a behavior more likely to cause problems (in most RPGs) than facilitate good/desirable behavior.

[Anonymouswizard]

Sure, but it isn't really a currency. It's not like 5e's inspiration, you aren't getting anything in-game. It's purely an out of game reward that's encouraging a behavior more likely to cause problems (in most RPGs) than facilitate good/desirable behavior.

Sure, my point was that sometimes you really do want that temptation to eat the thing. I really do agree it's bad to represent enemies with them, but with metagame currencies and other 'per PC' things there's no competition to worry about.

Although I do always have the temptation to run a campaign about a bear invasion just to use gummi bears as minis...

[Luccan]

Sure, my point was that sometimes you really do want that temptation to eat the thing. I really do agree it's bad to represent enemies with them, but with metagame currencies and other 'per PC' things there's no competition to worry about.

Although I do always have the temptation to run a campaign about a bear invasion just to use gummi bears as minis...

Yeah, I can see the value in that.

Candyland: Bearpocalypse... Dang it, now I want to see this game.

[SimonMoon6]

Another potential problem is players eating the miniatures when they're not supposed to (which doesn't usually happen with metal miniatures).

"Where did this army of orcs go?"

"Mmm... delicious!"

[vasilidor]

yeah, there were several issues with the chocolate one, but for us the nail in the coffin was when the girl who really liked chocolate got upset because her character never killed anyone.
she was given a bag of Hershey kiss's as an apology later, and we never used that rule again.

[GreatWyrmGold]

true sight can see your mundane hiding rogue even though he is behind the rock that is bigger than him and the castor has no line of sight.

What about the Pollux?
But seriously...did the DM not think magic made mundane methods of doing things obsolete enough?

[Vknight]

I'm doing rolled stats and most of the players are ok with it but one player is insisting on this rule. Players that roll 17 or 18 on a stat have it lowered to 15 instead.
Despite the fact its rolled stats where your stats are added up and the total must be over 70. And its made things balanced the players with a 18 usually have a stat that is 5 or something.

[Kurald Galain]

Although I do always have the temptation to run a campaign about a bear invasion just to use gummi bears as minis...

A trick I once used in Paranoia is using M&Ms as miniatures. Because their colors match the security clearances in the game.

Of course, gameplay in Paranoia is much, ahem, happier than in D&D...

[Capt Spanner]

Another potential problem is players eating the miniatures when they're not supposed to (which doesn't usually happen with metal miniatures).

"Where did this army of orcs go?"

"Mmm... delicious!"

I feel there's a story here...

[jdolch]

Re-rolling initiative every turn. You think combat takes forever? Add re-drawing the initiative table every turn for a 6 person party, 8 mooks, and a boss to that.

You are not playing Shadowrun then. Yes we re-roll Initiative every round but we also need one (action packed) hour for one combat turn, so it's not actually all that often that we roll Initiative.

[GreatWyrmGold]

You are not playing Shadowrun then. Yes we re-roll Initiative every round but we also need one (action packed) hour for one combat turn, so it's not actually all that often that we roll Initiative.

Ah, Shadowrun. A game with many good ideas (especially settingwise), but flawed execution on so many things. I look forward to a chance to run a game in the Shadowrun universe with a less-quirky ruleset.

[Xethoras]

Back when we first started playing D&D 3.0 at 11 or so years our DM mostly gave XP for lasthitting. Better yet, player killing got you all the experience the killed player had accumulated. Fun times xD

[Knaight]

Ah, Shadowrun. A game with many good ideas (especially settingwise), but flawed execution on so many things. I look forward to a chance to run a game in the Shadowrun universe with a less-quirky ruleset.

There's always Shadowrun: Anarchy. It's a much lighter system built for the same setting, in a totally different style.

[Floret]

Ah, Shadowrun. A game with many good ideas (especially settingwise), but flawed execution on so many things. I look forward to a chance to run a game in the Shadowrun universe with a less-quirky ruleset.

You might wanna have a look at Shadowrun: Anarchy. It's in many ways Shadowrun light - and then there's some narrative rules, but ignoring them doesn't break anything if you're not keen on those. Though I have heard the German book I play after is more well-edited than the English one...

Worst houserule I keep using: Ignoring half the rules whenever I feel they get in the way.

Because honestly, that just points to us playing the wrong game system and is never quite fair in execution, no matter how much I try.

Edit: Ninjaed, but hey, double suggestion lends more credence, right?^^

[GreatWyrmGold]

There's always Shadowrun: Anarchy.

You might wanna have a look at Shadowrun: Anarchy.

Edit: Ninjaed, but hey, double suggestion lends more credence, right?^^

Sounds like something to look into, yeah. Thanks!

[Torpin]

you could use a wish to make any spell subject to permanency, the wizard used 3 wishes in one day
"i wish to roll a 20 on my next spell pen"
I wish the next creature i cast a spell on fails its saving throw
I wish this magic jar i just cast on the tarrasque was permanent.

[SodaQueen]

In my early days as a DM a new player convinced me to use critical fumble rules. I dropped it after the first combat because experienced warriors kept dropping their swords and stabbing themselves while none of the casters were affected at all.

