Do you use the rules, or do the rules use you?

[Bjarkmundur]

I commonly see two ways of playing DnD. One is the video game approach, and other is the collective storytelling approach. It's a spectrum I feel most campaigns can see themselves on.
What I want to do is look at the role of the rules within each type of play.

Am I correct to assume that within a 'video game' campaign, Rules are law, and accurately depict what a PC can or cannot do?

Am I correct to assume that during a collective storytelling campaign, the rules are more like guidelines to the DM for ruling on what a a player can and cannot do.

I've seen so many threads that look at the rules and limitations of the PCs like scripture, and wonder if that's how people actually enjoy the game? When a player gives me clear intent, I rarely quote the rules. I simply reply based on the current narrative and atmosphere. There are combat-specific scenarios that might have me Google a combat specific rule or two, but usually I just ask for a dice roll and set a DC.

What's your relationship with the rules? Do you use them as guidelines to help you react to certain events, or do you quote them directly without context?

Can you give us an example of a time when quoting a rule would've been the wrong choice? Can you tell us of a story where handwaving and not looking at the rules backfired horribly?

[Lunali]

In my experience, rules most often get ignored when the DM is trying to force a certain plot. This may or may not make a better story, but has never made the game more fun for me.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

The rules are there so you could do stuff.
If there are no rules you start to play "mother may I?".

If you want to play like that there are systems made for it.

[viaFAMILIAR]

I believe rules are imperative to power gamers. After all, they've optimized their PC according to the rules of 5e. Now take all their hardwork and let everyone at the table do just the same, only more "loosely". I've seen a level 1 fighter start with a highly effective cr 1/2 giant goat mount, basically rendering the ranger's beast companion, a level 3 ability, pointless. So, yes I believe it is important to certain player's styles of play to follow rules.

I'll put it this way; you're the first in line at the bus stop, when it comes the people behind you enter the backdoor and score a seat first. I see this as cheating not only the system but those adhering to it's rules.

However, the exact procedure may not be known to a player and may act out of accordance with the rules. It's important they know that's not how it works, despite wether or not the table plays it that way.

At some point it should be discussed among those at the table, what rules have been dismissed or changed, just so all players are actually playing the same game.

So ask yourself, not your PC, "am I lawful or chaotic."

[sithlordnergal]

I tend to use the rules as guidelines. Certain rules that I like and/or make sense I keep. Other rules, like Passive Perception being the minimum number you can roll on a perception check, are ignored entirely. Though the things I change tend to be stuff that you need a tweet from Crawford to settle anyway.

[yellowrocket]

Not a GM currently. But as a player I ise them as my base knowledge of the world. I know i have certain limits in the world. Usually combat and magic limits. I use those as my characters known limits. As for those not as defined areas. Influencing people. Exploration. Problem solving. I push them. I find ways things interact. I use the rules to provide consistency to sessions. Ive played with some dms that broke the rules, just made any expectation of what you could do or achieve impossible. One later made a player roll to see if magic missile hit. That was one of the last sessions anyone played with him. Roll for effect shouldnt be a default rule at a table when it comes to if you can do ordinary things or if uses of magic do what they explicitly say they do.

Another homebrewed enough that as a base single classed PHB only character you were left lacking in combat or utility as a matter principle. When you're left behind because you didn't ask for favors during character creation it's a little disheartening when it shows during gameplayand during event based leveling. Because each time they level earlier they get to do more and so you fall farther and farther behind.

When I've been a dm in the past I tended to start a campaign with higher levels due to player age or limited numbers. With younger kids 8, 9, or 10 they needed heartier characters due to limits on experience playing. And more levels meant they could do cooler stuff. Mind you it's was level 5 versus levels 2 or 3 to start.

So I guess I'm rules first, but never without context. You want to use thorn whip or lightening lure to pull down a tree? Go ahead and try. Out of combat I'm likely to allow it. In combat, not so much. Mostly because out of combat you are likely doing the other work to help make it fall.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm one of the "collaborative narrative, rules as toolboxes" types. That being said, I tend to run the actual mechanics pretty close to default, at least where they apply. I won't stretch a rule to cover something it doesn't easily cover, I'm not afraid of conflicts between interpretations of different rules, and I'm totally willing to relax something if a player wants to do something that fits the world better than the default rule does.

