DM Cheese - The Great Debate...

[DM Raven]

So this is an issue I've dealt with as a DM since second edition. Does a DM have the right to change game rules around on the fly to make for a more interesting story/enounter.

For example, a boss battle against a weakened shadow of a avatar creature that once was more powerful than a god. A PC was trying to use his fighter abilities to keep the foe from attacking his other group members, but the DM had given the beast an at-will short-ranged insta-teleport ability that it used to quickly get out of the fighter's grasp whenever another character dealt too much damage to it. The ability was, in-effect, a teleport charge-attack where the creature would quickly blink in and out of existance to move around and attack players.

Or another encounter, a boss used a thunder-wave like ability to push the heroes off a small platform whenever they ignored him and tried to free the immortal constant of light. Basically she was up about 10 feet on a platform of stone and whenever the characters would climb up to try to free her, the boss would teleport up there and do a massive thunderwave-type effect that would force the characters off the platform unless they made the standard saving throw to fall prone at the edge. (At which point he would nuke that character mercilessly with spells.)

My question is, how do you feel about these type of DM-cheese mods to enemies/powers/feat/skills. Is it ok for the DM to change the rules on enemies/powers/feats/skills in story-based encounters to make for a more challenging battle or is this sort of behavior unacceptable? Is DM Cheese acceptable? (My players now pretty much call everything I do that doesn't follow the exact rules DM Cheese...at least when it isn't benefitting them ;p )

[xPANCAKEx]

the books are guidelines - you can change anything you want.

just remember to reward appropriately

[Emperor Tippy]

It depends on what the DM is doing, why he is doing it, what type of game it is, the players, the situation, and the DM's previous actions.

[Xavion&Pavion]

Whenever I DM, I like to make a few tweaks to the rules to make it more interesting. And, I encourage other DMs to do it also. (unless it is THE CHEESE like a small ant being more powerful than all of the gods combined.) But, I think it makes the game more interesting. Like one time, the story we were working on, called for a small number of goblins to attack the party and, give them a hard time with it. Now, these characters were level 7 I think, so goblins were no trouble at regular stats. So, I made them more powerful. However, one of the players kept track of the damage they had done to it, and found Out i had made them more powerful. And apparently, my gaming group HATES it when someone even changes the rules a tiny bit. I would quote what they said, but I'm not aloud to use those words on these forums.

[Tokiko Mima]

As a DM you're permitted to change anything in the game world. The only things I would be careful of is arbitarily effecting players or the perception of unfairness. The players should never *ever* know that you're cheating/cheesing the rules, but they don't have to have what you're doing explained to them. It's the same as fudging dice rolls; just don't let the players know you're doing it, and you'll be cool.

[Fostire]

The DM has unlimited power and can do whatever the heck he wants. The only limit to a DM's powers is if the players are not having fun because of them.
The DM has the right and obligation to change whatever he wants as long as it makes the game more fun for everyone.

[Demented]

Changing the rules isn't bad. Cheesing the players is bad.
Note the difference. It'd be the same if you exploited rules already in the book.

It wouldn't be cheesing if the boss would push people off his platform for the fun of it, while quoting M.C. Hammer. At which point, they'd probably Stone to Mud his little platform and a beat-down would ensue...

[Sstoopidtallkid]

I hate when an enemy has access to something that I can't, in theory, add to a character. if the BBEG can teleport at-will to avoid attacks, my Wizard is going to research how he did that, and try to replicate it, because it's the in-character thing to do. It may cost a feat or a few levels in a PrC, but my Wizard will want that type of defense. Yes, as a DM you can change the rules of the game world at any time, but to my character those are more immutable than the laws of physics, so when something odd is happening, expect the characters to want to know how, and try to add it to their repertoires.

[BRC]

Mmmmm, Cheese...
I consider such cheese to be a perfect, perhaps a necessary addition to the sandwich that is DnD. The rules are primarily guidlines and countless interesting ideas can be created by selectively ignoring some of them.

[erikun]

Well, on the one hand, I agree with Sstoopid. If the NPCs (including enemies) are running around doing fun stuff, it's natural for the PCs to want to run around and do fun stuff. It's in there nature, and nobody really likes hearing "you can't do that because you're just human."

