Strict Adherence to the Rules?

[kulosle]

So I was just wondering how closely every adheres to rules. And i don't mean house ruling things so that they work better. In fact i mean willingness to break even your own house rules to make the game flow better. I was reading this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=301184) and it seems to me that some people care too much about what the rules say. Now this isn't a perfect example and i'm not saying that anyone in this thread is right or wrong.

I have two different groups that i role play with, one willing to bend the rules and one who isn't. And to be honest not only does the game go smoother it also is far more immersive, because you aren't being reminded of reality as often, and therefore its far more fun.

I wish i could remember some personal examples. Has this ever come up for any of you? Where changing the rules, even house rule, for the moment in order to improve game quality.

[Alleran]

I am perfectly willing to wing it with a more "cinematic" approach to a particular encounter if players come up with a suitably awesome plan or strategy for doing something. I might ask them for a roll or something to that effect, though (with the basic rule of thumb as "higher is better"), and I'll assign the result to whatever best fits in the system to see if it works or not.

[Acanous]

The rules are an expectation, a guideline for fair play. The rules are laid out in the beginning, and from that point, everyone is playing from the same book.
The rules can be bent or broken for the sake of fluff, but not if it kills a character. If you want your epic death monologue, but your PCs WILL kill that villain in 12 seconds or less, or a cool swinging-from-ropes fight where the normal move-attack rules don't work, then sure. Toss in some fudge and get the cool scene off.

If the villain finishes it's monologue and then casts a spell, diplomances the party into in-fighting, or the "Everyone now has swing-by attack" rules change an easy encounter into a hellish nightmare, and players end up dead and upset, that's when you're gonna want to go back to the core rules and fix things.

So that's pretty much it. The first rule is fun, and if your house rules aren't aiding in that goal, then scrap 'em.

Also, if I didn't mention it before, *All permanent house rules that you want to employ must be stated pre-campaign.*

[Ansem]

I had a DM who played pretty much by the letter, except in a few rare occasions. I actually quite enjoyed it.
Despite it's flaws, you knew where you were at and arguments were quickly solved and no endless debating or whining about houserules being fair or balanced.

[Eldan]

I'm really always torn on this.

One the one hand, yes, I like the idea of bending the rules if it makes the game more interesting or fun.

On the other hand... i've heard too many stories about DMs abusing that in annoying ways and I don't really trust myself to be fair and balanced at all times. Really, if you tell people how a rule works beforehand (and you should), it would be annoying to break it later.

My basic approach is this:

Once a rule is made, it stays, unless everyone agrees unanimously and without arguing that an alternate case is better.

If there's no rule, make up what seems to work best.

[Pandiano]

For me the rules are a road a path which allows a story. They are not tracks, that are to be followed strictly in all circumstances.
Important is to make your style of dming absolutely clear to everyone! That way players know what to expect.

One szene for example:
A character of higher level was surprised and a heavy crossbow is held directly on his head, while he is in bed, just half awake.

Of course the character can laugh and proceed as he wants, if he argues mechanicly the bolt can't kill him in any way.
In my game I will tell the player that the weapon will indeed kill him, because no one eats a bolt to the forhead and laughts it off. If the character then uses his things to escape, because higher level characters are just that badass, then of course he can avoid the bolt and just take a scratch at most. Suddenly the szene got from mechanicly boring to cinematic awesome.

But be sure everyone is fine with this. Rules are very important for some people because they produce security and reliability.

Pan

[Flickerdart]

The entire point of the dice is to produce randomness. If your villain absolutely must survive, then make him good at that. If the freak critical hit with a scythe took him down from full to zero, then that's how the cookie crumbles (unless, like a competent person, he had one of the dozen different ways to weather death). If you don't want randomness, don't play a game with dice.

[skyth]

See, as a player, I take certain actions knowing how the rules work so I have an expected result of the actions. If the DM then says that he doesn't like how that rule works (in this situation) and there is a different result, I get frustrated.

Take for instance, the crossbow against the head line. I would expect that I would likely be easier to hit, not helpless, thus the coup de grac rules wouldn't apply and I wouldn't be instantly killed if I try to take the person out. If the DM says that I'm instantly killed by it for trying to swing at him...I would be annoyed.

[Eric Scott]

I know the rules quite well, I'm not a big fan of some and I love others but, when I go to do something as per the rules and the DM says something different happens... I am slightly annoyed but, I don't really care too much because it is just a game after all.

[Pandiano]

See, as a player, I take certain actions knowing how the rules work so I have an expected result of the actions. If the DM then says that he doesn't like how that rule works (in this situation) and there is a different result, I get frustrated.

