How to talk about the House Rules [Archive] - Wizards Community

How to talk about the House Rules [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Karui_Kage
01-17-06, 07:41 PM I recently joined up with a new DnD game, and the DM is pretty good. He weaves a good story, but seems to favor the roleplay side of the game more than the rollplay (which is fine, to an extent, as I prefer an equal balance of both). He comes from a lot of White Wolf games, from my understanding, so that is expectable.

However, he recently sent out an email listing off some house rules he'd like to implement, and I am unsure as how to respond without sounding like a ****. I'd really like to be more diplomatic about this, but am unsure of some good points to make concerning each. Which is why I come to you guys.

Notes before hand:
My character is Bronn, a fighter/dervish who is changing to a cleric/dracolyte. He gives the option to change your class gradually (2-3 sessions, or all at once I believe) once if you don't like your initial character. Essentially, decide within the first couple of days, which I did. The party has a sorcereress, and a monk/psion (who is a decent tank), so a priest was really needed. That will explain any class changes being referenced below.

Here is his email:

Morality system: good, neutral, evil, lawful, chaotic ... gone. You are
welcome to describe your character under these terms to help you
remember who he/she is. But they will no longer have any ingame effect,
nor will any spells or effects be allowed to target based on morality.
If your character has something that is morality based, let me know and
we can adjust it.

I do not get rid of this system arbitrarily. I do it for two reasons: 1)
because good and evil are judgments, they are not intrinsic aspects of
reality (for instance the undead in the game believe they are strive
towards a noble goal), 2) because it opens up some new opportunities for
character development of certain classes.

Changes because of dropping the morality system: Paladins and clerics
must act as they believe their code wishes. Divine magic is going to be
more fickle than we have been playing it. If your god is in a bad mood,
your spells may not work that day. If you do something extra special for
your god, then you might get twice the result from the spells. The mood
of the divine player's deity something they should have to think about
regularly as well as their power. If their god starts to diminish, they
diminish. Divine characters can search their feelings for the mood of
their god at a particular time. This is consider a move equivalent
action.

Arcane spells - I am going to be more diligent failure rolls and
reagents on these. Arcane magic will be more consistently reliable, but
will require that you are capable of casting the spell using the right
gesture, or reagent.

Psionics - using too much psionic power too fast will cause a headache.
Psionic characters can push out this headache away for 1 hour by using a
power point, everytime you do so will double how long it lasts, and
power points cannot be recovered while the headache lasts.

Why change the magic stuff?

Because each magic should have its own feel and to allow the GM some
extra give in helping or holding back the party's spell. Will this cause
a disbalance between magic and non-magic characters? Not really, in fact
I think I think it will help the non-magic characters be more useful in
non-combat situations because magic will not be so absolute. In my
opinion, DnD is a horrid system for social situations, so this will help
that some.

Changing classes

Any character is going to be able to change his base class around. Such
as Bronn going from warrior to warrior/priest. Bronn will also be
grandfathered in and allowed to change his class faster than will be
allowed from now on. The rule on changing class is going to be that you
cannot faster than one class per game session, you must have a story
reason for do it, and you must give up the class level you are switching
before you can get the new one. I don't want you to feel that you are
locked into a bad choice, but it will not be easy to change either and
you'll suffer for a while doing so. The big exception to this is that
you may tweak a new character after you played them for one game.

Paladins and clerics

Instead of every one of them getting anti-undead powers (boring) they
will get the power to fight against their god's enemies. This means that
you can be a paladin of a nature god.

Monks

Monks previously had a lawful only limitation. Monks will now have a
code that must be defined when you make your Monk and approved by the
GM. A code should be 5-7 rules to govern his actions and if he breaks
his code, the Monk cannot use any of his powers for one day. If he turns
away from his code for any period of time, he must perform a trial to
realign himself with its principles.

Barbarians

Barbarians previously had a non-lawful limitation. Game mechanics wise,
I think this is the hardest limitation to govern. So the general rule is
simply going to be that to maintain their rage, a Barbarian must remain
an emotionalist. To more calm and logical the character becomes, the
harder raging will be.

Prestige classes

In order to take a prestige class, you must tell the GM before leveling
up the level that you want to take it. You must explain what it does,
why your character wants it, and how you advancing towards it in game.
The GM reserves the right to make prestige classes off limits, and will
make you have to do something in game in order to take them. DO NOT
WORRY ABOUT THE PRE-REQs IN THE BOOK. They are just suggestions. Tell me
what you want, and we'll work on it.

