PDA

View Full Version : Throw the book out the window



Galdor Miriel
2010-12-06, 11:09 AM
I see a lot of threads, for various games and editions of D&D where there is so much focus on the rules, the RAW, the RAI. Seriously, why do people worry so much about them in minutea?

This is not to say that rules do not have there place. I see the rules as a framework within which I as a dm apply my imagination. I change the rules all the time. I make up stuff all the time. I make judgement calls and try and keep the story developing. I will add a caveat to this, because D&D is a game for more than one player the level of this depends on the edition. With the original game I ruled totally. With 3E, 3.5E and 4E we have rules for the players and I follow the combat rules, rules on actions, rules on effects as written with the odd house rule, but npc's, monsters and traps, well they are fair game for the creative whip. The players like to know where they stand, but I think they also like it if they cannot figure out from metagaming what is going on.

What do you do as DMs? Do you follow the rules like a cleric of Pelor follows the sun dip below the horizon, or do you make fast and loose with them like a half-orc barbarian in an inn filled with commoners?

Psyren
2010-12-06, 11:13 AM
What do you do as DMs? Do you follow the rules like a cleric of Pelor follows the sun dip below the horizon, or do you make fast and loose with them like a half-orc barbarian in an inn filled with commoners?

Isn't there a middle ground in there somewhere? :smalltongue:

Galdor Miriel
2010-12-06, 11:20 AM
There is a lot of ground, not just a middle ground. I am curious as to what other people do, not defining what I think it is that they do. So do you follow the rules? To what extent?

valadil
2010-12-06, 11:22 AM
What do you do as DMs? Do you follow the rules like a cleric of Pelor follows the sun dip below the horizon, or do you make fast and loose with them like a half-orc barbarian in an inn filled with commoners?

I stick with the rules when possible. If I disagree with them or if they impede the story, I'm willing to break the rules, but that doesn't come up very often.

For me, GMing is a creative outlet. I'm at my best creatively when there are limitations. Think Iron Chef. You have to put together a dish that uses chili powder, seaweed, and two blocks of cheddar. Those chefs combine ingredients to make new, never before seen dishes based on the limitations they are given. I kinda see the D&D rules in the same light. They provide a limitation. In the process of getting around that limitation, I come up with something unique and interesting. That's why I'd rather keep the rules intact and write my way around them than simply bulldoze over the rules.

Galdor Miriel
2010-12-06, 11:24 AM
Cool Valadil, I like that approach. Do you have a favourite system where you find dming like that works best?

Duke of URL
2010-12-06, 11:27 AM
Board discussions generally need to start from RAW, in order to have a common ground from which discussions can take place. That said, a great many discussions revolve around fixes, houserules, and extensions to the rules.

And of course, Rule 0 always applies.

As a simple matter of protocol, therefore, RAW is the assumed baseline. If you wish to have a discussion that bears certain variant rules in mind, it's best to be explicit about them.

If, on the other hand, you're not interested in a rules-heavy system in the first place, there are a sizable number of rules-light systems to choose from that may be a better fit.

Britter
2010-12-06, 11:37 AM
When playing a rules heavy system (DnD, Shadowrun) I use only the most basic portions of the rules. I tell my players upfront that I don't follow the letter of the RAW, so that it doesn't come as a surprise. I prefer fast moving play focused on character choices and decisions as opposed to mechanical play. I realize that there are people out there who can do both, but I can't manage a complex rule set and a table full of people at the same time, so I boil it down to basics. My primary concern is a recognizable resolution mechanic, so that the players can gauge their success and be aware of how powerful foes are, just by rolling the dice. As an example, for Shadowrun, I use the "2 successes increases the level of damage" rule as a base-line. I use that approach for out of comabt activites as well, boosting degree of success instead of degree of damage.

I prefer 2e and earlier DnD for this very reason. Roll under the stat for anything that doesn't involve Thac0, roll to hit when using a weapon. That is really about all the rules I need.

When playing a heavy-but-modular rule-set, like Burning Wheel, I tend to stick to the core of the system, and only add peripherals that I am comfortable enough with to run swiftly. Again, I don't want the focus of the game to become on the mechanics of play as much as they are about player and character decisions.

The lighter a rule-set is, the more of it I use unmodified. RISUS, for instance, is already so simple there is no need to simplfy it further. Though I have never run a game in it, I think I could use all of 7th Sea's rules, as there just aren't that many really.

I am opposed to what I call "fiddly bits", the things that require either encylopedic knowledge of the system or 30 minutes of referencing the rule book for every 5 minutes of play. The 3.5 grappling system, the 2-3e Shadowrun Matrix and rigging rules, the niggling little combat modifiers in White Wolf games...that stuff doesn't interest me at all, so I simply ignore it.

I also make sure to keep my players involved in the discussion about how to resolve in-game situations. Because I play in a very light rules environment, it would be very easy to use fiat to screw the player, and I don't want to do that. I try to make sure that the logic behind my decisions makes sense to the players, I listen to dissenting points of view, and I try to come up with fair solutions that serve expedient gameplay.

I will note that this is my preference, but it is not an inherently superior way to play. I have a lot of respect for folks who have a full knowledge of a rule set and can employ it at will. I just have no personal interest in gaming in that fashion.

valadil
2010-12-06, 11:40 AM
Cool Valadil, I like that approach. Do you have a favourite system where you find dming like that works best?

I can't say that I've experimented with it too much. I DMed a lot of d20 this way and it's working out for 4e. It honestly never occurred to me to see how this approach would work in another system.

Galdor Miriel
2010-12-06, 11:43 AM
It sounds like you are focused on story telling collaboratively with the players Britter, nice. I would love to go back to 2e with my group for a few sessions but we have a lot of players who love musing over the books and rules to come up with cheese flavored munchkins, but as they all do its not a problem.

So we have someone who follows the rules and creates within them, one who uses simple rules as a base and wings the rest, and me who uses some parts of the rules strictly and makes stuff up around the outside. There are probably as many styles as there are dms on this board.