What I do refuse to do is listen to the internet commentary/hermeneutics surrounding the actual text. I'm unwilling to expand the scope of a rule beyond what it directly applies to, and I refuse to consider the game mechanics to be binding on the world itself unless the setting says that it is. So no, casters (especially NPCs) don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of all monsters and their special attributes. Fireballs have a 20' radius for game purposes, but the actual in-universe effect isn't so crisp and clean cut. There are many many many many spells and effects out there that are not in the PHB. Etc.

[Mackatrin]

I for the most part use the rules and modify as I need to. For my groups, I have a pdf that I modify and update online that let's my players what rules have amendments and what changes there are. For example, I use gritty reality rule.

All in all, the Joy's of 5e is like ADnD they gave complete control back to the DMs and allow us to change and modify what we see fit, without effecting the overall mechanics greatly. Some of the RAW are freaking stupid, like passive perception with a high wisdom and observation, so making afew amendments there adds more challenge to the party.

Base rules are fine, but I feel more experienced dms knownthe rules they want to change and what they want to keep.

[mephnick]

The rules are there to facilitate the designer's goals for the system they wrote. Hopefully those goals and your goals align. If you find yourself ignoring most of the rules of a system you are using then it is a good indication that your group is playing the wrong game. You need to figure out what your goals are and then decide if the system is supporting or hindering your goals. That is your responsibilty as a group, not the designer's responsibilty to pander to you.

If you find yourself ignoring a lot of DnD's more arbitrary simulation rules..maybe you should play Dungeon World. If you hate fiddly tactical combat (holy **** I can't believe people say this and still play modern DnD) then you should play a game focused on...not that. If you want to play a space game, don't use a half-heartedly modified DnD to do it (looking at you Starfinder), use a space game actually designed for it.

If you tell me we're playing DnD, then I'm going to expect killing monsters using the
majority of rules laid out in the book.

[Twigwit]

Base rules are fine, but I feel more experienced dms known the rules they want to change and what they want to keep.

This is true for me. I change nothing from the PHB outside of using variant rules like Encumbernace and 5-10-5 movement but I find myself treating the DMG purely as guidelines outside of the magic items. E.g. the monster creation rules are so obsurdly out of line with what’s in the MM that I barely bother with it anymore.

[Mackatrin]

The rules are there to facilitate the designer's goals for the system they wrote. Hopefully those goals and your goals align. If you find yourself ignoring most of the rules of a system you are using then it is a good indication that your group is playing the wrong game. You need to figure out what your goals are and then decide if the system is supporting or hindering your goals. That is your responsibilty as a group, not the designer's responsibilty to pander to you.

If you find yourself ignoring a lot of DnD's more arbitrary simulation rules..maybe you should play Dungeon World. If you hate fiddly tactical combat (holy **** I can't believe people say this and still play modern DnD) then you should play a game focused on...not that. If you want to play a space game, don't use a half-heartedly modified DnD to do it (looking at you Starfinder), use a space game actually designed for it.

If you tell me we're playing DnD, then I'm going to expect killing monsters using the
majority of rules laid out in the book.


Yep, again 5e is nice because we as the dms have complete control and unlike 3.5 everything isnt RAW and tied with each other and on 4 pages of text.

My only advise to folks using modified rules is use homebrewry and write out the amendments to the rules.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If you find yourself ignoring a lot of DnD's more arbitrary simulation rules..maybe you should play Dungeon World. If you hate fiddly tactical combat (holy **** I can't believe people say this and still play modern DnD) then you should play a game focused on...not that. If you want to play a space game, don't use a half-heartedly modified DnD to do it (looking at you Starfinder), use a space game actually designed for it.
.

