In the abstract, no. Once the details are spelled out, perhaps, depending on what those details are and how they affected what I was looking for in the game.
Rules as Law vs. Rules as Guidelines
Ralif Redhammer
Legend
Pretty much this. I try to stick to the player side being law, especially. Most of the time, when there’s a question, the answer is right there in the books, and it’s just some player that either purposefully or accidentally missed it. From time to time I will make a ruling, but it’s always based on research.
Celebrim
Legend
Both.
So, one thing I agree with is: "The players deserve to know what to expect." And the reason for that is less "the players need to know the rules" than "one predicate for the claim that you are judging fairly is that your rulings are consistent and ultimately predictable". You can't be a fair judge of the game if your ruling largely on the basis of whim and fiat.
But one thing that I frequently see on the boards is players interpreting everything in the rule books as rules, when really a lot of the stuff in the rule books are guidelines. Pretty much anything that doesn't deal with process resolution is IMO just a guideline. For example, almost everything in the 3rd Edition DMG is just a guideline. There is no hard and fast rule that every encounter will be constructed by the guidelines for encounter construction and no promise that 13 encounters equals a level. Nothing about the setting is a rule; just a guideline. There is no hard and fast promise that elves exist in the game world, or that the price of a longsword +1 is 2300 gp (much less that you can buy a longsword +1), or that a particular monster has the exact stats in the rule book (something 3e very openly called out). Players that are sticklers about rules don't really bother me, but players that interpret encounter guidelines or setting information or wealth by level as contractual obligations can just find another DM.
That said, there has never yet been a system that I didn't house rule. The player that treats the rule books as holy artifacts not to be tampered with probably is going to be really unhappy with me as well. It's not just that I use a lot of house rules, but I don't even really understand the logic that they are applying since I've yet to meet the rules system that is actually complete and doesn't in practice depend heavily on DM rulings and interpretation - which are in fact house rules. I think there is some sort of mental gap players like that have in that they don't really realize that rulings are rules and interpretations are taking place, much less how big of an impact on how the rules actually work depends on processes of play that are often incompletely specified and simply assumed by different players and different tables. In their mind, the rules are iron clad, comprehensive, specific, and clear and so well, by golly why aren't you adhering to them? That's a bit different than saying, "in so much as it is possible I'd like the rules used in adjudication to be clear and made available to the players". There is plenty of times in a game when we'll stop and go over the letter of the rules to try to figure out exactly what the ruling should be (in D&D, spell wording seem to be the most common case that provokes this), but there are plenty of times when exactly how things should be handled just aren't covered anywhere.
So, one thing I agree with is: "The players deserve to know what to expect." And the reason for that is less "the players need to know the rules" than "one predicate for the claim that you are judging fairly is that your rulings are consistent and ultimately predictable". You can't be a fair judge of the game if your ruling largely on the basis of whim and fiat.
But one thing that I frequently see on the boards is players interpreting everything in the rule books as rules, when really a lot of the stuff in the rule books are guidelines. Pretty much anything that doesn't deal with process resolution is IMO just a guideline. For example, almost everything in the 3rd Edition DMG is just a guideline. There is no hard and fast rule that every encounter will be constructed by the guidelines for encounter construction and no promise that 13 encounters equals a level. Nothing about the setting is a rule; just a guideline. There is no hard and fast promise that elves exist in the game world, or that the price of a longsword +1 is 2300 gp (much less that you can buy a longsword +1), or that a particular monster has the exact stats in the rule book (something 3e very openly called out). Players that are sticklers about rules don't really bother me, but players that interpret encounter guidelines or setting information or wealth by level as contractual obligations can just find another DM.
That said, there has never yet been a system that I didn't house rule. The player that treats the rule books as holy artifacts not to be tampered with probably is going to be really unhappy with me as well. It's not just that I use a lot of house rules, but I don't even really understand the logic that they are applying since I've yet to meet the rules system that is actually complete and doesn't in practice depend heavily on DM rulings and interpretation - which are in fact house rules. I think there is some sort of mental gap players like that have in that they don't really realize that rulings are rules and interpretations are taking place, much less how big of an impact on how the rules actually work depends on processes of play that are often incompletely specified and simply assumed by different players and different tables. In their mind, the rules are iron clad, comprehensive, specific, and clear and so well, by golly why aren't you adhering to them? That's a bit different than saying, "in so much as it is possible I'd like the rules used in adjudication to be clear and made available to the players". There is plenty of times in a game when we'll stop and go over the letter of the rules to try to figure out exactly what the ruling should be (in D&D, spell wording seem to be the most common case that provokes this), but there are plenty of times when exactly how things should be handled just aren't covered anywhere.
