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

[Fifth Element]

Occasionally the players in my "experiment" did try to do things for which their classes were not proficient at. How I dealt with that issue, is to change that player's action into a "difficult task" (roll of 15 to 19) or even an "almost-impossible task" (natural 20 roll). For example, a non-multiclassed fighter trying to figure out something magical/arcane, I would require a natural 20 roll. A non-multiclassed sorcerer or wizard trying to use a short sword in combat, I would require a roll of 19 or 20 for a hit.

So ultimately, you were using the d20 system but just winging the DC/AC/whatever. (And using a damage track for monsters instead of hit points.) The DCs of the rolls weren't exactly what they should have been, but they were pretty close. Not surprising it wasn't detected.

 

[ggroy]

I did keep a rough mental note of how many hit points each health state could represent for each particular monster. Each health state is roughly one-fifth of the monster's original assigned hit points.

For cases of a player rolling an extraordinary amount of damage, I used the "one-fifth" measure as a guideline as to how many health levels a monster could drop down.

 

[ggroy]

So ultimately, you were using the d20 system but just winging the DC/AC/whatever. (And using a damage track for monsters instead of hit points.) The DCs of the rolls weren't exactly what they should have been, but they were pretty close. Not surprising it wasn't detected.

For the most part.

 

[the Jester]

Would it be reasonable of me to secretly be playing a GURPS character in a D&D game without the knowledge of the rest of the group? Why is it reasonable when a DM does it? The DM should not put his own whims ahead of what the group wants to be playing.

Interesting perspective. While I agree that the dm and the players should be in agreement on what they're playing- although it might be really interesting to try an experiment like this as a one-off or something- I think that the players need to want to play what the dm is running. If they don't know what the dm is running, they can't really appraise their interest in it.

But the dm's whims are what drive the game. Without them, there is no game, because there is no dm.

 

[ggroy]

Interesting perspective. While I agree that the dm and the players should be in agreement on what they're playing- although it might be really interesting to try an experiment like this as a one-off or something- I think that the players need to want to play what the dm is running.

This "experiment" was largely one-off thing for me.

I don't have any plans to conduct another one in the near future.

 

[kitsune9]

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



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".

Interesting, but as a DM you know the rules and just tweaked them, which I wouldn't have a problem with. Actually, your ideas are interesting enough that I may borrow them if you don't mind.

I don't have a problem with house rules so long as I know them. What gets my goat is when I play with a DM and say for example we're supposed to be playing 3.x and so we have these kinds of calls issued against us or for us:

I roll a natural 20 and the DM says I missed. No explanation other than to promote some story encounter.
I climb a wall and fall 20 feet, but the DM grabs some d10's for damage (several of them).
The DM doesn't bring a players handbook to the game and says he's "got it all up here" (pointing to his head).
Make a Cha roll (not Diplomacy, Bluff, etc skill check) to negotiate and get something like full plate armor for 200 gold because the DM doesn't know the real price. The opposite is that I have spend 400 gp for a potion of cure light wounds because that's what the DM thinks it should cost.
Automatic 1 and 20's on skill checks.
And so on....


Again, I don't mind house rules or stuff because that usually means the DM knows the actual rules and wants to change or play with something else, just please tell me in advance what you changed and I roll with it. But there is definitely a DM who either hasn't taken the time to read the gamebooks, glanced at them, or gives me the pointing-to-head-genius-pose, and it shows in the play. All of the DM's I've played with were also the types who ran their adventure on the fly, another thing that drives me batty. Arrrrgggh!! Okay, I need to take a breather.

Happy Gaming!

 

[ggroy]

How did an extra roll speed things up? My experience is that having to roll for defense slows things down, since it's adding a roll (usually a tiny amount, but it definitely doesn't speed it up).

I remember back in the 1E AD&D days, it would frequently take the DM fifteen seconds or more to look up various tables like the combat to-hit tables, weapon AC adjustments, etc .... to determine whether a player hits a monster or not. The weapon AC adjustment table lookups is what made things really slow down. Even when I wrote down the relevant lines from the weapon AC adjustment tables for the player's weapons, it still took at least 3 or 4 seconds to figure it out, and then go to the relevant combat table to determine whether a player actually hit the monster or not. (The weapon AC adjustment table in on page 38 in the 1E AD&D PHB).

Even in my games where I didn't bother using any weapon AC adjustments, it still took me at least 3 or 4 seconds to look up the right combat table to determine whether a player hit a monster or not. Sometimes I even wrote down the actual lines from the combat tables relevant for the players, but that didn't save much time.

In contrast, rolling a "defense roll" of d20 + (10-AC) for both players and monsters was actually a lot faster than having to look up all those tables.

I also remember the weapons speed factors and other stuff which made DM'ing 1E AD&D kinda messy and tedious, especially in conjunction with using the group initiative system. If the badguys and players both have the same dice rolls for initiative, the initiative becomes simultaneous where speed factors and other stuff come into play.

To avoid doing all this sort of stuff, I dropped the group initiative and speed factors stuff, and instead had every player rolling a d20 and adding in their dexterity reaction/attacking adjustment (on page 11 in the 1E AD&D PHB). (This is essentially the same way initiative is done in 3E/3.5E and 4E). I found it a lot easier doing this, than dealing with the speed factors and group initiative stuff.

I suppose my old 1E AD&D "house rules" of using a defense roll for both the players and badguys, along with every player rolling for initiative, made the combat move a lot faster than playing by the official 1E AD&D rules as written. The only part which took longer was every player rolling for initiative and writing down the order.

 

[coyote6]

Oh, yeah, a defense roll would be faster than a bunch of table lookups. I was thinking in terms of 3.xe and similar systems, where there are no table lookups, just a comparison between total attack roll and a static number. (Hence the invention of THAC0, AFAIK - faster than tables.)

 

[ggroy]

I was thinking in terms of 3.xe and similar systems, where there are no table lookups, just a comparison between total attack roll and a static number.

In my experience for most regular 3.5E D&D games, using the defense roll mechanic at lower levels does make the combat encounters slightly longer largely due to all the extra rolling. Though hitting the monsters more easily can even make the encounters shorter than usual, especially with the players rolling a lot of high numbers on their attack rolls and the badguys rolling a lot of low numbers on their defense rolls.

I played in one game where DM always used the defense roll mechanics, whenever there were was at least one munchkin powergamer playing an overpowered character in his game. This made it easier for him to kill the overpowered character.

At higher levels, the defense roll mechanic for both players and monsters can actually speed up the combat. But at the same time, the player characters can sometimes be hit more easily. Basically combat is a lot more deadly. At such higher levels, the monsters with a normally high static AC can be hit a lot more easily.

 

[MichaelK]

If I caught you doing that, I would forbid you from using a DM screen if you wanted me in your game.

Not that I mind playing with simplified rules, but as I pointed out in the thread this was forked from, I expect to know what rules we are playing with. If you want to play simplified D&D by all means lets play it.

Being DM is not a license to cheat or lie.