On the other hand, the PCs need to be challanged, and you can't really do that by just being the mirror of the PCs. The NPC needs something unexpected, something to suprise the PCs and keep things interesting. It seems like the DM is trying to keep encounters interesting, rather than intentionally changing the rules to kill off the PCs. (Suddenly deciding that you don't make a savings throw when knocked off a cliff is an example of the latter.) Plus, there are some things that are simply too strong for a PC to be using. Causing Death, Petrification, or Ability Drain as a freely available ability would trivialize encounters, even though fighting monsters with such abilities will test the PCs ingenuity.

Oh, and is this 4e? I ask because both of the abilities you mentioned - at-will teleporting and at-will Thunderwave - are available to PCs, in the form of the Fey-pact Warlock and Wizard. Just saying.

[Kurald Galain]

So this is an issue I've dealt with as a DM since second edition. Does a DM have the right to change game rules around on the fly to make for a more interesting story/enounter.

Of course. The DM has the right to change anything to make the game more interesting.

The trick is in actually making it more interesting; changing things for the hell of it is not going to accomplish that. In other words, DMing takes some skill. And yes, that as my opinion and there'll always be players that claim that if you don't play it strictly by the book, You're Doing It Wrong. Those are simply people that I'd rather not to play with.

[DM Raven]

I hate when an enemy has access to something that I can't, in theory, add to a character. if the BBEG can teleport at-will to avoid attacks, my Wizard is going to research how he did that, and try to replicate it, because it's the in-character thing to do. It may cost a feat or a few levels in a PrC, but my Wizard will want that type of defense. Yes, as a DM you can change the rules of the game world at any time, but to my character those are more immutable than the laws of physics, so when something odd is happening, expect the characters to want to know how, and try to add it to their repertoires.

Which is a good way of thinking. Everything in the world happens for a reason, and cheese should be used inside those guidelines. I personally think the DM should use cheese to spice up that stale old ham sandwich every now and then. When I say DM Cheese, I mean DM rule fudging...I dont imply any good or bad reason behind it. Some people swear by the rules and go nuts when people don't follow them. The dude tracking a goblin's HP to learn that the DM gave the goblin more health is an example.

Though I bet if the DM "forgot" to use one of the monsters special abilities at a time that might kill the player...the room would be dead silent. Give us some credit players, we DMs arent as "forgetfull" as you might think we are.

[Emperor Tippy]

The thing with adding on random abilities is that you can already create most of them inside the rules anyways. Teleporting for instance, the BBEG is a blink dog who has been PAOed into a Human. He keeps his Dimension Door Su and is otherwise treated exactly like you normally would treat him.

Throwing them off the platform can be handled by Telekinesis (Violent Thrust option).

[Raum]

So this is an issue I've dealt with as a DM since second edition. Does a DM have the right to change game rules around on the fly to make for a more interesting story/enounter.

Does being the DM give you the right to change game rules unilaterally? No. However the players may well grant such to their DM. Different things work for different groups. As a GM you need to know the players. Know what they're comfortable with, know what they expect in a game, and know what they're willing to put up with in a game.

One thing to point out, characters (PC and NPC) are not 'rules'. They, or at least the game representations of a character, stem from rules. In other words, giving kobolds an at will fireball power isn't "changing game rules" it's simply changing an NPC.

My question is, how do you feel about these type of DM-cheese mods to enemies/powers/feat/skills. Is it ok for the DM to change the rules on enemies/powers/feats/skills in story-based encounters to make for a more challenging battle or is this sort of behavior unacceptable? Is DM Cheese acceptable? (My players now pretty much call everything I do that doesn't follow the exact rules DM Cheese...at least when it isn't benefitting them ;p )

Ask your players if it's ok. Or tell them what to expect from you as DM up front so they have the opportunity to choose before joining the game. I recommend against telling them "some guy on the internet said I have the right to do whatever I want, so suck it!" That's generally counterproductive. :)

[LotharBot]

There's a big difference between "interesting homebrew" and "broken cheese", both for players and DMs. What falls into which category depends very much on the overall power level of the game -- in our last 3.5 campaign, our party regularly took on fights that were off the top end of the XP table because of the way the campaign was played (sometime around level 9, with the help of a level 15 NPC, we took on an epic lich... under special circumstances, but still.) In other games, if you put us against an encounter more than a couple levels "too high" we'll cry foul because of the way the game is being played.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I make a very simple rule as a GM:

Any cheeze you do WILL be used against you at some point in the campaign.

