would you sit down for a game with me?

[big teej]

greetings playgrounders,

long story short, I'm curious who amongst you would actually want to sit down and play at my table (if I was DMing). so below are all of my various houserules and basic philosophy on how I DM. you're free to ask any questions you like before giving your answer.

but basically what I want to know is "would you play with me?"


anyways.... here is the list of sources, houserules*, as well as anything else I found relevant.

*houserules that I have remembered to codify, there are a few missing ones. so sue me.



sources and source rules
my rules on sources are rather simple.
Anything not EXPLICITLY MENTIONED on the source list is out of bounds.
Online supplements, dragon magazine, eratta, etc. if I can’t lay my fingers on it in meat space, you can’t use it.
Furthermore, before you go through the BOED or the BOVD, I need to know why and approve it.
Anyways, source list

Spoiler

Show

Arms and Equipment Guide
Book of Exalted Deeds
Book of Vile Darkness
Cityscape
Complete Adventurer
Deities and Demigods
Dungeon Master’s Guide
Dungeon Master’s Guide II
Dungeonscape
Expanded Psionics Handbook
Psionics Handbook
Magic of Incarnum
Monster Manual
Monster Manual II
Monster Manual III
Player’s Handbook
Player’s Handbook II
Races of Stone
Races of the Wild
Unearthed Arcana
Oriental Adventure’s
Sword and Fist
Song and Silence
Enemies and Allies
Tome and Blood
Defenders of the Faith
Masters of the Wild

Houserules
For the record, this is a combination of houserules, and basic explanation for my players.
And this is by no means exhaustive, as I tend to only develop houserules on things that come up.

Spoiler

Show

Class Houserules
We do not use the Monk, the Soulborn, or the Soulknife as written, we use homebrewed ‘fixed’ versions that I have pre-approved.

Racial houserules
Skarn – must be Lawful
Rilkan – must be Chaotic

Alignment Houserules:
Druids must be True Neutral
Paladins must be Lawful Good, variants are banned.
*any alignment restriction built into the class must be adhered.

Deity
All clerics must worship a diety, “cleric of a cause” is banned

Gender house-rule
No gender bender characters (I.E. if you are male, so is your character)


Traits/flaws
Any given character is allowed up to 2 traits, and 2 flaws – flaws subject to my approval

Spellcasting houserule
A spellcaster gains his casting stat modifier in bonus spells per level

Feats taken
Any feats granting a +x to AC (example: dodge) give a flat +x bonus, not a bonus against a specific target.

Power shot: exactly as power attack, but can be used on thrown weapons and normal bows (not crossbows, nor slings)

Skills
All characters are allowed to add 2 knowledge skills of their choice to their class list at creation
All classes that already possess knowledge skills gain a + 2 bonus to them.
We will use the “fixed” diplomacy rules created by Rich Berlew

Weapons
All “exotic” weapons are treated as martial weapons provided two rules are followed
1) The character/player’s reasoning behind using the exotic version over a martial equivilant satisfys me.
2) It is nto abused (I.E. the spiked chain)
If a weapon is listed as “racial something or other” (I.E. orc double axe, dwarvven waraxe) that race is considered proficient in the weapon, regardless of class.

Armor./Shields
Exotic armor is NEVER worth a feat, as such, ignore any and all feats regarding exotic armor. The extra cost is built into the gold piece price.

In summary
If you are proficient in a given type of armor (light, medium, heavy, shields) you are considered proficient in “exotic” armors of that type.

Items and possessions
Provided you have extra dimensional space (handy haversack, bag of holding, a normal backpack, etc.) in somewhat proportion to your carried gear, I completely ignore encumberance rules.

Example: if it’s not 6 feet tall and/or made of solid rock, I really don’t care.

Languages
Everyone gets speak language as a skill, classes with it on their list gain 1 free language of their choice.

XP:
In addition to normal combat XP and “overcoming challenges” XP I award “world-building”: and “stitches” XP

World building XP is gained whenever something I create something for your charcter (a unique weapon, a location, some backstory element, etc.) and I like it enough that I plan on keeping it in my setting, 250 xp per creation

Stitches XP – whenever I am incapable of continuing due to laughter, you gain stitches XP – 50 xp


NO MULTI CLASSING PENALTIES EVER
EVER
Ignore favored class rules, ignore multi-classing penalties, etc.