Flexor the Mighty!
18/100 Strength!
I view them as guidelines and will change rules on the fly if I feel it is necessary though I will not do it as a gotcha on a player. Or make up new rules on the fly but I'm sure most DM do that as well.
Last edited:
MNblockhead
A Title Much Cooler Than Anything on the Old Site
Not at all. Almost nothing is a deal-breaker for me. I can enjoy playing with all manner of DM styles and systems so long as I enjoy the company of the DM and players.
But when *I* am the DM, I see interpreting and applying the rules as a group activity that all players, not just the DM have a say in.
I homebrew much less than I used to because I'm more interested in playing and creating stories and worlds than I am in designing or tweaking systems. In the four years that I've been playing D&D I've moved more and more to just playing the RAW. It is easier. It is easier in part because I can then play with a group of people who all have equal access to the rules and who may even know the rules better than me. Homebrewing puts more burden on me as the DM to keep the rules in my head.
In my current game, my deviations from RAW are mostly selecting some of the rule variants from the DMG and using an altered inspiration setting inspired (ha!) by the Angry DM. All of these rules were circulated by e-mail to the players before the campaign started and they are written on the same whiteboard as my Wifi password.
That said, when it comes to changes to a published AP, I don't ask my players for permission. I'm running Curse of Strahd mostly RAW but I've integrated some ideas and content from material published in the DMs guild. I've also used crunch from Volo's guide with some of the encounters (mainly that relating to hags, which makes certain encounters deadlier). There is no way for me to run that by the players without spoiling the adventure. Instead, I state that I'm running X module/AP mostly by the book, but that I reserve the right to make some alterations. Or, I will say I'm running an adventure inspired by X but it is heavily customized.
Also, during games, rules discussions are quickly resolved. But between sessions, in preparing for some sessions, I may put hours into researching a rule. I may come back to the party saying "in the last session, I ruled X, but after studying it some more, I think it should be Y because of A, B, and C." I won't retcon the results of the "incorrect" ruling but the new ruling will be law going forward. If everyone disagrees, then I will go with group consensus.
I just do not like capriciousness in my games. It is not fair to the players.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Keep them in your head? You don't write up your homebrew rules?
Ours are written up online - they're easier to access than the hard copy versions!
And if I change anything significant or some unforeseen interaction forces a ruling then I write that down at the time and add it in during the week.
Our rules have been almost 40 years in development and are still slowly evolving - pretty much the whole system is homebrew now.
They won't fit on a whiteboard.
I don't even tell them what module or adventure I'm running until it's finished, in part because I've got some very experienced players who have seen a lot of modules and if I happen by accident to run them through something they've been in before then the longer I can keep 'em guessing the better.
Yeah, I've done similar; and even once or twice retconned the event if it was about the last thing done in the previous session. Fortunately, this is rare.
I love capriciousness in my games - just not in the rules for said games.
Lanefan
As GM I see rules as rules, not guidelines to change at whim. I like to think about it first and make changes clear. I try to avoid ad hoc changes in play but it is occasionally necessary where eg something I didn't know about (recently: 5e Gloom Ranger invisibility to Darkvision) impacts a prior change (Darkvision being more effective & common than 5e RAW in my OSR-megadungeon Stonehell game). In that case I had to nerf the Ranger power to enemies having disad on spotting him.
MNblockhead
A Title Much Cooler Than Anything on the Old Site
What I mean is that if I am sticking to RAW, I'm more likely to have players who can help me pull up and interpret the rules. Homebrew rules are generally only going to be remembered by players in long-running campaigns.
Our rules have been almost 40 years in development and are still slowly evolving - pretty much the whole system is homebrew now.
They won't fit on a whiteboard.
Nice! Great you have been able to keep the same group and campaign/system running for so long!
My campaigns generally last about one year. When I start a new campaign, it is generally a different setting and I may change which variants and option rules will be used for that specific campaign.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
Same ever-evolving system, different campaigns and worlds, rotating cast of players with a few stalwarts at the core.
