Have you ever made thigns out of rule to improve gameplay? (as a DM)

[Ran]

I am preparing to start a campaign, we begin 3rd level and I have used an imp to make the villain, he is a 3rd level wizard Imp, whose polymorph ability was tied to a figure of the city due to a ritual performed.

I believe that making small changes can be quite beneficial, but overdoing it can make your game quite unreliable, after all the players have expectations...

 

[Breakstone]

I fully agree. I once had a villain who first appeared as a grisly old man, but was actually a troll in human skin.

Don't ask me how the rules applied, but it was a very cool battle as he slowly ripped out.

 

[KnowTheToe]

It is part of play. You need to be careful not to give powers to things that the PCs would want to duplicate.

 

[Sanackranib]

changes

Making changes is fine IMO so long as you don't change the basic "reality" and you let the players know what type of changes that you are making so the game stays believable.

 

[Ulrick]

I've done it. In fact I've done it quite often. I don't let the rules get in the way of a good idea.

Sometimes I wish played D&D back in the day when all the rule books weren't out so I can make rules up w/o feeling like I've "fudged" and so players don't give me grief about it.

heh heh

 

[the Jester]

I think the key is to never give an npc ability that pcs can't obtain as well. You have to think about it like this- "Would I allow a pc this power? What would it cost?" If it isn't acceptable to the pcs to take it (the cost is too high), that's all right; if it isn't acceptable to let the pcs have it, that's not.

You know, goose and gander and all that.

 

[Sanackranib]

costs

I agree!

 

[Ran]

Well, i believe there has to be a reson for going beyond the rules, I changed a goo ability for something that would make more intrigue, loosing the original. Making change is more interesting 'cause not every monster looks equal.

Anyhow, i do agree with most of you, good ideas must go on, just make it so that players get the feeling that they have found a unique creature in its own rights, not some hyper maximized killing machine, after all, this is all about ROLE PLAYING, isn't it??

guess this pool came in nicely, thank you all for participating here!

 

[the Jester]

Well, i believe there has to be a reson for going beyond the rules, I changed a goo ability for something that would make more intrigue, loosing the original. Making change is more interesting 'cause not every monster looks equal.

Anyhow, i do agree with most of you, good ideas must go on, just make it so that players get the feeling that they have found a unique creature in its own rights, not some hyper maximized killing machine, after all, this is all about ROLE PLAYING, isn't it??

guess this pool came in nicely, thank you all for participating here!

With monsters (less human or demihuman) it's different and easy to justify. With pc-available races, you have to play fair.

Changing the abilities of a monster to spruce it up is a time-honored tradition; check out the "voice of the wood" or whatever Piratecat called it in his story hour; mechanically it's a balor whose abilities focus on woodland powers rather than on fire and stuff. Cool stuff.

You just have to watch out; I remember as a whippersnapper, when I used some cool ideas for npcs, being horrified when the players got all pissed off that they couldn't do it too. Avoid this problem at all costs.

 

[KnowTheToe]

Sometimes I wish played D&D back in the day when all the rule books weren't out so I can make rules up w/o feeling like I've "fudged" and so players don't give me grief about it.

heh heh

Remember when the games were rules light and it wasmore about concept. I miss those days, but the rule heavy combat is loads of fun as well and adds a lot more tactics than the player saying, "I shoot him." and the DM saying, "He shoots back."