DMs not playing by the rules (Forked Thread: What are the no-goes for you?)

[ggroy]

Forked from: What are the no-goes for you?

1. DM's who want to run "fast and loose" which usually translates, "I've never taken the time to read the rules, so I'm just going to wing it." Read the rules for the game you're going to run or break out a boardgame. While I won't rule lawyer a game, I want to be able to do some things that are normal for a game, like roll the appropriate dice for iniative, do the range of allowed actions, etc. For example, we had a DM at a con who did it "fast and loose" on D&D 3.0. So we all know that init is d20, put it order, and then standard action/move action. The DM wouldn't pay attention and would cut a player's action out as he switched gears. The same player would declare a normal action like retrieve an item from pack (move action), but the DM ruled he couldn't do it in while there was a combat going on, etc., etc.

Awhile ago I was DM'ing a 3.5E D&D game, and wondered whether the players would notice if the DM was "secretly" playing with a different set of rules than the official 3.5 rules as written. I tried an experiment and did exactly that, where I was using a completely different set of rules behind the DM screen while putting on a "front" of "appearing" to play the game with the 3.5E rules.

Even with one "rules lawyer" type in the group, I was able to hold my own and win most of the rules arguments this guy raised, by pointing them out in the PHB or DMG. I knew enough about the 3E/3.E rules in advanced.

Obvious stuff like initiative, what was done during turns, etc ... was done more or less as expected in the 3.5E rules. The "secret" set of rules I was using was mainly in the combat and skills. To make a long story short, I was basically using a very simple set of rules:

- Roll a d20.
- If the roll is greater than or equal to the DC, it happens.
- If the roll is less than the DC, it doesn't happen.
- Rolling a 1 is an automatic failure.

DC
- 2 for trivial task (optional).
- 5 for simple task.
- 10 for moderate task.
- 15 for difficult task.
- 20 for almost-impossible task.

Rolling a 20 is a critical success, for tasks which are not almost-impossible.

I essentially defined in advanced whether a task was trivial, simple, moderate, difficult, or almost-impossible with respect to a particular player character and what the situation was. These task difficulties changed during combat or with a particular situation.

When the players were rolling the d20, I just watched what number they rolled and largely ignored whatever modifiers were added to the roll. I largely ignored the damage they rolled too.

For the monsters/badguys, I didn't bother keeping track of hit points. Instead I used a condition bar with health states:

- not-hit
- bruised
- wounded
- bloodied
- dying
- death

Each of the health states had a tally of 1 to 5 ticks (determined by constitution), where a player attack roll of 10 to 14 would knock down one of the ticks. After all the ticks were knocked down in a particular health state, the monster's health state would be knocked down to the next category. For example, an orc with 3 ticks which is in a bruised state from being hit 3 times from three previous player attack rolls of 10 to 14, the next hit would drop the orc into a wounded state.

Attack rolls which are lower than 10, were a miss.

For an attack roll of 15 to 19 (ie. difficult task), it would knock the opponent's health state down one category. For example, an orc that is in a wounded state would drop down to a bloodied state with a player attack roll of 15 to 19.

For a critical 20 (or any other crit), it would knock the opponent's health state down two categories. The wounded orc would drop down to a dying state on a player rolling a crit.

I used the same system for the monsters/badguys attacking the players, but rolled for damage (ie. to keep up the "facade" of "playing" 3.5E rules).

Even after the game ended, I didn't tell the other players at first what I was doing all that time. Apparently they all liked my 3.5E game. When I finally told them of my experiment, they were quite surprised at how they didn't notice at all what I was doing, while the game had the play and feel of a real legitimate D&D game. They all mentioned that they probably wouldn't have noticed much of a difference in gameplay, if I didn't tell any of them about my "experiment".

 

[Crothian]

One night for our weekly D&D game a few years ago I wasn't thinking and packed my Changeling books and dice. That nuight I bascially ran them through a Changeling adventure for D&D characters. I used the d10 dice pool mechanic and they used mostly normal D&D rules. It worked pretty well.

 

[WalterKovacs]

The only thing that would have perhaps tipped them off would be if player A "hit" and player B "missed" [P.A. rolled a 10, P.B. rolled a 9] but because player A was say ... a rogue and player B was a fighter ... the fighter had a higher attack modifier. If the players pinned down what the monsters AC should be ... they'd notice that some of the time they are missing. Basically, the system speeds up play, but drawback is that it effectively causes player choices to be meaningless (in terms of building a character). It doesn't matter how you allocate skill points (other than "cannot be used untrained"). Weapon and armor choices don't matter, etc, etc, etc. All characters are effectively the same in terms of chances of hitting or being hit, etc ...

 

[ggroy]

The only thing that would have perhaps tipped them off would be if player A "hit" and player B "missed" [P.A. rolled a 10, P.B. rolled a 9] but because player A was say ... a rogue and player B was a fighter ... the fighter had a higher attack modifier.

They probably weren't watching the raw d20 rolls as closely, compared to the d20 rolls with all the modifiers added in.

