Rules as Law vs. Rules as Guidelines

[ccs]

100% guidelines.

Because THIS is what my 11 year old self was told on p3 of my Basic book concerning the subject:
"While the material in this booklet is referred to as rules, that is not really correct. Anything in this booklet (and other D&D booklets) should be thought of as changeable - anything, that is, that the Dungeon Master or referee thinks should be changed."
~~~
Last sentence of the section: "The purpose of these "rules" is to provide guidelines that enable you to play and have fun, so don't feel absolutely bound to them."

*Guidelines being bolded is part of the exact quote, not my own emphasis btw.

So I've known since day 1/Dec.25th 1980 that the rules are merely guidelines.
And then Gygax told me practically the same thing again in the intro pages of 1e.

 

[Lanefan]

100% guidelines.

Because THIS is what my 11 year old self was told on p3 of my Basic book concerning the subject:
"While the material in this booklet is referred to as rules, that is not really correct. Anything in this booklet (and other D&D booklets) should be thought of as changeable - anything, that is, that the Dungeon Master or referee thinks should be changed."
~~~
Last sentence of the section: "The purpose of these "rules" is to provide guidelines that enable you to play and have fun, so don't feel absolutely bound to them."

*Guidelines being bolded is part of the exact quote, not my own emphasis btw.

So I've known since day 1/Dec.25th 1980 that the rules are merely guidelines.
And then Gygax told me practically the same thing again in the intro pages of 1e.

That's about my take on it also.

But we're both old geezers when compared to those who've got in since about 2001 or so and thus cut their teeth on 3e-PF-4e with their much heavier rules-not-rulings ideas......

 

[Blue]

Let me split a hair to understand where you draw the line.

Say someone (the PCs, a prisoner, whomever) has their ankles shackled together, and I make the ruling this reduces their base speed to 5 feet.

To me, this is not a ruling, this is merely extending out the equipment list and/or providing details of the environment. But I could easily see someone protesting that there is no condition that applies such a speed change and that I've stepped outside the provided rules.

So, if something like this is a "rulings" side, then I come down on rulings pretty firmly. Truthfully, I would have anyhow but I think the clarity of where the line is might be useful for this discussion.

 

[Zhaleskra]

As I've grown to like other systems, while realizing how glaring some of the "flaws" in others are, I much prefer systems where I have very little reason to house rule the official rules into something else. Even so, players should realize that sometimes the GM makes mistakes, remembering a rule wrong, and should give leeway as most of us can't keep all that information in our head, especially if we're into multiple systems.

If the players are starting characters and go to the Bog of the Ancient Evil Water Dragon instead of the Tavern being disrupted by a pack of goblins, they meet the dragon and probably die horribly. That said, in general, I'm a roll in the open person with the obvious exceptions for where the characters are always supposed to think they're succeeding until the guards show up or whatever.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[TwoSix]

Let me split a hair to understand where you draw the line.

Say someone (the PCs, a prisoner, whomever) has their ankles shackled together, and I make the ruling this reduces their base speed to 5 feet.

To me, this is not a ruling, this is merely extending out the equipment list and/or providing details of the environment. But I could easily see someone protesting that there is no condition that applies such a speed change and that I've stepped outside the provided rules.

So, if something like this is a "rulings" side, then I come down on rulings pretty firmly. Truthfully, I would have anyhow but I think the clarity of where the line is might be useful for this discussion.

Personally, I generally follow the rules, but I don't consider imposing condition X to fit narrative Y breaking a rule, unless the rule specifically says narrative Y does NOT apply condition X.

Saying that "Shackles on your feet can't impose a movement penalty because it isn't in the rules for shackles" is a player violation of GM prerogative even in the most player-empowering environment. Building environmental constraints into a scene is a necessary part of framing the scene.

 

[Zhaleskra]

If I need to change rule, I need to know why I'm changing it. If I need to change a lot of rules to make the game work, I need to ask why I'm still using that system.

 

[MNblockhead]

If I need to change rule, I need to know why I'm changing it. If I need to change a lot of rules to make the game work, I need to ask why I'm still using that system.

Agreed. But for many GMs it is not a matter for need. There are GMs who have a preternatural urge to tinker with any rule set.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

100% guidelines.

Because THIS is what my 11 year old self was told on p3 of my Basic book concerning the subject:
"While the material in this booklet is referred to as rules, that is not really correct. Anything in this booklet (and other D&D booklets) should be thought of as changeable - anything, that is, that the Dungeon Master or referee thinks should be changed."
~~~
Last sentence of the section: "The purpose of these "rules" is to provide guidelines that enable you to play and have fun, so don't feel absolutely bound to them."

*Guidelines being bolded is part of the exact quote, not my own emphasis btw.

So I've known since day 1/Dec.25th 1980 that the rules are merely guidelines.
And then Gygax told me practically the same thing again in the intro pages of 1e.

Yup...pretty much this.

I seem to have started at almost the same time you did (but I was a year younger than you, at 10). I was sort of "forced" into learning how to DM because my father (who was the DM; we learned together with a friend of mine) needed to slow down how much time he was spending on it (y'know, father, husband, career, etc). So...I ever so reverently opened up the book and started reading all the "stuff I wasn't supposed to read as a player". I felt..well..."special". Like I was being taught the secrets of the universe. Then, almost a year of COMPLETELY screwing up with a ridiculous no-holds-barred Monty Haul/Munchkin 'campaign' (if you could call it that), I realized my choices were not good ones. So I started a new one. Sticking as close to 100% to the rules as possible. If it wasn't in the book, NO! That didn't last long either...another 3 to 6 months. Then it dawned on me; it needs to be a mix. Rules are there for a starting point. A baseline for running the game. Things came up ALL the time that didn't quite fit the rules. I would have said NO before, but now it was "Hmmm... it's close, but should be harder/easier/whatever. Lets do this in stead..." And I would make a ruling.

Turns out, I make pretty decent rulings and thus my DM'ing career was off to the races!

Sticking as closely to RAW simply doesn't work. There WILL be situations ALL THE TIME where a rule is "close enough" to not matter. But there will be a consistent trickle of rules that don't quite fit "close enough" to what the games circumstances at the moment are. So we use the DM to come up with a "bridge" between RAW and I'll-just-make-it-up. This is the sweet spot for DM'ing. IME, the best DM's are the ones who use the rules as a base, but are happy to adjust/modify/ignore/replace rules as needed.

TLDR: Guidelines. Even when a game says "Don't change this rule!"...hehe...yeah, right! Like I'm gonna trust some young whippersnapper barely out of his diapers with something so serious like the rules for my RPG campaign! HA!

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Maxperson]

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

I'm a guidelines man all the way. I usually change a number of rules at the outset. During game play when problems arise, if it's something that I feel can't wait, I'll make a ruling on the spot and we'll move on. Usually, though, the change can wait and I'll just tell the players what the change will be for the next campaign. I don't like to alter things in the middle of a campaign if I can help it, especially if it's going to be a nerf of something. That's just not fair to the players.