Three Issues to Keep in Mind when Changing the Rules.

[Hussar]

I'll admit that I'm not much of a rules tinker. I don't generally have a huge problem following the rules of any given system, by and large. If the system says X, then, most often, I'll follow the path of least resistance and do X. But, that being said, I do like to lift up the hood once in a while and get a bit greasy.

However, that being said, I think there really are three issues that every DM should stop and consider before making changes. Note, none of these are necessarily show stoppers nor are they insurmountable problems. Sometimes they're not even problems at all. But, I think that these three issues should be kept in mind.

The first two are pretty much strictly pragmatic issues and are fairly strongly related:

1. Exactly how does this change work? Take the recent "can a snake be knocked prone" discussion. No, I don't want to re-open that, but, just use it as an example. What constitutes a snake? How snakelike does a creature have to be to be considered a snake? Is a Naga a snake? A Purple Worm? A Rhemoraz? A Behir? A Basilisk? Some types of Yuan-Ti or a Marilith? Just how snakey does something have to be in order to be immune to being knocked prone?

Again, not an insurmountable issue, particularly in this case, where it's probably something that's fairly easily resolved. But, there can be other cases where changing something might have unforseen consequences.

2. Related to 1, how often is this issue going to come up in play? Keeping with our snake question, is this something that's going to happen once in a while and be an interesting tactical challenge or is the party going to spend the next sixteen sessions wandering the Slithering Swamp of Supernatural Serpents in Search of the Supine Snake Goddess?

If it's the second one, then maybe letting the players know before they start sinking considerably character resources into tripping might be a really good idea. No one wants to get sidelined, particularly when a few words to the wise could have prevented it.

3. What else? This is the issue that, in my mind anyway, might be the most pernicious. Players can only interact with the game world through the mechanics of the game as adjudicated by the DM. When the DM begins changing mechanics, the players can no longer accurately assess the results of their efforts.

Again, using the tripping snake issue, it's quite possible that the DM might also have additional believability issues with other elements. If the PC's cannot trip a snake, can they push a giant? Can they swing from the chandeliers? Reading the rulebooks tells the players one thing, but, the DM has now shown that the rules in the book might not be the rules at the table.

One of the dangers here is shutting down player creativity. Again, I want to stress that this is not a foregone conclusion. Just a possibility. The players choose options based on what they believe will pass muster through the DM filter instead of choosing options based on what the rules allow and what the players think is cool.

To take a 4e example, a player with a 7th level fighter shies away from Come and Get It because he knows the DM will have issues with it, but instead takes Reckless Attack (I think that's what it's called - Str -2 vs AC 3[w] damage) because the latter power is so basic, it's sure to pass through the DM's filters.

Again, just to be absolutely clear, I want to say that none of these issues are necessarily inevitable. They certainly aren't. These are possiblities, nothing more. Just something the DM should be aware of and give some thought to beforehand.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The above post is actually a pretty good summation of why

(1) rules-heavy causes problems,

(2) why this is even more true with knife-edge balancing, and

(3) why a GM is required to determine how the rules interact with the fiction, because no set of rules can do so by itself.

That said, I particularly disagree with "Players can only interact with the game world through the mechanics of the game" and "One of the dangers here is shutting down player creativity."

As to the first, I strongly believe that players can and should interact with the game world through the fiction, as adjudicated by the rules. I would also argue that the GM should adjudicate the rules in such a way as to match the expected outcome of the fiction. I agree without reservation that this is easier in some game systems than in others.

As to the second, "choosing options based on what the rules allow and what the players think is cool" is by no means more creative than choosing options based upon what the players think is plausible within the context of the fiction -- whether the rules would normally allow those options or not!

It is, to my mind, many orders more creative to realize that, although the rules do not normally allow you to push giants over, in this case there is a good reason in the fiction why you should be able to do so, then to merely say "My power says I can do so".

Indeed, the latter requires no creativity whatsoever, and (IME at least) tends toward players using the same powers in the same way, regardless of who their opponents are.

Frankly, for any game I want to be involved in, from either side of the screen, I am 100% of the opinion that the GM should filter the rules through the fiction, and not the other way around.

Of course, different strokes for different folks, and YMMV, etc.


RC

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

One of the dangers here is shutting down player creativity. Again, I want to stress that this is not a foregone conclusion. Just a possibility.

This is always a possibility, and more a function of the players (including GM) than the rules or the degree to which they;ve been tinkered. Some players feel completely unhindered and imaginitive in a super-rules-lite system; others clam up. Conversely, some players feel most free to interact with a game world when the rules for those interactions are extremely well-defined and immutable, while other players feel restricted by this.