I strongly disagree with this. Dungeon World is not "D&D without simulation", it's a very opinionated and particular take on one particular mode of play. I don't do most of the simulation stuff, and that's fine. It's hardly core rules. Compared to 4e, 5e doesn't do fiddly tactical combat, nor was it designed to do so. Just ask the designers.

Fact is, your impressions (like all of ours) are colored by your biases. D&D hasn't been a classic dungeon crawler since...Gygax was running OD&D? Sure, it has elements of that, and elements of many other things at the same time.

For 5e, particularly, I'd say the following mechanical pieces are core and cannot be changed without rebuilding the whole system:
* Class/level paradigm
* Abstracted ability modifiers (not as much the scores)
* Proficiency
* The holy trinity resolution mechanics of Attack rolls, Saving throws, and Ability checks as 1d20 + <appropriate modifiers> vs fixed targets.
* AC as static, armor-dependent damage avoidance value + saving throws
* Bounded Accuracy (specifically in attack modifiers vs AC, saving throw modifiers vs DCs, and ability check modifiers vs DCs as a function of level/gear only).
* Spell level/slot-based casting with individualized, tightly-bounded spells

Everything else is implementation.

[Bjarkmundur]

I'm happy to see how many are interested in this topic!

I was recently invited to a game of Wrath & Glory, a 40k game. The thing is, I know nothing about the world, and I knew no other rules except those relevant to my crusader's faith mechanic. I knew intent, and simply used that as my weapon, rather than my character's mechanics.

Not knowing when the DM was following a rule and when he was simply nurturing the story made the game much more enjoyable for me.

I now make a point of not learning any other game systems, unless I intend to GM it myself.

This is a pretty scary realization as a DM, since I'm not sure what to do with this information, or how it applies to me as a DM, and how the new perspective can be used to increase the enjoyment of my players.

[Potato_Priest]

I now make a point of not learning any other game systems, unless I intend to GM it myself.


Are you worried about this annoying your group by slowing down play? I know I’d be annoyed if a player made a point of not learning the rules for attack rolls, ability checks, and saving throws.

[Bjarkmundur]

Are you worried about this annoying your group by slowing down play? I know I’d be annoyed if a player made a point of not learning the rules for attack rolls, ability checks, and saving throws.

t's just gonna take me a couple of attacks to learn how that works, but I will stay away from the inner workings of the game for as long as I can. Basically, if its not on my character sheet, I don't care. I especially love how every single enemy is a new piece of Lore for me. I almost always try to talk to the enemies (despite them being xenos, lol), just because I want to know more about them xD.

[viaFAMILIAR]

I knew intent, and simply used that as my weapon, rather than my character's mechanics.

Not knowing when the DM was following a rule and when he was simply nurturing the story made the game much more enjoyable for me.


I'm unfamiliar with this conept, but it epitomizes the fundamentals of role-playing. However, it should be known by the player what that role is.


Are you worried about this annoying your group by slowing down play? I know I’d be annoyed if a player made a point of not learning the rules for attack rolls, ability checks, and saving throws.

I agree with this. Players shouldn't rely solely on the DM, especially if they intend to play a long, drawn out campaign.

[Tanarii]

What's your relationship with the rules?I live with them until I know them inside and out, including all the places where they break down. I'm comfortable with them, both their strengths and flaws. I know them so well I can make a decision for them, even when they aren't right there to tell me, being confident I know what their answer would be. But on those rare occasions when I'm not absolutely sure, I check in with them when I get home again, making sure I made the right decision for them. And when I know they would be indecisive, having nothing to say on the matter, or have conflicting feelings, I act strongly and make my own decisions, even ones that will affect both of us long term.

[Constructman]

t's just gonna take me a couple of attacks to learn how that works, but I will stay away from the inner workings of the game for as long as I can. Basically, if its not on my character sheet, I don't care.

That just seems like you're making more work for yourself.

Do you go in blind with regards to the setting as well? Because that seems even more concerning.

EDIT TO RESPOND TO YOUR EDIT:


I almost always try to talk to the enemies (despite them being xenos, lol), just because I want to know more about them xD.

