Please Vote! Do GMs have the right to break the rules?

[Jon_Dahl]

In order to write a good story, does the GM have the right to ignore the rules?

Let's say that I'm the GM and I want to give an evil NPC a fiendish dire boar as a pet. There is no mechanic how gods give gifts. There is no explanation why the calling effect is free of charge and permanent. There is no reason why the boar is loyal. And furthermore, there is no way that the GM would give such pet to the PCs. But the boar works for the story, at least in GM's opinion.

As a player, would you find it unfair if the GM bends the rules to tell his story, but the rules are always the same for you character?

[Talakeal]

Break no, bend sure.

In the listed example I am seeing no rules broken (or even bent) at all. The god in question decides to cast Gate and send the boar through. The NPC uses diplomacy on the boar and makes it friendly. Done.

[Scow2]

Yes, yes they do. And it's explicitly stated in EVERY Dungeon Master's Guide, from OD&D all the way to D&D Next. It's also stated in every similar game, such as Pathfinder and Savage Worlds.

That they aren't allowed to do so is an aberration that seems to have sprung from D&D 3.X's Rules Lawyers, even though that edition clearly states that, as the game is the GM's, he is free to modify the rules as he sees fit to match his campaign.

[The Glyphstone]

GMs always have Rule 0. Players always have Rule of the Feet. Together, these two rules create balance.

[Kornaki]

A level 20 wizard cast gate, went to hell and cast dominate monster on the boar, then ordered the boar through the gate and to obey the commands of this other guy.

He has a RAW legal boar now. Ok yeah the wizard comes by once a month to refresh the spell.

This is not an example where the players should complain at all. The kind of stuff that is sketchy is when players have an expectation that the GM breaks - unless the players for some reason thought "there's no way by the rules this guy can have a fiendish dire boar" (how would they come to that conclusion rationally I don't know) and then you decided to stick one in there anyway it doesn't matter whether you've actually broken the rules

[evil-frosty]

As long as it creates more fun for everyone at the table, then the DM can break any rule he wishes. Obviously, one must keep in mind that it has to be fun for all participating in the game. Fun>>> everything else

And the rules have always been more like guidelines anyway.

[Scow2]

A level 20 wizard cast gate, went to hell and cast dominate monster on the boar, then ordered the boar through the gate and to obey the commands of this other guy.

He has a RAW legal boar now. Ok yeah the wizard comes by once a month to refresh the spell.

This is not an example where the players should complain at all. The kind of stuff that is sketchy is when players have an expectation that the GM breaks - unless the players for some reason thought "there's no way by the rules this guy can have a fiendish dire boar" (how would they come to that conclusion rationally I don't know) and then you decided to stick one in there anyway it doesn't matter whether you've actually broken the rules

This requires the existence of a Level 20 wizard in the campaign setting, which is not a given. Jumping through RAW loopholes like this causes MORE problems than it raises, because suddenly this guy now has a level 20 benefactor who's capable of casting Gate. So now this epic-level caster is gonna be pissed when he learns that his boar-loving friend was killed by a bunch of upstart adventurers, and there's no reason for him NOT to Scry+Die the party, because it would take minimal effort to wipe out such a tiny non-threat as a party (Which he'd do because they pissed him off by killing his friend)

[Jon_Dahl]

Actually there isn't any reason to come up with a RAW solution because in this case none is needed. The GM simply rules that the boar is given to the NPC. The thing is that is that the deity could give the NPC a lollipop, boar, castle or a world-ending artifact. These things just drop at his feet. The boar itself is not important, but it's just given as an example. This, IMO, is a GM fiat at its best/worst.

[Kornaki]

This requires the existence of a Level 20 wizard in the campaign setting, which is not a given. Jumping through RAW loopholes like this causes MORE problems than it raises, because suddenly this guy now has a level 20 benefactor who's capable of casting Gate. So now this epic-level caster is gonna be pissed when he learns that his boar-loving friend was killed by a bunch of upstart adventurers, and there's no reason for him NOT to Scry+Die the party, because it would take minimal effort to wipe out such a tiny non-threat as a party (Which he'd do because they pissed him off by killing his friend)

He's completely indifferent, he just cast a divination spell to ask some outer plane entity what needed to be done in order to maintain harmony in the universe and he was told to dominate a fiendish dire boar and give it to this guy. Or maybe the guy just paid the wizard a lump sum up front to do it, and the wizard's just glad he doesn't need to cast dominate monster anymore.

The point was just that it is possible by RAW, not that it's how you should explain it. The players shouldn't even question the fiendish dire boar - they have no reason to believe there is no RAW method of having obtained the boar, so they have no reason to question the boar, even if the GM doesn't have a good RAW explanation for it.

This is actually based on the idea that the game is a form of storytelling (which may surprise some people as often GMs break RAW in order to "win"). If you have to introduce a level 20 wizard just to keep the story RAW then the story is a little lamer for it - better for it to just be unexplained.

The only time the players should be able to hold the GM accountable is if they have some RAW expectation that explicitly doesn't hold, like a class feature not working as advertised or an enemy getting a version of charm person that doesn't allow a will save (especially if the players aren't allowed to get this spell). This of course is because it pisses off players when they get screwed over by the GM :smalltongue: (and also limits the players ability to add to the story if they don't know how they can interact with the world)

So the upshot is that as long as SOME RAW legal way of achieving the effect is possible, the GM shouldn't be forced to find the BEST RAW legal way, it should just be left unexplained to the players (or the story should explicitly have it described in a RAW illegal way that sounds better). Or even further, as long as it isn't clear that what you've done violates RAW, then it's fine

[MuttonBasher]

So long as the purpose is to make the game better, yes. Abuse of rule 0 tends to lead to the rule of I Have Nobody To Game With, so only use as needed.

[Tengu_temp]

Scow2 pretty much said everything I wanted to say here, so I will focus on a secondary matter:


GMs always have Rule 0. Players always have Rule of the Feet. Together, these two rules create balance.

Remember one important thing: going "my way or the highway", not willing to talk about stuff and just leaving when something about the game bugs you, is rarely a good thing to do. If you don't like some aspect of the game, discuss it with the game and the other players. Good ooc communication is the clue to a successful game.

[Mr Beer]

As stated above, there is no rule breaking here, there are a ton of reasons why the baddie could have an evil dire boar pet. Just because there isn't a specific rule that say "Level 9 blackguards get an evil dire boar" or whatever, doesn't make it against the rules.

But yeah in general, go ahead and break whatever rules you like to make a better game. Just try to make it non-obvious and keep your world consistent so players don't notice you shifting the scenery around, as it were.

[Alaris]

If you want "Bad Guy X" to have the Fiendish Dire Boar, then give it to him. You can write it in his back story anyway you want.

"A Deity gave it to him"

"He came across a mysterious portal, and the boar popped out of it."

"He took many many moons gathering the resources, and assistance to summon a boar from the lower planes to serve him."

Any of these would work, and should not make the players question it. And any of them are feasible. Hell, if a player really wanted to, all he has to do is gather the resources or casting capability from a powerful Caster, and have him gate or summon a creature in.

Put simply, yes, a DM can break the rules. Rule 0 is always in effect. But it is highly encouraged that he only do so if it will help everyone enjoy the game.

[Kornaki]

As stated above, there is no rule breaking here, there are a ton of reasons why the baddie could have an evil dire boar pet. Just because there isn't a specific rule that say "Level 9 blackguards get an evil dire boar" or whatever, doesn't make it against the rules.

Now I'm envisioning a GM who thinks he has to lampshade every time he does something by fiat, but he does it all IC. They break into the blackguard's castle, see the dire boar, and the blackguard shouts "Fear my Schroedinger's boar, for he proves there is a 2% chance that I am friends with a level 20 wizard!"

[Velaryon]

I think nitpicking the specific example of the boar is missing the greater point of the original question. This really isn't about whether there's a RAW explanation to justify the NPC in question having a fiendish dire boar. Some GM's will feel a need to provide such an explanation, even if only for their own satisfaction. Some won't. It's just a stylistic difference.

The original question was: "In order to write a good story, does the GM have the right to ignore the rules?" The answer is yes, up to a point. That point is determined by the players. How much rule stretching or breaking are they willing to accept?

I've never met a player that would balk at an NPC having a fiendish dire boar for an ally. But if the NPC is known to be a Fighter but has the ability to summon fiendish dire boars 1d4 at a time with no explanation of how, that might be going too far. It comes down to what the players are willing to accept.

[Totally Guy]

No. A group has the right to break the rules together but an individual at the table doesn't.

The belief that in any game that features a GM the GM has the right to break the rules is a hurdle for the hobby. The culture which roleplayers have built from such assumptions says that the rules are not necessarily indicative of how the game is actually played in practice. This makes it harder for everyone to find like-minded players as it is much harder to communicate what the game actually is.

[Kazemi]

Yes, and definitely for the fiendish boar example.

A GM should be able to provide a "twist" to some of his NPCs and to the world at large. However, the NPCs should usually follow convention with only a few exceptions (ie only one NPC has a fiendish boar. It's not like they all do and the players get none). For worldwide changes, the change should either be told at the beginning to the players or it should be one of the big reveals you plan on doing that the players are supposed to work out.

The rules are there to provide a structure that 99% of gameplay should follow. Flagrantly ignoring them over and over simply makes things unpredictable and becomes much more difficult to balance properly.


Now I'm envisioning a GM who thinks he has to lampshade every time he does something by fiat, but he does it all IC. They break into the blackguard's castle, see the dire boar, and the blackguard shouts "Fear my Schroedinger's boar, for he proves there is a 2% chance that I am friends with a level 20 wizard!"

I now want to make my next recurring villain do that sort of thing. Probably not the BBEG, but someone more akin to Team Rocket.

[TheCountAlucard]

Your example isn't breaking any rules that I know of. :confused:

A GM absolutely can bend or break the rules, but shouldn't do so needlessly or thoughtlessly.

[Tengu_temp]

No. A group has the right to break the rules together but an individual at the table doesn't.

The belief that in any game that features a GM the GM has the right to break the rules is a hurdle for the hobby. The culture which roleplayers have built from such assumptions says that the rules are not necessarily indicative of how the game is actually played in practice. This makes it harder for everyone to find like-minded players as it is much harder to communicate what the game actually is.

What a strange and abstract approach. And how does your solution differ from the GM breaking the rules, in practice?

[TuggyNE]

Remember one important thing: going "my way or the highway", not willing to talk about stuff and just leaving when something about the game bugs you, is rarely a good thing to do. If you don't like some aspect of the game, discuss it with the game and the other players. Good ooc communication is the clue to a successful game.

This is quite true, as long as it's remembered that it applies both ways; "my way or the highway" DMing is also, to say the least, strongly contra-indicated.

[Totally Guy]

What a strange and abstract approach. And how does your solution differ from the GM breaking the rules, in practice?

It differs because the group has agreed the the GM can break rules before it happens or they have the conversation it when the game produces some unacceptable result.

If the group has agreed that the rules should be followed then it's not acceptable behaviour for the GM to secretly break them.

[NichG]

For this kind of thing I'm in the 'absolutely' camp. Even absent some explicit Rule 0, I think this just makes sense - all systems are flawed, those flaws become exposed during play or during preparation. For flaws exposed during play, the table can agree as a whole to fix the flaws. For flaws exposed during preparation, the GM has to be able to act decisively for there to be a game that week.

In terms of Totally Guy's point of view, what I'd say is that its better to view the game as a set of responsibilities and roles rather than a set of rules. Rules are detailed 'how-tos' as far as determining outcomes and the like, whereas roles are more 'what is this person at the table supposed to be bringing to the game'.