Money:
10 copper to 1 silver
10 silver to 1 gold
100 gold to one platinum

Combat
If you have iterative attacks (such as from a high BAB, but not from TWF) you may divide these attacks as you wish amongst enemies you can reach

If you roll a natural 20, you automatically score a critical hit and roll accordingly

If you roll a natural 1, you must roll a confirmation roll, if you confirm the critical (by missing again) your turn ends, and you suffer at least one attack of opportunity from adjacent foes.

If you crit-fail on a ranged weapon, the weapon breaks in some manner, bowstring snaps, firing mechanism breaks, etc.

If you roll a natural 1, followed by a natural 20 on the confirmation roll, the attack is resolved as if you rolled a 10

If you roll a natural 1 on iterative attacks, they are simply treated as “auto-miss” not critical failures

out of game rules
this is a little speech each and every one of my players get prior to being admitted to the group.

Spoiler

Show

Rule 1: no rape jokes at the table, I *will* bodily eject you from the game if necessary.
Rule 2: no real world political/religious discussion, period. I don’t care if the whole damn table has the EXACT same viewpoint, I do not want to hear it.
Rule 3: if you make my life easier, I will reward you, make my life difficult, so help me I will make you pay.

And finally, we’re here to have fun. You jeapordize this priority at your own risk.

playstyle stuff

Spoiler

Show

I prefer low-op games.
I treat classes as in-game constructs (and if you’re playing under me, so will you)
The more dead set you are on something, the less likely I am to restrict it (I’m looking at you lady who wanted to play a succubus!)
I have set in stone policies on various character types and actions (such as PVP, or “singularity” characters)

I…. THINK that’s everything….
Whether it is or not, it’s everything I can think of right now, and I can always add stuff in later if need be.


So yea, that’s basically it, given the above information, do you have any questions for me?
if not, would you play with me? Why or why not?

[Pigkappa]

Are you proposing to play for real or are you just asking if we find something unacceptable on those houserules?

In the second case, I'd tell you that a few of them sound a little stupid (unreasonable alignment restrictions, for example) and contradictory ("low-op" and the crazy "Spellcasting houserule"), but not so awful to be a reason that would prevent me from playing with you.

[big teej]

Are you proposing to play for real or are you just asking if we find something unacceptable on those houserules?

In the second case, I'd tell you that a few of them sound a little stupid (unreasonable alignment restrictions, for example) and contradictory ("low-op" and the crazy "Spellcasting houserule"), but not so awful to be a reason that would prevent me from playing with you.

I'm asking a hyothetical question.

would you actually sit down and play at my table from week to week given the above information.


yes I realize the closest playgrounder is several hundred miles away. that's why it's a hypothetical

[Diefje]

Anyone with the "don't be a douche" rule is A-okay by me.

[Pigkappa]

The given information isn't enough to decide. Most people wouldn't probably refuse any game just for its houserules (well, unless the DM is trolling. Something like "you can only play wizards, but spells don't exist in this game").

[Bhaakon]

I'm not a big fan of the critical miss thing, and some of the stuff seems pretty ticky-tack (altering the money exchange rates?) but there's nothing there that would keep me from playing.

What "came up" to for you to ban cross-gender PCs? Just curious.

[King Atticus]

I don't see why not. Nothing there looks too earth-shattering to me. The way I see it, as long as you know the expectations and restrictions going in to something, it's not that hard to abide by them.

[Flickerdart]

No, I would not. Online content contains incredible gems like the Swiftblade and most of Mind's Eye, and ignoring errata for materials is patently absurd. The Paladin ban is pointless, the bonus spells are redundant. Critical failures are always a terrible idea, further nerfing TWF by forcing them to focus on one enemy is just plain weird. A lot of these houserules do not accomplish anything in terms of game balance, and when they do it's detrimental.

[Darth_Versity]

NO TOME OF BATTLE!? HAND IN YOU DM STRIPES INSTANTLY!!!