Britter
2010-12-06, 11:51 AM
Less storytelling (that implies to me that the players are stuck on my rails and can't get off), but definitely collaborative play focused on making important decisions, and letting the consequences of those decisions drive the game.

I used to play with a VERY rules focused methodology. When I ran Shadowrun in high school and college I could be an absolutely rules lawyer. As I get older, I don't have the time or inclination to run complicated, rules-driven sessions. Since my friends are all in similar positions, it works.

I am constantly on the lookout for rule-sets that have a minimum amount of moving parts but still have enough depth to be interesting to play with. So far, for my money, Mouseguard is about the perfect degree of engaging-rules-to-fiddly-bits ratio. Not a lot of moving parts, universal resolution mechanic, and enough rules to make tactics and creative use of the mechanics fun without bogging down play.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-12-06, 12:01 PM
I use the system rules as faithfully as possible. If I need to houserule most of the system to make it work, I don't use the system - there are alternatives.

The few times I houserule, I do so either to simplify a game I otherwise enjoy (i.e. SR3) or to try and "spice up" a campaign (e.g. D&D4 Rituals).

However, the main reason I bothered posting is to warn against the "houserule on the fly" approach to DMing. It's one thing to make a fast-and-dirty ruling to keep a game going; it's another to impose a permanent houserule "because it seemed like a good idea at the time." The latter houserules tend to throw up difficulties in later as they become integrated with the entire rule set.

A recent example was a D&D4 game I was playing in where the DM decreed that a Mad Wraith's Aura was not hindered by blocking terrain because it was "spectral." The Seeker then replied with the power "Spectral Bats" and argued that the zone it created could not be stopped by blocking terrain either - the bats were "spectral" after all :smallamused:

Galdor Miriel
2010-12-06, 12:10 PM
I agree about house rules on the fly Oracle_Hunter, the kind of seat of your pants dming I favor is not changing the rules we already use, it is rather making up new powers, traps, effects and using the same kind of rule based to figure out their effect. I give it some thought beforehand. House rules we discuss as a group and try them out.

Britter
2010-12-06, 12:19 PM
Even though I don't use the entirety of a systems rules, I try to avoid making calls like that one on the fly. Sometimes you need to look at the rulebook, no matter how light a system you play. And the player deserves consistency in how abilities work, both when used by the foe and by the pc. In a situation like that, I would have referenced the rules and tried to be consistent.

It is because of all the interactions between minor rules that require monitoring that I won't gm 4e. Too many fiddly bits. I play it, and I have fun as a player, but running it would drive me nuts.

Yora
2010-12-06, 12:22 PM
This is perception bias. Most people who come to this forum have questions about specific rules or want help with optimizing their character.

That's not what everyone is doing all the time, but the other things rarely cause anyone to start a fourm thread.

bloodtide
2010-12-06, 12:34 PM
For a game like D&D, I stick to the rules. If your not going to use the rules, you might as well not play D&D.

I make up tons of custom homebrew stuff, but I make it up within the rules framework. For example, I'll add new magic items, spells or alchemical liquids.


The problem with throwing the book out the window can be see watching any crazy game. When the DM has something that does not follow the rules, as they changed the rules, that just does not fit in with the rest of the rules system.

Half of the rule changes go for Uber power. Things like 'if I hold my spells charge it will do +1d6 damage more per level per second held'. So then you have a 1st level wizard doing 200 damage with a spell they held for a couple minutes. If the whole world was changed, it would be fine....but 200 damage for an otherwise 'normal rule 1st level game' is way too much.

The other half works too, when you take away penalties. 'Every one on my world regenerates ten hit points a minuet.'

Maybe worst of all is the pesudo stuff. 'Shail is such a good weaponsmith that she makes all her weapons automatically Vorpal, but they are totally non-magical' or 'My mage has special anti magical anti magic magic, so he can cast spells in anti magic areas, oh and he generates an anti magic feild of a mile around himself'.

Mike_G
2010-12-06, 12:38 PM
I use the rules like a cheap ho and discard them at my whim.

If the rules are the problem, fix 'em. I think the whole RAW thing comes up because it's hard to have a common discussion with everybody using different house rules.

true_shinken
2010-12-06, 12:41 PM
If the rules are the problem, fix 'em. I think the whole RAW thing comes up because it's hard to have a common discussion with everybody using different house rules.
Yes. This was even mentioned before in this very thread. Yet, every now and then someone has to pop up and say 'you're going it wrong, just houserule it!' :smallsigh:



This is perception bias. Most people who come to this forum have questions about specific rules or want help with optimizing their character.

That's not what everyone is doing all the time, but the other things rarely cause anyone to start a fourm thread.
I couldn't have said it better. You, sir, are a genius.

Sipex
2010-12-06, 12:43 PM
I agree, that to an extent, the rules are a guideline. That said, rules are very important to me when it comes to a game like this.

See...my first exposure (and sequential ones for the next few years beyond that) to RPing was freeform. You know, chat room RPing, where there were no rules. The guy you were fighting won because his attack was two and half paragraphs or because he could type the initial attack and resolution before you could respond.

This made me CRAVE for rules. Why should someone who has a faster typing speed or a bigger vocabulary win? We're roleplaying here, even if it was representative of their skills it's not roleplaying because every character they have is going to have that advantage.

Then I got into free form DM rping which usually resulted in "You eventually win by doing the right thing." or "You lose because you were supposed to." which also didn't jive well with me.

Yora
2010-12-06, 12:43 PM
Because quite often, the standard rules don't provide any adequat answer how to resolve certain things.

bloodtide
2010-12-06, 12:50 PM
If the rules are the problem, fix 'em. I think the whole RAW thing comes up because it's hard to have a common discussion with everybody using different house rules.


And it's down right amazing the number of people that:
A)Don't know the rules
B)Don't understand the rules

and worst of all

C)Learned to play using houserules, and they think that the houserules are the normal, official rules.


You will find 'C' all the time if you game with random groups. A guy will say 'Oh I blink three times and re-memorize all my spells' or 'I drink my flask of water and it heals roll 51 damage'.