This is an example of what I was talking about. In 40k, if you're a human, the only reason you'd want to talk to a Xenos is if a: you're a Rogue Trader trying to buy/sell shady goods, b: there's a common enemy that's about to bring the hammer down on you both, or c: you're Lord Commander Guilliman and you don't give two rat's asses about the old traditions. C probably doesn't apply to you, so if you're not doing black market deals or teaming up to fight the Tyranids, the appropriate response to a Xeno is to KILL IT WITH FIRE. Failure to do so will draw the suspicion of your squadmates and your superiors at the very best. Not acknowledging that setting detail if you're supposed to be an Imperium-loyal religious zealot will cause annoyance both in and out of character.

[Bjarkmundur]

Think about it like this. Did you read Waterdeep: Dragon Heist before playing it, so you'd be better at following the intended storyline and therefor not "slowing down game play"?

No, we like playing our character, and are excited about new scenarios. Our characters are our avatars in a mysterious world.

You can picture it like this. You know how to drive a car, but adventures happen when you drive to new places.

This is how I tackle 40k. I know my character, but I can't metagame, I can't optimize, I know none of the enemy's stat block, and I have no frame of reference for the DCs our DM uses. And these things make the experience so much more immersive for me, personally.

I am learning the setting and it's general history, since these are things my character would know.

Now let's drop this tangent, since the main point was not knowing when and how my GM used the rules. This got me thinking about how much freedom GMs have in regards to using them, especially in a group where the players only know the rules regarding their character.

[Tanarii]

(Self snipped per request to drop tangent.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

Now let's drop this tangent, since the main point was not knowing when and how my GM used the rules. This got me thinking about how much freedom GMs have in regards to using them, especially in a group where the players only know the rules regarding their character.

I play a lot with new players. Brand new players, many of whom have never read the PHB outside their own class descriptions. Heck, I routinely play one-shots at charity events where the players don't even have that. They have the character sheet (a pre-gen) in front of them, a card with some very basic mechanics, and my 30-second verbal description [1]. They neither know nor care about the fine details. And we have a blast. In fact, I find those people often the most creative and best role-players. They're not looking for a mechanical button to push, they're trying to figure out what the character would do.

On the flip side, this is tons more work for me. Because they can't take shortcuts to simplify my life. I have to prompt for every roll, among many other things.

Rules are there to take the burden off the players (especially off the DM). The default is free-form. But free-form is so much work and so fragile that it's hard to do. So we regularize things, produce mechanics to fairly and simply adjudicate uncertainty. These are the written rules. They're a framework for adjudication and a palette of thematic "colors". That's it. They're nothing sacred, nothing binding. The only thing that's binding is what the table, as a whole, decides the real rules are. Those may (and usually do) incorporate the written rules as a base, but no one is bound to "RAW", "RAI", or any other pronouncement from anyone. They're only bound to what their table decides is right.

And if a set of written rules doesn't take the burden off, but instead insists on taking over where the DM/table can handle it themselves with less work or promotes arguments and rules-lawyering, then those rules should be discarded for that table. And that's on a table-by-table basis.

[Bjarkmundur]

Thank you all for your insight, and sharing with us how the flow is at your own tables. This is one of the more important aspects of the game to share with others, since it translates directly into how the group experiences the game.

In my own game, each player is only expected to know his own character's ability modifiers, class and racial features, speed, trained skills, initiative, resting rules, resources and equipment.

Everything else boils down to a player announcing "I want to _______" and I say " alright roll __________".

Things I can imagine a DM knowing and players being blissfully oblivious to are: Loot, xp, CR, adjusted xp, adventuring days, DC guidelines, deciding, stealth, passive checks etc.

Rules are pretty one sided when you think about it. Most rules can be split into "the rules a DM uses to interact with the players " and "the rules players use to interact with the world"

If I were to make only one universal change to all players in the world, it would not be how knowledgeable they are. I would implant them all with an obsessive love for handouts. XD

[Kyutaru]

Rules are for lawyers, stories are for dreamers. When your powers combine, I am Captain Planes! The story will be guided by the rules and the rules will be broken by the story.

