Anyone else use this healing rule? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Anyone else use this healing rule? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
3Man20
04-15-05, 03:25 PM I use the standard, -10 hps makes you dead, whereas 0 to -9 is basically passed out, fading fast, coma whatever you want to call it. Whenever a character has fallen below 0 hit points, but are able to be healed back into the positive numbers, I also make the character make a successful system shock check. Even with a low Const. score, this is still usually a pretty easy check to pass...until our last session, of course. One of my newbie players fell into the negative, and with an 87 percent chance of surviving the system shock, rolled a 95. I felt bad as she is a new player, but she has a new character now and is fine. I guess I just wanted to see if this sounded like a good system to you guys...
Wolf72
04-15-05, 03:37 PM other than your version being more wordy it's pretty close as to what's found in the SRD

HIT POINTS

When your hit point total reaches 0, you’re disabled. When it reaches –1, you’re dying. When it gets to –10, you’re dead.

your version is even a bit more harsh, requiring a Sys shock roll
Cathon
04-15-05, 04:25 PM Evidentally you are a longtime player if you have system shock rolls. I've never heard of it being done for being healed from a dying state before, only for being raised, stone to fleshed, etc. You version seems harsher than 1st Edition. Essentially you are saying that being patched up when you are bleeding to death is so traumatic you can die from the healing. Would you do this if they were merely stabilized and healed naturally from bed rest or is it a function of magic healing?
Kaligrad
04-15-05, 04:51 PM If anything, it seems that it would be better to make that system shock when going into dying, rather than coming back out. After all, it would be more of a shock to have a knife run through your chest than to have someone come by and reconnect the arteries punctured using magic.
Mirikon
04-15-05, 06:44 PM Honestly? Don't like that house rule. Keep it to the normal bit where when you get into the negatives you're dying, and at -10 you're dead. Forget the system shock rolls. Why you considered it to be a good thing is beyond me, but hey, its your campaign.
Asciiman
04-15-05, 06:56 PM Yeah, I think this is kind of stupid too. The character dies? from being healed?

On what planet does that logic make sense? Does healing a wound require all the blood to shoot out of the body? What were you thinking of when this occured to you?

Not only that, but a character being below 0 is already dangerous enough. Do you really need to add another house rule to make the PC's die more often? As a general rule, anything random will HARM the PC's. Adding something that is random WITH a death consequence is downright mean. Level 8 and 9 spells do that enough don't they?
pkrerc
04-15-05, 08:47 PM Nope, though I do use this rule: each player is given 3 "luck tokens" where they can reroll any 1 die roll. It can be anything, an attack roll, a save, a damage roll, even an opponent's attack roll. Once this token is gone, it's gone, and even if the character dies and you create a new character, you do not get any new ones. (So it is wise to save it for life and death situations). This way new players do not die 10 seconds into the game and get discouraged.

Though I must ask... why does healing kill them?
Lord Ian Stark
04-15-05, 10:18 PM Only house rule I do for healing is I allow the cleric to reroll any "ones" for cure spells.
Astinex
04-16-05, 04:55 PM The only ruling I used in healing was for evil deities. I remember reading a fantasy book once where a cleric of an evil deity healed the main character. The healing was described as being painful, so much so the main character passed out.

I thought it made a lot of sense that healing granted by evil deities should hurt. Basically, they don't add an anesthetic to the magic. In an evil campaign I ran, (2nd Ed), all evil healing magic required a Con check to remain consious. They players actually got a kick out of it, and spent a lot more money on arcane healing, (potions).
Lord Ian Stark
04-16-05, 05:24 PM The only ruling I used in healing was for evil deities. I remember reading a fantasy book once where a cleric of an evil deity healed the main character. The healing was described as being painful, so much so the main character passed out.

I thought it made a lot of sense that healing granted by evil deities should hurt. Basically, they don't add an anesthetic to the magic. In an evil campaign I ran, (2nd Ed), all evil healing magic required a Con check to remain consious. They players actually got a kick out of it, and spent a lot more money on arcane healing, (potions).

This is like those things that hurt you, but feel good. Like being beaten by a hot dominatrix chick in black leather. It's painful, but it sure feels good. ;)
belgarath97
04-16-05, 05:32 PM Yeah, I think this is kind of stupid too. The character dies? from being healed?

