Correcting rules or consistent wrongness

[Zhorn]

So I assume we've all had situations where a ruling was made on the fly to keep the game moving forwards rather than looking up the exact by-the-book method for resolving a situation.
My question is about those times a ruling has been made, then kept as a persistent go to method for several sessions to the point of people being fairly used to that being the way to run things.
If that has been the case, but you uncover the RAW way of handling said situation; what would you opinion be on either correcting course, or maintaining the same bearing on the matter?

My personal situation has been to do with line of sight and moving through occupied spaces. For the last several games, it hasn't mattered if a creature in an intercepting space is an ally or enemy, they are treated as obstructions to movement and line of sight equally.

Choke points and hallway combat will change pretty drastically if I change now, and I'm not sure if it will be for better or worse.

[FaerieGodfather]

I am always open to changing the rules, either to conform to RAW or to discard RAW, going forward.

Never, ever retcon. Things that already happened, already happened, according to the rules at the time.

[Kaptin Keen]

I never consider the RAW as anything but a guideline. If the rules work and/or do what I want them to do, or I just don't have a better solution, then that's fine. But anything that doesn't work as I want it to is subject to change. The danger is when something occurs only once in a blue moon - then I will forget my house rule before it rear's it's ugly head next.

[Vorpal Glaive]

"RAW" usually includes "Rule Zero" which allows GMs to add, change and drop rules at will. Normally, as soon as I get my hands on a game system, I start changing it to my liking - because most rpgs allow it.

[Frozen_Feet]

It is a GM's job to arbitrate rules and make on-the-spot rulings if a rule either doesn't exists for a situation or is not found in reasonable time. Consistency exists within a play session only - it's fine to amend rules and rulings between sessions as long as you make this clear to the players.

However, the above does not consider utility of the rule or ruling - that is case dependent. Even a spontaneous ruling might just be better than RAW equivalent. This is subject to testing and not much can be said of it in the abstract.

[MrSandman]

On the other hand, I would see no problem with you saying, "Hey guys, this thing that we do this way, turns out we should do it that way according to the rules, so from now on we'll do it that way," if that's what you want.

[Vorpal Glaive]

When weighing "better or worse ruling" I consider if it makes the session more fun for everyone. Funner = better.

[Aotrs Commander]

On the other hand, I would see no problem with you saying, "Hey guys, this thing that we do this way, turns out we should do it that way according to the rules, so from now on we'll do it that way," if that's what you want.

I do this, and I also do "well, turns out the rules say we should have been doing it this way, but we've been consistently playing this other way, so we're gonna keep doing it the way we have been."

(E.g. Flanking (if a foe is flanked, he's flanked for everyone, not just the two making him flanked) or, just this week, staggered being modified to "if you take an action that's moving more than half speed, you take 1 damage (since we were previouslu unaware you could move at half-speed and NOT take damage...))

Whichever seems like is the most appropriate ruling for a specific instance.



(Mind you, this is cming from someone who plays a 3.5/PF hybrid with enough tweaks and changes it's basically an edition in and of itself...)

[Knaight]

I really couldn't care whether the rule is "correct". What I'm interested in is whether it is "better". In this situation I'd have two rules in front of me, so it's entirely a matter of assessment for which one I think is a stronger rule for the game I'm running.

[Quertus]

Hmmm… I care about "consistency". Of course, since characters only pop into existence as adults from our PoV, not theirs, my characters, at least, have a history (a "backstory") that follows RAW. If your world deviates from that, or, worse, is subject to change, there should be a definable event (like The Time of Troubles) that causes these rules changes. Anything less than that, and we'll need to retcon the whole campaign, and my character's backstory, to match these rules.

[JNAProductions]

Hmmm… I care about "consistency". Of course, since characters only pop into existence as adults from our PoV, not theirs, my characters, at least, have a history (a "backstory") that follows RAW. If your world deviates from that, or, worse, is subject to change, there should be a definable event (like The Time of Troubles) that causes these rules changes. Anything less than that, and we'll need to retcon the whole campaign, and my character's backstory, to match these rules.

So, if your DM reads AoOs wrong and thinks it's like 5E, so only when you leave their entire threatened space, not just any threatened square... How many backstories would you have to rewrite?

[Vorpal Glaive]

I really couldn't care whether the rule is "correct". What I'm interested in is whether it is "better". In this situation I'd have two rules in front of me, so it's entirely a matter of assessment for which one I think is a stronger rule for the game I'm running.

Very much this.

I dislike D&D's Vancian magic system so I used a more forgiving system for years. I change initiative, movement rates, anything that will make the game better for the group.

[Quertus]

So, if your DM reads AoOs wrong and thinks it's like 5E, so only when you leave their entire threatened space, not just any threatened square... How many backstories would you have to rewrite?

All of them (that involve that GM's world). Yet another reason my characters are "not from around here", so that such inconstant physics can be explained.

[JNAProductions]

All of them (that involve that GM's world). Yet another reason my characters are "not from around here", so that such inconstant physics can be explained.

Can I have an example of a backstory and what would need to be changed with the incredibly minor change to AoO rules?

[ExplodingRat]

Personally, I prefer whichever allows me and my fellow players to have the most fun. As long as it doesn't derail the story to the point where Old Man Henderson sheds a tear, it's probably fine to do whichever is more entertaining for everyone.