[Bjarkmundur]

Rules are for lawyers, stories are for dreamers. When your powers combine, I am Captain Planes! The story will be guided by the rules and the rules will be broken by the story.

Beautiful


*clapclapclapclapclap*

[PhoenixPhyre]

Thank you all for your insight, and sharing with us how the flow is at your own tables. This is one of the more important aspects of the game to share with others, since it translates directly into how the group experiences the game.

In my own game, each player is only expected to know his own character's ability modifiers, class and racial features, speed, trained skills, initiative, resting rules, resources and equipment.

Everything else boils down to a player announcing "I want to _______" and I say " alright roll __________".

Things I can imagine a DM knowing and players being blissfully oblivious to are: Loot, xp, CR, adjusted xp, adventuring days, DC guidelines, deciding, stealth, passive checks etc.

Rules are pretty one sided when you think about it. Most rules can be split into "the rules a DM uses to interact with the players " and "the rules players use to interact with the world"

I completely agree with this.

[viaFAMILIAR]

I really like where this thread has gone, and how differently the community acts in regards to rules.

Years ago in a Shadowrun forum, there was a term people used called 'rulebook therapy' when joking about GMs smacking their players with the rulebook(SR4e core rulebook is at least twice as thick as the 5ePH).

[Pex]

It is easier to have rules and ignore them when they get in the way than need rules to help but have none. Ultimately all DMs at some point will have to make something up. A situation will happen the rules don't cover or if they do the DM can't remember it for whatever reason at the moment.

It comes down to a matter of taste. Some DMs really want to follow the rules. They don't mind taking a moment to look up a rule when needed to use it. They run the game. The rules take care of minutiae details. Others say rules go fly a kite this is what I want and maybe I'll use you next time when I see you after the game. Neither is Wrong, but it can lead to clashes when players and DMs disagree on which approach to take which includes a player being a DM in another game and vice versa.

My preference is the former. I want the rules to take care of the minutiae. House rule away what doesn't work for you fine, but I want the consistency so I can just play my character instead of having to relearn how to play the game when the DM changes. As DM I house rule my piece on minute changes I prefer, but I don't need my own Player's Handbook to teach the players how to play. We know the rules and how things work. We play.

Edit: Tee hee, I wonder if it's a reflection of whether you're Lawful or Chaotic in real life or least in playing the game that influences your take on rules.

[mephnick]

I strongly disagree with this.

Fact is, your impressions (like all of ours) are colored by your biases. D&D hasn't been a classic dungeon crawler since...Gygax was running OD&D?

It is absolutely still designed with "dungeon crawler" in mind whether it is a literal dungeon or not. The entire balance and core workings of the system are based around it. I'd say it's more based on that than it used to be. Old D&D was based on "Get loot any way you can. Don't die." It had no expected XP curve or adventuring day. 5e is designed completely around resource draining adventure site exploration. People don't use it for that sometimes, but DnD is in no way designed for narrative campaigns with little combat.

[Cikomyr]

I have a lot of fun with the rules. The rules are not merely guidelines, but the jumping ramps toward better things.

Why is the Eldritch Knight suddenly able to manifest spell at level 3? Maybe she just zapped herself with a powerful magitek artifact while trying to disable it without it exploding. This literally opened her magical chakras.

Why can the Divine Soul suddenly manifest powerful divine clerical magic? Maybe her heroic deeds, coupled with her charisma has led some to start a small cult in her Honor, and that belief is what is slowly powering her up.

Why let the rules get in the way of a good story, when the rules themselves can be awesome stories? And when you break the rules, it's just the occasion for a better story to tell.

[Tvtyrant]

I make new rules basically the moment I try a new system. I have a particular approach to the game based on decades of play, and if the game lacks those I modify the game.

Specifically I learned a long time ago that combat is too long and lacked consequences, so my rules changes have been towards increasing damage and reducing health for monsters, creating morale rules for monsters and lingering wounds for players to make damage more than just hit points.