And worse, on boards like this, someone won't mention their houserules...but then complain about some problem they made. They have a house rule where wizards can cast five times the normal number of spells...and then make a thread 'Wizard's are awesome powerful, how to nerf them?'

Baveboi
2010-12-06, 12:53 PM
I remember something I once bought when I was a kid.
(Bear with me a moment here while I elaborate)

I found this wicked thing in a game store, it was full of pictures of the coolest kind, full of things I never saw before and really nice other stuff. The guy on the store said I'd need some awesome dices to play it, which I bought immediately, and went home with a lot on my mind. When I got there, the first thing I did was open it in a rage-like haste and look at ALL the pictures. Really, I looked the entire book, even the cape, and watched every single detail. There were thousands of numbers, thousands of words, but hundreds of cool pictures.

For the first 3 years, I used that book as a guideline to do one of three things:

1 - Drawing dragons. The red one with the green giant and other races was a frikking marvel.

2 - Used it as drawing support. It was hardcover, something I had never seen before. I was thrilled by the possibilities.

3 - Reading material. I despised the numbers and whatnot names, but I loved the feeling about battles and adventure and castles and magic items and spells... It was the very first book I was liking to read.

(Almost done now)
Don't get me wrong, I really, really wanted to play it, but the rules were boring, you know. The real cool stuff, the stuff of dreams, were the stories.
Those amazing stories! I will never forget how Jordan scored a critical hit against a spider that was on Mialees neck, nor how Tordek made fun of her when he was obviously the only one who could open the door. After 5 years of dreaming I finally met a group. I thought I was cool, I thought I knew everything there really was to know about the game. We played, I took some bitchslaps, and I learned how to make my game. After that I began DMing some. People liked, they found my stories "passable" even thought combat and whatnot needed a bit of push up.

I started reading novels about the thing, complements, started to watch films (oh god, the disappointment...), watched series and played computer/video games of it. I was in love...

But then, one day, it came crashing...
People don't really read the stuff. They don't even open it if not to see rules and powers and items and spells. I felt so left aside; the only guy out there that loved Lida and Mialee and Tordek and Jordan and that small, almost inexistent, adventure of theirs.
Don't let the written stories die unnoticed. They are more full of MAGIC than a gestalt Wizard20/Warblade20 will ever be...
And if you really find yourself in love with the game, try showing it a bit more dept.
Read the material, not just skip it and go to the rules.
Buy it, really. A hardcover book is really very cool to have.
Find your thing. Don't glue in others like remora fish thing, try finding your niche and adapt there, build family, evolve...

(Just a tid bit more now)
That's how I use the rules. I read the stories. And only when I really feel I love them just the way they are that I will proceed to tell them in a Game. And that's what I do as a DM; I tell stories.
I respect this love I have for the work that was done there and I hope my players show some of it as well.

Playing an Afro Samurai Goliath with Laser Eyes ain't the way to show respect for a game that, as a example, goes in a medieval tolkienian old-style setting. Not saying All D&D does, tho.

Just my two cents, Thank you for your patience,
Bavette.
(Wasn't that long now, was it? "We ents take very long to say anything and we never say anything isn't worth taking very long to say." _Fangorn)

EDIT: Grammar and misscomunication. Sorry guys. My bad.:smallredface:

true_shinken
2010-12-06, 01:08 PM
I remember something I once bought when I was a kid.
I totally agreed with you here. Truthfully. I thought 'man, someone that thinks like I do'. Then I read this:


Playing an Afro Samurai Goliath with Laser Eyes ain't the way to show respect for a game that goes in a medieval tolkienian old-style setting.
D&D has not been 'tolkenian' for decades. The fact that Wizard is a base class should be a heads up. The whole magical system is very different from anything Tolkien ever did. Heck, you mentioned D&D 3rd edition as your starter - not even the illustrations look tolkenian on this one!
D&D is about medieval fantasy. It's about thinks that happen in more recent medieval fantasy novels - warriors moving faster than the eye can follow (Drizzt) and half-golem human fighters that go dragonslaying (Dorn, from Year of Rogue Dragons), for just two examples. And guess what? That's nowhere near tolkenian.
D&D has evolved from Tolkien. It took inspiration from his works, but now it stands on it's own right, with it's own mytholog, it's own feel.
And an afro samurai goliath? That would be pretty badass. And I could care less if Tolkien would have disaproved.

Baveboi
2010-12-06, 01:10 PM
D&D has not been 'tolkenian' for decades.

Calm down dude, I ain't saying ALL D&D is tolkenian, I'm saying some of the games are. FR is an example of very weird things, as is planescape. I like both. :smalltongue:

I was just pointing out one example, that's all.

Incan Road
2010-12-06, 01:16 PM
If there is a rule that no one is quite sure of I'll make a call on it at the time but later spend time looking up the specific rules, as to not slow down the game. But that is mostly in rules-heavy games. I modify some of rules, mostly in 3.5, ahead of time. I do not like ignoring rules or changing them on the fly, unless, as I said before, ends up being necessary.
I like GMing Paranoia mostly because of the loose-rule format.

Greenish
2010-12-06, 01:17 PM
And an afro samurai goliath? That would be pretty badass. And I could care less if Tolkien would have disaproved.You mean you "couldn't care less"? Anyhow, who's to say what ol' JJR would've approved. Airships, mechanical dragons, toy dogs flying to moon to meet the moon man, boogiemen who challenge you to a game of riddles, he was no stranger to the outlandish. :smallamused:


To get back to the topic, I have no beef with houserules or houseruling, but I absolutely detest games where I'm either not told the rules beforehand, or where said rules change in the middle of the game.

Morithias
2010-12-06, 01:21 PM
The RAW is the 'current when made' rules. As soon as the book is bought by the group evolution begins.

The Dnd group can alter any rules as they see fit. As the group finds rules they like better a different way, the upgrade and replace them, this becomes the RAI.

RAW is the same for each group.

RAI is unique to each group (although some might overlap).

The reason we use the books is because it's easier to make things work when you have a base.