I've had the grave misfortune to have been in a game or two since that have used crit fumbles (only for a single session each, and I wouldn't have joined if I had known) and that mixed in with the horror stories I've read here have only reinforced my opinion that critical fumbles are dumb and just the worst.

[Quertus]

you could use a wish to make any spell subject to permanency, the wizard used 3 wishes in one day
"i wish to roll a 20 on my next spell pen"
I wish the next creature i cast a spell on fails its saving throw
I wish this magic jar i just cast on the tarrasque was permanent.

But... Magic Jar is permanent.

Or, at least, it was in 2e.

[Torpin]

In my early days as a DM a new player convinced me to use critical fumble rules. I dropped it after the first combat because experienced warriors kept dropping their swords and stabbing themselves while none of the casters were affected at all.

I've had the grave misfortune to have been in a game or two since that have used crit fumbles (only for a single session each, and I wouldn't have joined if I had known) and that mixed in with the horror stories I've read here have only reinforced my opinion that critical fumbles are dumb and just the worst.

they are the worst because weapons users dont scale as well as casters and this scales negatively with the fighters

[GreatWyrmGold]

It's a shame that there isn't some kind of universal "spell roll" that we could apply critical fumbles too. Magical mishaps tend to be a lot more interesting than dropping a sword...

[Man_Over_Game]

I guess there's 5e's Wild Magic table?

Not always. Not every spell uses an attack roll.

However, a solution could be that if the target crits on their saving throw, they know exactly who cast it and what they were trying to cast. Might be grounds enough to give them advantage to attack the mage in question.

I don't mind critical fumbles too much, as long as they aren't life-threatening. 5% of the time, a god gets unlucky and can get hit by anyone, even a peasant child; saying that a warrior drops his weapon 5% of the time in active combat doesn't seem too unrealistic.

And that's exactly what I do in 5e. You crit fail, you just drop your weapon. I do have it set so that if your weapon requires two hands, you provoke an attack of opportunity to pull it out or to pick it up, which incentivizes players to utilize sidearms.

I still haven't found a solution I like when it comes to casting spells, though. Rolling a d100 every time you cast a spell just seems obnoxious.

[JNAProductions]

Not always. Not every spell uses an attack roll.

However, a solution could be that if the target crits on their saving throw, they know exactly who cast it and what they were trying to cast. Might be grounds enough to give them advantage to attack the mage in question.

I don't mind critical fumbles too much, as long as they aren't life-threatening. 5% of the time, a god gets unlucky and can get hit by anyone, even a peasant child; saying that a warrior drops his weapon 5% of the time in active combat doesn't seem too unrealistic.

And that's exactly what I do in 5e. You crit fail, you just drop your weapon. I do have it set so that if your weapon requires two hands, you provoke an attack of opportunity to pull it out or to pick it up, which incentivizes players to utilize sidearms.

I still haven't found a solution I like when it comes to casting spells, though. Rolling a d100 every time you cast a spell just seems obnoxious.

A 1st level Fighter has a 5% chance per round of dropping their weapon.

A 20th level Fighter has an 18.55% chance.

Why do they get worse at holding their weapon as they level?

[Man_Over_Game]

A 1st level Fighter has a 5% chance per round of dropping their weapon.

A 20th level Fighter has an 18.55% chance.

Why do they get worse at holding their weapon as they level?

They don't get worse; they get faster. They're also fighting superhuman monsters, usually stuff that can murder you before you can blink.


I guess it's also worth noting that I also make it so that weapons wielded in two hands are harder to drop (make an attack roll, DC 15 to hang on to your weapon), with the intent to give more reason to use the Versatile feature on a one-handed weapon.

[ATHATH]

They don't get worse; they get faster. They're also fighting superhuman monsters, usually stuff that can murder you before you can blink.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...he-Gym-Fallacy

[Quertus]

You know, I'm actually a bit on board with this, at least in that I've never liked how there's no real cost or chance of mishap with using magic in D&D. Which is kind of silly because you're basically rewriting the fabric of reality; you think that would be really easy to mess up. I've been told that I would probably like Mage: The Ascension because it apparently does this much better.

I guess there's 5e's Wild Magic table?

Outside of Mage: The Ascension, very few Wizards are rewriting reality. D&D Mages are, as a rule, following the rules of reality. WoD Mages are rather unusual for actually rewriting the rules of reality - which rules!

OK, it's not quite "level".

They don't get worse; they get faster. They're also fighting superhuman monsters, usually stuff that can murder you before you can blink.


I guess it's also worth noting that I also make it so that weapons wielded in two hands are harder to drop (make an attack roll, DC 15 to hang on to your weapon), with the intent to give more reason to use the Versatile feature on a one-handed weapon.

I've been sparring with you since you could barely lift a sword. I can tell you're getting better, because you drop your sword much more often now. In fact, you almost drop it as often as the Master.

... Is an observation that should have the opportunity to be made by no-one.

[Durandu Ran]

I don’t personally mind crit fumbles, but our DM has us roll again on a natural 1 to confirm, so that lowers the fumble chance below 5%, and then rolls d% for the effect, so the negative effect isn’t always dropping the weapon. It sounds like some DMs make every natural 1 an instant weapon drop, which I would mind a lot more.