New skill: consider

It is possible to judge if someone is able to kick your butt. You cannot
always judge correctly, but you can judge. This skill is based on
intelligence and is considered in-class for monks, rogues, paladins, and
warriors along with warrior-oriented prestige classes. The DC of the
check is 5 + the level of the thing you are considering. Success or
fail, the GM describes how this guy looks as an opponent to your
characters. There are also two feat that you can take: 'Mostly Harmless"
which gives you a +5 to bluff and +5 when being considered to make you
look less of a threat than you really are, and "Brick shithouse" which
gives you a +5 to intimidate and a +5 to being considered to make you
look like a greater threat than you are.

My biggest worry is the morality one, as I've always had issues with people who didn't understand why it was in place, but Im not sure where to start with explaining things to him.

He also did a previous email giving us each a little story of sorts to get us psyched for the upcoming game, which I like. Mine was a dream sequence about converting to a cleric, but it also included a dream sequence of the sorceress's which was in contrast to mine. I didn't really want to know hers, as that upsets the roleplay, but its a small mistake.

However, at the bottom of this email, he also outlines choices we can make for the upcoming event. Essentially, my character wants to be dragon cleric, and there are now two 'paths' I suppose. To explain them would be complicated, but he essentially detailed everything that would happen depending on which path was chosen, and now I feel like choice has been taken out of the equation. We can only do one or the other, where before I had hoped to find some way to mix them. Woo?

Anyhow, any assistance will be appreciated. Thanks guys, I look forward to reading your responses when I get home.
GeeBee
01-17-06, 09:00 PM I see one of two things happening in that email. Either you have a very interesting and creative DM who will be a hoot to play with, or your have a moody artist type who must have everything their own way. I honestly don't know.

The biggest problem I see is the dumping of the alignment system. There are serious game mechanics ramifications that will simply not go away. I would also give a polite pass to the other subjective bits as well - just a personal preference, but I really dislike amateur philosphers behind the screen. I find that in such cases the DM is trying to carrry a real-world debate into my fun time, and I would really rather he didn't.

If you don't like the rules, I would suggest telling him politely that you like his changes, but that you prefer the system as written. It is hard to argue with a simple preference, because it has nothing to do with the quality of his houserules or his skill as a DM. You also don't need to get into an endless argument about the rules; this is especially important if the DM fancies himself a bit of a game designer, as you completely bypass any ego issues.
Karui_Kage
01-17-06, 10:07 PM From his response, I think I find him somewhere in the middle of those. However, a bit of what he is saying in his most recent mail ( as a response to my concerns) concerns me even more.

He openly admits that he doesn't believe his game to be a democracy, but a benevolent dictatorship. He only has two other players in the game (one a wife and one a close friend), and me and a friend of mine were joining up (I have been in two games, and my friend will join in on the third). He, however, is suggesting to change the game DnD dramatically to make it less roll-play, as he believes that DnD is a system that can only be heavy roll-play or none, and he is leaning towards none (we already don't use a mat or figures for the few battles there are).

I am wondering if I should just tell my friend about this, and as he feels mostly how I do, if we should just say our thanks, and not bother with the game. The DM is a good guy, and very creative, but he seems to have the impression that DnD is too heavy on the rules (which it can be if one overlooks the subtler role-play options), and that the only way to play true to the system is 75% roll-play, 25% role (wheras I think its a more equal balance, at least how I play). Thus, he wants to make it more of a role-play, in which I see the changes he's making as a form of White Wolf DnD.

Any suggestions? Should I just say my thanks and take my leave, or should I send forth my reasons and hope he will debate (not argue) the issue with me, possibly understanding my viewpoint and lowering his new rules. Not to sound selfish, as I understand his standpoint, but it seems very DM based and not DM + player based.

I really don't know where Im going with this. Any input would be nice. Thanks to the above for already inputting, hearing from you again or others would be great. I suppose Im just lost on what to do.
BW0222
01-18-06, 01:37 AM Politely inform him that the campaign has already begun under 'standard' rules and that it is not fair nor consiterate to alter in the middle of a campaign.

In addition, rules need testing, time, and experience to incorporate. The current rules have been reasonably well tested by hundreds of thousands of people for nearly four years. Making large scale changes without first testing them isn't advisable. Everyone is going to put a lot of effort into the campaign and using folks a test subjects for radical changes isn't appropriate.

