Live by it, die by it...

[merwins]

The rules.

Yep, those things that give a game structure, provide us with a generally equitable environment, and deliver a framework for shared communication.

As a GM, you have the latitude to break the rules. Do it too much, and you might alienate your players. Do it too little, and you might stifle your imagination or cripple your storyline.

For my own part, I NEVER break rules if I can help it. My players can count on support for my encounters in the basic rulebook. I retcon my storylines behind the scenes if I make a mistake in play that gives a character (or NPC) powers they shouldn't have, or if I forget something that they should have done but didn't.

I don't follow CR guidance in the book. Short and long rests are handwaved, for the most part. I don't do travel distance, only travel time.

But I'm curious. How closely do you hew to the rules?

Example:
I have a PC that's maxed out their Perception. Somewhere in the area of +22 or something stupid. Legally. It's okay. I don't care so much when monsters fail to surprise. But if I want a way to get a message to the PCs, it generally has to wait until they're out of "gang" mode and target someone than the Perception PC. Or I could do dead drops. Or patsies/couriers.

Oh, just had a neat idea. Maybe I should start pinging on their perception with messages from someone that knows that ONLY THEY could see what's happening. Everyone else would think they were crazy. "When those torches were snuffed out, the rest of them spelled out the rune we're looking for! Really!"

But the point is, I can't generally do non-dangerous perception-impinging things without breaking the rules somehow, or giving all my NPCs Invisibility, or some other nonsense.

 

[rgoodbb]

I generally have no reason to deviate from the rules. But if/when I do, I certainly won't lose any sleep over it.

Fun for all overrides everything for my friends and I. If that means leaving the rulebook on the chair. No probs.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[cmad1977]

Close. Far. Depends.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

My days of tweaking RPGs searching for the Grail of realism are well behind me. I stick to them tight but also take the occasional detour in certain circumstances where creativity is welcomed and of course the many spots that the rules just can't cover in the universe.

 

[iserith]

I would say that we live and die by rulings in D&D 5e.

Here I define "rulings" as "anything the DM says after the player describes what he or she wants to do." This tends to diverge a bit from a common usage of "ruling" as "anytime the DM overrides the rules." I don't think the latter fits the D&D 5e paradigm.

Rulings may be based on the rules or they might not be. Sometimes the rules may come into play to resolve uncertainty and sometimes they may not because the result is, in the eyes of the DM, certain. One hopes that the DM is consistent in how he or she makes rulings so the players can use that as a basis by which to judge the reasonableness of their actions.

I don't really understand your Perception example. But I think most people who play in my games would know that, when I decide to use the rules - which is pretty often since the players are often doing risky things with uncertain outcomes - I use them exactly as written.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

One thing about PCs with intense Passive Perceptions is that you can apply Disadvantage to them to decrease them by 5. That coupled with a creature getting Advantage on a Stealth check or the like makes it a little more easier to get surprise in from time to time.

 

[jaelis]

But the point is, I can't generally do non-dangerous perception-impinging things without breaking the rules somehow, or giving all my NPCs Invisibility, or some other nonsense.

Just to address this particular issue, all it means is that your PC will spot anything that has a chance to be spotted. Plenty of interesting things can't be spotted.

In general, the only reason to make something require a perception check is to reward perceptive characters. If it is something that you really want the party to notice, make it obvious, and if it is something you don't want them to notice, make it unnoticeable. If a player has decided to max out perception, then I wouldn't feel bad giving them all the rewards they would otherwise have to roll for.

Anyway, I rarely find that I need to ignore or change rules. Of course there are plenty of things that no rules cover, that comes up all the time. And if I thought a rule wasn't working in a situation I would be happy to ignore/change it. But I can't think of a time that has happened.

 

[merwins]

I don't really understand your Perception example.

I was unclear.

A character with high perception not only protects themselves from negative surprises, but also potentially snuffs out any positive surprises - messages, parties, hidden doors. The challenge of "Will they notice this interesting thing to follow/avoid a diversion" becomes a foregone conclusion.

In these cases, a "by the rules" standard challenge is almost meaningless.

 

[jaelis]

My point is, why is it bad if they notice all the interesting things? I generally want my players to notice the interesting things I've included