Rules as Law vs. Rules as Guidelines

Lanefan · Sep 20, 2018

In another thread there's been some recent debate regarding just how closely DMs adhere to the rules as written* for the system they are using. The specific example was 5e D&D, but the question can apply to pretty much any RPG: do you stick to the rules as written and treat them more like laws, or do you treat them more like guidelines and change/add/delete rules you don't like. And in either case, why?

* - including errata, Crawford tweets, updates, revisions, etc. depending on system.

Me, I'm 'guidelines' all the way. If something doesn't make sense to me as DM I'll change it to something that does; and if something just gets in the way of playing the game (e.g. 1e initiative RAW) I'll find a way to rebuild and simplify it.

Note that I'm not referring to changing rules on a whim, or to being inconsistent with rulings in an ongoing campaign - those are different issues. This is more to do with how you approach RPG rule-sets in general.

Lanefan

Umbran · Sep 20, 2018

Guidelines... but in practice, I usually don't make many changes.

I typically choose the system to do the things I want it to in the first place. Over the years, I have found that broad strokes matter far more than small fiddly bits, so I don't bother much with the latter.

So, for example, in my Ashen Stars game, I am using a variant initiative system - it impacts every combat, making it less rules-fiddly, adds a tactical element my players like, and opens up somewhat more cinematic synchronicity to events in a fight. I can't think of any other rules-changes I've made to the system.

Note that I am playing for a stable group, not a public pickup game - I would usually adhere to rules as written, because you should not expect pickup players to learn variants.

Shasarak · Sep 20, 2018

Lanefan said:
In another thread there's been some recent debate regarding just how closely DMs adhere to the rules as written* for the system they are using. The specific example was 5e D&D, but the question can apply to pretty much any RPG: do you stick to the rules as written and treat them more like laws, or do you treat them more like guidelines and change/add/delete rules you don't like. And in either case, why?

I am kinda Neutral on the Law - Chaos spectrum for RAW. I use them unless I dont want to use them.

Personally I have seen too many dumb rulings from various Staffers over the years to rely on them for my home game. I say let the Organised Play dudes deal with that.

billd91 · Sep 20, 2018

Guidelines. Definitely guidelines.

hawkeyefan · Sep 21, 2018

I think it varies depending on the system and the specific rule in question. I think that with certain rules, consistent application is what’s best. Character abilities, powers, feats, and the like fit into this category.

Other rules are best when there is some amount of judgment involved. When a skill might be applicable, or when surprise may happen, for example.

Again, the system may be incredibly complex (numerous bonuses and penalties depending on conditions) or it may be simple (advantage/disadvantage), so the need for judgment will vary from game to game and system to system.

Ultimately, though, the point is to have fun, so for me, if the rules are evergetting in the way of that, then out they go. So if I had to pick one or the other, it’d be that they’re Guidelines.

5ekyu · Sep 21, 2018

I choose a system where the rules fit the setting and style we want closely enough.

Then i change what has to and the rest is ruling.

But if i have to change more than 10% of chargen, choose another system.

MNblockhead · Sep 21, 2018

Law. The players are the lawyers and I'm the judge.

The players deserve to know what to expect. If we are playing 5e, I try to stick to RAW.

But laws need to be interpreted. Players are not only allowed to question a ruling but I expect them to help me make rulings. We all have a responsibility to know the rules and help apply them. Where there is disagreement, I make a ruling and we move on.

That said, all of us together can agree to create or change the law. For example, we've used crit cards, home-brew rules for inspiration, and have discussed and decided on various variant and options rules in the PHB and DMG. But once implemented we follow the new rules.

What I try to avoid is ignoring or changing a rule on the fly because I don't like it. If I don't like falling rules, for example, the time to overturn them isn't in the middle of a session, when a character is falling.

pemerton · Sep 21, 2018

There's no single answer because different rules serve different purposes.

The rule in 1st ed AD&D that Hill Giants have 8 HD + 1-2 hp (if I remember correctly) seems clearly like something that a GM might change (outside perhaps of a tournament context, where part of player skill might include knowing monster stats).

The rule in the same game that surprise is checked on a d6 is also something that a GM might change in appropriate contexts, and Gygax even suggests as much in his DMG. And some post-MM monsters provide examples of this (eg from memory a svirfneblin is surprised only 1 in 12).

