Foul Machinations [House Rules]
Some Core Assumptions
These first few aren't house rules per se, more of a philosophy ... and even though this is the House Rules thread, let me start with:
1. I am very much a Rules-as-Written DM
As much as is possible, I enjoy crafting a tale that works within the rules. I really dig getting into the spirit of a game. One of my pet peeves is joining a game, only to find that the DM has house-ruled everything to death (often this was to fix some sort of perceived game-balance problem, but then the new rule invariably causes ten others).
To me, the rules are a constant. They are a touchstone.
We all have the books — they are the common language, the lens through which we view the game — if it's in the books ... it's in the game.
With that said, I guarantee it ... I am going to get some of this wrong. If I make a ruling and I have missed something or contradicted a rule in the book, please bring it to my attention. I'll be more than willing to review it and — after I get up to speed on how it should be — alter my ruling.
Also, if I start tweaking the rules and house-ruling stuff ... I will always track it here in this thread so that we all have a common point of reference.
2. Questions are OK, arguments are not
With the previous assumption in mind, I am certain that we will uncover some of the gray areas between the rules. If something comes up where it rests on my judgement, and I make a ruling that doesn't quite sound to your liking, let's chat. I'll gladly explain my thinking ... but I probably won't change it. I only mention it here because I've seen games get absolutely derailed by minutiae, and sometimes I have seen players think that each portion of every single DM ruling is up for discussion. That is not a rabbit hole I want to go down.
I promise, I'm not being a jerk. But sometimes I will say no. Sometimes the stakes will feel high. That needs to be OK.
Besides, it's always darkest before the dawn. You guys are heroes, and you can win. I believe it ... you should too.
3. Character death is a possibility
I'll say it right up front: I am not trying to kill you. With that being said, however, combats will be deadly. Plan accordingly. A wizard wading into combat, or the we-pick-a-fight-in-every-tavern shtick might work once in a while, but if it's the only trick in your toolbox ... eventually it will end in tears.
You will, of course, have access to healing magics and such, but spells like Raise Dead are going to be above your pay grade for a while.
Additionally, this campaign is very sand-boxy in approach. Entire areas and villages and other encounters are statted out, just waiting for you to explore them. Side quests abound.
I'll say it right now: When you walk into an encounter ... it has not been scaled to your level.
[Note the triple emphasis: Bolded, Underlined, and Italicized ]
What does this mean? Well, in some games, when a DM throws something at you ... it is because you are supposed to plow through that encounter and arrive, victorious, on the other side. It might be a hell of a fight, but it was designed to be a fight that you could win. In Curse of Strahd ... all of that is out the window. For a lot of these encounters, if you can beat it, great. And if you can't beat it, and are late in recognizing it ... you're dead. The successful conclusion of an encounter — and the next development in the plot — do not always hinge on an unmitigated victory.
This land is deadly, the encounters are deadly, and sometimes the right answer will be to get away while you still can.