But seriously, I see no real problems apart from "Anything not EXPLICITLY MENTIONED on the source list is out of bounds". I'd personally allow players to approach with an item from another book/homebrew if they can show it in advance so as to be approved.

For example, if someone wanted to play a Changeling, its not really that big of a deal to say yes so long as they have the required source as it could easily fit into any campain world (unless dopplegangers dont exist)

But then, your table, your rules.

[Mooncrow]

Eh, most likely not. That's a fairly restrictive set of build rules, and that's something that tends to irritate me. I own 99% of 3.0/3.5/Dragon/PF in hardcopy - so it's a little frustrating when most of the collection is banned, especially when there's no solid reasoning behind it.

Most of your individual rules are fine, but there's just this sense of, hrm, I can't really explain it - maybe "daddy knows best"? Don't get me wrong, there are some good things on that list, and I use the same "out of game" rules at my table too, but I get the feeling that our playstyles wouldn't mesh well.

(also, crit fails can DIAF)

That said, if you lived around me, I would give it a shot anyway and see how it goes^^

[Weezer]

Probably not. There is no reason to ban official web materials, if you want I can print them off and hand them to you. There now they are in meatspace. Increasing alignment restrictions, adding critical failures and buffing spellcasters are all extremely problematic houserules. The big one however is banning gender bending, why ban an opportunity to roleplay differently? Banning it seems completely arbitrary and makes me think what other arbitrariness you'll bring to the table. Especially since it's about gender, which is a touchy subject for me.

[Claudius Maximus]

Not a fan of some of these. It seems like you made some of these in response to player stupidity, and that's just not my preferred way of handling those issues. I see no real reason to outright ban things like gender-bending characters. If someone is being terrible with them, it's that player's fault, not the idea of a differently-gendered character. I'm also bothered by the classes-as-in-game-construct thing, the spellcaster buffs, and the crit failures.

I actually get your source reasoning, other than the errata hate. I've never seen someone rule against errata before. Your out-of-game rules are fine.

Also, a character is normally able to split attacks however they please. Your attack splitting rule just nerfs TWF through reverse application, like Flickerdart said.

I'd still be willing to play a game with you despite these misgivings. Possibly precisely because of them even. Almost everyone I know shares certain playstyle preferences that you don't. Why not give different ones a shot for once?

[Thefurmonger]

No.

For several reasons.

One is your list of what you allow, it seems an odd mix of 3.0/3.5 that you just mashed together.

Also the Male must play a male thing. Thats just odd.

Really overall your rules come off as heavy handed and "my way or the highway".

I feel a DM and players should work together to mold a game we can all enjoy.
With your games (From the sound of it) its like enlisting.

So all in all, No, no I would not.

[Kenneth]

I can only take guesses at what you mean by 'in game consturct' in regards to classes.

but honestly i only ever have 3 requiremnts for a DM. 1)tell an amazing story
2)own up to mistakes ( its hard to do sometimes LOL i know) and 3) no shades of grey/evil stuff.. i play D&D to be the hero and do heroic things.. not be an evil bastard or a good guy that mayyy be evil or maaay be good.. the latter angers me even more.

[Yahzi]

I would have 3 objections.

1) More bonus spells for spellcasters? Don't they get enough? (I say this even though I always play a spellcaster.)

2) Critical failures are not a good idea. The game is random enough as it is.

3) You allow too many source books for my taste.

[MagnusExultatio]

You seem like a cool guy, but your games don't sound like my kind of things. Especially the out of game rule 1. Also various rules seem like they're there for the sake of being there.

[GnomeGninjas]

I don't like the spell casters get more spells and I think there would be someway to exploit one pound of platnum costs 500 gp but one pound of platnum in coins is worth 5000 but I'm not sure how. I still would play though.

[big teej]

What "came up" to for you to ban cross-gender PCs? Just curious.

big fan of "preventive" measures.

banning it outright in advance prevents a few problems I don't feel like dealing with.

problem 1 - not everbody is capable of handling an opposite sex character.

we've all heard the stories of the hyper-nympho-lesbian played by some poor excuse of the male race (typically in his teens)

banning transgenders in advance means I don't have to weed through the masses and make calls on who can or can't handle it.

problem 2 - lets say bob is capable of this, but steve is not. I now have to diplomatically explain to steve why bob can play a girl, but he cannot.