[Kane0]

I think you know which side I sit on.

[NichG]

I commonly see two ways of playing DnD. One is the video game approach, and other is the collective storytelling approach. It's a spectrum I feel most campaigns can see themselves on.
What I want to do is look at the role of the rules within each type of play.

Am I correct to assume that within a 'video game' campaign, Rules are law, and accurately depict what a PC can or cannot do?

Am I correct to assume that during a collective storytelling campaign, the rules are more like guidelines to the DM for ruling on what a a player can and cannot do.


This doesn't really fit for me. I'd say that, from a zoomed out point of view, rules are promises that offload resolution to other parties than the GM and create incentive structures that underlying both the kinds of narrative that result from the game, as well as permit video-game-like levels of strategy. At the same time however, having flexibility in the rules underlies both the ability to have dynamically responding worlds, as well as to permit things that have the same sort of character as playing a video game, but would be impossible in anything hard-coded because they can't be exhaustively anticipated or pre-defined.

As a thought experiment, imagine a game like Civilization except where each player is actually inventing their own technologies as they go along rather than selecting from a list which is the same every time around. It could still be very gameplay-focused with little focus on storytelling or narrative, but the kind of gameplay would be at a higher level of complexity than the multiple choice decision making format. You might ask 'how could it still be a game?', but I'd say specifying the meta-rules to enable that to be stable and balanced would be the challenge to the system designer. There are things like programming games where players have a lot more leeway and versatility than just picking things off of a list. Similarly, I could imagine a 'game of lawyers' where everything is words and their interpretation, but there really is an underlying structure that the participants will be held to (by society, judges, etc).

So in that vein, I tend to strongly favor games and campaigns where writing new rules is actually a part of the game, even a formalized part. D&D used to have this quite a lot, but it became less common with the transition to 3ed (with things like spell creation being residual rare exceptions), and then I guess it pretty much disappeared in 4ed with things like stunting being relegated to something like 'regardless of the contents of the stunt, find the number of dice from this table and convert the consequences to a damage number'. But my reason for that isn't just collaborative storytelling, it's that I find the gameplay associated with actually changing the nature of the gameplay as you go to be more engaging and creative than gameplay within a static ruleset - it's closer to what it feels like to actually solve novel problems in real life than the 'select off of a list' type interfaces that video games often are forced to reduce to.

[Man_Over_Game]

I commonly see two ways of playing DnD. One is the video game approach, and other is the collective storytelling approach. It's a spectrum I feel most campaigns can see themselves on.
What I want to do is look at the role of the rules within each type of play.

Am I correct to assume that within a 'video game' campaign, Rules are law, and accurately depict what a PC can or cannot do?

Am I correct to assume that during a collective storytelling campaign, the rules are more like guidelines to the DM for ruling on what a a player can and cannot do.

I've seen so many threads that look at the rules and limitations of the PCs like scripture, and wonder if that's how people actually enjoy the game? When a player gives me clear intent, I rarely quote the rules. I simply reply based on the current narrative and atmosphere. There are combat-specific scenarios that might have me Google a combat specific rule or two, but usually I just ask for a dice roll and set a DC.

What's your relationship with the rules? Do you use them as guidelines to help you react to certain events, or do you quote them directly without context?

Can you give us an example of a time when quoting a rule would've been the wrong choice? Can you tell us of a story where handwaving and not looking at the rules backfired horribly?

I'd suggest using the rules for determining balance, and then modifying them to account for the balance you want in your own games.

For example, Magic Stone (the cantrip) states it can be fired from a sling. Magic Stone has a range of 60, while a SLing has a range of 30/90. A Rogue can use a ranged weapon to make a Sneak Attack.

Using these rules, I could technically make an attack with the Sling, using Magic Stone as the ammunition, to land a Sneak Attack, although the range is likely limited by the range on the Sling. Since this already costs a Cantrip (and likely a feat or a level into another class), it'd be fair to adjust things so that you use the higher of the two ranges (so you do the combination at 60 feet instead of 30).