It would be like me walking up to a person with no cooking experience and telling them to "bake a cake".

Face it, giving them some RAW instructions, is going to make the first times a LOT easier before they finally start finding what 'mistakes' actually work better for them.

(Wow, is there anything you can't make a cooking metaphor out of?)

Dsurion
2010-12-06, 01:22 PM
Meh. I play a story-telling game which has an extremely loose basis in 3.5 D&D because it's what I'm most familiar with and have spent money on. The SRD being so available is just icing on this delicious cake. I'm not saying I throw out the rules, but I don't particularly care how many Xd6 damage points someone takes falling out of a window when I could simply make something up based on how I see it. My players enjoy this more than any other way of playing, and rules are pretty much only invoked for the sake of discussion, such as on a board like this.

I kinda learned this style from my first DM. Creativity was rewarded with tangible story rewards like land and devotees. Stupidity was punished by being dragged off to the side by centaurs and coming back not wanting to talk about it. Otherwise, the game went on.

HunterOfJello
2010-12-06, 01:22 PM
The rules help keep the game together and many of the most enjoyable classes in 3.5e d&d are quite rules heavy. Those same rules can often cause lots of problems when a player has a different view than the DM. There are also times when WoTC writes things into their books that are well written enough to understand the intent of the idea but not the specifics.

A good example of a problem inherit in the system of d&d is Iron Heart Surge. If you don't already know the problems and arguments about Iron Heart Surge, then I'm not going to bring them up in this thread. I don't want to completely derail it. However, WoTC occasionally gives out very pretty and fun toys to play with that come with a 5000 page instruction manual that is required to fully understand them.

Greenish
2010-12-06, 01:26 PM
The RAW is the 'current when made' rules. As soon as the book is bought by the group evolution begins.

The Dnd group can alter any rules as they see fit. As the group finds rules they like better a different way, the upgrade and replace them, this becomes the RAI.That's not what most people mean by Rules as Intended. :smallamused:

valadil
2010-12-06, 01:27 PM
D&D has not been 'tolkenian' for decades. The fact that Wizard is a base class should be a heads up. The whole magical system is very different from anything Tolkien ever did.

Here's the thing. Wizards are cool. No matter how rare they are, there's going to be one in the party. Maybe he's the only active wizard in the world right now, but if you're in a Middle Earth game, that wizard is going to be an adventurer. And if there's always going to be one in the party, it might as well be a base class. You wouldn't run a Star Wars game without any Jedi PCs, and they're arguably as rare as wizards.

true_shinken
2010-12-06, 01:29 PM
Here's the thing. Wizards are cool. No matter how rare they are, there's going to be one in the party. Maybe he's the only active wizard in the world right now, but if you're in a Middle Earth game, that wizard is going to be an adventurer. And if there's always going to be one in the party, it might as well be a base class. You wouldn't run a Star Wars game without any Jedi PCs, and they're arguably as rare as wizards.

You'd be surprised. I played in three Star Wars games. None of them had any Jedi in the group.
In fact, if you are playing Star Wars with actual Star Wars fans in the rebellion era, chances are they won't want to create an extra 'last jedi'. The expanded universe is already brimming with those. :smallsigh:

Greenish
2010-12-06, 01:32 PM
You wouldn't run a Star Wars game without any Jedi PCs, and they're arguably as rare as wizards.:smallamused:

Jedi in Star Wars are as rare as wizards in Middle Earth? Like, there are only five of them, and no new ones are born?

Baveboi
2010-12-06, 01:34 PM
Here's the thing. Wizards are cool. No matter how rare they are, there's going to be one in the party. Maybe he's the only active wizard in the world right now, but if you're in a Middle Earth game, that wizard is going to be an adventurer. And if there's always going to be one in the party, it might as well be a base class. You wouldn't run a Star Wars game without any Jedi PCs, and they're arguably as rare as wizards.

Agreed. But you wouldn't, let's say, roll a Wizard in a Star Wars game, would you know?

There are certain things that are too much unrelated/inapropriated to even mention. :smalltongue:



You'd be surprised. I played in three Star Wars games. None of them had any Jedi in the group.
In fact, if you are playing Star Wars with actual Star Wars fans in the rebellion era, chances are they won't want to create an extra 'last jedi'. The expanded universe is already brimming with those. :smallsigh:

Too true. Seconded.
I can't count how many "proheminent master wizards" I saw on my time, when FR had Elminster and a bunch of goblins...

WarKitty
2010-12-06, 01:38 PM
To get back to the topic, I have no beef with houserules or houseruling, but I absolutely detest games where I'm either not told the rules beforehand, or where said rules change in the middle of the game.

My rule on this: Houserules changed in the middle of the game will not negatively affect a player's previous action. If a player comes with some ridiculous overpowered RAW-legal action, they are allowed to have it work once. After that it will be banned, but you can have your moment. I've found this rewards creativity on the part of the players without letting them break the entire game apart.

valadil
2010-12-06, 01:38 PM
:smallamused:

Jedi in Star Wars are as rare as wizards in Middle Earth? Like, there are only five of them, and no new ones are born?

Middle Earth spans one continent. Star Wars takes place over galaxies. Sure there are more Jedi, but you have to consider the total population of the universe they're in. If each planet in Star Wars has exactly one Jedi, you get way more than 5 Jedi, but you still have fewer per capita than Middle Earth wizards.


You'd be surprised. I played in three Star Wars games. None of them had any Jedi in the group.
In fact, if you are playing Star Wars with actual Star Wars fans in the rebellion era, chances are they won't want to create an extra 'last jedi'. The expanded universe is already brimming with those. :smallsigh:

I am surprised. Both times I played Star Wars, half the group played Jedi. We didn't take it very seriously though and so I think the group expectation was that it was the only SW game we'd play, and thus our only chance to play a Jedi.

bloodtide
2010-12-06, 01:40 PM
Here's the thing. Wizards are cool. No matter how rare they are, there's going to be one in the party. You wouldn't run a Star Wars game without any Jedi PCs, and they're arguably as rare as wizards.