On what planet does that logic make sense? Does healing a wound require all the blood to shoot out of the body? What were you thinking of when this occured to you?

I see you've never heard of death on an operating table. :rolleyes:

Not only that, but a character being below 0 is already dangerous enough. Do you really need to add another house rule to make the PC's die more often? As a general rule, anything random will HARM the PC's. Adding something that is random WITH a death consequence is downright mean. Level 8 and 9 spells do that enough don't they?

I would say that this rule adds alot of suspense to the game, kinda like having scarring rules, plus injury rules. As the main fighter in my group, I would relish the added activity. I usually find combat to be dull otherwise.
SammasterT
04-16-05, 05:39 PM I recently implemented a very similar rule to simulate that, sometimes, despite superficial mendings the body has just experienced too much trauma. Sure, it fought to stabilize and heal itself, but it just couldn't hold together.

This does tend to happen in reality, in cases where a body has experienced massive trauma. It can be touch and go for days on end, even though the body is in the process of being healed in some regards.

Another of my homebrew rules is, while your in the minus', your natural healing is slowed to a weekly timeframe, rather than a dialy, and only a heal spell can hope to raise one to 1 hp. Because we're not talking light or moderate wounds. We're talking MASSIVE TRAUMA, with internal bleeding, punctured organs, compound fractures, and the like.
prawn
04-16-05, 08:33 PM In my campaign if your PC goes down from -1 to -5 he is fatigued until he is healed to full HPs. If he goes down to -6 to -9 he is exhausted until he is healed to full. Being exhausted brings big penalties, and a minor healing spell does not get rid of them. It makes combats more interesting.
Shaken, not Stunned
04-16-05, 11:30 PM I am ok with this varient.

I think you should remember that 0 is disabled, not dying. You can still take either a move or standard action, though anyhting stressful will require a fort save (DC 15) or you pass out.
3Man20
04-21-05, 02:18 PM Sorry for not responding you all sooner...but I don't consider it a shock to the system from the healing. Basically, the way I look at it, if you've been so grievously injured as to be that near death, it's close to coma. Now, healing would be like being trying to survive a blood transfusion or an transplant operation...I do see the point some of you were making about making the system shock check when the injury occurs, which I agree is a huge shock to the system. Maybe I should amend the rule to that. It just seems to me that it's just too easy to be knocked to negative hp's and be easily healed back to positive. I've been playing and DMing for a long time, but this rule is something I was just trying out for this new group. This is the first time it's come out this way, and believe me, these players are always getting into negative hp...
Thoronmir
04-21-05, 03:37 PM What benefit do the PCs receive to balance this house-rule? If the answer is "None" then trash the rule.

I understand the desire to make combat and its effects more “realistic” and Lord knows that the most incredible “suspension of disbelief” in D&D is when a PC who was lingering near death’s door can receive a jolt of “Magic Healing Cure-All, Panacea & Snake Oil Remedy” and suddenly spring to his feet, renewed, refreshed, and ready to mete out vengeance. But the game is designed and balanced for exactly such a result. So, if you’re making such miraculous recoveries more dangerous, what benefit does the party receive in exchange? Where’s the quid pro quo?

Now, if you were one of those DMs who allow PCs to cling to life past -10 Hit Points, I could easily accept your house-rule as the balancing agent for such a boon. I know some DMs who add the PC’s CON bonus to the -10 (e.g., a PC with a CON of 12 doesn’t die until he reaches -11). I have no objection to imposing additional burdens on the PCs to offset any house-ruled advantages.

I invest a significant amount of time, energy, and imagination into my PCs. D&D is sufficiently lethal that I have no desire to incur further risk to my character just because it’s “unrealistic” to automatically emerge from resuscitation unscathed.
Al-Ashrad
04-21-05, 03:58 PM I have to concur with Thoronmir here. If a house rule only hoses the PCs, then you probably shouldn't use it. However, I do like Prawn's house rule regarding fatigue and exhaustion. I think I'll bring that up at the next session.

-Al-Ashrad
Aubri
04-21-05, 04:29 PM Agreed. This is going to be much more of a detriment to the PCs than a benefit, because they're the ones who get healed back from negatives on a regular basis. Any given monster/NPC might do it once.