Home rules are normally put into effect for:

a) To let players know which core rules are being used. For example, if builder books are allowed, if optional rules, are used. Character creation rules, starting gold, etc.

b) To tailor setting specific rules. For example, there are no halflings in Arcanis, there are different specifies of elves in FR, etc. Melf, Leomund, etc. are Greyhawk specific.

c) To fix items which are honestly broken. Awaken, polymorph, etc. often have highly undesireable effects.

However, all rules should honestly be included prior to the campaign starting. All players should get to decide if they want to play in that type of campaign prior to the first game.
Roxlimn
01-18-06, 09:38 AM Your two primary concerns at this point should be:

1) Do I want to play in this campaign, as-is? If I am given no compromise, do I still want to play?
2) If I can change only 1 (or 2, or 3) house rule, which would it be? Would I still play if this house rule is upheld? What if lesser priority concerns are addressed?
3) How much compromise am I willing to accept in terms of the rules I want to change?
On_the_wings_of_TPK
01-18-06, 10:03 AM Something just doesn't sit with me in those house rules. I can not quiet put my fingure on it, but it just seems to rub me the wrong way.

As for the rules themselves, well I have made many mistakes with house rules in the past. And the one thing that I have learned is that, they for the most don't work. And it is always something different about them that doesn't work.

1) The alignment system: It seems as though it is meer back ground niose, except for all the mechanics behind it. Does your cleric chanelle positive or negative energy? Who does your paladin smite? Just what exactly is the code for a C/N monk? And I would want a clear divination on "acting emotional" for a barbarian if ever I were to play one.

I find that for the most part alignment can be ignored as back ground niose untill it comes up. In my current party I have players playing things that are C/G though to N/E and their no majour problems, i honestly don't care what is on their sheets in that regards, so long as they do not become disruptive. We'll sort out the protection form evil when it is cast

As for the rest...Well I'd be leery about any benelovant dictatorship, and even more so when told that the prerequisites for things are only "sujestions". But that is just me.

Based on what I saw here I would politely decline the invation to play.
babysamurai
01-18-06, 10:29 AM Yes - vague arbitrary house-rules, and no form of grid or markers for combat...kick back and watch the Big Lebowski instead.
Rhomphaia
01-18-06, 10:48 AM Vague and arbitrary alignment and PrC rules, the ability to nerf divine casters on a whim with no rhyme or reason, comming from a role-play system so unlike D&D that it is like comparing apples and oranges.

Also, coming from playing White Wolf games raises a red flag to me when taken along with these house rules. The DM will be very story oriented and any mechanical investment you make in your character will either be enforced or ignored at his whim for the sake of the book he will never write.

However, in all, the problem rests with one phrase.

In my opinion, DnD is a horrid system for social situations, so this will help that some.

Actually, it won't help that at all. What will help is to shelve the D&D books and go pick up Shadowrun or anything from Palladium Books...or go back to White Wolf. D&D is not meant to be a pure role-play improvisational theater game. The other systems stated above will have much more of the desired effect on gameplay than making a bunch of houserules that seem to merely fit the DM's whims.
SodaGuy
01-18-06, 11:02 AM I think the alignment system sucks anyway. My concern is the cleric-god thing.

PC: "Good thing I prepared Remove Curse."
DM: "Your god won't let you cast it."
PC: "Huh?"
DM: "You heard me, your god hates you now."
PC: ...
tompulsar
01-18-06, 01:59 PM Wow. Just wow.

Have considered volunteering to DM instead?

That guys e-mail just goes to highlight why I love D&D more than any other RPG system out there. I think it's healthy for a game when a GM sacrifices a little of his oh-so-sacred personal power over others in order to allow everyone to have fun.

I'm not a rules lawer by any stretch but there is one thing I do enjoy and that is consistancy. Being able to make a choice for myself come hell or high water is what makes gaming fun for me, not having my decisions vetoed on a whim and without cause (which it sounds like you are going to get a lot of).

I could never play in this guy's game, I would rather put my fun in the hands of a system not a simpleton.

Gah.
Sigurd van Norhusen
01-18-06, 02:21 PM I'd like to play under this DM, personally. The changes he propose make DnD more playable overall (although I'm not too keen on the consider skill, thinking that one should be done by observing/rping, I can understand the reasoning behind it) and especially puts mechanics back there where they belong: below the story, below the characters, below the game. In general, if you feel (based on your previous experience) that he can pull it off, by all means, go for it. If he's good, you won't regret it, trust me on this.

However, I would consider asking him for more explanation and elaboration about the "bad mood" of gods, how much of it is general bad mood and how much is player-based bad mood.