Take for instance, the crossbow against the head line. I would expect that I would likely be easier to hit, not helpless, thus the coup de grac rules wouldn't apply and I wouldn't be instantly killed if I try to take the person out. If the DM says that I'm instantly killed by it for trying to swing at him...I would be annoyed.

Very good example, skyth! I would also get annoyed if I would expect this. This is half my point. Make it clear as a DM before such situations arise. In one of my rounds we play exactly this, strictly RAW. In that round a level 12 Warblade can laugh in the face of pretty anyone standing before him with puny great crossbow with bolts ablaze with eldritch energy. My DM made clear, that rules are the way to go. In my games I make clear that this is not always the case.

If I play a DM that takes rules seriously and suddenly a villain survives due to DM fiat an just because reasons or I get "tough luck, you're dead" situationa I would also be VERY pissed.

[Krobar]

I normally stick within the rules. I think it's better to keep to the rules as much as possible, so the players don't feel blindsided when something they thought was going to work suddenly gets DM hand-waved away. It's like pulling the rug out from under them. It takes an extreme situation for me to sidestep the rules themselves.

I find it usually works better to fudge die rolls.

[Maginomicon]

Threads like this are why I have an always-online-accessible text-searchable House Rules document that's over 100 pages long. That way I can go into detail beforehand about how (for example) the holding the charge rules really work. I expect my players to read certain parts of the house rules before play and to look up each of their new chosen character options when they level-up.

No one in my games should be surprised, because my rules have been there all along. Unlike in the Hitchhiker's Guide books, they're not hidden in the sub-basement behind a door labeled "beware of the leopard". They're right there, online, freely available (and able to be commented-upon) at any time whatsoever.

[kulosle]

So my group also just play made up systems a lot. and those are always a lot of fun, because when you don't have expectations of how the rules are, you just assume that they work in the most common sense way. Which is what the GM tries to do. But how annoying is it when, in the above situation, as a gm, things you want to do is not supported in the rules. All though the players handbook does have my favorite line "It doesn't matter how many hit point you have, a dagger the the eye, is a dagger to the eye!" I can't seem to find the section though. Its still makes my point of how regardless of how rugged you are you should still die to some mundane things.

[Flickerdart]

So my group also just play made up systems a lot.
Pro tip: All systems are made up.

[Lafaellar]

I try to fit everything my players throw against me into the rules.
If I can't I start improvising and break it down to a roll that seems fair. And with fair I mean, that the way the bonuses add up is fair. If the player's don't have the particular requirements that are needed they still might have bad luck.

But sometimes I even throw away the rules myself.
As a DM, sometimes I simply cheat to make things more entertaining.
"Oh no this dog has no chance of hitting me my AC is way over 20 and..."
*rolls*
"The dog teeth sink into your leg, it hurts, he tries to trip you..."
*rolls*
"... and succeeds."

Oh no, the nasty DM cheated and...
yea whatever, we had a great time and the player still tells me how funny it was.

Sometimes I go a step further and actually change major rules just for one encounter.

I once had a boss fight without initiative order *gasp*
Everyone could tell me what he wanted to do and I brought it in at the appropriate moment. It was really straining but definitive one of the best experiences we ever had. People are still talking about this.

So in my opinion: If I design something and there is a rule in the book I check it out and I find that the rule doesn't add to or even reduce the amount of fun in this situation, the rules gets a kick with the boot and things will be handled in some way that is more appropriate.
I see the rule books as a guide line, not as a strictly followed codex.

[NichG]

I guess the way I'd put it is that I try to fill my game with lots of things that do not have hard and fast rules, so that I don't need to actually go as far as to break the hard and fast rules if I need to adjust things on the fly.

For example, I've established pretty solidly that monsters/boss-type enemies are not 'built', their stats and abilities are just assigned and will not necessarily be consistent with any particular HD/class levels/feats combination. So this means that if I need a big punching bag full of hitpoints but with little threat, I can just go do it. Or if I need a creature that has some wonky attack mechanic or AC mechanic due to power-disparity in the group, I can just go do it. Since I've established 'there isn't a rule that covers this' I can get needed flexibility in that area.

Similarly, items, powers, and the like need not be from the books - so this immediately opens up a lot of options that don't involve breaking a specific rule. If I create a subsystem for the players and a creature is also using that subsystem, then I try my best to follow those rules so the players can use their knowledge of the subsystem as a tool to 'solve' the encounter. But if its just 'okay, you find an artifact/relic/who knows what' then there's no expectation that its from a book somewhere - it could be anything, and I try to make that clear with my players.

