D&D (2024) Where should optional rules go and why?

[tetrasodium]

Variant on rules that concern players should be in the PHB. Like those on resting.
i would see in the PHB a set of variant proposed to adapt the game to different style and ambiance. Gritty realism, low magic, hyper heroic…

The trouble with that is it can't present one of the easiest and most explosive rest methods with a name like "default" or "standard" and similar terms or it becomes the only acceptable rest method and every other style will require the GM to justify a nerf before getting to any reason why the other style should be used.

 

[James Gasik]

By that logic, however, you can't have any variant rules if you're worried that players will rebel at anything they see as a nerf. We have to assume there are groups that trust their DM's not to make their gaming experiences miserable. Plus what DM doesn't have house rules?

 

[Yaarel]

I feel all of the rules to play D&D need to be in the Players Handbook.

There are no "variant rules" in the Players Handbook.

All of the variant rules to modify the game are in the DMs Guide.

Strictly speaking, there are no "player options" in the DMs Guide, only modifications of what is in the Players Handbook.

Actual new player options come later in various setting guides and adventures.

 

[tetrasodium]

By that logic, however, you can't have any variant rules if you're worried that players will rebel at anything they see as a nerf. We have to assume there are groups that trust their DM's not to make their gaming experiences miserable. Plus what DM doesn't have house rules?

Sure you can... just don't label the more powerful ones as the one players should expect. You could even label all of them so none of them are called things like default/standard/normal/etc. There's a difference between agreeing there are groups that trust their GM & (dis)agreeing over how the names & terms used with more powerful options are capable of making it more difficult for the GM to use other options regardless of if the group is one that can say they "trust their GM". What is controversial about that?

 

[Kobold Stew]

I feel all of the rules to play D&D need to be in the Players Handbook.

There are no "variant rules" in the Players Handbook.

Would you include excluding of point buy/rolling/array from the PHB? There is one variant that needs to be available for all, in my view.

 

[Yaarel]

Would you include excluding of point buy/rolling/array from the PHB?

Yes. I would make the array standard in the Players Handbook, and move dice-rolls and point-buy to the DMs Guide as variants.

(I assume many tables will continue to use point-buy and dice-rolls in the manner to which they are accustomed. And the DMs Guide will legitimize these as "official variants".)

 

[Tony Vargas]

Just, in terms of, like, D&D staying D&D, I'd think Variants should go in the DMG (or if they're introduced for use in an adventure or setting, in there, in a DM book if the setting has both, or a DM section if it's one book for both players and DMs).

5e put Feats & MCing in the PH and people don't treat them like they're optional.

 

[CleverNickName]

My two coppers:

Player-facing options (character options only...things like class variants, species variants, spell point systems, psionics, etc.) should be in the Player's Handbook.

All other options (monster types, variant dragons, the Honor/Piety/Madness/Renown systems, battle mats and flanking, rest variants, healing variants, spell mishap variants, etc.) should be in the Dungeon Master's Guide.

 

[James Gasik]

Sure you can... just don't label the more powerful ones as the one players should expect. You could even label all of them so none of them are called things like default/standard/normal/etc. There's a difference between agreeing there are groups that trust their GM & (dis)agreeing over how the names & terms used with more powerful options are capable of making it more difficult for the GM to use other options regardless of if the group is one that can say they "trust their GM". What is controversial about that?

The flipside I think, is that if your group rejects optional rules presented, maybe there's a good reason why? I don't think players reject more difficult rules simply because less difficult rules are the "default".

Put it this way, let's say the PHB, instead of presenting a default for carry capacity, simply said "you can use 15 x Strength pounds, or you can use these Encumbrance rules". The players are still going to choose the option they like best, whether it's considered "standard" or not.

Your argument seems to be that the fact that one system is standard somehow gives players extra ammunition to defy the DM's wishes. They don't need extra ammunition, they can always simply choose not to play in a game they don't feel is fun for them.

 

[tetrasodium]

The flipside I think, is that if your group rejects optional rules presented, maybe there's a good reason why? I don't think players reject more difficult rules simply because less difficult rules are the "default".

Put it this way, let's say the PHB, instead of presenting a default for carry capacity, simply said "you can use 15 x Strength pounds, or you can use these Encumbrance rules". The players are still going to choose the option they like best, whether it's considered "standard" or not.

Your argument seems to be that the fact that one system is standard somehow gives players extra ammunition to defy the DM's wishes. They don't need extra ammunition, they can always simply choose not to play in a game they don't feel is fun for them.

No, that's only half of it. You ignored the part about only listing one of the more powerful/explosive options as default/standard/etc for players making it harder

The 5e encumbrance rules fall under the problem side of that by being so absurdly overly generous that they are self nullifying