Thus if the party Druidzilla has been making a hash out of everything, they're probably going to end up with a Druidzilla (maybe Blighter?) to fight. Same thing with Clericzilla. In fact, I had a ClericZilla in a party who was DMM Persisting and blowing all his turn attempts to do so. So they ended up having to face a DMM Persist Divine Power and Righteous might... greater mummy. In his Unhallowed and Desecrated (with altar) room. With appropriate number of big beefy minions. And the Cleric didn't have a single turn attempt left...

[JaxGaret]

I hate when an enemy has access to something that I can't, in theory, add to a character. if the BBEG can teleport at-will to avoid attacks, my Wizard is going to research how he did that, and try to replicate it, because it's the in-character thing to do. It may cost a feat or a few levels in a PrC, but my Wizard will want that type of defense. Yes, as a DM you can change the rules of the game world at any time, but to my character those are more immutable than the laws of physics, so when something odd is happening, expect the characters to want to know how, and try to add it to their repertoires.

If it's a unique SLA or (Su) ability, all the research in the world isn't going to get it in the Wizard's spellbook.

[Prometheus]

I think that unique homebrew monsters, abilities, classes, feats can make a great addition, if done properly. It should be going towards a challenging yet surmountable encounter rather than against (more balanced, or more engaging). It should mesh well with current rules rather than doing something unnecessary (Not, for example "Everyone make a skill check against chaos damage"). Also, DMs should make it clear when they are not playing by the usual rules ("your dueling opponent takes a combat stance you've never come across before..." or "It is superficially similar to a common demon, but you feel a slight resistive current propagating from it"). DMs should give the PCs special stuff too. Other than these caveats and other common guidelines to DMing, I say go to town.

A special note has to be said on fudging though. Some DMs make attacks miss, make monsters live longer, or have the monster play dumb when the players are cornered. The thing to understand about this is that the D&D game can be played right without fudging, and that when you do fudge, you should make sure it is the right direction. D&D is pretty forgiving about character death, for example, and it generally makes for a good story. On the other hand, not all PCs want every combat encounter to be an epic strategic challenge that forces to pull out every can of spam they have. Generally speaking, fudging should correct other mistakes. For example, when I made a homebrew creature with way too few hp, I simply made him live for a couple more rounds to give the PCs the illusion of an uphill battle. Another time I new player almost died because he misunderstood the rules, so a monster played it easy on him in a believable way (we later cleared up the rules).

[Tormsskull]

I think a good DM has an obligation to create, modify, or ignore rules in order to foster a great roleplaying environment. If the story calls for a powerful enemy and a player has somehow mechanically built a character that invalidates what the rules say the powerful enemy can do, the DM should change the rules so that the enemy is once again powerful.

I always tell new players to my game that if they are trying to 'build' a character to be able to solve every problem or be invulnerable to every challenge, they were be sorely disappointed.

[Calinero]

Changes to the rules are acceptable, as long as it is for the fun of the game, and not for just random, vindictive whims. If it makes you feel better, call it 'homebrew' instead of cheese. Very, very selective homebrew.

[greenknight]

I don't think a DM should mess around with game rules on the fly. If there's something wrong with the rules, the DM should discuss it with the players and let them know of any changes before those changes come into effect.

That said, DMs do have the right to customise monsters in any way they feel is appropriate. In some cases, the appearance of the monster should give a clue to the creature's abilities (for example, if it has big wings, it can probably fly), but that's about it as far as giving hints go, unless the PC makes a good knowledge check or consults an expert.

You do need to be very careful when you do this, because it's easy to go too far. Many players put a lot of time and effort into coming up with group tactics, and if they think you're doing something just to screw their characters over, it won't end well. As a DM, you are in charge of the game, but you won't have much of a game if you can't get any players. Try to keep your knowledge of the PCs from affecting the tactics and abilities of your monsters, unless you can demonstrate some way in which those monsters would have gained that knowledge. And even then, remember that a monster might have only limited ability to react to any knowledge gained, so keep any monster responses appropriate to what it can reasonably do.