This is an example of an 'unwritten over rule'. The kind of rule that has been law in modern D&D.

You do not have to have a wizard in a group. And you do not have to have a group made up of 'one of each type of class'(Except 4E, of course....)

You can sit down and play D&D with five characters that are all fighters, for example.

I fondly remember the fighter group catching the goblin bandits. The adventure assumes you tie the bandits up, but none of the fighters had any equipment other then armor and weapons. So they had to 'Dagger the goblins to the wall'....lol.

Greenish
2010-12-06, 01:47 PM
Middle Earth spans one continent. Star Wars takes place over galaxies. Sure there are more Jedi, but you have to consider the total population of the universe they're in. If each planet in Star Wars has exactly one Jedi, you get way more than 5 Jedi, but you still have fewer per capita than Middle Earth wizards.There's still the fact that Jedi are born to muggle parents.

Five wizards were all the Middle Earth will ever have.

Four, after the events in The scouring of the Shire.

Thufir
2010-12-06, 01:50 PM
That's not what most people mean by Rules as Intended. :smallamused:

No, but it's not too unreasonable to count that as Rules as Interpreted.


There's still the fact that Jedi are born to muggle parents.

Five wizards were all the Middle Earth will ever have.

Four, after the events in The scouring of the Shire.

Also, Jedi aren't, like, demigods.

DisgruntledDM
2010-12-06, 01:54 PM
If there is a rule that no one is quite sure of I'll make a call on it at the time but later spend time looking up the specific rules, as to not slow down the game. But that is mostly in rules-heavy games. I modify some of rules, mostly in 3.5, ahead of time. I do not like ignoring rules or changing them on the fly, unless, as I said before, ends up being necessary.
I like GMing Paranoia mostly because of the loose-rule format.

That's pretty much what I do.

Oh and if you like paranoia and other rules-loose games, look up a free RPG called "Everyone is John".

true_shinken
2010-12-06, 01:55 PM
No, but it's not too unreasonable to count that as Rules as Interpreted.
That's not what RAI usually stands for, though.


Also, Jedi aren't, like, demigods.
Unfortunatelly, that depends on the writer. :smallsigh:
Damn Starkiller! Going all Superman in my Star Wars!

DeckOneBell
2010-12-06, 01:57 PM
There's still the fact that Jedi are born to muggle parents.

Five wizards were all the Middle Earth will ever have.

Four, after the events in The scouring of the Shire.

Ah, but D&D 3.5 wizards are still stronger than those five that Middle Earth has.

Greenish
2010-12-06, 02:04 PM
That's not what RAI usually stands for, though.It isn't? Hmm, maybe we should conduct a study to see the meanings attributed to "RAI", as well as their relative frequency. I've always taken RAI to mean Rules As Intended unless otherwise specified.

huttj509
2010-12-06, 02:15 PM
It isn't? Hmm, maybe we should conduct a study to see the meanings attributed to "RAI", as well as their relative frequency. I've always taken RAI to mean Rules As Intended unless otherwise specified.

RAI is Rules as Intended. An example with Iron Heart Surge (avoiding cheese).

RAW you cannot use iron heart surge to break out of the effects of hold person, pr paralysis, as you cannot take an action to use Iron Heart Surge.

RAI those conditions seem to be exactly the sort of thing you should be able to IHS away, struggling through the magical effects by sheer force of badassery (the Conan "CROOOOOOOOOM!" rule of thumb). The point is the rules as they were intended to be written/interpreted by the author, not as they actually were written which can have typos, poor wordings, or nebulous definitions.

If you houserule it that you can use IHS to remove those effects, then your houserule is following your understanding of RAI, but your houserule is not itself RAI.

A more obvious example is the health by drowning rule. Since the drowning rule states that your health goes to 0 (not decreases to zero, or goes to zero if currently positive), then if your buddy falls over at -5, stick his head in a bucket of water. This may be RAW but it is obviously not RAI. Most things are less obvious as to what the RAI actually is.

So RAI is supposed to be the Rules as the writers Intended, not the Rules as the players Intend to use them.

Telonius
2010-12-06, 02:32 PM
What do you do as DMs? Do you follow the rules like a cleric of Pelor follows the sun dip below the horizon, or do you make fast and loose with them like a half-orc barbarian in an inn filled with commoners?

I try to keep things fairly close to as-written for most things. I do have about a 1-page long list of house rules that try to rein in some of the worst problems. My most important one: "Do not try to break the game. If you think something might be overpowered, ask first; I'm willing to work with you to get something to fit a character concept if it's not too outlandish." The second most important one: "Add Pun-Pun as in-game avatar of the DM, and overdeity of cheese, exploits, and metagaming. He will not allow anyone to remotely approach his power."

That said, Rule of Cool always applies. Your druid wants to have a Dire Frog animal companion? Sure, I'll work with that. Your Warforged Warblade deals enough damage in a single blow to kill somebody twice over? Yeah, he might actually put a hole through the floor with that kind of a hit.

Greenish
2010-12-06, 02:50 PM
So RAI is supposed to be the Rules as the writers Intended, not the Rules as the players Intend to use them.That's how I've always understood it, too.

true_shinken
2010-12-06, 02:50 PM
It isn't? Hmm, maybe we should conduct a study to see the meanings attributed to "RAI", as well as their relative frequency. I've always taken RAI to mean Rules As Intended unless otherwise specified.

Yeah, I meant it usually does not stand for rules as interpreted.

Greenish
2010-12-06, 02:52 PM
Yeah, I meant it usually does not stand for rules as interpreted.Oh, I thought you were replaying to me. My bad.

Galdor Miriel
2010-12-06, 03:23 PM
So my curiosity has been answered somewhat. Some people follow the rules of their game strictly. Which is one style. Others follow various methods of playing, tinkering, house ruling to get where they want to go. I for one will look up Mouseguard and check it out as a game, though as I am more used to slaughtering mice as opposed to playing them, I am not sure how that will go.

