Am I doing 5e wrong!

[NewDM]

I have no idea where you got this from, but documents with long lists of houserules for 1E were common back when the internet still ran off XMosaic...

Yes, but the actual rules of the game did not say house rules were ok to use. They read more like war game manuals.

[kaoskonfety]

The early editions of D&D Don't allow for house rules. So in that sense when he played them he was doing it wrong. Later editions (3.x+) inserted rule 0 that said the DM can do whatever they want. From that point on, he wasn't playing it wrong.

"didn't allow for houserules"?

what? How did you play without house rules? Did you actually run the game exactly as presented in Gygaxes wandering, mildly condescending, prose? 1hp/1 spell wizards and all?

That is some dedication.

Is this one of those "the rule that the DM can do what they please is not expressly spelled out so they clearly are not allowed to" arguments? Cause if so you are going to make be break out my 1st edition DMG and read the STD and Struck by Lightning tables and laugh out loud for a bit... and for this I thank you... been too long since I dusted that off

[comk59]

Yes, but the actual rules of the game did not say house rules were ok to use. They read more like war game manuals.

I regularly play war games, and those require houserules all the time.

[NewDM]

I regularly play war games, and those require houserules all the time.

Back when D&D was new, they almost never used house rules. They were more like military exercises requiring precise execution to work properly.

"didn't allow for houserules"?

what? How did you play without house rules? Did you actually run the game exactly as presented in Gygaxes wandering, mildly condescending, prose? 1hp/1 spell wizards and all?

That is some dedication.

Is this one of those "the rule that the DM can do what they please is not expressly spelled out so they clearly are not allowed to" arguments? Cause if so you are going to make be break out my 1st edition DMG and read the STD and Struck by Lightning tables and laugh out loud for a bit... and for this I thank you... been too long since I dusted that off

I didn't say they didn't NEED house rules. I just said you weren't supposed to use them. Almost everyone did use house rules because the game was otherwise nearly unplayable to the point that it was a pre-cursor to the Dark Souls series of games. Just leaving your bed in the morning was a risky proposition.

[Kurald Galain]

Yes, but the actual rules of the game did not say house rules were ok to use. They read more like war game manuals.

Again, I have no idea where you're getting that from, but the layout and chapter division and even the spells and magical items lists haven't changed much ever since 1E. And Rule Zero obviously predates 3E as well.

[mgshamster]

From the 1e DMG's introduction, "The game is the thing, and certain rules can be distorted or disregarded altogether in favor of play."

From the 2e DMG's introduction, "In short, follow the rules as they are written if doing so improves your game. But by the same token, break the rules only if doing so improves your game."

[Finieous]

The early editions of D&D Don't allow for house rules.

Gary Gygax had house rules for OD&D. http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/...-rules-for-odd

But there's also clear evidence that he wasn't entirely happy with not only the game's allowance for house rules, but actually reliance on them. In The Dragon #26, he wrote:

Because D&D allowed such freedom, because the work itself said so, because the initial batch of DMs were so imaginative and creative, because the rules wre incomplete, vague and often ambiguous, D&D has turned into a non-game. That is, there is so much variation between the way the game is played from region to region, state to state, area to area, and even from group to group within a metropolitan district, there is no continuity and little agreement as to just what the game is and how best to play it. Without destroying the imagination and individual creativity which go into a campaign, AD&D rectifies the shortcomings of D&D. There are few grey areas in AD&D, and there will be no question in the mind of participants as to what the game is and is all about. There is form and structure to AD&D, and any variation of these integral portions of the game will obviously make it something else.

This was in 1979, and it's hard to tell at this remove whether Gary was really and truly sick of house rules or was pimping AD&D, or a little of both. In any case, we went on to house rule AD&D as much as ever, and Gary left us this Afterword in the DMG:

AFTERWORD
IT IS THE SPIRIT OF THE GAME, NOT THE LETTER OF THE RULES, WHICH IS IMPORTANT. NEVER HOLD TO THE LETTER WRITTEN, NOR ALLOW SOME BARRACKS ROOM LAWYER TO FORCE QUOTATIONS FROM THE RULE BOOK UPON YOU, IF IT GOES AGAINST THE OBVIOUS INTENT OF THE GAME. AS YOU HEW THE LINE WITH RESPECT TO CONFORMITY TO MAJOR SYSTEMS AND UNIFORMITY OF PLAY IN GENERAL, ALSO BE CERTAIN THE GAME IS MASTERED BY YOU AND NOT BY YOUR PLAYERS. WITHIN THE BROAD PARAMETERS GIVEN IN THE ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS VOLUMES, YOU ARE CREATOR AND FINAL ARBITER. BY ORDERING THINGS AS THEY SHOULD BE, THE GAME AS A WHOLE FIRST, YOUR CAMPAIGN NEXT, AND YOUR PARTICIPANTS THEREAFTER, YOU WILL BE PLAYING ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS AS IT WAS MEANT TO BE. MAY YOU FIND AS MUCH PLEASURE IN SO DOING AS THE REST OF US DO!