Disclaimer: I never played a White Wolf game. I have, however, played Shadowrun, Mechwarrior, and DSA for close to a decade. Feel free to diss me because I'm too dumb for the oh-so perfect DnD.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Karui_Kage 01-17-06, 07:41 PM	I recently joined up with a new DnD game, and the DM is pretty good. He weaves a good story, but seems to favor the roleplay side of the game more than the rollplay (which is fine, to an extent, as I prefer an equal balance of both). He comes from a lot of White Wolf games, from my understanding, so that is expectable. However, he recently sent out an email listing off some house rules he'd like to implement, and I am unsure as how to respond without sounding like a ****. I'd really like to be more diplomatic about this, but am unsure of some good points to make concerning each. Which is why I come to you guys. Notes before hand: My character is Bronn, a fighter/dervish who is changing to a cleric/dracolyte. He gives the option to change your class gradually (2-3 sessions, or all at once I believe) once if you don't like your initial character. Essentially, decide within the first couple of days, which I did. The party has a sorcereress, and a monk/psion (who is a decent tank), so a priest was really needed. That will explain any class changes being referenced below. Here is his email: Morality system: good, neutral, evil, lawful, chaotic ... gone. You are welcome to describe your character under these terms to help you remember who he/she is. But they will no longer have any ingame effect, nor will any spells or effects be allowed to target based on morality. If your character has something that is morality based, let me know and we can adjust it. I do not get rid of this system arbitrarily. I do it for two reasons: 1) because good and evil are judgments, they are not intrinsic aspects of reality (for instance the undead in the game believe they are strive towards a noble goal), 2) because it opens up some new opportunities for character development of certain classes. Changes because of dropping the morality system: Paladins and clerics must act as they believe their code wishes. Divine magic is going to be more fickle than we have been playing it. If your god is in a bad mood, your spells may not work that day. If you do something extra special for your god, then you might get twice the result from the spells. The mood of the divine player's deity something they should have to think about regularly as well as their power. If their god starts to diminish, they diminish. Divine characters can search their feelings for the mood of their god at a particular time. This is consider a move equivalent action. Arcane spells - I am going to be more diligent failure rolls and reagents on these. Arcane magic will be more consistently reliable, but will require that you are capable of casting the spell using the right gesture, or reagent. Psionics - using too much psionic power too fast will cause a headache. Psionic characters can push out this headache away for 1 hour by using a power point, everytime you do so will double how long it lasts, and power points cannot be recovered while the headache lasts. Why change the magic stuff? Because each magic should have its own feel and to allow the GM some extra give in helping or holding back the party's spell. Will this cause a disbalance between magic and non-magic characters? Not really, in fact I think I think it will help the non-magic characters be more useful in non-combat situations because magic will not be so absolute. In my opinion, DnD is a horrid system for social situations, so this will help that some. Changing classes Any character is going to be able to change his base class around. Such as Bronn going from warrior to warrior/priest. Bronn will also be grandfathered in and allowed to change his class faster than will be allowed from now on. The rule on changing class is going to be that you cannot faster than one class per game session, you must have a story reason for do it, and you must give up the class level you are switching before you can get the new one. I don't want you to feel that you are locked into a bad choice, but it will not be easy to change either and you'll suffer for a while doing so. The big exception to this is that you may tweak a new character after you played them for one game. Paladins and clerics Instead of every one of them getting anti-undead powers (boring) they will get the power to fight against their god's enemies. This means that you can be a paladin of a nature god. Monks Monks previously had a lawful only limitation. Monks will now have a code that must be defined when you make your Monk and approved by the GM. A code should be 5-7 rules to govern his actions and if he breaks his code, the Monk cannot use any of his powers for one day. If he turns away from his code for any period of time, he must perform a trial to realign himself with its principles. Barbarians Barbarians previously had a non-lawful limitation. Game mechanics wise, I think this is the hardest limitation to govern. So the general rule is simply going to be that to maintain their rage, a Barbarian must remain an emotionalist. To more calm and logical the character becomes, the harder raging will be. Prestige classes In order to take a prestige class, you must tell the GM before leveling up the level that you want to take it. You must explain what it does, why your character wants it, and how you advancing towards it in game. The GM reserves the right to make prestige classes off limits, and will make you have to do