[huttj509]

I think for a boss encounter it's fine.

If that's some rare monster, that's known powerful, and he has an ability to blink around normal defensive lines, it means the party will need to use a different strat for that monster.

If you start giving that ability to every goblin, that's different.

[Curmudgeon]

Change game rules "on the fly" -- no, never. You've got to play fair. A good GM needs to find ways to make things interesting without cheating.

Now, if you find there are some house rules that make for a better game and let you plan interesting challenges for the PCs, then by all means disclose them to the players so everybody is aware beforehand. But deciding in combat that large creatures get free 10' steps -- when all the enemies are large, and all the PCs medium or small -- is just mean.

[DM Raven]

As a DM, you are in charge of the game, but you won't have much of a game if you can't get any players.

Though with the shortage of DMs out there, you'd be surprised what we can get away with and still have a waiting list to get into our games. ;p

But to be serious, when I said changing rules on the fly, I meant more giving monsters customized HP, ablities, defenses, attacks, and powers. I would never advocate rule changes without good reason. But making more powerful versions of an existing creature or changing the parameters of certain spells such as their area of effect, damage, and so on...both situations are viable scenarios. (Realistically, not every member of every race group will have exactly the same stats and powers) And some wizards may spend time to research a more powerful version of an existing spell.

[AslanCross]

While I prefer to stick to the rules as closely as possible, I also bend the rules quite a bit. They're guidelines, as has been mentioned, but I think if it makes the game more interesting and fun, there's no reason why a DM shouldn't bend them.

[AceOfFools]

I've never hesitated to give a hombrewed monster an ability that I felt was central to its concept. I've never had a monster concept that was "There's no way anything can kill this." If it gets put against the PCs in rounds, I expect them to survive (and twice I've put together stats for "The PC's will lose if they chose to do this" encounters and been surprised by the PC's ingenuity and luck).

I've even once put together a mandatory encounter I couldn't figure out how the PCs could win under the assumption that the players would figure something out, only to have them walk it. My players were like that.

Goblin, orc, etc. NPCs with class levels are a freaking staple of my campaigns. I think by this point I've used literally thousands self-stated goblins, hobgoblins, orcs, minotaurs, ogres, gnolls, etc. more times than I've used generics. In general, if it advanced by character level, I've used more with class levels than without (it helps that you can reuse design for minion-types).

[Rei_Jin]

I generally don't break or bend the rules at all. If I won't allow the PCs to do it, then I don't do it.

That being said, there are so many different ways to give bad guys powers that you never need to fudge things.

Sometimes it's template stacking, other times you give them a spell as an SLA and add to the CR, heck, sometimes you just combine two monsters and work out the CR from there.

One of the most dangerous, and annoying monsters I ever ran was a Warlock Choker.

The most broken (in terms of CR) was a Greater Stone Golem/Incarnate Construct/Half Clay Golem (Failed the save)/Incarnate Construct/Half Clay Golem (Failed the save)/Incarnate Construct/Half Clay Golem (Failed the save)/Incarnate Construct/Half Clay Golem (Failed the save)/Incarnate Construct/Half Clay Golem (Failed the save)/Incarnate Construct/Half Clay Golem (Failed the save)/Incarnate Construct/Half Clay Golem (Failed the save)/Incarnate Construct/Half Clay Golem (Failed the save)

Yes, it is legitimate. And CR 7.

[valadil]

It depends on what type of group you're in. I prefer story games to simulations, so I'm okay with my GMs bending rules in favor of story. You should see what your players prefer.

[Yahzi]

I generally don't break or bend the rules at all. If I won't allow the PCs to do it, then I don't do it.

Same here.

[BobVosh]

I hate on the fly changes. So what if a char is optimized to kill a certain BBEG. Next time throw something else at em.

Before time plans for modded monsters is fine with me though.

Never fudge a roll. I follow paranoia in this: only roll a die if you don't know what you want to happen. It is only fun if it is truly a chance. It is railroading if the die roll doesn't matter.