The points in the OP are certainly valid, and reasonable advice. They also seem to be addressing an underlying issue that's generally more about playstyle and (especially) the trust & communication between the GM and players; and less about rules and houserules. Basically, as RC said, "Different strokes for different folks."

 

[nedjer]

Creativity dies with a strangled cry at the point when the snake debate lasts more time than it takes to reach a non-precedent setting compromise in under a minute.

At that ghastly moment ownership of the game moves inexorably away from the GM and players to the text alone; just as the challenge has moved from the gameplay to the meta. Then all that's really going on is bickering over who has a better command of the written language. I.e. licking the ego lollipop

 

[Hussar]

This is always a possibility, and more a function of the players (including GM) than the rules or the degree to which they;ve been tinkered. Some players feel completely unhindered and imaginitive in a super-rules-lite system; others clam up. Conversely, some players feel most free to interact with a game world when the rules for those interactions are extremely well-defined and immutable, while other players feel restricted by this.

The points in the OP are certainly valid, and reasonable advice. They also seem to be addressing an underlying issue that's generally more about playstyle and (especially) the trust & communication between the GM and players; and less about rules and houserules. Basically, as RC said, "Different strokes for different folks."

Fair enough I suppose. I would argue that even in a super-rules light system, you will still have interactions governed by mechanics, even if those mechanics are ad hoc created on the spot. Over any significant period of time, those ad hoc rules will become de facto rules for that table simply through precedence.

My issue with the idea that fiction should be the sole determiner for an action is that you smack into issue 3 - namely who gets to decide believability? The DM? Why? Why should he be the only one who gets to decide if I can push the giant or not?

Whether the game is rules light or rules heavy, once you introduce the DM Believability Filter to the game, players will almost automatically begin gaming the DM and not the fictional universe because the DM's believability filter becomes a criteria for any PC action.

 

[Lanefan]

1. Exactly how does this change work? Take the recent "can a snake be knocked prone" discussion. No, I don't want to re-open that, but, just use it as an example. What constitutes a snake? How snakelike does a creature have to be to be considered a snake? Is a Naga a snake? A Purple Worm? A Rhemoraz? A Behir? A Basilisk? Some types of Yuan-Ti or a Marilith? Just how snakey does something have to be in order to be immune to being knocked prone?

And 1a: How far do the knock-on effects go? If snakes cannot be knocked prone then what about oozes, air elementals, animated round objects that have no definable "up", a person shackled to a wall or post, or any of a number of other things where knocking it over makes no sense?

And you next have to ask how far do you want your tinkering to go? Are you simply trying to fix the snake issue, or looking at a broader option of combining 'prone' and some other conditions into a lesser list that amount - in one way or another - to "disadvantaged in combat".

2. Related to 1, how often is this issue going to come up in play? Keeping with our snake question, is this something that's going to happen once in a while and be an interesting tactical challenge or is the party going to spend the next sixteen sessions wandering the Slithering Swamp of Supernatural Serpents in Search of the Supine Snake Goddess?

If it's the second one, then maybe letting the players know before they start sinking considerably character resources into tripping might be a really good idea. No one wants to get sidelined, particularly when a few words to the wise could have prevented it.

Absolutely - if you're going to tinker then by far the best time to do so is before you start play in the campaign.

Creativity dies with a strangled cry at the point when the snake debate lasts more time than it takes to reach a non-precedent setting compromise in under a minute.

Except there is no such thing as non-precedent setting, assuming you want to keep any consistency in the game world at all. If the game decides a snake can't be tripped now then it also can't be tripped when met again later...which means taking the extra few minutes to get it right the first time is probably worth it in the long run.

Lan-"snakes - why'd it have to be snakes"-efan

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

My issue with the idea that fiction should be the sole determiner for an action is that you smack into issue 3 - namely who gets to decide believability? The DM? Why? Why should he be the only one who gets to decide if I can push the giant or not?

Whether the game is rules light or rules heavy, once you introduce the DM Believability Filter to the game, players will almost automatically begin gaming the DM and not the fictional universe because the DM's believability filter becomes a criteria for any PC action.

Imho, the "Believability Filter" doesn't belong exclusively to the DM; it's built and shared by everyone at the table. That's basically what I mean when I talk about trust & communication at the table. The more we all talk to each other, the more likely we are to all stay on the same page.

I'm sure it's a DMing style thing, but at least in my case, I try to keep players in the loop with respect to rules changes and ad hoc decisions. I give them my ruling and rationale, they can protest or offer an alternative ruling, I make a final decision, and we move on-- with the promise that I'll review/correct the decision & make it official between sessions, especially if I know it'll pop up again. In session, the whole process takes 2 or 3 minutes, and is pretty painless. (Perhaps that's what you meant by "gaming the DM" in the OP?)