If its necessary to go and break those hard rules, though, I'm willing to do so. 'Necessary' doesn't include things like saving my plot or my villain - mostly I limit on the fly adjustment to preventing TPKs, trying to manage player enjoyment, or fixing something in the rules that isn't working as intended (I run a lot of homebrew, so its also pretty openly stated 'these things are a work in progress, so stuff that proves to be really bad design will get changed and you can rebuild for free it if affects you'.

Another example, if everyone is fighting a battle that they know is won, and they're getting bored doing the blow-by-blow to finish it, then sure, the enemy had 100hp less than in my notes. Its an invisible change that doesn't really affect anything important and cuts through the boring stuff.

[kulosle]

I was wondering if anyone has any examples of when breaking the rules went horribly wrong. Because i haven't had that experience yet so maybe i'm just biased.

[Immabozo]

I generally lay down rules, breaking or following, in this order.

Rule of fun > rule of cool > game rules as written/agreed upon

I've had new players frustrated that sneaking up behind a guard and CDG with a garrote/breaking their neck/knife through the spine, etc didn't work. So I let them do it. Not game breaking in the slightest, they just had more fun.

We all, even me loved the time that they fought a demon, who slipped through a portal, paralyzed him and slid his body back through the portal, dodging his at will gaze attacks (was quite funny, with one player trying to poke him in the eyes and the demon hitting him with the gaze attack) until the portal slowly closed and decapitated him and one player turned his skull into a hat.

EDIT:

I was wondering if anyone has any examples of when breaking the rules went horribly wrong. Because i haven't had that experience yet so maybe i'm just biased.

in the same game, I let my players follow the rule of cool and bull rush, by hitting, a man off his dragon (requires a feat) and then he jumped on the dragon and handle animal-ed and the diplomacied/bribed the dragon into following him. 6 of his closest friends also followed other party members.

suffice it to say "Some men just want to watch the world burn"

[Thrair]

My rule of thumb is this:

Players follow the rules strictly, unless the DM says otherwise. They are not allowed to cheat.

DMs can, and should, cheat on occasion. But it should never be seen by the players NOR should it be done in a way that harms the players.

Example of positive DM Cheating:
-"This minor trash encounter's getting a bunch of luck in it's favour, and is getting in the way of the story and slowing down the session with what was supposed to be a speedbump. I'm pretending I just didn't just roll ANOTHER crit and/or make it's save."
-Or "Huh, they decided to bypass my carefully planned encounter in the swamp by approaching the castle by a different route. Crap. Well.... there's a bandit patrol in the woods now. Bam. Random encounter."

Example of negative DM Cheating:
-Contradicting previous rulings when it's favourable for the bad guys. "Ok guys, I know I said before that I houseruled a ban on coup-de-graces if you were threatened, but I want to be able to kill your pet for reasons I'll explain later. Pet needs to make a DC 48 Fort Save. Get your AoO on Mook #4."
-*thinking* Damn, they really outmanuevered my bad guy here, he's probably gonna die before he can teleport. Hm. Yup, he failed his concentration check to teleport away. "Sorry guys, he makes his concentration check. He teleports away."


*EDIT* To clarify, DMs have to "cheat" to a small degree. If players take things off the rails, the DM has to either improvise on the spot, or call a halt on the session to make up new plans. Either way he has to come up with something he hadn't planned ahead of time. It's a necessity if you're not going to railroad the PCs.
PCs can't do the same "Uh.... yah... this was my plan all along. I suddenly always had this x planned in case of y."

[Tvtyrant]

I always tell my players plans on rule changes ahead of time and let them vote on them. The game tends to have some radically different rules when there is a break between sessions, because I have more time to work on the game.

[NichG]

-Or "Huh, they decided to bypass my carefully planned encounter in the swamp by approaching the castle by a different route. Crap. Well.... there's a bandit patrol in the woods now. Bam. Random encounter."


*EDIT* To clarify, DMs have to "cheat" to a small degree. If players take things off the rails, the DM has to either improvise on the spot, or call a halt on the session to make up new plans. Either way he has to come up with something he hadn't planned ahead of time. It's a necessity if you're not going to railroad the PCs.
PCs can't do the same "Uh.... yah... this was my plan all along. I suddenly always had this x planned in case of y."

I would argue that your setting/adventure notes are not rules, they're just notes. Unless you've told the players 'you will only encounter things that I have written down before the game starts' then this isn't cheating, this is just running the game as usual.

There's a difference between this and, say, telling the players 'okay, your fireball actually did CL d8 damage instead of CL d6 damage, because I want this encounter to be over'. That is breaking the rules as the players know them, because you're directly contravening something they've been told works a certain way.