I would say that a GM doesn't have the right to overstep their role, but they do have the right as part of their role to alter the rules. This is because part of the GM's role, in games where there is a GM, is to be a neutral arbitrator. The other way in which the GM's role requires them to have the ability to change the rules is in their role as scenario designer. This can be a matter of 'the plot calls for X' kinds of things, but it can also just be something like 'D&D 3.5's complexity means it takes 4 hours to write a reasonable character; This is fine when the character is built over 8 weeks by a single player, but I need 10 NPCs for this weekend and I can't prep as a full-time job, so I approximate'.

Now its possible to have a game without a traditional GM role. Its also possible to have a game where the table agrees on doing things RAW, in which case the GM breaking the rules would directly go against the social contract of that table. But in general, I think its better to have a role with the flexibility to alter the mechanical minutia on the fly to maintain a smoothly flowing game than to insist on removing it without having a very good reason to (e.g. perhaps you have a DM who abuses this ability and you are only willing to play to them if they agree to do it by the book as a compromise)

[Eldan]

In my mind, this is a case of "probably", but I also think that a good DM does not need to.

After all, in this example, this is just encounter design. You want to put a boar there, you put a boar there.

The DM can break the rules. But I'd prefer if, rather than just saying "it is so", they'd make a house rule or homebrew out of it. Let the players do the same thing the NPC did.

[Totally Guy]

A more elegant way of saying my part:

It's not a right, it's a privilege.

[Kurald Galain]

The DM can break the rules. But I'd prefer if, rather than just saying "it is so", they'd make a house rule or homebrew out of it. Let the players do the same thing the NPC did.

I agree. The DM can break any rules he likes, but it's preferable if he has an in-world justification for what happened, and that the PCs can (at least theoretically) learn to duplicate the same effect.

For instance, in the OPs example, a cleric PC may decide he want a celestial animal for his character. If he does, I would give him a quest to obtain one (which may require him to take a feat for it or spend money equivalent to a magic item or something). I don't like the approach of "NPCs can do different things because they're NPCs".

[Bulhakov]

Yes. All game systems have some sort of Rule 0. The GM's role is to ensure the group has fun and if breaking or adjusting some rules leads to a better narrative, then he has every right to do it. That being said, the GM is also supposed to create a cohesive setting, so rule adjustments or changes should not be game-breaking (and discussed openly if it's a rule change the characters would know about).

On a side note - this might be problematic to people (both players and GMs) that approach the game as a competition of GM vs PCs, but luckily I've never had to play with players/GMs like that.

[AstralFire]

What a strange and abstract approach. And how does your solution differ from the GM breaking the rules, in practice?

If I may attempt to rephrase for him:

The GM does not have the right to break the rules after the rules have been set.
The GM does have the right to make the rules in advance, and make them fit whatever she deems necessary.

This is the sort of distinction Mr. Burlew was talking about when he said about OotS that "there are no rules. No, not even that one."

[TuggyNE]

For instance, in the OPs example, a cleric PC may decide he want a celestial animal for his character. If he does, I would give him a quest to obtain one (which may require him to take a feat for it or spend money equivalent to a magic item or something). I don't like the approach of "NPCs can do different things because they're NPCs".

Quite agreed, although with a minor caveat: often, it's easiest to defer precise figuring-out of how that NPC did such-and-such to the time you actually need to know (i.e., when the players have a chance to figure it out, or when some aspect of it is affected by their actions, or whatever). The amount you can defer varies widely, though, and is probably rather less with high-powered casters.

[hymer]

As long as I get full XP for terminating the swine, why should I care where it came from mechanically?

[Vitruviansquid]

GM's don't have the right to break the rules.

GM's can't break the rules.

GM's ARE the rules.

[Dimers]

The DM can break the rules. But I'd prefer if, rather than just saying "it is so", they'd make a house rule or homebrew out of it. Let the players do the same thing the NPC did.

Hadn't thought about it consciously before, but ...

One of my favorite things in DMing is figuring out good ways to break rules WITH the players. Frequently, the rules disallow some perfectly sensible thing, or don't have any provision for it at all, or are inadequate and generic, or are so detailed and complicated they're unusable. When I DM, I spend time and effort adjusting the ruleset to work with the player group. I do the same thing for NPCs, including antagonists. So my way is less "let the PCs do what the NPCs do" and more "let the NPCs do what the PCs do" (namely, whatever improves the game).

@OP: DMs may break the rules for the good of the game. I'd go so far as to say that they have an obligation to break the rules, if the rules are lessening the value of the game.

[prufock]

Game masters should be free to adjust certain things, but there are caveats. The GM should not alter the mechanics of how things work for the PCs. For example, if a spell is SR: No, the DM should not force a caster level check to make it work on an enemy. Likewise, if an enemy casts a spell on a PC that has a save to negate, the GM must allow that save. Players have a right to expect their abilities and game mechanics to work in the way the rules state. If you're sacrificing those expectations for "story," you run the risk of putting the PCs on a railroad. It's important to remember that it isn't ONLY the GM's story - it's the group's story.

There are lots of ways for the GM to work within the rules to obtain more or less whatever effect he wants. Apart from that, he can introduce homebrewed or altered classes and abilities.

[thamolas]

The GM should do whatever's fun. The rules are largely irrelevant. The rules exist to keep players from hogging all the attention and (unfairly) playing "king of the mountain" with other players and ruining the collaborative game of pretend.

[Eldan]

To expand a bit on what I already said: I prefer the term "expanding the rules" over "breaking the rules". The second sounds like cheating.

You can change the rules, but it should be in a way that your players can accept.

Changing is also better than breaking because in changing there's a sense of consistency. If you rule something a certain way once, you should do it the same way again under similar circumstances later.

And finally, you wouldn't be leave how much difference it makes to the players whether you say "He's an NPC, he can just do that because I say so" to "He has a homebrew feat and two homebrew spells, I can show you later, if you want, after you've defeated him".

[NichG]

Actually I'm going to come down against NPC-PC equivalency. I think its an artificial standard due to 3.5 trying too hard to make 'everyone use the same system' while sort of hiding the fact that it isn't actually the case. What I mean by that is, there are monsters that cannot be PCs within the rules. They have LA - or unplayably high LA, and/or more HD than a PC could have given their CR.

Behind the scenes, there's little difference between 'this guy is an NPC and he has a special trick or story reason why he has a permanent Fiendish Boar in his service' and 'this guy is monster that has a custom racial ability that grants him a permanent Fiendish Boar companion'.

To add to this, novelty is important, but if every element of novelty becomes a 'standard' weapon in the arsenal of the PCs, you'll get power creep. So e.g. just because an NPC caster has a custom spell he made, I don't think that the players should automatically get access to that spell after the encounter. Maybe they salvage or locate or barter for his spellbook and get it - the existence of the possibility can be a useful tool, but it shouldn't be automatically an option 'just because it showed up in play'.

This is particularly important when you look at the asymmetries in the roles that PCs/NPCs have in the game - enemies basically have to be mechanically 'simpler' than PCs, because they're there to fire off two or three abilities and then die (unlike a PC which is re-used every session). So there may be abilities which are balanced under that consideration (e.g. puzzle fight things) but which are unbalanced for a PC to have when facing other fire-and-forget enemies that may not have the sorts of contingencies or options that a PC would have.

For example, you could have an enemy that can only be hurt by one particular energy type at a time. That would be fine on an enemy because across a party of 6 PCs odds are someone can put together a way to generate most energy types. But its bad on a PC because it negates large swaths of threats (since most enemies do not have that kind of versatility).

That said, it absolutely matters how you explain it to the players, because player psychology is of paramount importance to how much fun they'll have at the table. Using Eldan's 'this guy has some homebrew X,Y,Z' will satisfy players that 'I just made it up' will not.

At the same time, I think its important to cultivate the right long-term expectations. At my table, I want to make sure to communicate the idea 'everyone has unique things' and the idea 'you can't always have what you see'. To this end, I've done various things like allowing each character to trade a Lv1 feat for 'an Impossibility', which is just some little trick or mechanic that only they can do, period. One person chose to be able to magically control hair, making it grow or shaping it or even using it as a prehensile limb. Another person chose to be able to capture and talk to the souls of anything he killed in a gem in his chest. Once the players have unique things, it feels a lot less unfair for NPCs to also have unique things that can't be copied or easily adapted.

[king.com]

It blows my mind that this is a topic that doesn't simply have a single reply of 'yes of course' .

Heres my suggestion, tell your group 'hey, I think the rules as is stops me from doing something cool/fun/interesting, I'm going to add/change/remove things. That cool with everyone?'

The entire rulebook is in service to you and your players. If you want to pick up the stuff about attacks of opportunity because your group doesn't like them? Rip it out and throw it out the window.

Your not doing anything remotely big enough to bother even mentioning it. You are giving a guy a pet. A PET! Thats so infinitely insignificant. Who cares that a guy has a pet. You can literally drop a monster out of a book and pop it in the middle of the dungeon with no explanation if that would make it more fun.

Ignore the huge spastic debate in this thread and go do what your group wants to do to enjoy their elfgame.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

A quick comment: PC-vs-NPC equivalency was brought up, but that's not (in my opinion) what the question is here. Even with asymmetric rules, there's a question of "can the GM break these rules?"

If you say "the GM can make and break whatsoever rules they please", that presumes a very specific role for the GM. That doesn't mean that every game plays by that role for a GM. There's a point at which you could have an authority figure in a game who doesn't possess nearly as much power in the game, because some of that authority passes back to the rules.

Which is okay. We play all sorts of games (board games, card games...) where there is no central authority figure above the rules. We might designate one person who's particularly good at interpreting the rules, but even then--that tends to be multiple people, in the interest of fairness.

The idea that the GM's word is law, that the GM is omnipotent in the midst of the game, is especially problematic if the game is at all viewed as adversarial. Then you've got characters trying to fight the will of an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent God. That ends with players in severe conflict with the GM, out-of-character, even if they never voice it.

What's truly interesting is that I understand it, classic D&D (particularly around its roots) treated the DM as a referee who was expected to adjucate situations that arose from the rules and from player decisions. If the players go rooting around in a dungeon, it's only fair that the DM allow for the possibility of an owlbear ambushing the party, because they know that owlbears are nesting in the area.

But the classic DM wasn't about bending or breaking the rules in service to a story they wanted to tell. That, I think, is one of the worst reasons to mess with the rules as written. Nobody, not even the GM (especially not the GM) has the right to possess sole control over the world of the game.

Ultimately, I think the answer will vary, game by game. Some RPGs absolutely break down if the GM is allowed to bend or break the rules of the game. Some RPGs break down if they're not allowed to do so.

[obliged_salmon]

Do GM's have the right to break the rules?

No.

But wait! You see, most game systems (not all of them) specifically give the GM power to ignore and/or adapt all of the other rules in the game. That is a rule in those games. So if the GM fiddles with the other rules, they aren't breaking the rules.

That being said, there are many games that don't have that as a rule, like Burning Wheel and Apocalypse World. The GM is given a lot of power in those games, but not carte blanche power to overrule everything else if he so desires.

In my opinion, this makes it a lot easier for the GM, since he doesn't have to agonize over whether to reduce that monster's hit points so the players can survive, or feel the urge to put the players in a mysterious "cut-scene" stasis so the big bad can deliver his monologue. The GM can just...you know...play by the rules and pass the buck to the players. After all, it was their choices that got them into this mess.

[Kornaki]

or feel the urge to put the players in a mysterious "cut-scene" stasis so the big bad can deliver his monologue. The GM can just...you know...play by the rules and pass the buck to the players. After all, it was their choices that got them into this mess.

Next time I DM: "If you had planned your ambush better the BBEG wouldn't have had a chance to get his monologue off. You put yourself in this cutscene mess guys"

[TheStranger]

Of course the GM can break the rules. Well, some of them. Some of the time.