Alternatively, I've had Catapult not deal damage when the caster chose not to, in order to grab an unattended object for himself, not because the game had any rule that you can choose to not deal damage with a damage spell.

I think a good Rule-based DM can learn to provide a good narrative and adjust accordingly. I do think that a narrative-based DM might lack the understanding needed to make good mechanical changes on the fly.

[KorvinStarmast]

I commonly see two ways of playing DnD. One is the video game approach, and other is the collective storytelling approach. Then I think you need to broaden your field of view.

To answer your title: the rules serve me, as both a player and as a DM.

Wherever the rules are unclear, the players and the DM discuss it and we come up with a solution. We then move forward with a shared understanding so that we can have fun.

I find that in on line discussions, far too many people (and perhaps they don't realize it) carry with them video game / computer game assumptions into TTRPG's. We had plenty of rules lawyers before CRPG's were a thing, so this isn't just about rules lawyering. It is about not trusting the human being across the table as much as one trusts an inanimate box.

We have had over a generation of computer based D&D styled games. (Azure Bonds, anyone? Pool of Radiance?)

This behavior seems the child of a weird recursion: a great many of those video games (particularly dungeon crawls like Diablo (original)) grew out of a desire to get a computer or game machine to take on the bits of DMing that are time consuming and annoying: the bookkeeping.

The play's the thing.

[Sigreid]

The rules are what keep the players from being at the total whim of the DM. The rules don't cage you, they simply make it so we're all playing the same game. Personally, I'm not a fan of the party's successes or failures being at DM whim in service to his story and "Drama"

[PhoenixPhyre]

The rules are what keep the players from being at the total whim of the DM. The rules don't cage you, they simply make it so we're all playing the same game. Personally, I'm not a fan of the party's successes or failures being at DM whim in service to his story and "Drama"

They don't do a good job of that. Paper isn't very binding, after all. A bad DM will be bad regardless of the rules. A good one might rightfully feel caged by bad rules. Only table pressure, pressure from living people, can have any real effect.

No, rules are tools. They're a way to standardize and make the lives of all the players (of which the DM is one) easier and more fun. If they serve that purpose, good. If they don't? Modify them until they do. It's why I prefer to speak of rules as resolution mechanics. That's what they are. They exist to help resolve questions that might arise. That's their only purpose, the only purpose to which they're well suited, and they can only do that if people agree to use them.

It's why having more rules isn't always better--rules set expectations, and rules interlock in a way that makes removing them harder than adding more. It's a fine balance, and one that has to be done table by table.

[Sigreid]

They don't do a good job of that. Paper isn't very binding, after all. A bad DM will be bad regardless of the rules. A good one might rightfully feel caged by bad rules. Only table pressure, pressure from living people, can have any real effect.

No, rules are tools. They're a way to standardize and make the lives of all the players (of which the DM is one) easier and more fun. If they serve that purpose, good. If they don't? Modify them until they do. It's why I prefer to speak of rules as resolution mechanics. That's what they are. They exist to help resolve questions that might arise. That's their only purpose, the only purpose to which they're well suited, and they can only do that if people agree to use them.

It's why having more rules isn't always better--rules set expectations, and rules interlock in a way that makes removing them harder than adding more. It's a fine balance, and one that has to be done table by table.

We're not really disagreeing here. Rules only work if the group agrees to them. I was getting at more that the players should be able to have a reasonable grasp of how things work and it really shouldn't boil down to the DM making all the decisions based on his idea of how the story should go.

[PhoenixPhyre]

We're not really disagreeing here. Rules only work if the group agrees to them. I was getting at more that the players should be able to have a reasonable grasp of how things work and it really shouldn't boil down to the DM making all the decisions based on his idea of how the story should go.

Sure, but you can do that just fine with meta rules in free form, with the right group. Written rules make it easier, at a cost. A free form game can handle any situation, while a rule-bound one can't, at least not as easily. It's generally easier to add a special-case table-level mechanic for an edge case; doing so and fitting it into a dense framework can be a struggle, especially if opinions differ about how binding the rules are.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that, for me, the idea of RAW as some sort of constraint on DMs (or players) is an illusion. A comforting one, but one that doesn't really serve its purpose and hurts the fun of those willing to be more flexible.