If you want to implement this rule, I'd allow a slower healing that didn't require such a roll--for example, allow a cleric to extend the casting time of a cure spell so it immediately stabilizes them, then heals one point per minute as long as the caster is concentrating. That way you still have the danger of dying from healing if you get a big jolt all at once, but the slower non-combat method is more reliable. I'd also allow you to do something similar with Cure Minor, where you deliberately drop the point of healing to just stabilize them.
You could also use healing the way it's presented in Wheel of Time: curative magic converts lethal damage into nonlethal, so someone who's dying becomes merely unconcious. I personally like that variant, though I prefer to play under standard D&D rules.
weasel fierce
04-21-05, 04:32 PM If you're playing AD&D 2nd edition, then remember that "by the book" means you die at 0. Anything else, including -10 is house rules and additional options to increase player survival.

I use the recommended AD&D system, where if a single blow sends you below -3, you're dead. If it sends you between 0 and -3, you're KO and loosing 1 HP per turn, till -10.

As for house rules "hosing" the PC's, if the DM wants a game where combat is more deadly, and his players dont mind, why worry ? The rules are guidelines.
Coalminer
04-21-05, 04:49 PM How you do it is like this.

Think of HP not as health points, but How long you're healthy in terribly stressful and Problematic situations. :D

So when you have 10 hp, and get 'hit' by a sword for 5, it's not really hurting you but seriously reducing how long you can remain healthy.

Any blow that takes you from a positive HP to a negative, was enough to bypass your Healthyness and inflict real damage.

so -1 to -10 is your 'real' Health Points as it's how long you are alive at all.

:D

Anyways our little house rule for 'Dying' range is when you are Healed from it, or Stablize, or recover normally you have to roll a 1d10 and get a number Higher than your neg HP at that time.

So you're -3 HP and get cured for 5, you roll a d10 and need a 4 or better to suffer no ill effect.

Fail that roll and you suffer some sort of Malady (which can be cured by some magic or something down the line). Partial Blindness in one eye, Missing finger, bad limp, horrible scarring, Traumatic nightmares (takes 10 hours of rest to equal 8)

So the more times you have a Brush with death and how close you were to it the more likely some horrible thing will happen.

There's a whole big list you can whip up based on Damage type (slash pierce fire magic cold falling ect. ) And body parts and critical hits and whatever you like.

Definately causes some unique characters over time.

My dwarven Axe Fighter ended up losing a hand after coming very close to death -8 by sword on one session replaced with a flesh grafting from an recently a slain Ogre and a cure from the cleric. Horrible scarring on his face from a fireball that took him to -5. A lost Kidney from being sneak attacked by a Rogue's dagger bringing him to -6.

He'd brag about how he ripped the hand of an ogre and put it on his stump, now he can wield a bigger axe. Scare off orcs with his horrible face (+2 intimidation, sadly -4 diplomacy vs women) Sadly now he can't drink nearly as much either.

Over time it really makes your characters feel like hard boiled veterans with various lasting battle scars.
Thoronmir
04-21-05, 05:41 PM You could also use healing the way it's presented in Wheel of Time: curative magic converts lethal damage into nonlethal, so someone who's dying becomes merely unconcious. I personally like that variant, though I prefer to play under standard D&D rules.I adopted the WoT version of healing for my last homebrew campaign. However, the PCs received some advantages at the start of the campaign that compensated for the more onerous healing rules. Those advantages included a “free” level in an NPC class (which provided a few more HP) and my house rule for rolling Hit Points: everyone rolls a d4 with a modifier based on their Class’s HD (d10 Class rolls d4+6, d8 gets d4+4, etc.).As for house rules "hosing" the PC's, if the DM wants a game where combat is more deadly, and his players dont mind, why worry ? The rules are guidelines.Of course, if the DM and players agree, there should no problem. That's true regardless of the situation in question (combat rules, magic level, alignments allowed, etc.). But 3Man20 expressly solicited our opinions about his house rule. Seeking feedback in this forum impliedly asks one of two questions: "Would posters use such a rule as DMs?" and/or "Would posters accept the rule as players?" One could always answer "As long as your players agree, our opinions don't matter."
ILL34GL3
04-21-05, 05:49 PM Does your sys/shock houserule make the game more fun? If not, nix it.

Personally, I think one of the most detrimental aspects of the game is DM's who just have to make up some new rules and throw them in. It can really turn a player off when the new rules are unnecessary and unfun.