In the fiendish dire boar example, there's mostly a consensus that it's fine to just give the guy a boar. But if the question was whether a BBEG wizard could have full BAB because for story purposes he's supposed to be a good fighter too, I think there would be a pretty strong consensus against that. And if the question was whether it was ok to homebrew a PrC for the BBEG but not make it available to the players, there might not be a consensus at all.

So my answer is, go for it, unless your players are going to object, in which case don't do it.

[Scow2]

In the fiendish dire boar example, there's mostly a consensus that it's fine to just give the guy a boar. But if the question was whether a BBEG wizard could have full BAB because for story purposes he's supposed to be a good fighter too, I think there would be a pretty strong consensus against that. And if the question was whether it was ok to homebrew a PrC for the BBEG but not make it available to the players, there might not be a consensus at all.But... there are already plenty of PrCs not available to players, but for NPCs instead! *cough*Beholder Mage*cough* ...and that one from Dungeonscape.

[Alejandro]

Glyphstone pretty much explained it.

The GM has the power to run their game and its content any way they see fit.

The players are the game, for without them, there is no game, just an author.

It's a delicious blend of mutually assured destruction and symbiosis. Good groups trust the GM to do as they please, because they know the GM will (within the reason of the game) let the players do as they please.

[Gravitron5000]

Next time I DM: "If you had planned your ambush better the BBEG wouldn't have had a chance to get his monologue off. You put yourself in this cutscene mess guys"

Just give the BBEG the "Uninterruptable Monologue" feat. It's located in the DM fiat handbook :smallbiggrin:

[Frozen_Feet]

In order to write a good story, does the GM have the right to ignore the rules?

Let's say that I'm the GM and I want to give an evil NPC a fiendish dire boar as a pet...

You are asking the wrong question for your situation. You may also be asking the wrong question, period, depending on the game you're using.

First, what you are doing in your example is not playing the game at all. It is laying out the pieces on the board! And that is the explicit duty of a game master in most games that have one.

Think of a chess game. Before the game starts, there's just a board and bunch of pieces. The game does not start untill the pieces are put in place. There is a standard layout, yes, but it's not the only one. You could lay out the pieces differently to play out a certain scenario. Putting the pieces in unusual places is not cheating, it is preparing the game. You can't cheat before the rules are in place, and you are the one making them.

You can create a horribly lopsided scenario, but that is a different issue from cheating.

Second, whether a game master is allowed to break or ignore the rules depends on the game. Unlike what people here imply, there is no universal rule zero. Like obgliged_salmon correctly pointed out, in many games the GM has explicit authority to change the rules; calling it "rule zero" is disingenious, when it really is the rule on page 146 (etc.)

Not all games allow GM such leeway. In some games, GM is explicitly the enemy, and to facilitate fair play, the GM is bound to his own set of rules from which there is no escape.

In some games, the GM is solely an arbiter - it's not his job to either facilitate or direct play. He is only called upon when two rules interact unclearly, to provide a neutral third party to solve such conflict. Outside these freak occurrences, the GM has no say whatsoever about either the rules or the flow of the game. Also, once a ruling has been made, it can not be changed again for that game. This was, in fact, a GM's original function in tabletop wargaming.

So no - the GM is not allowed to break, ignore or change the rules, unless the rules themselves state that is allowed, in which case there is no problem.

Third, rolepaying games are not novel writing. A game might not be meant for "writing a story", good or bad. Old-school games like 1st Ed AD&D certainly did not function like that. The story of a game was something that emerged during play, based on player reactions to the game scenario.

The idea that RPGs should be story-driven became fixed to D&D only from 2nd Ed AD&D onwards, and was popularized and developed further by White Wolf and their ilk. Most tellingly, in such games, the game master is not called such - rather, he is called "storyteller" or "narrator".

But that is not the default state or purpose of RPGs! Me, I don't do heavily plot-driven games. I draw my RPG style more from Chess and other wargames, than literary tradition. I don't aim to create stories - I make game scenarios, and then watch how players interact with them. If a coherent story is formed as a result, it's not because I wrote one - instead, it's either due to coincidence, or because my players intentionally tried to create one through in-character actions. Outside of freeform-roleplaying, I detest OOC agreements on how a game "should go" or "should end". I have rules, dice and logic to dictate how events flow in a game, I neither want or need anything else to complicate matters more. Freeform is different, because it has no rules or dice, so some amount of OOC discussion on how things should go is necessary.

Then again, freeform is closer to storytelling (either written or oral) anyway, where as tabletop is still heavily influenced by wargame and boardgame roots. This is why I heavily scorn story-focused approach to D&D and its ilk - they are tactical wargames as much as they are roleplaying, and you are supposed to let the dice and rules decide instead of OOC agreement. That is what the rules and dice are for.

[Kurald Galain]

Just give the BBEG the "Uninterruptable Monologue" feat. It's located in the DM fiat handbook :smallbiggrin:

Paranoia actually has a mutant power called "Evil Villain Soliloquy That Stops Time While It's Going On" :smallbiggrin:

[Barsoom]

In order to write a good story, does the GM have the right to ignore the rules?

Let's say that I'm the GM and I want to give an evil NPC a fiendish dire boar as a pet. There is no mechanic how gods give gifts. There is no explanation why the calling effect is free of charge and permanent. There is no reason why the boar is loyal. And furthermore, there is no way that the GM would give such pet to the PCs. But the boar works for the story, at least in GM's opinion.

As a player, would you find it unfair if the GM bends the rules to tell his story, but the rules are always the same for you character?In this example, it's actually simple. Fiendish creature always have an Intelligence score of 3 or higher. Which makes them at the very least capable of making their own decisions. The fiendish dire boar stays as a pet with the evil NPC because he chooses to. There's no need to break any rules.

[BlckDv]

I think that the request in the title to 'Please Vote' is very much a flag that this question is being looked at from the wrong perspective.

Their is not to my knowledge a platonic ideal Roleplaying Game occurring to which all other games aspire, conforming or falling short in quantifiable ways. Every game table (and heck, often different games at the same table) aspire to different ideals.

For a party using an RPG as the chasis for a gruelling players vs. the world adversarial game, the DM playing very strictly by the book is a must for the players to have the "fair shake" to "beat" the DM.

For a party that places a novel-like level of drama and story at the center of a game, DM "Cheating" is almost a given, except in a few systems written for that style of play.

And most games fall somewhere in the middle. Asking people playing at different tables, with different assumptions, and different mixes of players for a Vote implies the existence of a standard which I think is false; each vote is not towards the same "election."

[Tengu_temp]

On PC-NPC equivalency:

PCs and NPCs should be allowed to attempt the same kinds of actions, they should play by the same in-story rules (this is NOT the same thing as being treated mechanically identically, many games stat NPCs and PCs differently and for a good reason). However, this doesn't mean that all resources and abilities the NPCs possess should be available for PCs.

Examples:
If NPCs are allowed to shoot arrows at the PCs through murder holes, the PCs should be allowed to shoot back at them.
An NPC is a stone giant death knight, but that doesn't automatically mean the stone giant race or the death knight class are available for PCs.

[Talakeal]

I recently had an epic level lich performing a ritual to cover the world in a giant anti magic zone. The players thwarted him, but afterwards one of them bitched about how it was unfair that i gave an npc a power that the pcs could not replicate.

I explained that it was a legitamate epic level spell, and the player balked at the idea. I then spent half an hour working out how such a spell would be cast. The player then said that because i didnt do the math before the session i was still cheating, that just because such a spell could exist doesnt mean it is fair for the dm to assume it does exist.

Then the player asked if he could cast the spell. I sakd yes, if you get to epic level and then take all the neccessary preparation to research and cast such a spell.

The player then asked if i would allow it. I told him ooc i would allow it, but ic someone will almost certainly stop him first. Then he asked why no one decided to stop my npc. I then asked him what the heck he thought the pcs just did and proceeded to hit my head on the desk.

So, long story short, I really guess it depends on the pc.

[NichG]

There are players who will complain about any particular thing as well. Too much loot. Too little loot. Villains who are sympathetic characters. Villains who are too black-and-white. Difficult encounters. Easy encounters.

So know your players and either angle what you do towards that knowledge, or get players who aren't so exasperating :smallsmile:

After all, there are many times where the GM can do something that is bad GMing but is completely within the rules. Pun-Pun is arguably rules-legal, but I have a hard time imagining a situation where a GM should send Pun-Pun against the party (or for a less extreme example, sending some optimized Planar Shepherd infinite action build against the party). Compared to those within-the-rules sins, adding a fiendish dire boar is nothing.

[Scow2]

I recently had an epic level lich performing a ritual to cover the world in a giant anti magic zone. The players thwarted him, but afterwards one of them bitched about how it was unfair that i gave an npc a power that the pcs could not replicate.

I explained that it was a legitamate epic level spell, and the player balked at the idea. I then spent half an hour working out how such a spell would be cast. The player then said that because i didnt do the math before the session i was still cheating, that just because such a spell could exist doesnt mean it is fair for the dm to assume it does exist.

Then the player asked if he could cast the spell. I sakd yes, if you get to epic level and then take all the neccessary preparation to research and cast such a spell.

The player then asked if i would allow it. I told him ooc i would allow it, but ic someone will almost certainly stop him first. Then he asked why no one decided to stop my npc. I then asked him what the heck he thought the pcs just did and proceeded to hit my head on the desk.

So, long story short, I really guess it depends on the pc.
In counterpoint, Talakeal's players are an exotic form of crazy-bad.

[navar100]

What the DM says goes. If he says enough stupid stuff, the players go too.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I would say "yes, as long as the violation is in the interests of the game." Not the story, not one side of the screen or the other, but the game as a whole. When breaking the rules makes things more fun for EVERYONE, then shatter away. If the lich has a horrible ritual he's about to perform? He has a horrible ritual-- if not, there's no game. If the player really wants to take this PrC, but with these two things changed? We can change it.

Now, I would say that doing so requires a trusting group, but any game requires a trusting group. Just as a bad DM can railroad players into an inescapable tunnel of over-leveled DMPCs, so can a bad player roll up a hideously broken character who steamrolls every encounter/is a constant burden on his allies.

[eulmanis12]

there are rules and then there are rules.

ask yourself these questions,


"Can I justify the act with in game Logic?"

"Does the decision place the players at an unfair disadvantage?"

"Do I believe that the players, (and myself, I don't GM for my health after all), will have more fun as a result of this decision?"

If the answers to these questions are Yes, no, Yes respectively, you are fine.

In the example of the boar,

Does it make sense in game?
Yes, a deity definitely has the ability to make a boar manifest, and deities often pick people to favor, or give gifts to.

Does it place the players at an unfair disadvantage?
Not really, a dire boar is not exactly an extremely powerful opponent, its more added flavor to the enemy than a true threat.

does it make the game more fun?
If the players are anything like my group then giving them one more target for them to maim/crush/pincushion/eviscerate/stab/bonk/detonate/combust will increase the fun to them, and there is a decent chance that the player's pig related puns (they make puns out of everything) will get a chuckle out of me. Yes.

under this method, the dire boar is a go.

[Kazemi]

The player then said that because i didnt do the math before the session i was still cheating, that just because such a spell could exist doesnt mean it is fair for the dm to assume it does exist.
Wait...what? I...I don't...the DM can assume things exist? :smallconfused:
Isn't establishing what exists that the entire point of a DM? *facepalm*


In counterpoint, Talakeal's players are an exotic form of crazy-bad.
This is very accurate. Still, I do appreciate being able to see the outliers.

[Raum]

In order to write a good story, does the GM have the right to ignore the rules?It depends, did the group cede him the right to be arbitrary? It's the default in some systems*. In others it's anathema. But the real issue is, what does the social contract expect?