NO TOME OF BATTLE!? HAND IN YOU DM STRIPES INSTANTLY!!!

But seriously, I see no real problems apart from "Anything not EXPLICITLY MENTIONED on the source list is out of bounds". I'd personally allow players to approach with an item from another book/homebrew if they can show it in advance so as to be approved.

For example, if someone wanted to play a Changeling, its not really that big of a deal to say yes so long as they have the required source as it could easily fit into any campain world (unless dopplegangers dont exist)

But then, your table, your rules.

eh, my library is a work in progress.

and it's more of a rule of convience. out of all my players, I've got the most books, there are maybe 4 or 5 sourcebooks floating out there amongst my 15 players or so that I don't have. so it's not quite as restrctive as ti sounds.

also, changlings are in MM III and on the approved list.

You seem like a cool guy, but your games don't sound like my kind of things. Especially the out of game rule 1. Also various rules seem like they're there for the sake of being there.

honestly, if you're the type of person to make rape jokes often enough for that to be a big deal for you.


I'd rather not play or DM with you.

no offense, but that's sort of a hot button for me.

[nedz]

These rules seem fine, well OK the Gender rule is a bit immature (IMHO), but what ever works for you. There is nothing here I would find too annoying. What are your CharGen rules BTW ?

Ed: OK you seem to have ninja'd me slightly on the Gender rule; you have immature players

[Bhaakon]

ell OK the Gender rule is a bit immature (IMHO)

Depends on who you are playing with. That's why I'm interested in why he implemented it. It's heavy-handed, but it also cuts off a lot potential problems. Especially if you're dealing with a lot of new/immature players.

[Kenneth]

{Scrubbed}

[CockroachTeaParty]

Yeah, you seem a little heavy-handed. I approach games with an open mind, listen to what my players want, and try to adapt accordingly. The gender-bend rule, while rarely seen in my RL games, seems pretty pointless. It's like saying you can't play any other race than human unless you're not human; it's a role playing game, and I don't like having potential roles limited by my actual chromosomal distribution.

Most of your houserules seem... pointless? If you use any pre-made modules, you'd have to go through statblocks with a fine-tooth comb for NPC spellcasters, and they don't do anything to fix balance issues regardless. Critical failure rolls are an exercise in frustration, and few people I know enjoy consequences worse than a simple (frustrating/boring) auto-miss.

That said, I've seen a lot worse lists of house rules (in relatively recent memory, no less).

So it would in the end depend on your personality. I'd sit down for a trial game, but if I was getting a bad feeling, I'd probably save myself the trouble in the future.

[The Dark Fiddler]

sources and source rules

The rather hard "anything I don't say is good is bad, no exceptions" isn't something I agree with or enjoy playing under personally, but not exactly something I'd dock you for if I were considering playing under you. The lack of ToB is disappointing but not a deal breaker.

Houserules

I dislike your houserules regarding alignment in all. I feel alignment is too restrictive, and prefer to play under DMs that agree, but still not a deal breaker, I suppose.

Gender house-rule
No gender bender characters (I.E. if you are male, so is your character)

This, on the other hand, MIGHT be a deal-breaker by itself. I think I know why you want to do it (one too many guys playing a slutty female elf?) but it just really pisses me off. I don't mind being restricted in my roleplaying due to the setting or anything, but this is inexcusable as far as I'm concerned.

Spellcasting houserule
A spellcaster gains his casting stat modifier in bonus spells per level

As somebody already pointed out, this flies in the face of your low-op preference.

Power shot: exactly as power attack, but can be used on thrown weapons and normal bows (not crossbows, nor slings)

I'd ask about how two-handedness interacts with this.

Skills
All characters are allowed to add 2 knowledge skills of their choice to their class list at creation
All classes that already possess knowledge skills gain a + 2 bonus to them.
We will use the “fixed” diplomacy rules created by Rich Berlew

I'd point out that too many classes can't afford the skills they already have, so adding more to their lists isn't going to help anything.