DM's should direct their creative bent toward the campaign setting, not the game mechanics.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
3Man20 04-15-05, 03:25 PM	I use the standard, -10 hps makes you dead, whereas 0 to -9 is basically passed out, fading fast, coma whatever you want to call it. Whenever a character has fallen below 0 hit points, but are able to be healed back into the positive numbers, I also make the character make a successful system shock check. Even with a low Const. score, this is still usually a pretty easy check to pass...until our last session, of course. One of my newbie players fell into the negative, and with an 87 percent chance of surviving the system shock, rolled a 95. I felt bad as she is a new player, but she has a new character now and is fine. I guess I just wanted to see if this sounded like a good system to you guys...
Wolf72 04-15-05, 03:37 PM	other than your version being more wordy it's pretty close as to what's found in the SRD HIT POINTS When your hit point total reaches 0, you’re disabled. When it reaches –1, you’re dying. When it gets to –10, you’re dead. your version is even a bit more harsh, requiring a Sys shock roll
Cathon 04-15-05, 04:25 PM	Evidentally you are a longtime player if you have system shock rolls. I've never heard of it being done for being healed from a dying state before, only for being raised, stone to fleshed, etc. You version seems harsher than 1st Edition. Essentially you are saying that being patched up when you are bleeding to death is so traumatic you can die from the healing. Would you do this if they were merely stabilized and healed naturally from bed rest or is it a function of magic healing?
Kaligrad 04-15-05, 04:51 PM	If anything, it seems that it would be better to make that system shock when going into dying, rather than coming back out. After all, it would be more of a shock to have a knife run through your chest than to have someone come by and reconnect the arteries punctured using magic.
Mirikon 04-15-05, 06:44 PM	Honestly? Don't like that house rule. Keep it to the normal bit where when you get into the negatives you're dying, and at -10 you're dead. Forget the system shock rolls. Why you considered it to be a good thing is beyond me, but hey, its your campaign.
Asciiman 04-15-05, 06:56 PM	Yeah, I think this is kind of stupid too. The character dies? from being healed? On what planet does that logic make sense? Does healing a wound require all the blood to shoot out of the body? What were you thinking of when this occured to you? Not only that, but a character being below 0 is already dangerous enough. Do you really need to add another house rule to make the PC's die more often? As a general rule, anything random will HARM the PC's. Adding something that is random WITH a death consequence is downright mean. Level 8 and 9 spells do that enough don't they?
pkrerc 04-15-05, 08:47 PM	Nope, though I do use this rule: each player is given 3 "luck tokens" where they can reroll any 1 die roll. It can be anything, an attack roll, a save, a damage roll, even an opponent's attack roll. Once this token is gone, it's gone, and even if the character dies and you create a new character, you do not get any new ones. (So it is wise to save it for life and death situations). This way new players do not die 10 seconds into the game and get discouraged. Though I must ask... why does healing kill them?
Lord Ian Stark 04-15-05, 10:18 PM	Only house rule I do for healing is I allow the cleric to reroll any "ones" for cure spells.
Astinex 04-16-05, 04:55 PM	The only ruling I used in healing was for evil deities. I remember reading a fantasy book once where a cleric of an evil deity healed the main character. The healing was described as being painful, so much so the main character passed out. I thought it made a lot of sense that healing granted by evil deities should hurt. Basically, they don't add an anesthetic to the magic. In an evil campaign I ran, (2nd Ed), all evil healing magic required a Con check to remain consious. They players actually got a kick out of it, and spent a lot more money on arcane healing, (potions).
Lord Ian Stark 04-16-05, 05:24 PM	The only ruling I used in healing was for evil deities. I remember reading a fantasy book once where a cleric of an evil deity healed the main character. The healing was described as being painful, so much so the main character passed out. I thought it made a lot of sense that healing granted by evil deities should hurt. Basically, they don't add an anesthetic to the magic. In an evil campaign I ran, (2nd Ed), all evil healing magic required a Con check to remain consious. They players actually got a kick out of it, and spent a lot more money on arcane healing, (potions). This is like those things that hurt you, but feel good. Like being beaten by a hot dominatrix chick in black leather. It's painful, but it sure feels good. ;)