There is no "one true way". Know your group and set expectations appropriately. It's Communications 101.

*D&D is one of the systems where allowing arbitrary GM decisions is typically the default. I expect your answers here will reflect the D&D centric nature of these boards. ;)

[Skorj]

Obviously, the boss won the boar in a poker game.

You know, I don't think I've played an RPG "by the rules" for 20 years. It's always "here are some rules you know, and here are some things that your character believes to be true, and if the world appears to be inconsistent, call me on it, but likely the inconsistency is a deeper clue to how the world works".

Even with D&D I take it like the OOTS comic: D&D rules until shown otherwise by events.

[Mr Beer]

I recently had an epic level lich performing a ritual to cover the world in a giant anti magic zone. The players thwarted him, but afterwards one of them bitched about how it was unfair that i gave an npc a power that the pcs could not replicate.

<story about player being a tard>

Yes but that player was being a tard.

[Kaun]

Yes, yes they do.

[Kane0]

My vote: DM's have the right to bend the rules and the privilege to break them when necessary.

To me, game rules that are unbreakable by all involved is the territory of Wargames where it is often player vs player, establishing a fair playing field.
Your average RPG does not operate in the same way, with a more players guided by creator approach. The creator (DM, GM, etc depending on your choice of RPG) is not an opponent, he is an enabler of a shared adventure and story. Thus he must make decisions on rules that the books don't have the context for, since every group and every story is different.

[holywhippet]

I'd say the big caveat is that the group should be having fun together. If they DM is introducing things by fiat it should be to make things interesting for the players. If he is introducing things to be a **** to the players then it shouldn't be allowed. For example, the DM might declare that the BBEG is protected by a small army of female vampires with class levels because they've all fallen in love with him. If the players don't stand a chance in hell of winning against that kind of opponent then it should be allowed. If they do stand a decent chance then it's fair enough IMO.

I left one AD&D game when it seemed to me the DM was ignoring rules to make things extra lethal for the players. He even changed the rule about surviving negative HP down to -10 and introduced his "maiming" tables because he wasn't happy about the low casualty rate of PCs.

[Totally Guy]

Should players assume the rules they've read are secretly being broken?

[Mr Beer]

Should players assume the rules they've read are secretly being broken?

The players should assume the GM will refuse to be bound by a rule if it prevents him from providing the best possible gaming experience for the players.

So...yes?

[NichG]

This is the the fudging dilemma. For this argument, I want to presume a table that has already agreed that fudging is okay, and only examine the impact of being directly aware of fudging that has happened.

Fudging versus not fudging can improve the game because it acts as a realtime correction factor to DM errors in estimating difficulty or appropriateness of an encounter. This could be anything from altering a die roll to altering the CR of an encounter on the fly because a player couldn't show up and the party is suddenly weaker.

Usually however its worse to tell people you fudged, even if they're okay with you doing it and accept that it will be a part of game. This is because it cheapens the feeling of victory when you explicitly are told by the DM 'well you only won because I changed things to let you win'. At the same time, if you don't realize that there was fudging, the victory feels as good as any other.

So I think that players should be aware that the rules could be altered behind the scenes at any time, and shouldn't treat the rules as an explicitly known set of physical laws that the game universe follows. Then again, I think that should be generally the case. I consider strategic evaluations due to mechanical details to not be a form of in-character reasoning but rather to be a metagame thing that is an 'unfortunate necessity' of the players not having the full knowledge/experiences of their characters.

So when someone says 'we can't kill this dragon because dragons are smart and would have optimized their character and have access to feats X, Y, and Z' I'd say 'make decisions based on whatever you like, but in character you don't have an awareness of optimization, feats, and the like, and in many cases feat selection is not a conscious choice that NPCs can make.' Similarly, if someone says 'this isn't any spell effect I'm aware of so it must be an illusion', I feel that this is also not really valid reasoning. I won't say 'no you can't think that', but I will also make no promises that that methodology will succeed at all.

[Killer Angel]

This is the the fudging dilemma.

To fudge and to bend the rules are (or can be) different things.

Let's say that at the beginning of the campaing the DM decided (and the players agreed) to use a certain table for calculating the amount of magical objects available at "stores", based on the size of town, and so on...
Later in the campaign, the DM shouldn't be able to invent on the run an exception to that rule?

[SethoMarkus]

To fudge and to bend the rules are (or can be) different things.

Let's say that at the beginning of the campaing the DM decided (and the players agreed) to use a certain table for calculating the amount of magical objects available at "stores", based on the size of town, and so on...
Later in the campaign, the DM shouldn't be able to invent on the run an exception to that rule?

Something like this, where the players and DM explicitly agreed to follow the rules laid out by a set table, I think that the DM should follow through with the original agreement or at least discuss his/her intentions with the players and see if they are alright with making a change.

However, if it was only assumed that the DM was using a specific rule set, such as the Community Wealth table, but neither the DM nor the players explicitly stated the use of said table, I see no problems with the DM altering the table to better fit the situation. This should only be done in an effort to improve the player's experience in the game, though. Maybe the party really needs a magic item that the town they are in otherwise would not have access to sell, or maybe they are in a city that for story reasons does not carry a certain type of magic item that otherwise should be available. However, I don't think the DM should ever use the rules or bend the rules against the players. I will never understand DM vs Player mentality.

Then again, I generally see the rules in D&D and other similar RPGs to be more of a guideline than set-in-stone laws. If a player comes up with an interesting use of a spell or ability that should not work by RAW, as long as it isn't world-breaking and the player doesn't abuse it, Rule of Cool wins out over any source material.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

This is the the fudging dilemma. For this argument, I want to presume a table that has already agreed that fudging is okay, and only examine the impact of being directly aware of fudging that has happened.
Sort of. I mean, we've got a few things blurred together here.

GM-player asymmetry (not that big of a deal, most non-D&D games give the GM ways to build opposition without using the rules for player character creation), fudging the rules, using Rule Zero to override the rules...

In the example given, the rules were modified to give an NPC a critter, because it suited the GM's pre-planned plot. That's a little above a fudge. On the other hand, D&D itself is borked enough as a system (unless they were talking 4E, which is not nearly as bad as earlier editions in terms of system quirkiness) that breaking it isn't really at issue here. (Heck, houseruling it is a regular occurrence.) On the other hand, the GM probably shouldn't be warping the rules if in-game events are turning against their preplanned story.

(Er, also, correction to a prior post--"storytelling"-based games do not imply that the GM has a preplanned story, and that's not the sole province of White Wolf. If anything, White Wolf games tend to be like the urban fantasy version of D&D with a more robust core mechanic and a mythology that leans closer to folklore.)

[valadil]

Sure. But that doesn't mean they always should use it. Power, resonsibility, yatta yatta. A GM who breaks the rules for the wrong reasons is going to ruin his own game.

[NichG]

In the example given, the rules were modified to give an NPC a critter, because it suited the GM's pre-planned plot. That's a little above a fudge. On the other hand, D&D itself is borked enough as a system (unless they were talking 4E, which is not nearly as bad as earlier editions in terms of system quirkiness) that breaking it isn't really at issue here. (Heck, houseruling it is a regular occurrence.) On the other hand, the GM probably shouldn't be warping the rules if in-game events are turning against their preplanned story.


Sorry, I was unclear, my comment on fudging was specifically in response to the question of 'should the players assume that the rules are being secretly broken'.

Basically I was saying that even if everyone sort of knows that the rules aren't set in stone and that the GM may tweak or alter things, in some situations (like fudging) it can be beneficial to a player's enjoyment for them to pretend it isn't happening or put it out of mind.

E.g. you might be aware that 'the GM can and will fudge rolls', but playing the entire campaign with that thought taken into consideration on every decision may very well mean that you deny yourself the satisfaction of epic things that do happen because you keep telling yourself 'it could have been a fudge...' So even if you are aware that the 'rules' could be secretly broken, sometimes its better to just not dwell on that fact.

At other times however (my second example) its liberating, because if you expect the GM to break the character-building rules and setting guides you can think of things in terms of the evidence and events in front of you rather than always cross-referencing to a huge database of accumulated wisdom and experience on the game system. Its very much dependent on the kind of bending/breaking going on whether its better to take it into consideration all the time or not.

[Joe the Rat]

It depends somewhat on what "rules" we are talking about. If you are going to change how the core mechanics work, the players ought to know. If you are tweaking the stats on something, tweak the dang thing and be done with it. Why not Fiendish Dire Boar. Heck, give it wings if you like. If you don't like the template stacking, just make it a brand new monster (Caledonian Boar-fiend).

If you are making changes on the fly (you decide - in the middle of combat - that the fiendish boar can sprout wings or has a breath weapon), you're getting into murky waters. Fudging rolls is its own hotbed issue, and requires a light touch.

If you want to stay on the light side, you must not be making changes simply so you can beat the players. That's not your job. If it is your job to beat the players (A GM vs Players table, you're running Tomb of Horrors, Far Realms Edition), you really need to play it straight with the mechanics (Paranoia being the exception here).

[Water_Bear]

There are some things that a GM is expected to "homebrew" beforehand or improvise in play. New opponents and their abilities, "special" versions of existing locations / items / whatever, Plot Devices like magic rituals, rulings for situations not covered in the rules, etc. A good system will have guidelines for this sort of thing built in, both to help keep things on-the-level and make sure the Players know roughly what to expect, but ultimately GMs aren't "breaking the rules" when they introduce new elements or rulings this way.

There are other things which GMs really shouldn't do though, and most of these are "breaking the rules" in that sense. Violating established rules or in-game continuity without forewarning takes away the ability of Players to engage with the game world logically, turning it into a "mother-may-I" game of pleasing the GM rather than of interacting with the world. Rejecting the results from the resolution mechanism (dice, bidding, whatever) or changing stats on the fly breaks GM impartiality; without this, PC success or failure is no longer dependant on their choices but GM whim. This kind of "rule breaking" is simply not acceptable IMO.

And neither case touches the fact that whether or not GMs have the "right" to break the rules, that doesn't make it proper etiquette to do so. Fudging usually entails lying to the players and that is something you really shouldn't expect your friends to appreciate. GMs who plan to "break the rules" like that, especially to invalidate Player choice, need to let Players know that at the start of the game.

[Nerd-o-rama]

The rules say the DM can break the rules.

Therefore, whatever the DM does is within the rules.

The only concern is whether the group is having fun. Why everyone on the internet is so concerned with the rules instead of having fun, I will never understand.

[Kornaki]

To fudge and to bend the rules are (or can be) different things.

Let's say that at the beginning of the campaing the DM decided (and the players agreed) to use a certain table for calculating the amount of magical objects available at "stores", based on the size of town, and so on...
Later in the campaign, the DM shouldn't be able to invent on the run an exception to that rule?


Perhaps this small backwater village has a retired epic wizard who sells magic items to whoever can find him in exchange for them not telling anyone else where he is. Or you're in the capital city and the players go to the magic store just to find out it's been robbed and they need the PCs to find the thief. Totally legitimate exceptions to that rule

[Jay R]

That's an interesting philosophical question.

Every version of D&D has the rule that the final determination is the DM's, and that he can choose to use the published rules or something else. If he changes the rules of the game, he is following this rule.

If, on the other hand, he claims he can't change the rules of the game, and has to run the rules as written, then he is breaking this rule.

[mcbobbo]

There are two extremes to be wary of:
1) Mother May I / Magical Tea Party
2) Player entitlement

In the first case, you're removing the players' capability to have meaningful impact on the system. That's bad. Never do that.

In the second one you get players who believe they can exert control over more than just their own character. That's also bad. Never tolerate that.

In the middle is this vast ocean of how games actually go in the real world...