A DM can, even playing by the rules completely railroad a party. They control what content gets into the game, so they control everything. Rules make crappy weapons or shields against this type of behavior. But they make great tools for resolving sticky situations.

[Sigreid]

Sure, but you can do that just fine with meta rules in free form, with the right group. Written rules make it easier, at a cost. A free form game can handle any situation, while a rule-bound one can't, at least not as easily. It's generally easier to add a special-case table-level mechanic for an edge case; doing so and fitting it into a dense framework can be a struggle, especially if opinions differ about how binding the rules are.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that, for me, the idea of RAW as some sort of constraint on DMs (or players) is an illusion. A comforting one, but one that doesn't really serve its purpose and hurts the fun of those willing to be more flexible.

A DM can, even playing by the rules completely railroad a party. They control what content gets into the game, so they control everything. Rules make crappy weapons or shields against this type of behavior. But they make great tools for resolving sticky situations.

Again, it's really more about all the players, including the DM knowing what rules they're playing by. My interpretation, right or wrong, of the original post was a DM complaining that the rules got in the way of him telling his story and getting the outcomes he wanted.

[Ironheart]

I definitely get played by the rules more often than not, mostly because I want to relate experiences I have at the table into other tables without an issue. So then I get obsessed with trying to find the ‘RAW’ solution to breaking the game, and there’s been a few times where it’s not fun. I’m trying better to remember that DND is a pretty robust system and can handle a few missteps on the player’s part.

[Ronnocius]

I commonly see two ways of playing DnD. One is the video game approach, and other is the collective storytelling approach. It's a spectrum I feel most campaigns can see themselves on.
What I want to do is look at the role of the rules within each type of play.

Am I correct to assume that within a 'video game' campaign, Rules are law, and accurately depict what a PC can or cannot do?

Am I correct to assume that during a collective storytelling campaign, the rules are more like guidelines to the DM for ruling on what a a player can and cannot do.

I've seen so many threads that look at the rules and limitations of the PCs like scripture, and wonder if that's how people actually enjoy the game? When a player gives me clear intent, I rarely quote the rules. I simply reply based on the current narrative and atmosphere. There are combat-specific scenarios that might have me Google a combat specific rule or two, but usually I just ask for a dice roll and set a DC.

What's your relationship with the rules? Do you use them as guidelines to help you react to certain events, or do you quote them directly without context?

Can you give us an example of a time when quoting a rule would've been the wrong choice? Can you tell us of a story where handwaving and not looking at the rules backfired horribly?

I generally follow the rules as written. If I cannot find a rule, I create my own ruling. Occasionally I make exceptions for the rule of cool, or have used it to help a player character survive when making death saves (I allowed him to be transferred and then use multiple inspirations, although this was mostly because the player was not ready to accept his character's death and I didn't want it to disrupt the game). Something that annoys me is when a player says "it's your call". For example, for spells like magic missile I do not allow them to have additional missiles. That isn't "my call", that is following the rules of the spell which you were aware of before you chose the spell, not my ruling on an unclear rules situation. It is certainly frustrating as a few players in my current group do this sort of thing a lot.

[patchyman]

We're not really disagreeing here. Rules only work if the group agrees to them. I was getting at more that the players should be able to have a reasonable grasp of how things work and it really shouldn't boil down to the DM making all the decisions based on his idea of how the story should go.

Rules only work if the group agrees with them...and makes an effort to understand them. I was running a game with new players (I am an experienced DM) so I already had a pretty high cognitive load going assisting everyone with their characters (particularly since it was a 6-level one shot).

At the end of the session, I ask for constructive criticism, and the fighter player complains that if his character is really angry, he should be able to get a temporary buff. The only one of the players who had played before points out that the is a class for which this a literally their defining mechanic.

It was only 24 hours later that I realized that if he had wanted to, the fighter player could have done exactly what he wanted by using Action Surge.