Yora
2010-12-06, 04:02 PM
Some weeks ago I decided to get rid of D&D altogether and switch to BESM. For me, and as it seems most of my players, combat mechanics really are only there to determine if a fight ends in one side retreating, getting captured, or killed. The interesting part is the leadup and the aftermath, and while cool stunts with a sword certainly are fun at times, they don't really do anything to advance the story.
D&D really is more of a combat game, that also touches a bit on other things, and not the best tool for such campaigns.

Britter
2010-12-06, 04:03 PM
Mouseguard is an interesting game. And it is not going to appeal to everyone, of course. However, I recomend people looking to improve their gaming experience at least read some of Luke Crane's (The guy behind Mouseguard and Burning Wheel) stuff. He has some pretty good ideas. Again, not everyone's cup of tea, but I think he has a lot of interesting things to say, and reading his stuff has dramatically changed how I run games.

kyoryu
2010-12-06, 05:34 PM
I tend to follow the rules reasonably closely, so long as I'm operating in roughly the area in which the rules were intended to be used, if that makes any sense.

So for damage rolls, they work well in combat. I don't necessarily feel bound by them to handle an executioner beheading someone.

As far as houseruling, I tend to be somewhat careful with it, and make sure I understand not just how the rule could be "better", but what the effect on the game I want to have.

Greenish
2010-12-06, 05:40 PM
So for damage rolls, they work well in combat. I don't necessarily feel bound by them to handle an executioner beheading someone.You'd deny the poor sob his 5% change to live a few seconds longer? :smallamused:

Though it'd be a coup de grâce, more likely, though I remember a book that had an executioner with the nickname two-stroke, because he never killed the victim with the first strike. As if an execution didn't suck enough to begin with…

AslanCross
2010-12-06, 05:54 PM
I pay great attention to the fluff. I do a lot of it on my own. I like imagining what a ruined city held by mind flayers will look like. If I have time, I even draw it. I imagine what kind of minions they'd have and what would make sense.

The primary reason my posts here are mainly about rules is because they often require questions to understand. That does not mean I don't really care about the spirit of the game. I love the spirit of the game. I love the need for imagination and creativity on both the players' and DM's part.

That said, I know I'm pretty bad at making rules up on my own. I've become better at it thanks to three years of DMing, but that's what I need the most help in. This is why I don't "throw the book out the window." I do ignore or replace the rules when they're incoherent and don't make sense. That's what the DM is supposed to do. For the most part, however, I don't really need to do that.

I can't stand numbers and figures myself, having performed miserably at Math all of my undergrad years, but going through D&D's rules, practicing mental computation, and being able to quickly interpret charts and tables have helped me go a long way. Long enough to ace my graduate statistics class. :smalltongue:

kyoryu
2010-12-06, 06:17 PM
Actually, one area where I will heavily houserule is in things I *won't* allow. The rules may give options for various races/classes/etc., but, especially in a multi-setting rule system like GURPS or D&D, that doesn't mean that all of those races/classes/items/powers are available in the particular setting we're playing in.

Morithias
2010-12-06, 07:32 PM
That's how I've always understood it, too.

So basically "RAI" equals "ways people see it as the way the rules were intended by the writers but for most of the old rules have no way of backing it up"?

Seriously my whole paragraph basically was "Each group starts with the same rules, but ends with a slightly different set that that group is happy with."

So I guess seeing how everyone things Rai is as the writers intended. All the arguments about rules can basically be summed up as "The writers weren't clear enough and/or screwed up."

Personally I like my "change the rules so it makes it more fun for your group to play" look at it, but whatever.

Greenish
2010-12-06, 08:23 PM
So basically "RAI" equals "ways people see it as the way the rules were intended by the writers but for most of the old rules have no way of backing it up"?Well, sometimes there's backing, sometimes it's more or less obvious (monks were supposed to be proficient with unarmed strikes).

So I guess seeing how everyone things Rai is as the writers intended. All the arguments about rules can basically be summed up as "The writers weren't clear enough and/or screwed up."Oh, RAI is a fickle beast, and often unclear. Still, there's nothing wrong with agreeing that a rule is unclear or screwed up.

Personally I like my "change the rules so it makes it more fun for your group to play" look at it, but whatever.And I declare "LOL" stands for "Laterally Offensive Litigation"!

Seriously, inventing new meanings for accepted acronyms is just confusing. This is not about how you play, this is about how you use the language.

Sang Real
2010-12-06, 08:31 PM
I make my own rules. :smallcool:

DungeonDelver
2010-12-06, 08:46 PM
I try to know the rules well enough so that I can make quick and dirty judgments on what happens so that I don't have to fight with players if a rules argument comes up.

I do, however, frequently ignore NPC hp and use it as a 'rough guideline' for when an enemy should drop in an encounter, when dramatically appropriate. I fudge crits all the time (almost always), and I'll often houserule out prestige class requirements that I dislike (improved sunder for Blackguard, really?)

tl;dir

I play D&D for fun. The rules make a great guideline, and I tend to look to them as important. However, I ignore rules and fudge dice rolls whenever the rules impede on said fun.

Remmirath
2010-12-06, 08:50 PM
It depends on who I'm playing with. My normal game, we all take turns DMing and we all jointly decide on the house rules. We often end up tossing things out the window or re-writing them completely, and the story and roleplaying is much more important to us than the rest of it (although we're all also quite fond of combat). If we decide a particular rule is more trouble than it's worth or doesn't accomplish what we think it should, we'll change it. Sometimes our game seems more in line with normal D&D than others, certainly, and we don't just chuck everything out the window (I mean, why bother using a system if you're not going to use it?).

If I'm DMing for a different group for the first time, however, I'll stick much closer to the rules as written. There are a few things I might mention beforehand as house rules, and if I have time I might run a few more things past the people in the group and see what they think - but the less long you've played with a particular group, the closer to basic you should start off with, I think.

It's my opinion that the most important thing about house rules is that everybody in the group agrees that they're for the best (or at the very least can tolerate them, if you have a few people feeling strongly and one not caring so much). Some house rules are also simply not necessary if you know that nobody in your group is ever going to do the thing they would be warding against, and for that reason, it's possible that if I played with a different group I'd have a longer list of house rules.