Combat
If you have iterative attacks (such as from a high BAB, but not from TWF) you may divide these attacks as you wish amongst enemies you can reach

This isn't a houserule.

If you roll a natural 1, you must roll a confirmation roll, if you confirm the critical (by missing again) your turn ends, and you suffer at least one attack of opportunity from adjacent foes.

This would make me worry a bit; I don't like the idea of my turn instantly ending if I crit fail. I would thank you for requiring a confirmation though.

If you roll a natural 1 on iterative attacks, they are simply treated as “auto-miss” not critical failures

This, combined with the above, just confuses me.

If you crit-fail on a ranged weapon, the weapon breaks in some manner, bowstring snaps, firing mechanism breaks, etc.

Okay, this one worries me even more. Weapons breaking on a crit fail is something I am very strongly opposed to.

Rule 1: no rape jokes at the table, I *will* bodily eject you from the game if necessary.

The threat of physical force, even in this extreme case, would probably set off a few warnings in my head. I can't blame you for not wanting rape jokes, but this really would worry me.

I treat classes as in-game constructs (and if you’re playing under me, so will you)

This is just behind restricting my character's gender on the list of thing against you. I don't like treating classes as in-game constructs except in specific cases. Just the way I am.

If you want to read some interesting (I think, I stopped paying attention a short while after the thread exploded) reading regarding this, check out this thread I started on the subject.

I have set in stone policies on various character types and actions (such as PVP, or “singularity” characters)

I have no idea what you mean here.

if not, would you play with me? Why or why not?

No, for the reasons listed above.

[thompur]

Sure. As long as I know the rules going in, I'm good.
Just curious, if I gave you a copy of Complete Arcane for your Birthday, could I play a Warlock?

[Anarchy_Kanya]

{Scrubbed}

[Hyudra]

Major issues I take:

• The gender bending rule. I'm a girl, I sometimes play guys, depending on the people at the table & the concept I have in mind. Someone telling me I can't play what I want grates. Someone telling me I can't play something the way I want, when it's purely aesthetic? That's a slap in the face.
• The out of character rule 1. You could just ask people to stay away from sensitive subjects, but you single out rape specifically. Coupled with the above point, it gives me this creepy vibe as far as defensiveness about gender/sex stuff. Especially as a girl going to relative stranger's houses for D&D (which I've done a couple of times, usually with a friend present), I generally go with my gut, and this sets alarm bells ringing.
• "I *will* bodily eject you from the game"
• Out of character rule 3. "So help me I will make you pay."
• Post speech: "You jeopardize this priority at your own risk."
• Gameplay-wise not a fan of critical failures. Melee's hard enough to pull off as is.
• Also, extension of point above, spellcasters via. bonus spells per level? Ehhh. It gives me the impression that even if the OOC stuff were ok, I wouldn't like your particular approach to the game, game restrictions or balance.

I'd go so far as to say that some of the changes feel controlling - the alignment, adjusting tons of small details for negligible adjustments to the actual gameplay. Change for change's sake, just to make a mark. To be 100% frank, there's virtually nothing here that makes me think "Wow, this would be a good set of rules to play under." I don't see myself breaking the OOC rules, as a general rule, but the repeated threats? Not feel-good.

So yeah. Hrm, if I was invited to your house for a game, and you handed me a list, or detailed it all to my face? I'd be inclined to walk away, or take the first excuse to leave. Whether I stayed or not would depend on if I knew anyone else at the table, but prognosis would not be good.

[Mooncrow]

Major issues I take:

• The gender bending rule. I'm a girl, I sometimes play guys, depending on the people at the table & the concept I have in mind. Someone telling me I can't play what I want grates. Someone telling me I can't play something purely aesthetic the way I want? That's a slap in the face.
• The out of character rule 1. You could just ask people to stay away from sensitive subjects, but you single out rape specifically. Coupled with the above point, it gives me this creepy vibe as far as defensiveness about gender/sex stuff. Especially as a girl going to relative stranger's houses for D&D (which I've done a couple of times, usually with a friend present), I generally go with my gut, and this sets alarm bells ringing.
• "I *will* bodily eject you from the game"
• Out of character rule 3. "So help me I will make you pay."
• Post speech: "You jeopardize this priority at your own risk."
• Gameplay-wise not a fan of critical failures. Melee's hard enough to pull off as is.
• Also, extension of point above, spellcasters via. bonus spells per level? Ehhh. It gives me the impression that even if the OOC stuff were ok, I wouldn't like your particular approach to the game, game restrictions or balance.

