D&D General DMs - What makes You...

[Scott Christian]

Hello Dms.

Seeing the lore discussion and about a dozen others on mechanics, races, rules, etc, I can't help but wonder one simple question - why?

More specifically, what makes you, as a DM, sit down and change a rule?
What makes you craft different lore for your world?
What makes you not allow/or insist on the presence of certain races, classes, backgrounds?
What makes you not allow certain combos?
What makes you use certain books and not use others?

I would like to state, that we all understand these are preferences. There is no right or wrong way. I am insanely curious about the why though.

As always, thanks to everyone in advance for participating in the discussion.

 

[robus]

For me it’s thematic/narrative cohesion and changing rules makes my brain happy.

For example, I think we use the combat rules in too many places. I allow PCs to knock out NPCs if they’ve got the jump on them and their “whack” beats the NPCs flat constitution. If it doesn’t then a combat breaks out and the combat rules apply. Using in-combat knock out rules out of combat makes my brain sad

 

[Steampunkette]

Three things:

1) Story
2) Preservation of Uniqueness
3) Choice Paralysis Reduction

So number 1 is of course story. There's a story I want to tell, and to be a part of exploring with my players. Whether the core is "Societal Decay is merely a construct of a person losing touch with modern progressive identity and clinging to what they believed in an earlier era" or "Capitalism by it's very nature consumes all that it can in a neverending struggle for more" or "Climate change is an existential threat not only for our way of life but specifically for our continued existence".

Sometimes that means structuring societies in a fantasy setting around logical archetypes to facilitate that story. Like making Elves into out of touch characters jaded by the passage of centuries, goblins into progressive extremists disillusioned by a system that will never take them into account, much less support them, and eager to burn it all down and start over, or orcs and humans into hawkish and militaristic societies whose magical waste from their war machines are swiftly causing mass ecological damage that leads hippy elves and druids into becoming eco-terrorists against both militaries.

Number 2 has to do with making sure both that the characters shine and the world is cohesive. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with a kitchen sink world, but when my narrative is built around societies fulfilling narrative roles to tell a greater overall story I don't want to have to write two dozen player races into separate allegories to support the same core conceit without muddying the waters. I like to write but I'm not -that- confident. It also allows the players to represent both members of flawed societies who may rise above their societal structure's issues, but also means the weird ones aren't outweighed by ever more weird options. If someone wants to play the Tiefling 'cause they're pretty rare and unusual in a given setting they won't feel "One Upped" by someone playing a Plasmoid Ooze-Character 'cause Spelljammer just came out.

Number 3: Reduce player choice paralysis. I've had so many people look at the daunting list of potential class/subclass/heritage/culture/background/destiny combinations and find it overwhelming. While narrowing the list of available options can cause frustration that can be ameliorated with some refluffing, it also largely reduces the issue of having too many options, or trying to create 3-4 characers and then choose between them.

 

[delericho]

More specifically, what makes you, as a DM, sit down and change a rule?

Some of it is a taste thing (I want firearms in my next campaign, but don't like the DMG take so I've got my own), some of it is simplification, some of it is just that I don't like the RAW... and sometimes I change things just because.

What makes you craft different lore for your world?

Simple one this: I enjoy it.

What makes you not allow/or insist on the presence of certain races, classes, backgrounds?

I don't think I've ever insisted on the presence of any given race, class, or background, or banned any given class or background (from the core rules, anyway - see below). I do quite frequently limit the available set of races. That's a taste thing - I like Eberron to feel different to Dark Sun, to Spelljammer, and so on, and part of that is achieved by limiting the available races.

I do, of course, pitch my campaign ideas to the players first, so if they are really want to play gnomes, I know not to use Dark Sun!

What makes you not allow certain combos?

On the rare occasions this is done it is either because of a particular balance issue or, more rarely, because we've seen it a lot recently and we're bored with it.

What makes you use certain books and not use others?

Sadly, I've come to the conclusion that an awful lot of RPG books promise to improve the game but actually make it worse - the closer you can get to core rules only, the better it works (and, indeed, if you can strip things out of the core rules, that may well be even better). So that's my default.

