Applying house rules and group dynamics

[Harlequin]

Hi everyone!

I wanted to have your thoughts on 2 topics.
First one, I'd like to know how you handle house rules in your game.
Is it something that you will ask your players input and opinion before applying them or do you make them so because '' you are the DM and your words are the law''

Second question relate to your group of players. How well do you know them outside of RPGs? Do you tend to play with people you know or do you take people you've never met before and bring them to your campaign because you need players?

The reason I'm asking is because there has been a lot of frustration by the players within my group.
I am a player myself, and our DM has been constantly adapting most of the rules from 3ED, and since he doesn't ask what we think of these rules, this creates a lot of frustration within the players (myself included).

An example would be that if you take a reserved action to delay your initiative and strike a foe before he attacks you, the player's guide mentions that you need to add 2 to the difficulty, however, the DM decided the difficulty is 3. We asked him why he chose 3 instead of 2 and he simply replied : Because I decided so.

Regarding group dynamics, we started with 2 players and the DM invited 2 new players to the game. I would say the main issue is that we never met these persons before and never got the opportunity to get to know them before they joined the campaign, they were kinda rushed into the story because the DM was desperate for new players. Now, well, we don't really get along with these persons, it came to a point where there is a lot of bitching (for lack of better term) between the players and it's becoming a personal issues between some of them.

I just wanted to share this with you and see if you can shed some positive light on the matter.

Thank you very much for taking the time to read and sharing your thoughts!

[Flowswithdrek]

[etherial]

[Kasbak]

Social issues between player/player and player/GM are always sticky and very difficult to deal with. As a GM, for house rules I usually tend to just implement them, but I discuss why and how with my players first. For example, on one I had thought up beforehand, I would announce at the start of a session "I've been seeing a problem with X. It's not working out the way I want because A, B, and C. Therefore, I'm going to nake rule change Y. We'll try it, and if it doesn't work we'll adjust." Or for something done on the fly, it would go something like "The rules say it should work like X, but there are extra factors A and B, so I'm going to rule it works like Y." In short, it is acceptable for a GM to just implement a rule to make the game work the way they want to - that's part of their job. But they should be able to tell you a reason for it (unless it's a plot point that they want to keep secret, but then they can cryptically tell you there is a story point they can't reveal yet). For your example, he may feel that hesitating in combat exposes your character for a brief moment and gives others more time to react than the rules reflect. Whatever the reason, giving any sort of justification is much more fair than simply saying 'because I said so'.

As for the players situation, it is ultimately up to the GM who they want to play in their game. It has always gone unspoken in my groups that players ask the GM before inviting someone to play, but the GM as final approver can invite whomever they wish. However, if there is an issue between players, it is up to the GM to recognize the problem and address it, even if they only tell the players to take it somewhere and work it out themselves. If the issue cannot be resolved, as noted, it is the GM's call on who plays and who doesn't.

From your descriptions, it sounds like you may be dealing with a newbie GM. That's OK, everyone starts somewhere. Best advice I can offer is to just speak to them outside of the game, and calmly and maturely address your concerns. Remember that GM's are people too. They make mistakes, especially when new, and there are a lot of responsibilities with the position. Be mindful of that, and always make sure your concerns are addressed in terms of fairness and having fun. Even if you can't come to a successful resolution, you'll have made your best effort, and you'll have an answer (even if it's not the one you want).

[Flowswithdrek]

[Kasbak]

True enough. However, my point was that the GM's willingness to participate determines if the game runs. Players can leave and new locations to meet can be found, but if you have no GM, you have no game (of course, a GM with no players means no game either).

[kevsur]

on house rules i have a few i been using since earthdawn came out and one i starting using last time i ran which is when using Aggressive attack
not only getting -3 to defenses it also apply to avoid blow and parry. and defensive stance gives its bonus to avoid blow and parry.Which was talked over with players as it kinda made sense to do this.


And as far a group I only been playing with people i worked with or meet thru my local game store (which has been closed for like 6 yrs now) so we game
at one of my friends house so if someone wants to bring someone to the game he asks if its ok and if the group not full (right now if everyone there is 9 players) we don't mind as fresh victims mm i mean players from time to time

[Slimcreeper]

Can't play with people you don't enjoy spending time with on some level. Gaming involves spending a lot of time with people - its the nature of the beast. The best advice that's come out is talk to the GM outside of the game. Maybe have a meeting where you don't play ED, just hash some of this out and then play something else, something beer and pretzels, to get it out of your system and get to know each other. Maybe rotate GMs so your guy will have some time on the other side of the table.

[Harlequin]

Thanks everyone!

I really appreciate that you took the time to share some advices on the matter.

The DM has been a good friend of mine for a long time and we've been having some sit downs in the past to straighten things out but it seems after a few sessions he gets back in to his old habits...

After thinking further about this, I feel the best way I can explain the whole situation is that he's being kind of selfish with our Earthdawn campaign. He's mostly thinking about what he'll get out of the game without considering what the players wants or expect. At some point, we tried, as a group, asking him if he'd like to split Earthdawn with another RPG and another gamemaster, 1 week ED and 1 week another RPG, just to try something else, but he's extremely close minded regarding other RPGS, only wants to play Earthdawn, and only wants to be the DM.

For me, RPGs are about having fun, I take it seriously but not too seriously. I'm not the kind of player to be angry at another player because he made a bad decision. Unfortunately, I'm not really having fun anymore and he's the kind of person who's gonna take personnaly all the negative feedback.

Thanks again for sharing your experiences!

Regards,

[Rogan Rubyeye]

heya there

OK as to House Rules, well, I've been the GM of many systems and several groups of players. Seeing as I'm the guy who bought the system and had the desire to run it, I'm the one who got to allocate the rules. This is generally standard for our players - the ones who like a system so much that they end up buying it and becoming GMs for it. Few of the other plyers in such groups then buy that system as they're just happy to play. Fortunately we've got a bunch of good GMs who understand how rules and mechanics work and are willing to discuss problems with the players when they crop up. But overall, its the GM's decision as to how things run and work, as long as they're consistent and fair/balanced it works. It it doesn't the players are free to dump the game and do something else and then the GM is left alone with a system they've bought and no players to run it for.