something in game in order to take them. DO NOT WORRY ABOUT THE PRE-REQs IN THE BOOK. They are just suggestions. Tell me what you want, and we'll work on it. New skill: consider It is possible to judge if someone is able to kick your butt. You cannot always judge correctly, but you can judge. This skill is based on intelligence and is considered in-class for monks, rogues, paladins, and warriors along with warrior-oriented prestige classes. The DC of the check is 5 + the level of the thing you are considering. Success or fail, the GM describes how this guy looks as an opponent to your characters. There are also two feat that you can take: 'Mostly Harmless" which gives you a +5 to bluff and +5 when being considered to make you look less of a threat than you really are, and "Brick shithouse" which gives you a +5 to intimidate and a +5 to being considered to make you look like a greater threat than you are. My biggest worry is the morality one, as I've always had issues with people who didn't understand why it was in place, but Im not sure where to start with explaining things to him. He also did a previous email giving us each a little story of sorts to get us psyched for the upcoming game, which I like. Mine was a dream sequence about converting to a cleric, but it also included a dream sequence of the sorceress's which was in contrast to mine. I didn't really want to know hers, as that upsets the roleplay, but its a small mistake. However, at the bottom of this email, he also outlines choices we can make for the upcoming event. Essentially, my character wants to be dragon cleric, and there are now two 'paths' I suppose. To explain them would be complicated, but he essentially detailed everything that would happen depending on which path was chosen, and now I feel like choice has been taken out of the equation. We can only do one or the other, where before I had hoped to find some way to mix them. Woo? Anyhow, any assistance will be appreciated. Thanks guys, I look forward to reading your responses when I get home.
GeeBee 01-17-06, 09:00 PM	I see one of two things happening in that email. Either you have a very interesting and creative DM who will be a hoot to play with, or your have a moody artist type who must have everything their own way. I honestly don't know. The biggest problem I see is the dumping of the alignment system. There are serious game mechanics ramifications that will simply not go away. I would also give a polite pass to the other subjective bits as well - just a personal preference, but I really dislike amateur philosphers behind the screen. I find that in such cases the DM is trying to carrry a real-world debate into my fun time, and I would really rather he didn't. If you don't like the rules, I would suggest telling him politely that you like his changes, but that you prefer the system as written. It is hard to argue with a simple preference, because it has nothing to do with the quality of his houserules or his skill as a DM. You also don't need to get into an endless argument about the rules; this is especially important if the DM fancies himself a bit of a game designer, as you completely bypass any ego issues.
Karui_Kage 01-17-06, 10:07 PM	From his response, I think I find him somewhere in the middle of those. However, a bit of what he is saying in his most recent mail ( as a response to my concerns) concerns me even more. He openly admits that he doesn't believe his game to be a democracy, but a benevolent dictatorship. He only has two other players in the game (one a wife and one a close friend), and me and a friend of mine were joining up (I have been in two games, and my friend will join in on the third). He, however, is suggesting to change the game DnD dramatically to make it less roll-play, as he believes that DnD is a system that can only be heavy roll-play or none, and he is leaning towards none (we already don't use a mat or figures for the few battles there are). I am wondering if I should just tell my friend about this, and as he feels mostly how I do, if we should just say our thanks, and not bother with the game. The DM is a good guy, and very creative, but he seems to have the impression that DnD is too heavy on the rules (which it can be if one overlooks the subtler role-play options), and that the only way to play true to the system is 75% roll-play, 25% role (wheras I think its a more equal balance, at least how I play). Thus, he wants to make it more of a role-play, in which I see the changes he's making as a form of White Wolf DnD. Any suggestions? Should I just say my thanks and take my leave, or should I send forth my reasons and hope he will debate (not argue) the issue with me, possibly understanding my viewpoint and lowering his new rules. Not to sound selfish, as I understand his standpoint, but it seems very DM based and not DM + player based. I really don't know where Im going with this. Any input would be nice. Thanks to the above for already inputting, hearing from you again or others would be great. I suppose Im just lost on what to do.