In short, my view is that house rules are for customising your game so that it works the best for your group. Every system I've encountered probably needs a few, and how many depends on the group and what you're trying to do.

Akal Saris
2010-12-06, 10:20 PM
In the end, D&D is a game of improvisation. You're playing cooperative make-believe, and the rules are there to facilitate the experience, not rule it.

I tend to follow the rules closely, but years of DMing and intimate knowledge of the rules for most editions of D&D have given me an instinct to know when a particular rule is stupid and should be discarded or ignored. There's a certain point where you can look at a rule and say, "No, that rule doesn't make the game any more fun," and continue playing without regretting the change that your group has made. This instinct actually hurts me in the Iron Chef challenges, because fiddly stupid rules tend to bite me in the ass quite frequently.

With that said, when I look for a game, I usually try very hard to find a DM that follows the rules closely. A DM is half the fun to a game, and in my experience a DM that follows the rules closely is a much safer pick than one who changes things on a whim or house-rules on the spot because he doesn't know the actual rules. Usually you can spot those DMs in a PBP game easily because they will list house rules that are generally pointless, or they stress out over things that aren't a big deal, like dread necro's gaining endless healing.

Morithias
2010-12-06, 10:41 PM
Seriously, inventing new meanings for accepted acronyms is just confusing. This is not about how you play, this is about how you use the language.

Well one could ultimately argue that my RAI means the same thing acronym wise. As was not the ultimate reason for this game to exist to have fun and not stop having fun guys arguments?

So basically my "RAI" equals "The rules change because the game, and ultimately the rules that make the game, were INTENDED to be a fun game, not a system that causes you to put a switch blade into the back of your former friend's head in rage."

Gensh
2010-12-06, 10:44 PM
Honestly, every group I've played in so far hasn't run campaigns so much as "amusing sets of circumstances that allow the players to kill everything that moves." They don't care about the rules at all as long as they don't think they're being cheated, so I usually just adhoc nearly all the rules. And they're fine with that. They know exactly what happens when they follow the rules to the letter, and that's why I'm not allowed to roll Diplomacy during boss fights any more. Of course, it helps that I'm DMing nine times out of ten.

kyoryu
2010-12-06, 10:49 PM
Usually you can spot those DMs in a PBP game easily because they will list house rules that are generally pointless, or they stress out over things that aren't a big deal, like dread necro's gaining endless healing.

That's a good point - there's usually two types of DMs that go in for house rules. The experienced ones that know why something needs to be changed, and the inexperienced ones that really don't know why something *doesn't* need to be changed. It's hard to tell the two apart at first glance.

DungeonDelver
2010-12-06, 10:53 PM
That's a good point - there's usually two types of DMs that go in for house rules. The experienced ones that know why something needs to be changed, and the inexperienced ones that really don't know why something *doesn't* need to be changed. It's hard to tell the two apart at first glance.

This is very, very true. I remember a DM that refused to let players play a Half-Orc because he feared his player's strength score would be too high. Then again, that DM was also using blatant Mary Sue DMPC characters as well.

true_shinken
2010-12-07, 05:48 AM
This instinct actually hurts me in the Iron Chef challenges, because fiddly stupid rules tend to bite me in the ass quite frequently.

That must be why you are all time champion. :smallbiggrin:

Ecalsneerg
2010-12-07, 06:17 AM
This is very, very true. I remember a DM that refused to let players play a Half-Orc because he feared his player's strength score would be too high. Then again, that DM was also using blatant Mary Sue DMPC characters as well.

So he worked for WotC?

Totally Guy
2010-12-07, 07:09 AM
I hate monopoly. And so so loads of people I know. It goes on for far too long!

Then I found out that we were all playing with a house rule that says that money to the bank goes onto free parking.

That house rule sucks! It's the reason why the game goes on for so bloody long. You've removed a massive money sink, the economy breaks.

Yet ask the people to I know to wipe that rule away... "No, money on free parking is fun! It builds anticipation around the board."

So I've got to say that I stick to the rules for a long time before I consider hacking stuff. I need to see the game play as it is first over a quite a long period. I want to see all the emergent properties bubble up and how the mechanics affect the the play.

I dislike it when game books outright say "don't worry about changing things to fit your group" because I end up thinking that the author has very little confidence that the system works as is.

hewhosaysfish
2010-12-07, 09:40 AM
My rule on this: Houserules changed in the middle of the game will not negatively affect a player's previous action. If a player comes with some ridiculous overpowered RAW-legal action, they are allowed to have it work once. After that it will be banned, but you can have your moment. I've found this rewards creativity on the part of the players without letting them break the entire game apart.

*hugs WarKitty*

[slight rant]

It really bugs me when my DM decides to make off-the-cuff changes to things in the middle of an action. It's a long campaign so fair enough he can't wait for a new campaign start to introduce his new house-rule, but would it really strain his game too much to wait until the end of the session? Or at least the end of the encounter?
Tough luck, the change is coming into force immediately. If anyone objects, let's have the rules debate right now in the middle of the combat.
You'll probably get to take back you action for this turn, you probably won't be able to take an action from the previous turn and you might get to take back a spell/feat/magic item choice...


My reaction to on-the-fly house-rules:
"Stop trying to move that when I'm standing on it!"

Mike_G
2010-12-07, 09:43 AM
So I've got to say that I stick to the rules for a long time before I consider hacking stuff. I need to see the game play as it is first over a quite a long period. I want to see all the emergent properties bubble up and how the mechanics affect the the play.

I dislike it when game books outright say "don't worry about changing things to fit your group" because I end up thinking that the author has very little confidence that the system works as is.

But not everything works the same for every group. Some groups will break when exposed to stuff that another would roll with, so you should feel free to change things for your group.