I'd go so far as to say that some of the changes feel controlling - the alignment, adjusting tons of small details for negligible adjustments to the actual gameplay. Change for change's sake, just to make a mark. To be 100% frank, there's virtually nothing here that makes me think "Wow, this would be a good set of rules to play under."

So yeah. Hrm, if I was invited to your house for a game, and you handed me a list, or detailed it all to my face? I'd be inclined to walk away, or take the first excuse to leave. Whether I stayed or not would depend on if I knew anyone else at the table, but prognosis would not be good.

While I agree with what you're saying in general, I really don't get so much of a "creepy" vibe as much as "plays with a lot of teenagers".

[DarkestKnight]

Your rules for the player are understandable, though i am somewhat curious as to what experience you had as a DM for those rules to be verbally insisted upon. But it is your table, and i'll respect your call as it stands.

The main thing is that I'm one of those people that read philosophy books for fun. So saying i can't discuss political or religious views at the table is kinda a bummer for me. I would understand if it were intended to cut out unnecessary chatter, as those topics can go on and on, but without knowing that is rough.

In terms of game mechanics i agree with the other posts, that they seem to detrimental to the game to be truly fair.

As to the real question at hand, whether i would play a character in a game of yours?

I would. I like playing DnD and i like see what people put together for campaigns. I might not like some of the rulings you've laid down, and at some point or another you would likely expect me to attempt a serious discussion and possible renegotiation of some of the more odd rules, but I'd play. I'll play in anyones campaign as long as the people are cool, Kobolds are silly, and my free time doesn't go kaput.

[some guy]

I would give it a try. For a single session I could ignore most of my complaints. For a campaign it could cause troubles.

Minor annoyances:

Spoiler

Show

Alignment Houserules:
Druids must be True Neutral
Paladins must be Lawful Good, variants are banned.
*any alignment restriction built into the class must be adhered.
I usually don't like alignment in general. But I can live with it.

Deity
All clerics must worship a diety, “cleric of a cause” is banned
Would find this limiting, but it would rarely come up.

Things I would ask you to reconsider if I was a player (or make a complaint against):

Spoiler

Show

Gender house-ruleNo gender bender characters (I.E. if you are male, so is your character)
I don't see the point in this rule and would find it restricting for some players. (Pre-edit edit; it's more understandable with your explanation. But then again, I wouldn't want to play with such players.)

Spellcasting houserule
A spellcaster gains his casting stat modifier in bonus spells per level
Gives casters to much power, in my opinion. Might be a big no for me.

Traits/flaws
Any given character is allowed up to 2 traits, and 2 flaws – flaws subject to my approval
I find traits/flaws limiting role-playing.

Critical failure rules
Never did care much for those.

Major annoyances:

Spoiler

Show

I treat classes as in-game constructs (and if you’re playing under me, so will you)
I could live with the first part, the second part could be a breaking point for me.

World building XP is gained whenever something I create something for your charcter (a unique weapon, a location, some backstory element, etc.) and I like it enough that I plan on keeping it in my setting, 250 xp per creation

I don't understand this. To me, this reads as if you reward a player (with xp) because you just rewarded them (with a game-element). Bwuh?

[Hyudra]

While I agree with what you're saying in general, I really don't get so much of a "creepy" vibe as much as "plays with a lot of teenagers".

Fair point. The tone changes a lot depending on whether it's a table of 15 year olds or 25-30 year olds.

But even if it's teenagers... if they're people that need to be kept in line with rules like that, then it borders on uncomfortable again. Not the DM's fault, there.

If they aren't the sort that need to be kept in line, then, well, it's the DM that's giving me a controlling & uncomfortable vibe, again.