That said, I'm now in a position where I've seen quite a lot of subclasses crop up several times (particularly the Bard subclasses, the Champion, the Thief, and the Draconic Sorcerer). So I'm opening my next campaign up to allow the subclasses (only) from Xanathar's and Tasha's.

 

[WarDriveWorley]

1. More specifically, what makes you, as a DM, sit down and change a rule? - Primarily fun, but more so if my players and I think the rule makes no sense. For clarification though, If a rule seems to be overbearing unnecessarily or extraneous I'll speak with my players and work out alternatives.
2. What makes you craft different lore for your world? - For flavor and the joy of discovering something new in even a well known/established world. Part of the joy of being an adventurer is discovering something new. In exploring new horizons. Editting world lore makes that easier. I do this with all my campaigns, even ones set in places like the Realms or Ravenloft.
3. What makes you not allow/or insist on the presence of certain races, classes, backgrounds? - What/How my campaign is planned out. This is highly related to question # 2 above, but if I get an image of a campaign going and I feel X doesn't fit with the concept I will alter or disallow it. As an example my current campaign has no Artificers/Warforged, BUT the adventure I've written allows the characters to discover both and release that knowledge on the world (Warforged less so than Artificers). All my players are aware of this in advance and I also help them chose other options if that's what they were thinking of playing.
4. What makes you not allow certain combos? - If the combos don't make it fun for the players. Generally I alter a combo before I disallow, but I will disallow if I feel it's warranted. To date I've never fulled banned a combo, but have banned things that could lead to a combo due to those things not fitting the expected narrative.
5. What makes you use certain books and not use others? - Generally narrative. I don't tend to "ban" splatbooks, but I do set down guide rules on what can be taken as a common choice and what requires DM approval.

As an overall guide I'm really open/generous about what I allow as long as it makes sense on a narrative and entertainment level.

 

[Oofta]

Hello Dms.

Seeing the lore discussion and about a dozen others on mechanics, races, rules, etc, I can't help but wonder one simple question - why?

More specifically, what makes you, as a DM, sit down and change a rule?

I only make a handful of changes, they're either for balance, fun for players or to make my life easier DM.

For example:
Balance: Ability items add to, do not replace ability scores. I don't want that PC with an 8 strength to suddenly be the strongest member in the party by putting on gauntlets.
Fun for players: I don't care how many thrown weapons you draw in a round, versatile bows so strength based PCs have a decent ranged option.
DM: for purposes of pacing and verisimilitude, I use the alternate rest rules where a short rest is overnight and a long rest is a week or more. I almost never do dungeons, so spreading out that mystery/exploration/espionage/etc. over the course of a few days just makes more sense to me.

What makes you craft different lore for your world?

I've always run campaigns in my home world. I find it easier than running modules because I just need high level ideas and then run a very sand-box style campaign. It's easier for me to come up with a handful of individuals and organizations along with their agendas than to understand a module well enough to run things on the fly when the PCs go off the rails. The PCs always seem to go off the rails.

I also enjoy the creative aspects of creating a world and it's lore. That leads into the next question...

What makes you not allow/or insist on the presence of certain races, classes, backgrounds?

The world needs to make sense to me. While I may allow exceptions if people ask, I think there are already too many playable races with just the base rules. I want unique cultures, I want to know how those races fit into the bigger picture of the world. I don't want every other PC to be from some hidden valley somewhere that has an unsustainably small population.

What makes you not allow certain combos?

I generally don't limit combos except for cleric/warlock. I don't see people being dedicated to two different supernatural beings. On a related note I limit warlock patrons because I don't want to deal with evil PCs that sold their soul to the devil or having some looming threat that the PCs know will never, ever happen.

What makes you use certain books and not use others?

I allow most books other than the ones that are setting specific. So no Eberron dragon marks for example.

I would like to state, that we all understand these are preferences. There is no right or wrong way. I am insanely curious about the why though.

As always, thanks to everyone in advance for participating in the discussion.