If the players pinned down what the monsters AC should be ... they'd notice that some of the time they are missing.

For a single big solo monster, the AC could be determined more easily in this manner. I rarely had them fighting a single solo monster. In an encounter with 5 or 6 badguys, it gets harder keeping track of every single monster.

Basically, the system speeds up play, but drawback is that it effectively causes player choices to be meaningless (in terms of building a character). It doesn't matter how you allocate skill points (other than "cannot be used untrained"). Weapon and armor choices don't matter, etc, etc, etc. All characters are effectively the same in terms of chances of hitting or being hit, etc ...

The ironic part is that nobody noticed. Not even the "rules lawyer" guy. Though my 3.5E game was at lower levels (ie. below level 10). I suppose at higher levels, somebody could have started to notice, with so much bookkeeping and other stuff.

 

[ggroy]

If the players pinned down what the monsters AC should be ... they'd notice that some of the time they are missing.

One sneaky way around this is to say that instead of using the badguy's AC as a static defense number, I was doing a "defense roll" (ie. a d20 roll with AC-10 added to it) every time a badguy is attacked by a player character. This creates a dynamically changing AC, every time a player attacks a badguy.

This "defense roll" mechanic is discussed at the bottom of page 25 in the 3.5E DMG.

 

[EroGaki]

One sneaky way around this is to say that instead of using the badguy's AC as a static defense number, I was doing a "defense roll" (ie. a d20 roll with AC-10 added to it) every time a badguy is attacked by a player character. This creates a dynamically changing AC, every time a player attacks a badguy.

This "defense roll" mechanic is discussed at the bottom of page 25 in the 3.5E DMG.

I hope you offered the players the same option of rolling for defense, because I have to tell you, nothing irks me more than when a DM decides to make things "dynamic" for the npc's and monsters, but not the PC's.

 

[ggroy]

I hope you offered the players the same option of rolling for defense, because I have to tell you, nothing irks me more than when a DM decides to make things "dynamic" for the npc's and monsters, but not the PC's.

Certainly.

Though all the players in my 3.5E game largely declined. A few mentioned they didn't like the fact that they could roll under a 10 on the d20 for their defense roll, which effectively made them more vulnerable to being hit for that particular attack. This was especially the case for players who had a "reputation" for rolling low.

Nevertheless, I told all the players that if they wanted to do a defense roll when they're being attacked, they had to tell me right away before I rolled any damage. If they chose the option of doing a "defense roll", my rule was that their defense roll will overrule their static AC for that particular monster/badguy attacking them that round. If the defense roll was lower than their static AC, they had to accept the lower AC. (Too bad). For the next round, they can use their static AC again or do another defense roll, if they get attacked again.

The players who did ask a few times out of the blue to do a defense roll, it turned out they ended up having a bad streak of rolling too many low numbers on the d20 for their defense rolls, for which they were hit more often. They decided it wasn't worth the gamble, and went back to using their static AC.

 

[ggroy]

The only thing that would have perhaps tipped them off would be if player A "hit" and player B "missed" [P.A. rolled a 10, P.B. rolled a 9] but because player A was say ... a rogue and player B was a fighter ... the fighter had a higher attack modifier.

During my "experiment", I would sometimes add a 1 or 2 or 3 to a player's d20 roll if I was feeling generous. This would be the case when somebody was having a long streak of rolling too many low numbers. On the other hand, I would sometimes subtract a 1 or 2 or 3 (or more) from a player's d20 rolls if they had a "hot hand" of rolling a lot of high numbers. I would do similar additions and subtractions, in cases such as the players being slaughtered too quickly, or if I felt the party was beating the badguys too easily and faster than I anticipated.

So detecting the 9 and 10 barrier on the d20 in the player's attack rolls, between missing and hitting, was not always that obvious.

Nevertheless, if any of my players asked at the time, I probably would have used the dynamic AC via "defense rolls" argument for the monsters and badguys.

 

[Wenin]

So everyone had the same chance to do whatever was being done?

 

[Ariosto]

I was playing D&D (nominally 2E) a couple of weekends ago with some fellows who are all old hands (or at least middle aged hands ). We have a natural agreement on the rules of D&D:
1) Play your character.
2) The DM is the rules.

The DM's 2E PHB (and "house" rules) took precedence during the quick character generation (stats, race, class, equipment of a weapon and whatever few other items the DM deemed appropriate to our poor characters on errands near their village), although the players had brought 1E books. Once the game was underway, the books were scarcely cracked. We rolled dice when the DM asked us to, and he was pleased to rely on our collective memory when occasional questions arose.

So what if 2-7 for Cure Light Wounds was from the "little brown books"? The average is the same as 1-8, and even 1-6 or 2-9 would probably have been close enough for the moment.

We just wanted to play, and the choices we made in character were more important than scrutinizing dice-rolls. "I'll try this; what happens?"

That's not for everyone, and maybe for some only some of the time. For us, though, it was a blast -- and we plan to do it again this coming weekend.