The end result of this sort of back and forth may or may not actually result in lots of rules changes for a particular campaign. It really just depends upon how we all end up hashing things out, subject to the nature of the rule set; whatever the group is comforatable with; and whatever we decide "cool" or "fun" means in that particular campaign.

[edit] It occurs to me that you might also be referring to rules changes (ie, house rules) established before a campaign begins. In my case, it's roughly similar, in that that I as DM propose the mods I want to make and get players' opinions. Usually, unless there's a strong adverse initial reaction, up front house rules are pretty much set.

 

[Hussar]

I'd pretty much agree with all of the the_orc_within. I'm a big fan of making sure that everyone is on the same page before making any changes. I tend to perhaps be a bit more lazy in that if the players object to a change, I'll generally let it go.

Personally, I've got a fantastic group right now, so, these issues rarely, if ever, come up. However, I have seen them come up a lot more in the past. And, thinking about it, I'm sure you're right that it was a lack of communication that caused a lot of 1-3 becoming real problems at the table.

 

[pemerton]

I particularly disagree with "Players can only interact with the game world through the mechanics of the game"

<snip>

As to the first, I strongly believe that players can and should interact with the game world through the fiction, as adjudicated by the rules. I would also argue that the GM should adjudicate the rules in such a way as to match the expected outcome of the fiction.

<snip>

It is, to my mind, many orders more creative to realize that, although the rules do not normally allow you to push giants over, in this case there is a good reason in the fiction why you should be able to do so,

My issue with the idea that fiction should be the sole determiner for an action is that you smack into issue 3 - namely who gets to decide believability?

Related to Hussar's point - in many situations, at least in my experience, players like to know the odds of success of some attempted action (at least in ballpark terms) before committing themselves. So rather than the "believability filter", the issue becomes the "probability filter".

To see how this point can come up outside the context of house ruling: Consider a new player who doesn't know the 3E rules very well, and who has his/her PC pick up two swords to start fighting twin-blade style because the PC's shield has been left behind and there are a hell of a lot of orcs between the PC and the exit from the dungeon.

In my view, it makes a huge difference at this point whether or not the GM informs the player of such matters as: the penalty to hit for wielding two swords; the likely approximate AC of the orcs, given the armour they're wearing; etc. With this mechanical information, the player can work out whether picking up the second sword is actually increasing or decreasing his/her PC's chances of making it out alive.

Likewise when it comes to house ruling and fiction-driven improvisation: if the players don't know what odds the GM is assigning, then it becomes very hard to know whether or not they are making rational decisions for their PCs. Of course, if the players and GM always agreed on what is probable and what not in any given situation, this wouldn't matter. But that is not the case, and doubly so when the probabilities that matter aren't just "easy" or "hard" but typically (at least for D&D) adjustments to d20 rolls that can easily end up doubling or halving the likelihood of success (eg stat check vs an average stat at +4 vs -4, which I believe is the range of modifiers suggested in Moldvay Basic).

These issues are only compounded by differences in understanding at the table as to who is where, how big X is compared to Y, and all the other details which everyone often has only a hazy grasp of.

For all these reasons I think that commonly shared mechanics can play a useful role in helping the players engage the fiction. And I also think it is poor GMing not to allow player takebacks once the GM has told them what the odds of some move are, when the game being played is one which gives the GM a free hand in believability/probability filtering.

 

[Nagol]

<snip>

As to the second, "choosing options based on what the rules allow and what the players think is cool" is by no means more creative than choosing options based upon what the players think is plausible within the context of the fiction -- whether the rules would normally allow those options or not!

It is, to my mind, many orders more creative to realize that, although the rules do not normally allow you to push giants over, in this case there is a good reason in the fiction why you should be able to do so, then to merely say "My power says I can do so".

Indeed, the latter requires no creativity whatsoever, and (IME at least) tends toward players using the same powers in the same way, regardless of who their opponents are.

Frankly, for any game I want to be involved in, from either side of the screen, I am 100% of the opinion that the GM should filter the rules through the fiction, and not the other way around.

Of course, different strokes for different folks, and YMMV, etc.


RC

The typical goal of changing rules is to make better conform to a particular vision of how the fiction should work though, is it not? If the game is attempting to emulate modern day TV PI-drama, but the GM expects bullets to ricochet off of metal, it is better to change the rules and make sure the PCs know of the change prior to attepting to shoot out a lock.

My three issues to consider when changing rules is different:

1) Who is affected? Who is advantaged compared to the base rule? Who is disadvantaged? Am I favouring/disfavouring a current player over others? Are some strategies favoured and should that be pointed out to the players?

2) How will the change affect the world development and its presentation to the players?

3) What are the edge cases of the change and are there any obvious break points I'm introducing?