 

[Agametorememberbooks]

More specifically, what makes you, as a DM, sit down and change a rule?
This is entirely situational, or our group has noticed a recurring problem with a certain power/ability/spell. Our group usually works to come up with a solution that everyone thinks is a solid choice.

What makes you craft different lore for your world?
This is world dependent. In a low magic world, wizards might not even exist. In another world where the gods have fled, true clerics might not be a thing.

What makes you not allow/or insist on the presence of certain races, classes, backgrounds?
World dependent. Based on topography, geography, or the existence of natural disasters, certain events might not have happened. A comet smashing the planet shunted the feywild far enough that true elves and gnomes never made it across the divide and into the world. So only eladrin or shader-Kai travelers might be encountered sporadically.

What makes you not allow certain combos?
Our group might agree that certain things just don’t make sense. But if we can find a way to reasonably suspend disbelief and it makes for an interesting story…why not?!

What makes you use certain books and not use others?
We tend to be pretty liberal with what we use. So long as there is communication, we’re pretty easy-going.

 

[Li Shenron]

More specifically, what makes you, as a DM, sit down and change a rule?

I run a RPG as-is as much as possible, without changing rules.

In the 3ed edition era, after years of playing and DMing, I did have a phase where with other co-DMs we started to create plenty of additional rules modules and variants, the reason was just to have fun and learn something about game design.

In 5e I don't really change anything, but use "rule 0" to adjudicate and regulate things if I see there is a tendence of abuse or otherwise neglect from some player.

What makes you craft different lore for your world?

Worldbuilding is fun, as long as you don't feel it's mandatory, and helps me run NPCs and events in general in a more consistent way, if at least in my mind I know what's going on even on a global scale.

What makes you not allow/or insist on the presence of certain races, classes, backgrounds?

The need to avoid a "kitchen sink" effect on the campaign setting, unless I actually want it.

What makes you not allow certain combos?

Theoretically, balance-breaking abuse, but in practice I never had bad players who would prompt me to do so.

What makes you use certain books and not use others?

Some books are good and some are bad.

 

[Shiroiken]

More specifically, what makes you, as a DM, sit down and change a rule?

To create a specific playstyle is the most common reason. Occasionally I'll change something because I think it's stupid.

What makes you craft different lore for your world?

Largely because I don't accept the changes forced upon my game over the decades. Kobolds are not draconic, and the Greyhawk Wars never happened. My Greyhawk is my unique version based on the 83 boxed set, as Gygax originally intended.

What makes you not allow/or insist on the presence of certain races, classes, backgrounds?

Because of what logically makes sense in the world, and sometimes the specific campaign I'm running requires or limits these options. The Drow have only recently been revealed to the surface world, having been a dark secret of the elven race, so until this point it didn't make sense for a Drow PC on the surface. The Artillerist and Battle Smith are lost abilities from the Suel Imperium, waiting to be rediscovered.

What makes you not allow certain combos?

Despite the fact that it would make sense to limit race/class combinations in Greyhawk, I don't really feel the need to do so anymore. Dwarven wizards exist, but they're really rare.

What makes you use certain books and not use others?

I don't use anything that's a campaign setting book for anything but that setting. I did use the SCAG for a while, since it was the only player options available outside of the PHB for a long time. Now that the combat cantrips and bladesinger have been reprinted, plus there's plenty of other options with XGE and TCE, I don't allow it anymore.

 

[Larnievc]

Hello Dms.

Seeing the lore discussion and about a dozen others on mechanics, races, rules, etc, I can't help but wonder one simple question - why?

More specifically, what makes you, as a DM, sit down and change a rule?
What makes you craft different lore for your world?
What makes you not allow/or insist on the presence of certain races, classes, backgrounds?
What makes you not allow certain combos?
What makes you use certain books and not use others?

I would like to state, that we all understand these are preferences. There is no right or wrong way. I am insanely curious about the why though.

As always, thanks to everyone in advance for participating in the discussion.

If I homebrew something it has to be the way it fits with my imagination. If their are no Dragonborn in that world I just deved up then no one gets to play them.