belgarath97 04-16-05, 05:32 PM	Yeah, I think this is kind of stupid too. The character dies? from being healed? On what planet does that logic make sense? Does healing a wound require all the blood to shoot out of the body? What were you thinking of when this occured to you? I see you've never heard of death on an operating table. :rolleyes: Not only that, but a character being below 0 is already dangerous enough. Do you really need to add another house rule to make the PC's die more often? As a general rule, anything random will HARM the PC's. Adding something that is random WITH a death consequence is downright mean. Level 8 and 9 spells do that enough don't they? I would say that this rule adds alot of suspense to the game, kinda like having scarring rules, plus injury rules. As the main fighter in my group, I would relish the added activity. I usually find combat to be dull otherwise.
SammasterT 04-16-05, 05:39 PM	I recently implemented a very similar rule to simulate that, sometimes, despite superficial mendings the body has just experienced too much trauma. Sure, it fought to stabilize and heal itself, but it just couldn't hold together. This does tend to happen in reality, in cases where a body has experienced massive trauma. It can be touch and go for days on end, even though the body is in the process of being healed in some regards. Another of my homebrew rules is, while your in the minus', your natural healing is slowed to a weekly timeframe, rather than a dialy, and only a heal spell can hope to raise one to 1 hp. Because we're not talking light or moderate wounds. We're talking MASSIVE TRAUMA, with internal bleeding, punctured organs, compound fractures, and the like.
prawn 04-16-05, 08:33 PM	In my campaign if your PC goes down from -1 to -5 he is fatigued until he is healed to full HPs. If he goes down to -6 to -9 he is exhausted until he is healed to full. Being exhausted brings big penalties, and a minor healing spell does not get rid of them. It makes combats more interesting.
Shaken, not Stunned 04-16-05, 11:30 PM	I am ok with this varient. I think you should remember that 0 is disabled, not dying. You can still take either a move or standard action, though anyhting stressful will require a fort save (DC 15) or you pass out.
3Man20 04-21-05, 02:18 PM	Sorry for not responding you all sooner...but I don't consider it a shock to the system from the healing. Basically, the way I look at it, if you've been so grievously injured as to be that near death, it's close to coma. Now, healing would be like being trying to survive a blood transfusion or an transplant operation...I do see the point some of you were making about making the system shock check when the injury occurs, which I agree is a huge shock to the system. Maybe I should amend the rule to that. It just seems to me that it's just too easy to be knocked to negative hp's and be easily healed back to positive. I've been playing and DMing for a long time, but this rule is something I was just trying out for this new group. This is the first time it's come out this way, and believe me, these players are always getting into negative hp...
Thoronmir 04-21-05, 03:37 PM	What benefit do the PCs receive to balance this house-rule? If the answer is "None" then trash the rule. I understand the desire to make combat and its effects more “realistic” and Lord knows that the most incredible “suspension of disbelief” in D&D is when a PC who was lingering near death’s door can receive a jolt of “Magic Healing Cure-All, Panacea & Snake Oil Remedy” and suddenly spring to his feet, renewed, refreshed, and ready to mete out vengeance. But the game is designed and balanced for exactly such a result. So, if you’re making such miraculous recoveries more dangerous, what benefit does the party receive in exchange? Where’s the quid pro quo? Now, if you were one of those DMs who allow PCs to cling to life past -10 Hit Points, I could easily accept your house-rule as the balancing agent for such a boon. I know some DMs who add the PC’s CON bonus to the -10 (e.g., a PC with a CON of 12 doesn’t die until he reaches -11). I have no objection to imposing additional burdens on the PCs to offset any house-ruled advantages. I invest a significant amount of time, energy, and imagination into my PCs. D&D is sufficiently lethal that I have no desire to incur further risk to my character just because it’s “unrealistic” to automatically emerge from resuscitation unscathed.
Al-Ashrad 04-21-05, 03:58 PM	I have to concur with Thoronmir here. If a house rule only hoses the PCs, then you probably shouldn't use it. However, I do like Prawn's house rule regarding fatigue and exhaustion. I think I'll bring that up at the next session. -Al-Ashrad
