Throw the book out the window

[Galdor Miriel]

I see a lot of threads, for various games and editions of D&D where there is so much focus on the rules, the RAW, the RAI. Seriously, why do people worry so much about them in minutea?

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

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

[Psyren]

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

Isn't there a middle ground in there somewhere?

[Galdor Miriel]

There is a lot of ground, not just a middle ground. I am curious as to what other people do, not defining what I think it is that they do. So do you follow the rules? To what extent?

[valadil]

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

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

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

[Galdor Miriel]

Cool Valadil, I like that approach. Do you have a favourite system where you find dming like that works best?

[Duke of URL]

Board discussions generally need to start from RAW, in order to have a common ground from which discussions can take place. That said, a great many discussions revolve around fixes, houserules, and extensions to the rules.

And of course, Rule 0 always applies.

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

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

[Britter]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[valadil]

Cool Valadil, I like that approach. Do you have a favourite system where you find dming like that works best?

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

[Galdor Miriel]

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

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

[Britter]

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

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

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

[Oracle_Hunter]

I use the system rules as faithfully as possible. If I need to houserule most of the system to make it work, I don't use the system - there are alternatives.

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

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

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

[Galdor Miriel]

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

[Britter]

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

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

[Yora]

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

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

[bloodtide]

For a game like D&D, I stick to the rules. If your not going to use the rules, you might as well not play D&D.

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


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

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

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

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

[Mike_G]

I use the rules like a cheap ho and discard them at my whim.

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

[true_shinken]

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

Yes. This was even mentioned before in this very thread. Yet, every now and then someone has to pop up and say 'you're going it wrong, just houserule it!'

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

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

I couldn't have said it better. You, sir, are a genius.

[Sipex]

I agree, that to an extent, the rules are a guideline. That said, rules are very important to me when it comes to a game like this.

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

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

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

[Yora]

Because quite often, the standard rules don't provide any adequat answer how to resolve certain things.

[bloodtide]

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

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

and worst of all

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


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


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

[Baveboi]

I remember something I once bought when I was a kid.
(Bear with me a moment here while I elaborate)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[true_shinken]

I remember something I once bought when I was a kid.

I totally agreed with you here. Truthfully. I thought 'man, someone that thinks like I do'. Then I read this:

Playing an Afro Samurai Goliath with Laser Eyes ain't the way to show respect for a game that goes in a medieval tolkienian old-style setting.

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

[Baveboi]

D&D has not been 'tolkenian' for decades.

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

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

[Incan Road]

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

[Greenish]

And an afro samurai goliath? That would be pretty badass. And I could care less if Tolkien would have disaproved.

You mean you "couldn't care less"? Anyhow, who's to say what ol' JJR would've approved. Airships, mechanical dragons, toy dogs flying to moon to meet the moon man, boogiemen who challenge you to a game of riddles, he was no stranger to the outlandish.


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

[Morithias]

The RAW is the 'current when made' rules. As soon as the book is bought by the group evolution begins.

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

RAW is the same for each group.

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

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

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

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

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

[Dsurion]

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

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

[HunterOfJello]

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

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

[Greenish]

The RAW is the 'current when made' rules. As soon as the book is bought by the group evolution begins.

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

That's not what most people mean by Rules as Intended.

[valadil]

D&D has not been 'tolkenian' for decades. The fact that Wizard is a base class should be a heads up. The whole magical system is very different from anything Tolkien ever did.

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