My advice to anyone in this position is:
Ask your players to trust your judgement
Demonstrate that you are worthy of that trust
Present anyone who would second guess your hard work with the opportunity to run the game themselves

[TuggyNE]

The only concern is whether the group is having fun. Why everyone on the internet is so concerned with the rules instead of having fun, I will never understand.

This is pretty severe hyperbole; most of the people posting in this thread to say "No, the GM does not have the right to break the rules!" are not posting because they hate fun and are un-American*, but because they consider that to be the best way to ensure fun. Stop Having Fun Guys do exist, but I don't think there's much overlap here.


*Or otherwise unpatriotic and disloyal, as appropriate to the country.

[NichG]

This is pretty severe hyperbole; most of the people posting in this thread to say "No, the GM does not have the right to break the rules!" are not posting because they hate fun and are un-American*, but because they consider that to be the best way to ensure fun. Stop Having Fun Guys do exist, but I don't think there's much overlap here.


*Or otherwise unpatriotic and disloyal, as appropriate to the country.

The point of the comment is not, I think, that there are people who insist on not having fun because rules are rules, but rather that there seem to be a lot of people who have trouble having fun without stringent rules in place.

My observation is, lots of players online have been burned by bad DMs. Nothing beats a game where you can trust everyone at the table to watch out for eachothers' fun. But if you have bad experiences that convince you that such a scenario is unlikely, you may be more insistent about rules = fun than if you've had the opposite experience.

[TuggyNE]

The point of the comment is not, I think, that there are people who insist on not having fun because rules are rules, but rather that there seem to be a lot of people who have trouble having fun without stringent rules in place.

I can certainly understand being honestly puzzled at the seemingly unnecessary lengths to which they go, but assuming that the rules they put forward are "instead of having fun" is just unwarranted.


My observation is, lots of players online have been burned by bad DMs. Nothing beats a game where you can trust everyone at the table to watch out for eachothers' fun. But if you have bad experiences that convince you that such a scenario is unlikely, you may be more insistent about rules = fun than if you've had the opposite experience.

Indeed.

Personally, I started my D&D career with a rather slap-happy group that didn't know the rules all that well, and I had a lot of fun that way. It's just that my personality lends itself to the principle of best practices, of doing things The Right Way, and so on. So I find a certain amount of pleasure merely in the exercise of the rules themselves, although I am of course aware that is not the be-all and end-all.

[scurv]

Here is the thing about rules, They are an agreement between all sitting at the table that the world will be made and played in such and such a way. But the cited example looks to be more of a homebrew situation.

Now are the rules can be flexible and subject to change, Most definitely yes. But such changes should be nether be capricious or concealed. There should be a reason for every change, And considering players tend to build their characters with an understanding of what the world rules are the players should have their own input as well for any changes of rules already in play.

Now as for explaining why some NPC or another has such and such companion...Well quite frankly I tend to use this rule of thumb, Is it something a player might of asked for in the past and I said yes or no to
If yes, proceed, If no then put in writing (like on the npc's char sheet) why this is enabled for this npc. Because next time your players roll up new chars they might and quite likely will cite this example and it will save you many headaches later.

[Killer Angel]

Well quite frankly I tend to use this rule of thumb, Is it something a player might of asked for in the past and I said yes or no to
If yes, proceed, If no then put in writing (like on the npc's char sheet) why this is enabled for this npc. Because next time your players roll up new chars they might and quite likely will cite this example and it will save you many headaches later.

Pretty much. What's good for the goose...

[Need_A_Life]

The rules of the game system can be bent or broken if it serves the story (though don't do it lightly).

The understanding in the game group on "go" and "no-go" should be strictly adhered to.

[Yora]

GMs have every right to create monsters and NPCs with abilities that could not be reproduced with the rules that govern the creation of player characters.
And that includes adding such things on the fly as long as it doesn't contradict anything that has already been established in the campaign.

However, it would be really bad form to change things that have already been established as being one way or another or following a certain rule. Once something worked by a certain rule in the game once, the GM should stick with it.
Unless the GM later notices that he made a mistake and informs the players that he will from now on use the correct rule. The important thing is that the players need to know that something that worked before won't work anymore because of that correction.
Personally, I think such corrections should not be applied retroactively and everything the PCs already did with the wrong ruling remains as it is now. Unless it causes a really serious problem for the rest of the game.

[Ceiling_Squid]

Good God, this is a loaded question if ever I saw one. This kind of stuff leads to flame wars.

My answer will be succinct and probably in agreement with many others:

Yes, the DM has the right, and oftentimes the duty, to bend or break the rules, if it results in a more fun experience for the group.

This isn't a videogame, people, we aren't bound by programming.

We can argue forever about to what degree he can bend the rules, or in what context this is appropriate, or what these words even mean, but Rule 0 exists for a reason. In non-dysfunctional groups, it can be used to great effect.

[Amphetryon]

Can the GM break the rules, as written in the rule books? Generally, yes, though specific games may either forbid this or have broad enough 'rules' to make this difficult to impossible.

Can the GM break the rules, as they have been set by the course of play? Generally, no, again with specific exemptions for RPGs that accommodate that sort of thing.

In other words: Can a GM say "Dragons in my world don't have breath weapons, instead relying on a short-range teleportation effect to wreak havoc?" Yep, most likely (hopefully before the game starts, or at least before Dragons are encountered). Can a GM say "Remember what I said about teleporting Dragons? Now that you have a pet Dragon, it doesn't apply to the Dragon you have." Not in most cases, assuming the GM wants to continue to run a game for other people.

[BWR]

I recently had an epic level lich performing a ritual to cover the world in a giant anti magic zone. The players thwarted him, but afterwards one of them bitched about how it was unfair that i gave an npc a power that the pcs could not replicate.

I explained that it was a legitamate epic level spell, and the player balked at the idea. I then spent half an hour working out how such a spell would be cast. The player then said that because i didnt do the math before the session i was still cheating, that just because such a spell could exist doesnt mean it is fair for the dm to assume it does exist.

Then the player asked if he could cast the spell. I sakd yes, if you get to epic level and then take all the neccessary preparation to research and cast such a spell.

The player then asked if i would allow it. I told him ooc i would allow it, but ic someone will almost certainly stop him first. Then he asked why no one decided to stop my npc. I then asked him what the heck he thought the pcs just did and proceeded to hit my head on the desk.

So, long story short, I really guess it depends on the pc.

Every time I hear about this group my heart writhes in sympathy for you. Hpope you're having luck finding a new group.

Back on topic, I'm of the opinion that DMs are free to follow Rule 0.
There is a difference between explicitly or covertly changing the rules, and doing one thing but making it impossible for the PCs to do the same thing.
Of the latter, there are basically two types: mechanics and dice rolls.
Personally, I'm a fair play minded sort of person so there are not many things I would allow NPCs to do that I wouldn't allow PCs to do, at least from a mechanical perspective. I don't feel any shame in adapting or tweaking some spell or monster or feat here and there, but I'm not going to do stuff like give enemies Favored Enemy (PCs) while not allowing PCs to have something similar if they choose.

On the subject of fudging rolls, I rarely do it. If the PCs are set for a TPK on a plot-irrelevant random encounter, I would probably fudge an attack roll or two. If the PCs are set to one-shot the plot critical NPC, I might give said NPC a few more hit points than he normally had.
Sometimes PCs fail, sometimes they die, but having an entire campaign go down the toilet due to a few bad rolls just leaves everyone feeling annoyed, so in interests of keeping the fun factor up, I will fudge a little here and there to make sure the campaign stays alive. Fortunately, it's not something I need to do all that often.

[Tork]

If you are making changes on the fly (you decide - in the middle of combat - that the fiendish boar can sprout wings or has a breath weapon), you're getting into murky waters. Fudging rolls is its own hotbed issue, and requires a light touch.

If you want to stay on the light side, you must not be making changes simply so you can beat the players. That's not your job. If it is your job to beat the players (A GM vs Players table, you're running Tomb of Horrors, Far Realms Edition), you really need to play it straight with the mechanics (Paranoia being the exception here).


This whole discussion confuses me to no end. The DM is free to change, break and ignore the rules at will. That is the whole point of having a DM in the game. Otherwise you would just have a group of players.

Every good DM makes changes on the fly. Again that is what DM's are there for. If a fight is to easy or hard for the group, you can add or take stuff away, like quickly add a template or delete a magic item.

I'll never understand the ''beat the players'' complaint. A DM can 'beat' the players in so many ways it is pointless to even say. And a DM can even do it in the rules. Just look at the whole CR thing. Monster A is 10 CR and can just bash, monster B is also 10 CR but can attack and stay invisible. Or monster C needs X to hurt it and the characters don't have it.

[Water_Bear]

This whole discussion confuses me to no end. The DM is free to change, break and ignore the rules at will. That is the whole point of having a DM in the game. Otherwise you would just have a group of players.

Every good DM makes changes on the fly. Again that is what DM's are there for. If a fight is to easy or hard for the group, you can add or take stuff away, like quickly add a template or delete a magic item.

Not everyone plays the same way you do.

I, and many other good DMs, see it as a personal failure if we have to fudge a die roll or change stats on the fly. If the result was so unacceptable it shouldn't have been possible at all. Breaking the rules, from that perspective, is a failure of the DM to present a consistent world which will react logically to player choices.

I, and many other players, am frustrated when DMs fudge dice or otherwise break the rules and infuriated when they lie about doing so. This applies even when it means my own character is saved; without the possibility of success and failure, achievement is meaningless to me. I have no use for a DM who doesn't present me with the chance to make meaningful choices in a game, and will not play under one voluntarily.

Now my way isn't any better than yours, and I respect people who have different goals than myself, but it's important to understand that people who want the DM to stay within the rules where they exist are coming from. It's not about hidebound obsession with words on the page, it's about the purpose of the rules themselves.

[Baron Of Hell]

Everything I know about DnD comes from saturday morning cartoons from the 80s. According to the little dungeon master DMs can do anything except send PCs back home if that get caught in a magical roller coaster thats sends them to a magical world to fight 5 headed dragons. So I DM all my games with this in mind.

[Skald77]

I am somewhat new to the forums, but not to roleplaying games in general, and to me the approach to this question seems a bit odd in many cases. Though I did see someone who was on the same track as myself. Too many seem to approach these games as if they are competitive ones, between the GM and the players. And in most of the rulebooks for them, they describe that this is not the case.

Tabletop RPG's are, on the whole, cooperative games where the GM is supposed to work with the players to challenge them and be sure that everyone has fun. If you are running a game without this motivation, then personally I am not sure how you have a group of players to begin with.

That said, my answer is yes, the GM can break the rules. Because, in doing so, his intent should be to make the game more fun for everyone and create interesting challenges for them to face. Not to "beat" his or her players, or create confusion amongst them about how the game works.

[NichG]

Not everyone plays the same way you do.

I, and many other good DMs, see it as a personal failure if we have to fudge a die roll or change stats on the fly. If the result was so unacceptable it shouldn't have been possible at all. Breaking the rules, from that perspective, is a failure of the DM to present a consistent world which will react logically to player choices.


So I don't have anything to say about the rest of this post, but this bit in particular strikes me as implying the opposite of the conclusion it reaches.

If you as a DM create an encounter that in retrospect was inappropriate for the party in some way and if you as a DM consider that as a personal failure, doesn't it make sense to abandon pride and take what actions are needed to correct that failure? E.g. if its between 'I will not fudge this trainwreck I created even if everyone hates it because that would be a failure for me' and 'I'll consider this a personal failure, but I'll fudge it so the campaign can go on and still be fun for people' I would think the second would be, at least in isolation, a better attitude for a DM.