Homebrew settings should clearly state what does or doesn't exist. "No drow in my world" is fine, so long as everyone know up front. I eliminate the Magic Mart for this reason, I hate it as a setting/flavor thing. PCs will still have appropriate magic item for the challenges they face, but they can't just flip through the Sears catalogue and order a case of Belts of Healing.

As far as mechanics go, I say try the rules by the book, but if they bone your campaign, make half the party obsolete or whatever, change 'em. That's what we did with Shapechage, after our big climactic battle where the Shapechanged Wizard and his Shapechanged familiar did everything and the rest of us sat at the kiddie table in the hallway and threw popcorn at one another. That spell alone eliminates the need for the rest of the party, so we nerfed the holy bejeezus out of it.

If your game works, you're doing it right, regardless of the opinions of people you've never met on a message board.

hamishspence
2010-12-07, 09:50 AM
Alignment-related acts in general might qualify as something that can warrant a little changing depending on the campaign- especially if the book or books aren't entirely clear.

"Channelling negative energy is an evil act" in PHB.

For some people, "Murder is a Corrupt act" in FC2.

For a lot of people "Using ability-damaging poison is an evil act" in BoED.

"Deathwatch has the [Evil] tag" in PHB (given that some Always Good classes and PRCs come with it).

And so on.

Mike_G
2010-12-07, 09:56 AM
Or making a call on mindless undead.

Are they Evil, or just mindless? They were Neutral for the first three editions, and D&D is totally schizo on whether negative energy is Evil or not.

shadow_archmagi
2010-12-07, 09:57 AM
Middle Earth spans one continent. Star Wars takes place over galaxies. Sure there are more Jedi, but you have to consider the total population of the universe they're in. If each planet in Star Wars has exactly one Jedi, you get way more than 5 Jedi, but you still have fewer per capita than Middle Earth wizards.

Middle Earth wizards are basically angels. There's a finite number of them. Wizards are created when the gods of middle earth look at one of the lesser demi-god thingies and say "Hey! You there! Phil! Go down there and straighten things out. For some reason we don't want to act directly. So we're sending you. Have fun being Gandalf, Phil!"



I tend to follow the rules closely, but years of DMing and intimate knowledge of the rules for most editions of D&D have given me an instinct to know when a particular rule is stupid and should be discarded or ignored. There's a certain point where you can look at a rule and say, "No, that rule doesn't make the game any more fun," and continue playing without regretting the change that your group has made.

With that said, when I look for a game, I usually try very hard to find a DM that follows the rules closely. A DM is half the fun to a game, and in my experience a DM that follows the rules closely is a much safer pick than one who changes things on a whim or house-rules on the spot because he doesn't know the actual rules. Usually you can spot those DMs in a PBP game easily because they will list house rules that are generally pointless, or they stress out over things that aren't a big deal, like dread necro's gaining endless healing.

Well that sums up everything I would've contributed to the actual on topic discussion

hamishspence
2010-12-07, 10:02 AM
Or making a call on mindless undead.

Are they Evil, or just mindless? They were Neutral for the first three editions, and D&D is totally schizo on whether negative energy is Evil or not.

Yup- "channelling negative energy" by making Rebuke/Command Undead attempts is listed as Evil in the PHB, but most of the ordinary Negative Energy spells aren't.

Undead with Int -, in 3.5, are mostly listed as Evil aligned- not sure why. Libris Mortis did suggest that malevolent, near-mindless spirits are called into the dead bodies to create skeletons and zombies.

Quietus
2010-12-07, 10:39 AM
With that said, when I look for a game, I usually try very hard to find a DM that follows the rules closely. A DM is half the fun to a game, and in my experience a DM that follows the rules closely is a much safer pick than one who changes things on a whim or house-rules on the spot because he doesn't know the actual rules. Usually you can spot those DMs in a PBP game easily because they will list house rules that are generally pointless, or they stress out over things that aren't a big deal, like dread necro's gaining endless healing.

k, now I'm curious - I recently started a PbP game, and aside from minor flavor-based changes to base classes (clerics must follow gods, Paladins may be either "generic LG Pally" or "follow a god", and the God-types have the same alignment as their god, and a new code reflecting that), the biggest houserule I gave was "Cantrips are at-will, don't do things like flooding dungeons, and Cure Minor Wounds can heal a person to 1 HP maximum". Outside of that, I simply ask that people apply common sense. Is that the sort of thing that'd set off warning bells for you?


Or making a call on mindless undead.

Are they Evil, or just mindless? They were Neutral for the first three editions, and D&D is totally schizo on whether negative energy is Evil or not.

This was also listed in my fluff-based changes; In the setting I'm running, undead are created by grabbing the body's original soul, warping it with unholy energies, and shoving the result into its corpse, where it lives on in constant pain in torment to provide fuel for its former body. Undead are Evil, and if uncontrolled will seek to destroy - an unconscious desire placed there by the tortured soul fuelling it, in the hopes that reducing the life/positive energy around it, it will lessen its own unending agony.

shadow_archmagi
2010-12-07, 11:04 AM
k, now I'm curious - I recently started a PbP game, and aside from minor flavor-based changes to base classes (clerics must follow gods, Paladins may be either "generic LG Pally" or "follow a god", and the God-types have the same alignment as their god, and a new code reflecting that), the biggest houserule I gave was "Cantrips are at-will, don't do things like flooding dungeons, and Cure Minor Wounds can heal a person to 1 HP maximum". Outside of that, I simply ask that people apply common sense. Is that the sort of thing that'd set off warning bells for you?



This was also listed in my fluff-based changes; In the setting I'm running, undead are created by grabbing the body's original soul, warping it with unholy energies, and shoving the result into its corpse, where it lives on in constant pain in torment to provide fuel for its former body. Undead are Evil, and if uncontrolled will seek to destroy - an unconscious desire placed there by the tortured soul fuelling it, in the hopes that reducing the life/positive energy around it, it will lessen its own unending agony.

Paragraph 1: Seems legit.

Paragraph 2: Given that the RAW is self-conflicting, it seems you've chosen a side, which is reasonable.

No bells here. Which is good, because whenever a warning bell sounds, a devil gets an angel's wings.