BW0222 01-18-06, 01:37 AM	Politely inform him that the campaign has already begun under 'standard' rules and that it is not fair nor consiterate to alter in the middle of a campaign. In addition, rules need testing, time, and experience to incorporate. The current rules have been reasonably well tested by hundreds of thousands of people for nearly four years. Making large scale changes without first testing them isn't advisable. Everyone is going to put a lot of effort into the campaign and using folks a test subjects for radical changes isn't appropriate. Home rules are normally put into effect for: a) To let players know which core rules are being used. For example, if builder books are allowed, if optional rules, are used. Character creation rules, starting gold, etc. b) To tailor setting specific rules. For example, there are no halflings in Arcanis, there are different specifies of elves in FR, etc. Melf, Leomund, etc. are Greyhawk specific. c) To fix items which are honestly broken. Awaken, polymorph, etc. often have highly undesireable effects. However, all rules should honestly be included prior to the campaign starting. All players should get to decide if they want to play in that type of campaign prior to the first game.
Roxlimn 01-18-06, 09:38 AM	Your two primary concerns at this point should be: 1) Do I want to play in this campaign, as-is? If I am given no compromise, do I still want to play? 2) If I can change only 1 (or 2, or 3) house rule, which would it be? Would I still play if this house rule is upheld? What if lesser priority concerns are addressed? 3) How much compromise am I willing to accept in terms of the rules I want to change?
On_the_wings_of_TPK 01-18-06, 10:03 AM	Something just doesn't sit with me in those house rules. I can not quiet put my fingure on it, but it just seems to rub me the wrong way. As for the rules themselves, well I have made many mistakes with house rules in the past. And the one thing that I have learned is that, they for the most don't work. And it is always something different about them that doesn't work. 1) The alignment system: It seems as though it is meer back ground niose, except for all the mechanics behind it. Does your cleric chanelle positive or negative energy? Who does your paladin smite? Just what exactly is the code for a C/N monk? And I would want a clear divination on "acting emotional" for a barbarian if ever I were to play one. I find that for the most part alignment can be ignored as back ground niose untill it comes up. In my current party I have players playing things that are C/G though to N/E and their no majour problems, i honestly don't care what is on their sheets in that regards, so long as they do not become disruptive. We'll sort out the protection form evil when it is cast As for the rest...Well I'd be leery about any benelovant dictatorship, and even more so when told that the prerequisites for things are only "sujestions". But that is just me. Based on what I saw here I would politely decline the invation to play.
babysamurai 01-18-06, 10:29 AM	Yes - vague arbitrary house-rules, and no form of grid or markers for combat...kick back and watch the Big Lebowski instead.
Rhomphaia 01-18-06, 10:48 AM	Vague and arbitrary alignment and PrC rules, the ability to nerf divine casters on a whim with no rhyme or reason, comming from a role-play system so unlike D&D that it is like comparing apples and oranges. Also, coming from playing White Wolf games raises a red flag to me when taken along with these house rules. The DM will be very story oriented and any mechanical investment you make in your character will either be enforced or ignored at his whim for the sake of the book he will never write. However, in all, the problem rests with one phrase. In my opinion, DnD is a horrid system for social situations, so this will help that some. Actually, it won't help that at all. What will help is to shelve the D&D books and go pick up Shadowrun or anything from Palladium Books...or go back to White Wolf. D&D is not meant to be a pure role-play improvisational theater game. The other systems stated above will have much more of the desired effect on gameplay than making a bunch of houserules that seem to merely fit the DM's whims.
SodaGuy 01-18-06, 11:02 AM	I think the alignment system sucks anyway. My concern is the cleric-god thing. PC: "Good thing I prepared Remove Curse." DM: "Your god won't let you cast it." PC: "Huh?" DM: "You heard me, your god hates you now." PC: ...
tompulsar 01-18-06, 01:59 PM	Wow. Just wow. Have considered volunteering to DM instead? That guys e-mail just goes to highlight why I love D&D more than any other RPG system out there. I think it's healthy for a game when a GM sacrifices a little of his oh-so-sacred personal power over others in order to allow everyone to have fun. I'm not a rules lawer by any stretch but there is one thing I do enjoy and that is consistancy. Being able to make a choice for myself come hell or high water is what makes gaming fun for me, not having my decisions vetoed on a whim and without cause (which it sounds like you are going to get a lot of). I could never play in this guy's game, I would rather put my fun in the hands of a system not a simpleton. Gah.
Sigurd van Norhusen 01-18-06, 02:21 PM	I'd like to play under this DM, personally. The changes he propose make DnD more playable overall (although I'm not too keen on the consider skill, thinking that one should be done by observing/rping, I can understand the reasoning behind it) and especially puts mechanics back there where they belong: below the story, below the characters, below the game. In general, if you feel (based on your previous experience) that he can pull it off, by all means, go for it. If he's good, you won't regret it, trust me on this. However, I would consider asking him for more explanation and elaboration about the "bad mood" of gods, how much of it is general bad mood and how much is player-based bad mood. Disclaimer: I never played a White Wolf game. I have, however, played Shadowrun, Mechwarrior, and DSA for close to a decade. Feel free to diss me because I'm too dumb for the oh-so perfect DnD.