Now in regards to the second part of your post, if the players will have their fun destroyed by fudging, then it makes sense to let the dice fall where they may. At that point, you just haven't got many options left that still preserves the fun of the game. But if your players are okay with fudging and the situation can benefit from it, I don't think 'I consider this a personal failure' is really a good reason not to fudge.

[Kazemi]

I, and many other good DMs, see it as a personal failure if we have to fudge a die roll or change stats on the fly. If the result was so unacceptable it shouldn't have been possible at all. Breaking the rules, from that perspective, is a failure of the DM to present a consistent world which will react logically to player choices.
I strongly disagree with one key part of this statement. Changing or fudging the rules on the fly does not imply inconsistency. Part of the challenge when breaking rules is to remain consistent with the world and the PC's perspective of it. However, I do frown upon the methods Tork mentioned. I'd rather turn the tide by introduce some sort of hindrance to the enemy or an edge to the players through behavior/environment if I can think of any or if the players initiate any.

More important than the above statement, though, I think the type of fudging that works best is combining or modifying rules in interesting ways and can be done on the fly (though it should be prepared for). I'm talking about

The Fire Lord (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/rTKEivnsYuZrh94H1Sn.html)'s ability to cast arcane spells in Full Plate without failure
SCS's sudden Phase Organ Splice
Elan's Dashing Swordsman Prestige Class
an expanded Spell Failure table
making a zombie campaign with modified zombies that move faster or whose bite infects with a zombification virus that forces a fort save every hour for -2CON and -2CHA upon failure until you die
giving a Fiendish Boar to the BBEG as a pet


Some fudges are major enough that you really, really should have your PC's permissions (Spell Failure table, the infective zombies; though the former they should not actually see and the later they should just expect very high danger rating), while others you know they'll love (Dashing Swordsman PrC, Phase Organ), and others they really should just take in stride (Fire Lord, Boar, faster zombies). If you've changed something so it's not consistent with what the PCs have seen, then there should be a good plot behind it for them to uncover. It's not inconsistent if it's a clue.

[Totally Guy]

Can we please stop talking in D&D terms with D&D examples. As Jay R, Nerd-o-rama and others have pointed out D&D is a game that grants this privilege in the books.

This discussion is only worth having to talk about RPGs that don't have this conceit.

A quick scan across my shelf unearths:
A Dirty World,
Spirit of the Century,
Luke Crane's games (BW, BE, MG),
Jared Sorensen's games (Lacuna (debatably), Inspectres, FreeMarket),
Cold City,
Vincent Baker's games (DitV, In a Wicked Age),
Marvel Superheroic Roleplay.

None of which I believe expect a GM to need to break the rules to work at the table.

[Jay R]

There are two crucial principles:

1. The players need to trust the DM -- to believe that he is making competent judgment calls for the good of the game, recognizing that while every rule is there for a purpose, nonetheless the DM knows more about this game than the rules-writer.

2. The DM needs to be trustworthy - he must make competent judgment calls for the good of the game, recognizing that while the DM knows more about this game than the rules-writer, nonetheless every rule is there for a purpose.

[Emmerask]

In games that are specifically setup to be gm vs players no the gm should not cheat and should not have the right to.

In games that are not, the "cheating" presumably happens to better the game experience for everyone (leaving out bad gms because they should not be the baseline against which we compare^^). So yes they should have the right.

[Amphetryon]

Can we please stop talking in D&D terms with D&D examples. As Jay R, Nerd-o-rama and others have pointed out D&D is a game that grants this privilege in the books.

This discussion is only worth having to talk about RPGs that don't have this conceit.

A quick scan across my shelf unearths:
A Dirty World,
Spirit of the Century,
Luke Crane's games (BW, BE, MG),
Jared Sorensen's games (Lacuna (debatably), Inspectres, FreeMarket),
Cold City,
Vincent Baker's games (DitV, In a Wicked Age),
Marvel Superheroic Roleplay.

None of which I believe expect a GM to need to break the rules to work at the table.
As I am not intimately familiar with all of your examples, I must ask:

How many of those games have rules for the creation of the OP's example creature, a Fiendish Dire Boar? If those creation rules don't exist for the games you listed, then it may be of most benefit to the OP to stick to those games where his example is relevant.

[Talakeal]

You know, the idea that PCs should be able to "do anything an NPC can do" is a really weird one that is peculiar to modern RPGs. I don't really see it having a place in real life or fiction.

[Frozen_Feet]

Just to give an example where NPCs and PC are explicitly asymmetrical: Lamentations of the Flame Princess. It's a retroclone and pretty minimalistic at that, and for obvious reasons the GM is not forced to stick to PC character creation rules.

Also, it is the spirit of said game that if PCs are allowed NPC toys, those toys will screw them in a horrible manner. :smalltongue:

[Tork]

Not everyone plays the same way you do.

I, and many other good DMs, see it as a personal failure if we have to fudge a die roll or change stats on the fly. If the result was so unacceptable it shouldn't have been possible at all. Breaking the rules, from that perspective, is a failure of the DM to present a consistent world which will react logically to player choices.

I, and many other players, am frustrated when DMs fudge dice or otherwise break the rules and infuriated when they lie about doing so. This applies even when it means my own character is saved; without the possibility of success and failure, achievement is meaningless to me. I have no use for a DM who doesn't present me with the chance to make meaningful choices in a game, and will not play under one voluntarily.

Now my way isn't any better than yours, and I respect people who have different goals than myself, but it's important to understand that people who want the DM to stay within the rules where they exist are coming from. It's not about hidebound obsession with words on the page, it's about the purpose of the rules themselves.

I guess I don't get the whole personal failure part? The group encounters some foes, and the first couple of rounds go bad for the players...so the DM just makes some of the foes weaker on the fly or the group is plowing through encounters a lot and not having fun so the DM suddenly has foes have better weapons and auto make saves..is bad?

A lot of that stuff is not even covered by ''the rules'' anyway. Is there a rule, in any game, that says ''once a foe is stated out they may not be changed''? Is there even a rule that says DM's have to use saving throws or any mechanic anyway?

[Frozen_Feet]

Er, also, correction to a prior post--"storytelling"-based games do not imply that the GM has a preplanned story, and that's not the sole province of White Wolf. If anything, White Wolf games tend to be like the urban fantasy version of D&D with a more robust core mechanic and a mythology that leans closer to folklore.

I hardly claimed it was the sole province of White Wolf - White Wolf games are just the most glaring examples, especially OWoD which was neck-deep in metaplot. Here's what I wrote, with some added emphasis:


The idea that RPGs should be story-driven became fixed to D&D only from 2nd Ed AD&D onwards, and was popularized and developed further by White Wolf and their ilk. Most tellingly, in such games, the game master is not called such - rather, he is called "storyteller" or "narrator".

The seeds of "story-driven" game were there starting from OD&D, but it took a while before it became the "correct" way to play RPGs.

What comes to preplanning, let's look at how the question was prefaced: "In order to write a good story..."

First, "writing" implies it is the GM who is primarily responsible for scripting events of the game. Second, "good story" implies the GM has a specific outcome in mind - because he obviously doesn't want a bad story. There would be no point in the distinction if the GM didn't have some preconceived notion of what the story should be.

All in all, such a wording is strongly implicative of a story-driven style of play. It doesn't matter if it is the GM, or the players, or the designer of the game, or all in unison decide what the desired outcome should be. It is one of the most ubiquitous elements of such games that there's a certain type of narrative that the game is supposed to produce.

Let's take, for example, Lord of the Rings CODA RPG. This is one of the games that refers to the game master as a "narrator", and it is strongly lopsided towards Tolkienian heroism and narrative style. Playing morally questionable characters or outright villains are pretty much explicitly called out as not being the point of the game. Furthermore, rather than slaying monsters or obtaining loot, the game rewards characters for achieving personal goals, which favors character-driven play and both the narrator and players planning concrete story arcs for their adventures.

This is strongly detached from, let's say, Basic D&D or Lamentations of the Flame Princess, where characters are rewarded for obtaining treasure. These systems rely more on player wit, encourage thinking of adventures as puzzles rather than in terms of narrative, and emphasize random chance and fairness of the GM.

In games like LotR, fudging in favor of the characters is pretty much par for the course, and is infact built into the system in the form of Courage points. After all, the characters are supposed to be heroes and unheroic play is either penalized or flat-out denied.

In games like LotFP, characters are pawns. Fudging in favor of them is right out. The point is to see if the players can make their characters survive through an adventure. Building a coherent narrative, where the PCs fill a clear role like "the heroes" or "the villains", is simply not on the priority list.

If take a step back to the previous topic and contrast White Wolf games with D&D 3.5, the phenomenom is likewise obvious. All lines of White Wolf games are strongly about playing something, with that specific something somehow forming the core dramatic conflict for the game. In D&D 3.5, you can play as anything, and whether any drama is derived from that is completely up in the air.

So yes, a story-driven game does imply some preconceived notion of what the story should be. It can't be story-driven if that's not the case. How can the story drive anything forward, if it is non-existent?

[Totally Guy]

I guess I don't get the whole personal failure part? The group encounters some foes, and the first couple of rounds go bad for the players...so the DM just makes some of the foes weaker on the fly

You've got it backwards. The players are the ones that are responsible for reacting to the situation the GM presents. The players decide what they do and if that means that they start to suffer then that is a consequence of their decision. The GM making the foes weaker undermines the decision the players made when they chose to fight.

When I play I want to make legitimate decisions because that's my primary source of fun. It's my priority, my utility as a player.

"Just do whatever is fun" is not fun for me because it feels hollow. Like I'm being protected from the game instead of actually playing it.

[NichG]

On story-driven games:

There's lots of variance as far as whose role creating the story actually is in such games. Something like the Serenity RPG (or any other game with dramatic editing) explicitly gives the players resources that can be used to shift the story in a way they want, while operating under the GM-sets-the-scenario model in other cases.

There's also I think a difference between a campaign where the DM says 'I have planned out what will happen, and I will run you through it', versus 'I have planned out what is going on in the setting, and you will interact with it'. Both are more story-driven than, e.g., 'I know whats in the setting, interact with it or not, your choice'. In both cases the players are being asked (or assumed to) engage with the main line of some sort of story or scenario, but in the former case the outcome has been predetermined by the DM whereas in the latter case only the non-PC part of the story has been predetermined. So I'd use three or more categories:

1. Fixed plotline, PCs are passively following it (most common in commercial modules, adventure paths, etc).

2. Story-based middle ground. The game is explicitly about making stories at some level, but the DM and players both have agency to determine what the stories are about and what happens. This could still be run like a sandbox, but the focus will be on things traditionally connected with stories (e.g. pacing, drama, etc).

3. (I don't have a good name for this category). Games where the primary focus is on some other, possibly explicitly stated goal (such as 'get treasure' or 'get xp' or 'defeat the enemies in the scenario' or 'survive the dungeon' or even something more abstract). This category is really multiple categories, since there are multiple kinds of games that don't necessarily address 'story' in any particular way, but its too broad for me to easily break down into subgroups here.

This is pretty far afield of the breaking the rules question though.

[Kazemi]

You've got it backwards. The players are the ones that are responsible for reacting to the situation the GM presents. The players decide what they do and if that means that they start to suffer then that is a consequence of their decision. The GM making the foes weaker undermines the decision the players made when they chose to fight.

When I play I want to make legitimate decisions because that's my primary source of fun. It's my priority, my utility as a player.

"Just do whatever is fun" is not fun for me because it feels hollow. Like I'm being protected from the game instead of actually playing it.

But what if you overestimate/underestimate your players? I can see where you're coming from if the PCs decide to do something silly that gets the town guard after them, but if you make a mistake in judgement as the GM or a player makes a mistake that dooms the entire party, it seems like a shame that everyone should die. I'm not saying that they should get out unscathed and that there should be no repercussions, but you should have the option to live with those repercussions and recover (via quests and adventures, of course).