[Kurald Galain]

From the 1e DMG's introduction, "The game is the thing, and certain rules can be distorted or disregarded altogether in favor of play."

From the 2e DMG's introduction, "In short, follow the rules as they are written if doing so improves your game. But by the same token, break the rules only if doing so improves your game."

Gary Gygax had house rules for OD&D. http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/...-rules-for-odd

But there's also clear evidence that he wasn't entirely happy with not only the game's allowance for house rules, but actually reliance on them. In The Dragon #26, he wrote:

This was in 1979, and it's hard to tell at this remove whether Gary was really and truly sick of house rules or was pimping AD&D, or a little of both. In any case, we went on to house rule AD&D as much as ever, and Gary left us this Afterword in the DMG:

Thank you.

Myth: BUSTED.

[smcmike]

That was .... thorough.

[mgshamster]

"Barracks room lawyer" is a term that has always made me giggle a bit.

[NewDM]

Thank you.

Myth: BUSTED.

I like how you leave out the part that talks about not having to house rule in AD&D.

In reality it was a kind of rivalry between two different major developers where they constantly contradicted each other, one saying no house rules should be used and the other saying house rules should be used if it makes more sense than the actual rules.

[mgshamster]

I like how you leave out the part that talks about not having to house rule in AD&D.

In reality it was a kind of rivalry between two different major developers where they constantly contradicted each other, one saying no house rules should be used and the other saying house rules should be used if it makes more sense than the actual rules.

By "leave out the part" are you talking about the automatic quote removal in the GitP programming? Or are you claiming that he's ignoring the snippet from a magazine in favor of what's written in the actual DMG?

Or are you talking about a different quote altogether that you haven't bothered to post yet?

[Regitnui]

Gary Gygax had house rules for OD&D. http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/...-rules-for-odd

But there's also clear evidence that he wasn't entirely happy with not only the game's allowance for house rules, but actually reliance on them. In The Dragon #26, he wrote:

This was in 1979, and it's hard to tell at this remove whether Gary was really and truly sick of house rules or was pimping AD&D, or a little of both. In any case, we went on to house rule AD&D as much as ever, and Gary left us this Afterword in the DMG:

Thank you.

Myth: BUSTED.

I like how you leave out the part that talks about not having to house rule in AD&D.

In reality it was a kind of rivalry between two different major developers where they constantly contradicted each other, one saying no house rules should be used and the other saying house rules should be used if it makes more sense than the actual rules.

What?

Those were both Gary Gygax. I'm trying to see your logic, but I really can't. How do two quotes by the same person prove a "rivalry between two different major developers"? Especially since they go unnamed in your story. Are you allergic to being disproved?

[Finieous]

I like how you leave out the part that talks about not having to house rule in AD&D.

The quoted passage suggests Gygax hoped AD&D would provide a more solid foundation for a game that wouldn't need house rules. It does not support your contention that "early D&D" didn't allow house rules. If anything, Gygax seems to have hoped that original D&D would continue to be the vehicle for rampant house ruling, experimentation, and customization. Again, from The Dragon:

The D&D game will always be with us, and that is a good thing. The D&D system allows the highly talented, individualistic, and imaginative hobbyist a vehicle for devising an adventure game form which is tailored to him or her and his or her group. One can take great liberties with the game and not be questioned.

In reality it was a kind of rivalry between two different major developers where they constantly contradicted each other, one saying no house rules should be used and the other saying house rules should be used if it makes more sense than the actual rules.

I really don't know where you get this. I'm not even sure what "two major developers" you're talking about. Gygax and Arneson? Gygax and Holmes? Moldvay and Cook? Mentzer? There was a lot of parallel development of D&D happening in the late 70s and early 80s, in the various simultaneously published versions of the game, in Dragon, in fanzines, etc. Some of this work actually grew out of house rules or was explicitly the development of house rules, but none of it, as far as I recall, demanded that no house rules be used.

[NewDM]

The accepted answer to this question: http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questio...and-mentzer-dd gives the big overview of the rivalry.

"Holmes presents the game as rules to be followed. Moldvay presents the game as guidelines to be considered." quote from the link above.

[smcmike]

The accepted answer to this question: http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questio...and-mentzer-dd gives the big overview of the rivalry.

"Holmes presents the game as rules to be followed. Moldvay presents the game as guidelines to be considered." quote from the link above.

This is a nice history, but it doesn't support your assertion that all editions prior to 3.x did not allow house rules. Still, interesting, since I know very little about the early development of the game.