Aubri 04-21-05, 04:29 PM	Agreed. This is going to be much more of a detriment to the PCs than a benefit, because they're the ones who get healed back from negatives on a regular basis. Any given monster/NPC might do it once. If you want to implement this rule, I'd allow a slower healing that didn't require such a roll--for example, allow a cleric to extend the casting time of a cure spell so it immediately stabilizes them, then heals one point per minute as long as the caster is concentrating. That way you still have the danger of dying from healing if you get a big jolt all at once, but the slower non-combat method is more reliable. I'd also allow you to do something similar with Cure Minor, where you deliberately drop the point of healing to just stabilize them. You could also use healing the way it's presented in Wheel of Time: curative magic converts lethal damage into nonlethal, so someone who's dying becomes merely unconcious. I personally like that variant, though I prefer to play under standard D&D rules.
weasel fierce 04-21-05, 04:32 PM	If you're playing AD&D 2nd edition, then remember that "by the book" means you die at 0. Anything else, including -10 is house rules and additional options to increase player survival. I use the recommended AD&D system, where if a single blow sends you below -3, you're dead. If it sends you between 0 and -3, you're KO and loosing 1 HP per turn, till -10. As for house rules "hosing" the PC's, if the DM wants a game where combat is more deadly, and his players dont mind, why worry ? The rules are guidelines.
Coalminer 04-21-05, 04:49 PM	How you do it is like this. Think of HP not as health points, but How long you're healthy in terribly stressful and Problematic situations. :D So when you have 10 hp, and get 'hit' by a sword for 5, it's not really hurting you but seriously reducing how long you can remain healthy. Any blow that takes you from a positive HP to a negative, was enough to bypass your Healthyness and inflict real damage. so -1 to -10 is your 'real' Health Points as it's how long you are alive at all. :D Anyways our little house rule for 'Dying' range is when you are Healed from it, or Stablize, or recover normally you have to roll a 1d10 and get a number Higher than your neg HP at that time. So you're -3 HP and get cured for 5, you roll a d10 and need a 4 or better to suffer no ill effect. Fail that roll and you suffer some sort of Malady (which can be cured by some magic or something down the line). Partial Blindness in one eye, Missing finger, bad limp, horrible scarring, Traumatic nightmares (takes 10 hours of rest to equal 8) So the more times you have a Brush with death and how close you were to it the more likely some horrible thing will happen. There's a whole big list you can whip up based on Damage type (slash pierce fire magic cold falling ect. ) And body parts and critical hits and whatever you like. Definately causes some unique characters over time. My dwarven Axe Fighter ended up losing a hand after coming very close to death -8 by sword on one session replaced with a flesh grafting from an recently a slain Ogre and a cure from the cleric. Horrible scarring on his face from a fireball that took him to -5. A lost Kidney from being sneak attacked by a Rogue's dagger bringing him to -6. He'd brag about how he ripped the hand of an ogre and put it on his stump, now he can wield a bigger axe. Scare off orcs with his horrible face (+2 intimidation, sadly -4 diplomacy vs women) Sadly now he can't drink nearly as much either. Over time it really makes your characters feel like hard boiled veterans with various lasting battle scars.
Thoronmir 04-21-05, 05:41 PM	You could also use healing the way it's presented in Wheel of Time: curative magic converts lethal damage into nonlethal, so someone who's dying becomes merely unconcious. I personally like that variant, though I prefer to play under standard D&D rules.I adopted the WoT version of healing for my last homebrew campaign. However, the PCs received some advantages at the start of the campaign that compensated for the more onerous healing rules. Those advantages included a “free” level in an NPC class (which provided a few more HP) and my house rule for rolling Hit Points: everyone rolls a d4 with a modifier based on their Class’s HD (d10 Class rolls d4+6, d8 gets d4+4, etc.).As for house rules "hosing" the PC's, if the DM wants a game where combat is more deadly, and his players dont mind, why worry ? The rules are guidelines.Of course, if the DM and players agree, there should no problem. That's true regardless of the situation in question (combat rules, magic level, alignments allowed, etc.). But 3Man20 expressly solicited our opinions about his house rule. Seeking feedback in this forum impliedly asks one of two questions: "Would posters use such a rule as DMs?" and/or "Would posters accept the rule as players?" One could always answer "As long as your players agree, our opinions don't matter."
ILL34GL3 04-21-05, 05:49 PM	Does your sys/shock houserule make the game more fun? If not, nix it. Personally, I think one of the most detrimental aspects of the game is DM's who just have to make up some new rules and throw them in. It can really turn a player off when the new rules are unnecessary and unfun. DM's should direct their creative bent toward the campaign setting, not the game mechanics.