It reminds me of a situation a party of mine got in once where we went up against a single Bodak and within the first 3 rounds half the party was dead due to critically failing our Fort Saves (twice for me; stupid reroll still failed). What's a GM to do? :smallsigh:

[valadil]

Can we please stop talking in D&D terms with D&D examples.

To use a D&D example, D&D is the Common of RPGs. Everyone speaks it. Do you have another suggestion for a system that's so ubiquitous that you can use it for an example without detailing its rules?

[Mr Beer]

I, and many other good DMs, see it as a personal failure if we have to fudge a die roll or change stats on the fly. If the result was so unacceptable it shouldn't have been possible at all. Breaking the rules, from that perspective, is a failure of the DM to present a consistent world which will react logically to player choices.

Any DM can misplan an encounter or fail to anticipate every possible player decision. Refusing to consider fixing it "because rules" would be the personal failure IMO.

[Water_Bear]

But what if you overestimate/underestimate your players? I can see where you're coming from if the PCs decide to do something silly that gets the town guard after them, but if you make a mistake in judgement as the GM or a player makes a mistake that dooms the entire party, it seems like a shame that everyone should die. I'm not saying that they should get out unscathed and that there should be no repercussions, but you should have the option to live with those repercussions and recover (via quests and adventures, of course).

It reminds me of a situation a party of mine got in once where we went up against a single Bodak and within the first 3 rounds half the party was dead due to critically failing our Fort Saves (twice for me; stupid reroll still failed). What's a GM to do? :smallsigh:

Let them die. Seriously.

If PC death is unacceptable, don't threaten the PCs with death. If the death of a villain or other NPC is unacceptable, make it clear to the players beforehand that killing them is not an option or make them immortal. You don't need to plan everything out beforehand to ten decimal places, it's just a question of knowing what cannot happen.

And sometimes you will miss one; a villain you meant to survive will die, a PC will mess up and drop the macguffin over the cliff, the princess will forget to mention the dragon's secret allergy to mirrors. Good. Without unexpected outcomes, there is no point in playing at all. Play through it and have fun telling the story later.

[NichG]

Let them die. Seriously.

If PC death is unacceptable, don't threaten the PCs with death. If the death of a villain or other NPC is unacceptable, make it clear to the players beforehand that killing them is not an option or make them immortal. You don't need to plan everything out beforehand to ten decimal places, it's just a question of knowing what cannot happen.

And sometimes you will miss one; a villain you meant to survive will die, a PC will mess up and drop the macguffin over the cliff, the princess will forget to mention the dragon's secret allergy to mirrors. Good. Without unexpected outcomes, there is no point in playing at all. Play through it and have fun telling the story later.

IMO this viewpoint neglects that there's a big difference between 'things went in an unexpected direction' and 'utter trainwreck', and that all it takes to cross between the two is a GM's bad estimation of the party's strength, the players having a bad day, or a string of bad rolls.

If I have a campaign thats roughly structured and supported to last a year and we've been doing this for 6 months, ending 6 months early with 'and you TPKd and your new characters would have no clue whats going on' is a complete waste. If a PC or two die thats one thing, but a TPK is an ending, and depending on the TPK it can be a very dissatisfying ending for all involved.

Even if this isn't a TPK/everyone dies scenario, some outcomes can just leave a really bad taste in everyone's mouth. I ran something at one point where the PCs were lured into the lair of someone using lots of domination effects, and the entire party got dominated for the next six months until someone else came by and dealt with the situation. That could have been an awesome story, but with the particular group and circumstance it mostly felt unfair since it was only due to a sequence of very bad rolls, and because of the timing the party had little chance to actually take action. Everyone at the table was resentful about it for a month and it really damped down the campaign. There's no question they would have been happier had I fudged it.

Similar story, a player had a one-use item that was perfect for a situation and they'd been sitting on it for several sessions. Problem is, it required an attack roll but they could only miss on a 1. They used it, nat 1'd the attack roll, and nat 1'd the luck reroll. It would have been a very awesome clever thing, but instead the moment just kind of fell flat. To open up a can of worms, this is a situation where if the player had cheated, it probably would have been better for the game as a whole (though we were using Maptools and its die roller so this was basically not feasible).

[Kazemi]

Eh, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this. I don't like anticlimactic endings and will fudge things towards the dramatic sometimes (especially if that's the direction the players are aiming for anyways). That bodak was the second-worst experience I've had in RPGs :smallfrown:

Keep in mind, I and my players normally roll out in the open, so it's rarely the dice themselves that are fudged. But I will fudge story occasionally if I feel it could definitely be better.


And sometimes you will miss one; a villain you meant to survive will die, a PC will mess up and drop the macguffin over the cliff, the princess will forget to mention the dragon's secret allergy to mirrors. Good. Without unexpected outcomes, there is no point in playing at all. Play through it and have fun telling the story later.
These I have no problem with, especially the first two (the dragon may result in a TPK, depending on difficulty). "Fudging" in the first two cases is actually railroading if you're changing the result so it's the same as you had prewritten.

Another example I've seen was when the only non-villain NPC with an idea on what was truly going on got killed on accident (random targeting, double-failed saves, it happens). Instead of saying "Whoops, looks like the only guy who knew the secret is dead! Sorry, game over!" or "Nevermind, the snake eats this guy instead!", he instead jumped on a PC's earlier question of "Is this other NPC that is being a complete nuisance actually an undercover CIA operative or something?" And thus, the story continued in an interesting plot twist, with minor changes to the world at large. (I just wanted to point out that there are non-railroading ways of using "fudging")

[shadow_archmagi]

Of course GMs can break the rules. The real question is always should they break the rules. Having a pet boar doesn't really bother anyone, but there are definitely times and places where changing rules can be frustrating. (Boats tend to rock back and forth to allow precise fighting styles, so no one provokes AoOs during sea battles!)

[Totally Guy]

To use a D&D example, D&D is the Common of RPGs. Everyone speaks it.

But for this discussion it's redundant. I could point to the pages where it says that it's okay.

Lets just get clear on positions.

GM's should never break the rules in any game. - Not my position.

GM's can break the rules when it is permitted by the group or the game. - My position.

GM's have a right to break the rules in all games. - This is what I'm against. I don't think people who say this are familiar with enough games.

[Autolykos]

Yes, but you do it on your own responsibility. You may do it to make the game more enjoyable, and only to that purpose. But if the discussion ever comes up in your group, you probably just went too far (assuming reasonable players).
That said, I prefer to err on the side of making encounters a little too hard and half-expect the players to find creative ways around them. That way, if I ever have to fudge the rules it's usually in favor of the players. Never heard anyone complain about that. It's also rarely necessary. You can always let the NPC's use suboptimal tactics, or, if nothing helps, retreat. Nothing makes the players more paranoid than that :smallamused:

[Tork]

Lets just get clear on positions.

GM's should never break the rules in any game. - Not my position.

GM's can break the rules when it is permitted by the group or the game. - My position.

GM's have a right to break the rules in all games. - This is what I'm against. I don't think people who say this are familiar with enough games.

I only agree with number three. And I don't get why everyone else does not agree.

To be clear: the DM is above the rules of any game, that is the point of a DM. In short a DM can do whatever they want, at will. There are no rules that say a DM ''must do'' or ''must not do'' anything.

This is the big difference that a lot of people don't get between players and DMs. A DM can take an NPC fighter can 'suddenly' have a magic sword in his hands. A player of a character can never do that. A DM can say ''this happens'', but a player never can say that.

And the big point is: fun! The DM is the only one that can change the game to make sure everyone is having fun. Should the group stop having fun, get stuck, bored or so forth...the DM can fix that. No player can do anything like that.

[Totally Guy]

I only agree with number three. And I don't get why everyone else does not agree.

So we have some overlap at least. We both agreed that when the game or players permit it, it's okay.

Where we disagree is when the player's aren't cool with it. (Lets not worry too much about specific games for now.) So for a group who say they want to play a game as it's written, how would you deal with that?

[Eldan]

To be fair, a lot of games don't have rules for that kind of thing.

But yeah, I'm opposed to that kind of DM fiat. At the very least there should be logical consistency. Yes, the DM has some more leeway, but he can't just do whatever he wants.

[TuggyNE]

To be clear: the DM is above the rules of any game, that is the point of a DM.

Ah, not really. DMs, historically, started out as referees; they weren't so much in charge of making rules as enforcing and clarifying them. Then the job of enemy-running was added, which does not really require breaking written rules in general, and finally they transitioned over to storytellers-in-chief, a task which, again, does not really require rule-stomping (although it comes the closest, given how tedious it can often be to fully rules-justify whatever cool new idea you come up with).

So no, the point of the DM is not, and never has been, about dictating edicts of play from on high, though some certainly consider that one of their major privileges. In a D&D-style game, it probably works best to give them cautious rule-rewriting privileges, with the understanding that they won't go hog-wild (ahem), will be sensible rather than capricious, will warn players as appropriate, and so on. In other games, even that level of privilege may not be needed, or useful.

[Amphetryon]

Let them die. Seriously.

If PC death is unacceptable, don't threaten the PCs with death. If the death of a villain or other NPC is unacceptable, make it clear to the players beforehand that killing them is not an option or make them immortal. You don't need to plan everything out beforehand to ten decimal places, it's just a question of knowing what cannot happen.

And sometimes you will miss one; a villain you meant to survive will die, a PC will mess up and drop the macguffin over the cliff, the princess will forget to mention the dragon's secret allergy to mirrors. Good. Without unexpected outcomes, there is no point in playing at all. Play through it and have fun telling the story later.

I presume this is your position, even if the encounter was designed for more PCs than decided to engage it (for whatever reason), and when said PCs otherwise sound tactics don't account for a series of 1s and 2s rolled by the Players, vs the string of 19s and 20s rolled in the open by the GM?

I ask because the above circumstance is the one in which I'm personally most likely to start fudging as a GM. PCs dying from tactical, in-combat decisions or from venturing into the parts of the world labeled "Here There Be Dragons" prematurely, I'm okay with (and so are my Players, generally). PCs dying because the Dice Gawds started laughing at them is something I'm not as okay with.

[NichG]

Ah, not really. DMs, historically, started out as referees; they weren't so much in charge of making rules as enforcing and clarifying them. Then the job of enemy-running was added, which does not really require breaking written rules in general, and finally they transitioned over to storytellers-in-chief, a task which, again, does not really require rule-stomping (although it comes the closest, given how tedious it can often be to fully rules-justify whatever cool new idea you come up with).

So no, the point of the DM is not, and never has been, about dictating edicts of play from on high, though some certainly consider that one of their major privileges. In a D&D-style game, it probably works best to give them cautious rule-rewriting privileges, with the understanding that they won't go hog-wild (ahem), will be sensible rather than capricious, will warn players as appropriate, and so on. In other games, even that level of privilege may not be needed, or useful.

In the historical games you're talking about, the DM absolutely was about dictating edicts of play from on high, but not in the sense of altering stated things so much as because there just weren't detailed rules for many situations. In older editions of D&D the DM would have to judge on the fly which sort of saving throw was called for in a given situation and the names did not make it obvious (is dodging a fusillade of darts a save versus Breath or versus Wands?). Or perhaps it'd be a raw ability check. Similarly, before a detailed non-weapon-proficiency system you just had 'what job did your character do before adventuring' and were given very loose advice of 'you should be able to do things a person in that job would do'.

Over time, the way that rules were written changed from a sort of incomplete programmatic style (when this happens do this, and then this happens) to something more like legal documents (these are the definitions of terms. These terms interact in the following way) and so this sort of off the cuff adjudication ended up having a different relationship with the rules. Previously, it was a necessity because the rules simply had huge gaps and it was impossible to say definitively what the rules actually said in many cases.