[Blue Lantern]

I've got to say, as derails go, this is a most interesting one.

[mgshamster]

The accepted answer to this question: http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questio...and-mentzer-dd gives the big overview of the rivalry.

"Holmes presents the game as rules to be followed. Moldvay presents the game as guidelines to be considered." quote from the link above.

Your entire evidence for that whole history of early D&D didn't allow for house rules is a single line on a blog doing historical comparisons of the early editions that states (without evidence) that one of the multiple authors and publishers wanted the rules to be followed?

[Regitnui]

Your entire evidence for that whole history of early D&D didn't allow for house rules is a single line on a blog doing historical comparisons of the early editions that states (without evidence) that one of the multiple authors and publishers wanted the rules to be followed?

I've formed opinions on less. I'm usually opened to correction though, and that doesn't make house rules wrong in any edition, just a nice but of history from before the game rules were codified.

[NewDM]

It may not have been 'all' editions, however the 1E DMG has this to say:

"ADVANCED D&D is more than a framework around which individual DMs construct their respective milieux, it is above all a set of boundaries for all of the "worlds" devised by referees everywhere. These boundaries are broad and spacious, and there are numerous areas where they are so vague and amorphous as to make them nearly nonexistent, but they are there nonetheless."

Which indicates RAW is meant to be followed.

OD&D, 2E, 3.x, and 5e all say house rule whatever you want.

[mgshamster]

I've formed opinions on less. I'm usually opened to correction though, and that doesn't make house rules wrong in any edition, just a nice but of history from before the game rules were codified.

Oh, don't get me wrong; it is a nice bit of history. I'm willing to believe it's accurate, only because there doesn't seem to be any reason for it not to be and they do provide some citations.

However, the statement in question was not one of the statements that came with a citation; it was simply stated.

[Finieous]

The accepted answer to this question: http://rpg.stackexchange.com/questio...and-mentzer-dd gives the big overview of the rivalry.

"Holmes presents the game as rules to be followed. Moldvay presents the game as guidelines to be considered." quote from the link above.

Dr. Holmes was hired to edit OD&D into a form more accessible to new players. Moldvay and Cook were tasked with creating a new edition of D&D. Notably, neither was original D&D, so neither should be used to support a contention that "original D&D didn't allow house rules." I've never seen any evidence for a "rivalry" between Holmes and Moldvay.

Stepping back to original D&D, there were big differences in the way Gygax and Arneson ran OD&D. Here's what Gygax had to say about it in A&E in 1975:

Dave and I disagree on how to handle any number of things, and both of our campaigns differ from the "rules" found in DandD. If the time ever comes when all aspects of fantasy are covered and the vast majority of its players agree on how the game should be played, DandD will have become staid and boring indeed. Sorry, but I don't believe that there is anything desirable in having various campaigns playing similarly to one another. DandD is supposed to offer a challenge to the imagination and to do so in many ways. Perhaps the most important is in regard to what the probabilities of a given situation are. If players know what all of the monster parameters are, what can be expected in a given situation, exactly what will happen to them if they perform thus and so, most of the charm of the game is gone. Frankly, the reason I enjoy playing in Dave Arneson's campaign is that I do not know his treatments of monsters and suchlike, so I must keep thinking and reasoning in order to "survive". Now, for example, if I made a proclamation from on high which suited Mr. Johnstone, it would certainly be quite unacceptable to hundreds or even thousands of other players. My answer is, and has always been, if you don't like the way I do it, change the bloody rules to suit yourself and your players. DandD enthusiasts are far too individualistic and imaginative a bunch to be in agreement, and I certainly refuse to play god for them -- except as a referee in my own campaign where they jolly well better toe the mark.

It may not have been 'all' editions, however the 1E DMG has this to say:

"ADVANCED D&D is more than a framework around which individual DMs construct their respective milieux, it is above all a set of boundaries for all of the "worlds" devised by referees everywhere. These boundaries are broad and spacious, and there are numerous areas where they are so vague and amorphous as to make them nearly nonexistent, but they are there nonetheless."

Which indicates RAW is meant to be followed.

How you get from "broad and spacious boundaries," then mix in the quote I posted from the DMG, to get "RAW is meant to be followed" I have no idea.

[mgshamster]

It may not have been 'all' editions, however the 1E DMG has this to say:

"ADVANCED D&D is more than a framework around which individual DMs construct their respective milieux, it is above all a set of boundaries for all of the "worlds" devised by referees everywhere. These boundaries are broad and spacious, and there are numerous areas where they are so vague and amorphous as to make them nearly nonexistent, but they are there nonetheless."

Which indicates RAW is meant to be followed.

OD&D, 2E, 3.x, and 5e all say house rule whatever you want.