There are other sorts of rules that look a bit like the surprise example. For instance, DCs in the rulebooks (for games that use "roll skill vs target number" resolution) are a way of establishing setting - and so if the GM wants to change the setting (eg this is a high gravity world, so jumping is harder than on earth) then changing those DCs is part-and-parcel of that.

But other rules are rather constitutive of the game, and changing them would be a big deal - so compared to changing some system DCs to reflect a different sort of gameworld, changing how skill ranks are acquired, or how skill checks are made, seems in a completely different ballpark. Or to go back to 1st ed AD&D, the rules that to hit rolls and saving throws are made on a d20 doesn't seem like a guideline to me, and changing that (eg to 2d10 rolls or 3d6 rolls, or somehow substituting in the Classic Traveller combat system) would look like a change in the game from AD&D to some quite different variant.

If a game has only rules of this last sort (and of games I GM I would say that Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic and Prince Valiant come very close to this, and 4e much closer than any other version of D&D) then I tend not to change them. If I want to play a different game I'll just play a different game.

Lanefan · Sep 21, 2018

MNblockhead said:
What I try to avoid is ignoring or changing a rule on the fly because I don't like it. If I don't like falling rules, for example, the time to overturn them isn't in the middle of a session, when a character is falling.

Absolutely agreed. The way I see it, a rule can be changed or added or deleted at any point in a campaign until said rule has (or is likely to very soon have, such as your falling-rule example) any effect on the campaign as played, at which point it becomes locked in*.

For example, the spell "Simulacrum" has yet to appear in any way in my current campaign - no PC can cast it nor has it on a scroll or spellbook, no PC has yet encountered the effects of one, and no NPC has ever cast it against the PCs - which means AFAIC I can still change the hell out of it or even delete it outright if I want to until such time as it does come up.

Another example: no PC has yet reached 11th level in my campaign which means I can in theory still tweak the level-advance tables for 11th and higher levels if I want to; though I can't touch 10th or lower.

* - unless something will completely ruin the game if left as is and thus has to be changed now, or unless an obvious mistake was made somewhere e.g. a typo in a printed rule. Fortunately, this is rare.

Now, a question:

To follow your example, changing falling rules on the fly is bad but if those rules had been changed before the campaign started by a DM whose game you were considering playing in, would it be a deal-breaker?

Lanefan

Lanefan · Sep 21, 2018

pemerton said:
There's no single answer because different rules serve different purposes.

True. There's in any system going to be a few foundational rules that if changed are going to affect the system enough to make looking for a different system the path of less resistance.

For these purposes, let's ignore those and look at things that a DM might change without turning the system on its head, such as these...

The rule in 1st ed AD&D that Hill Giants have 8 HD + 1-2 hp (if I remember correctly) seems clearly like something that a GM might change (outside perhaps of a tournament context, where part of player skill might include knowing monster stats).

The rule in the same game that surprise is checked on a d6 is also something that a GM might change in appropriate contexts, and Gygax even suggests as much in his DMG. And some post-MM monsters provide examples of this (eg from memory a svirfneblin is surprised only 1 in 12).

There are other sorts of rules that look a bit like the surprise example. For instance, DCs in the rulebooks (for games that use "roll skill vs target number" resolution) are a way of establishing setting - and so if the GM wants to change the setting (eg this is a high gravity world, so jumping is harder than on earth) then changing those DCs is part-and-parcel of that.

All these are things a DM could do to a system without ruining the system.

Now ignoring the specific examples for a moment and thinking about the principle, if a DM had done some tweaking to the rules and informed you of such and of what those tweaks were and then invited you into her game, would the very fact she'd done some tweaking (regardless of what those tweaks might be) be a deal-breaker for you? If yes, that's very much rules-as-law.

But other rules are rather constitutive of the game, and changing them would be a big deal - so compared to changing some system DCs to reflect a different sort of gameworld, changing how skill ranks are acquired, or how skill checks are made, seems in a completely different ballpark. Or to go back to 1st ed AD&D, the rules that to hit rolls and saving throws are made on a d20 doesn't seem like a guideline to me, and changing that (eg to 2d10 rolls or 3d6 rolls, or somehow substituting in the Classic Traveller combat system) would look like a change in the game from AD&D to some quite different variant.

Having tried (and even implemented) a few changes to 1e of about this magnitude, though not these specific ones, I know exactly of what you speak.