In modern games that strict necessity is no longer there. You could run a straight RAW version of D&D 3.5, with everything exactly by the book, and barring a few corner cases it'd be pretty clear cut.

So I don't think this is a historical issue. If anything, this debate originates from the fact that the historical need for a rules arbitrator is changing as rule sets become more 'complete'.

But I will say, for me at least, this sort of off the cuff thing is in fact the reason for a DM, and beyond that its the reason for tabletop gaming at all. My view is that a human arbitrator is infinitely more flexible than a set of rules, but humans actually do precise rules very poorly. Either it takes a long time to evaluate outcomes compared to what, for example, a computer could do, or we make mistakes easily. I have a pretty strong dislike for modern boardgames for this reason - it seems like they should just be software rather than ask the players to crunch through sets of very complex interacting instructions.

In a tabletop RPG, however, you can take advantage of human flexibility that is currently beyond our ability to make software for, and go off on tangents from the core of the game or try things that were not anticipated. Having a human running it means that they can respond to those tangents or unanticipated strategems in a way that takes into account the details of those actions.

To a human referee, 'I set up a landslide in this rocky canyon' can be different than 'I set up a landslide on these sloping hills' and can take into account enemy fortifications, the psychology of the enemy leader, the weather, etc, in a very sort of holistic fashion (rather than hoping the rules designers made a lookup table to compute the effects of all of these things). Furthermore, the human referee can respond to explanations and intent in a way that hardcoded rules cannot. They can ask the player 'why do you think this will work?' and take that into account, adjusting the rules as necessary to achieve a common feeling of what is 'reasonable' in the situation. Compare this to 3.5ed D&D where some things look like they should work but just cannot be made effective due to mechanical design issues.

[Jay R]

If you don't trust your DM unless you're holding a rulebook over his head, the problem is not whether or not he's following the rules. The problem is that the bond of trust necessary to run a game well isn't there.

[jedipotter]

To be fair, a lot of games don't have rules for that kind of thing.

But yeah, I'm opposed to that kind of DM fiat. At the very least there should be logical consistency. Yes, the DM has some more leeway, but he can't just do whatever he wants.

I'd like to point out that a great many things that people might think are rules, are in fact, not rules. Is there a rule that says you must subtract damage taken from your hit points? Is there a rule that says you can't just add hit points if you want too? Is there even a rule that you must roll a dice only once and take what ever number it says?

I like the idea of 'logical consistency', but it is kind of pointless to even say. Unless the players know everything the DM knows. If they don't, then they don't know if it is 'consistent' or not.

[Emmerask]

Where we disagree is when the player's aren't cool with it. (Lets not worry too much about specific games for now.) So for a group who say they want to play a game as it's written, how would you deal with that?

More then likely (100% if its d&d 3.5 raw) I would tell them to look for a different dm.
Rules as written in all the games I have played to date (which are quite a lot) always had stupid loopholes, utterly broken stuff and didnt have rules for certain things (one game didnt have rules for mounted combat for example)... raw in most cases is barely playable.

However there might be the one perfect rpg out there so I cant give it a blatant "I wouldnt dm it" statement ^^

[Mr Beer]

So for a group who say they want to play a game as it's written, how would you deal with that?

It depends what they mean by that, but in context of this thread, it sounds like they expect to be able to argue with my decisions with the understanding that the rulebook takes precedence over me. No, that's not happening. It's fine for someone to point out that I'm wrong about something, but if I say "understood, but in my game it works like this", then that's how it works.

[NichG]

So we have some overlap at least. We both agreed that when the game or players permit it, it's okay.

Where we disagree is when the player's aren't cool with it. (Lets not worry too much about specific games for now.) So for a group who say they want to play a game as it's written, how would you deal with that?

The more immature part of me says 'run it and show them just how bad it can be by insisting on following even the parts of the rules that make the game tedious or broken'. That said, I wouldn't actually do that even if I might entertain fantasies of it.

In practice I'd just ask someone else to DM at that point, or suggest a game with no DM role at all. Honestly, I might not even play in such a group as a player, depending on the system.

[Kazemi]

So we have some overlap at least. We both agreed that when the game or players permit it, it's okay.

Where we disagree is when the player's aren't cool with it. (Lets not worry too much about specific games for now.) So for a group who say they want to play a game as it's written, how would you deal with that?

I make sure they are aware that there might be times that the game is particularly brutal and that catching me off guard may mean longer taco breaks for them while I plot. I also make sure to type/write up enough notes to point out predetermined behaviors and events when need be or for lulz. I'd also have to make a plot that can be continued by a completely separate group of players or be prepared to just end the campaign when everyone dies.

If they try to reign me in by saying only pre-written things are allowed (ie, prewritten traps) then I give them :smallannoyed: and ask them to explain. I could run this for a short campaign, but it would grow old for me as the DM rather quickly. Few rulebooks include useless magic items for your players to try to use. :smallfrown:

If they try to Pun-pun, then formal war has been declared.:smallmad:

Really, I just don't like the idea of "permission" from the players. I'm more of a supporter that your actions should, hypothetically or retroactively, be able to get their permission, but since the act of getting permission may ruin surprises I don't actually ask them. I may goof sometimes, but I try to make it up to them.


The more immature part of me says 'run it and show them just how bad it can be by insisting on following even the parts of the rules that make the game tedious or broken'. That said, I wouldn't actually do that even if I might entertain fantasies of it.

I do this in MtG sometimes :smallbiggrin:

[TuggyNE]

Is there a rule that says you must subtract damage taken from your hit points?

Yes.
Damage reduces a target’s current hit points.

Rhetoric fail?


Is there a rule that says you can't just add hit points if you want too? Is there even a rule that you must roll a dice only once and take what ever number it says?

Both of these are covered by the same principle: that you are only allowed to do things with some more-or-less specific permission; a mere absence of prohibition is not enough. Given that there actually are numerous defined ways in the rules to gain HP, or reroll dice, accepted reading practice* would indicate that those specific means are intended to be the only means. So yeah, rhetoric failure.

*I wish it was as simple as saying "durr, just read it normally!" but most people are never taught formal reading skills beyond the very basic. How To Read A Book (http://www.amazon.com/How-Read-Book-Intelligent-Touchstone/dp/0671212095) is an excellent remedial tutorial for this, and I recommend it to anyone who is not themselves actually teaching reading classes for adults. Anyone.

[Kalmageddon]

Yes GMs can break all the rules they want, as long as him and the players are all having fun playing.

[obliged_salmon]

It should be pointed out that there is a fine but crucial distinction between the GM arbitrating/interpreting rules and the GM ignoring/changing rules. The GM (or the group as a whole) must arbitrate and interpret the rules in any game system, for any cases that the rules do not conclusively and specifically cover (such as what factors contribute toward an "advantage" or "disadvantage" in a given situation). However, not all systems allow the GM to change the rules.

As an example of what I'm talking about, in Apocalypse World, the GM is limited to a set list of "moves," and cannot, by the rules, do anything that's not on the list. Now, it is a very comprehensive list, with a lot of leeway (things like, "take something the PC loves). But it's up to the GM to decide how any given move plays out (what the PC loves, and how it might be taken).

As to fudging, I think it's bad form in the majority of cases, but I can appreciate its usage in some games. I DM'ed 4th ed DnD once or twice. I remember 1st level PC's rolling through level 3 and 4 encounters, so I didn't think twice about putting them up against a handful of level 2 drake swarms. Yeah. I think I might have fudged that one. DnD 4E is a little bit borked that way.

In games that give players meaningful choices, and consistent rule sets that can deal with those choices on the fly, fudging and changing rules becomes less and less viable.

[Jay R]

Fundamentally, I think the question presents a false dichotomy. It's similar to interviewing four people for two open positions, and they turn out to be a qualified woman, a qualified man, an unqualified woman, and an unqualified man. If you ask whether you should hire the men or the women, you're asking the wrong question.

Consider four possibilities:

1. A poor DM makes the game worse by stupidly changing the rules.
2. A good DM makes the game better by intelligently breaking the rules when it would help.
3. A poor DM makes the game worse by blindly following the rules.
4. A good DM makes the game better by intelligently applying the rules as written.

The question asks us to choose to keep either both 1 & 2, or both 3 & 4.

Most of the arguments are either:
A. people who prefer the good DM in #2 to the poor DM in #3, or
B. people who prefer the good DM in #4 to the poor DM in #1.

But all four of these happen in real games.

In fact, both 2 & 4 are better than 1 & 3.

The DM should choose the best tool for the job. The tool of the DM making a rules adjustment can be, and has been, used both badly and well.

[DR27]

In order to write a good story, does the GM have the right to ignore the rules?

Let's say that I'm the GM and I want to give an evil NPC a fiendish dire boar as a pet. There is no mechanic how gods give gifts. There is no explanation why the calling effect is free of charge and permanent. There is no reason why the boar is loyal. And furthermore, there is no way that the GM would give such pet to the PCs. But the boar works for the story, at least in GM's opinion.

As a player, would you find it unfair if the GM bends the rules to tell his story, but the rules are always the same for you character?
I think the best answer to the question posed was written by the angry dm in relation to Winning D&D (http://angrydm.com/2010/07/winning-dd/). In summary, it comes down to a discussion that DM's should have with players before the game about whether or not it is possible for PC's to win or lose in the adventure they are pursuing. If they can, then the DM can't be breaking rules to bail PC's out all the time, or to make the monsters win encounters. If they can't lose or are destined to fail, the DM needs to fudge rolls, adjust on the fly, etc to get the story he wants. The key is that players and DM need to be on the same page for it to work.

However, the dire boar example isn't really related to the "breaking the rules" question - it's more of a question of world building and encounter design. Does there really need to be a mechanical explanation for why, for example Thog and Sabine follow Nale? Probably not. It would be important when designing an encounter to make an honest best effort ensuring that those enemies pose an appropriate challenge (not too hard or easy) - but the why or how those enemies associate together is more of a story or plot point than mechanical.

[Tork]

So for a group who say they want to play a game as it's written, how would you deal with that?

Even ''as written'' a DM can do anything. The players blink and foes teleport and attack. It is 100% rules legal.

And the players don't know all the details in most games. So they won't even know if the DM is cheating or breaking rules.

And most RPG's are vague as they have DMs. What happens when you add X to Y? Whatever the DM says happens.

[Amphetryon]

Even ''as written'' a DM can do anything. The players blink and foes teleport and attack. It is 100% rules legal.

And the players don't know all the details in most games. So they won't even know if the DM is cheating or breaking rules.

And most RPG's are vague as they have DMs. What happens when you add X to Y? Whatever the DM says happens.

I tend to think the notion that Players "don't know all the details in most games" is fairly group-specific; I've had Players who knew as much about the rules as I, or more, and - given that we'd adventured in the setting previously - were well-versed on what was happening in the game.

[Frozen_Feet]

Even ''as written'' a DM can do anything. The players blink and foes teleport and attack. It is 100% rules legal.

A DM might be able to, but the original question asked about a GM. As has been repeatedly pointed out, one of these is a D&D specific term, and later versions of D&D do allow for the DM to change rules as he sees fit. But most games are not D&D. :smallamused:


And the players don't know all the details in most games. So they won't even know if the DM is cheating or breaking rules.

Not-at-all ironically, this often includes the DM. :smalltongue:

[TuggyNE]

Even ''as written'' a DM can do anything. The players blink and foes teleport and attack. It is 100% rules legal.

Heh. Even that may not be rules-legal; what if the party Wizard has anticipate teleportation up? "Oh, uh, it, uh, doesn't catch them. Because I said so."