I don't think you can pick and choose a quote that says the book is a framework while ignoring the quotes which says to cut out rules as necessary.

From the introduction:

"Read how and why the system is as it is, follow the parameters, and then cut portions as needed to maintain excitement." It then goes on to explain how and why you can cut out portions of the game you don't like to improve the quality of the game.

[NewDM]

I don't think you can pick and choose a quote that says the book is a framework while ignoring the quotes which says to cut out rules as necessary.

From the introduction:

"Read how and why the system is as it is, follow the parameters, and then cut portions as needed to maintain excitement." It then goes on to explain how and why you can cut out portions of the game you don't like to improve the quality of the game.

The above paragraph would actually be a rule and if it gives details its not even a broad rule.

[mgshamster]

The above paragraph would actually be a rule and if it gives details its not even a broad rule.

Since it's the introduction, it's before the rules. A "pre-rule," if you will. One that occurs before the other rules. You might even call it Rule 0.

Later editions (3.x+) inserted rule 0 that said the DM can do whatever they want.

[Regitnui]

It may not have been 'all' editions, however the 1E DMG has this to say:

"ADVANCED D&D is more than a framework around which individual DMs construct their respective milieux, it is above all a set of boundaries for all of the "worlds" devised by referees everywhere. These boundaries are broad and spacious, and there are numerous areas where they are so vague and amorphous as to make them nearly nonexistent, but they are there nonetheless."

Which indicates RAW is meant to be followed.

OD&D, 2E, 3.x, and 5e all say house rule whatever you want.

Actually, I draw the opposite conclusion. That says to me that there's plenty of room within the game prescribed by the rules for my game, which doesn't pressure me to follow strict RAW. So rule 0 and house rules were allowed in the game from the beginning. Appropriate, when you consider that the game was originally just a bunch of house rules.

[JoeJ]

To the OP:

Does the game you play feature a Dragon sitting on a pile of treasure, in a Dungeon? Can someone play a Wizard with a magic wand, or a warrior in armor, wielding a longbow?

[Scots Dragon]

To the OP:

Does the game you play feature a Dragon sitting on a pile of treasure, in a Dungeon? Can someone play a Wizard with a magic wand, or a warrior in armor, wielding a longbow?

Hell, one of the features of D&D is that the wizard doesn't even technically need a magic wand. They have their own spells.

[KorvinStarmast]

@narsil
He was referring to a picture on a box that held the Holmes game. I still have it.

This is a nice history, but it doesn't support your assertion that all editions prior to 3.x did not allow house rules.

Nothing can, because house rules were the habit, not the exception, in the early going.

NewDM is Dead Wrong.

Back when D&D was new, they almost never used house rules. They were more like military exercises requiring precise execution to work properly.

Dead Wrong Twice.

Since I played Chainmail, OD&D, Holmes, and AD&D 1e A Lot -- Moldvay/Mentzer, 2e a bit -- I actually know how they worked and where folks used to fill in the blanks. {scrubbed}

1. In the 1st edition of AD&D, the DMG explicitly encourages DMs to house rule. E G Gygax brings this up time and again in his various expositions in that tome.

2. The foundation for house rules as the norm were laid In The Beginning.
See Wilderness and Underworld Adventures, TSR, 1974, Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson, Volume 3 of OD&D, page 36. Italics and bolds added by me to spell it out more clearly.

AFTERWARD:
There are unquestionably areas which have been glossed over. While we deeply regret the necessity, space requires that we put in the essentials only, and the
trimming will oftimes have to be added by the referee and his players.

We have attempted to furnish an ample framework, and building should be both easy and fun. In this light, we urge you to refrain from writing for rule interpretations or the like unless you are absolutely at a loss, for everything herein is fantastic, and the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it just that way!

On the other hand, we are not loath to answer your questions, but why have us do any more of your imagining for you? Write to us and tell about your additions, ideas, and what have you. We could always do with a bit of improvement in our refereeing

[2D8HP]

To the OP:

Does the game you play feature a Dragon sitting on a pile of treasure,to in a Dungeon? Can someone play a Wizard with a magic wand, or a warrior in armor, wielding a longbow?

JoeJ,
As a matter of fact yes, how did you guess?
What an evocative scene you just described.
I can almost picture it.
I wonder what inspired you?
WHATEVER THE RULES I WANT TO PLAY THAT GAME!

Spoiler

Show

From the 1977 Holmes "Basic" rules, I miss:
Being able to know all the rules. How enchanting the box illustration looked.

-SNIP-
All that said, if the game features a Dragon sitting on a pile of treasure, in a Dungeon and you play a Wizard with a magic wand, or a warrior in armor, wielding a longbow, just like the picture on the box I picked up in 1978, whatever the edition, I want to play that game!