How far would you go against the RAW to promote creativity?

[Glyfair]

I have mixed feelings about this. I definitely am willing to ignore or bend the rules if something comes up that is fun and is plausible. On the other hand, consistancy is important to me. I hate playing in a game, basing a decision on how the rules work (as my character would understand it) and being told that it would be more fun another way and having it backfire.

However, my major concern only applies to certain players (although there are a lot of them). It's the "give them and inch and they'll take a mile." If you allow something cool to work once, they try to do it again, and again, and again, and again. Fun becomes boring, and often overpowering - as game balance considerations on the fly aren't always well judged.

I think I'm going to house rule in my upcoming Eberron campaign that players can try something cool that "breaks the rules" by spending a Hero Point. If it's something that's been done before, it doesn't work. This will allow such actions, but will keep them as the exception rather than becoming the new party tactic.

 

[Jaws]

I chose Paladin's way: RAW is sacred, no creativity justifies any change. RAW reflects the spirit of the rules.

But then that is what Hero Points (Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed), action points, action dice, force points, or whatever you call it are for. To be creative and alter the rules.


Peace and smiles

j.

 

[Faraer]

Mostly I veer close to 'I just do what I want.' But in the case of spells, I feel their descriptions do constitute how they should work, as opposed to most other rules which are approximations to a fictional reality they don't define.

 

[Psion]

I am a stickler for codification. That doesn't mean I never go against the RAW. It does mean that if I do, I like it to be something that is consistent and repeatable.

In the past, I have allowed the occasional thing that makes sense. Spell(/power) descriptions are a great example. In the WLD game I was running, we had a psion with fire control. The rogue was disarming a trap, so the psion readied an action the use fire control to supress fire in case the rogue failed. The rogue did. Nothing about the power says you can do it. But it made sense to me, so I allowed it.


Book of Iron Might and UA Action Points (with the "simulate a feat" thingy) are a godsend to me in this vein, as they give the players a few limited value "blank checks". I mean, even if there is no printed feat out there for something, it's reasonable to assume that some virtual feat exists that allows the player to do a reasonable action.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Using Grease on yourself to avoid being grappled or to escape a grapple, even if the spell cannot be cast on creatures.
Allowing Resistance with Persistent Spell, even if the feat shouldn't work on touch spells.

At this point, I was going to vote paladin's way. In general, I'll let players try anything. Swinging from a chandelier onto the enemy, etc. etc. But when it comes to spells I am very close to RAW. I just don't think it's sensible to allow a 3rd-level effect with a 1st-level spell. Allowing Grease to work as a Freedom of Movement spell, or Permanency to work with non-personal spells, for instance, would definitely not work. If you want a 3rd-level spell-effect, cast a 3rd-level spell.

Be quite free in manipulating little objects with Mage Hand, such as pulling a level or turning a key.
Allow the use of Floating Disk for self-transportation.
And finally... allowing Polymorph to retain your own low-light/darkvision when the new form also has it

Then I read these, though, all of which I do/would allow. I suppose I see these as more House Rules than breaking the rules. They all seem like fine, balanced ways to use the spells in question, so I allow them.

Guess I'm somewhere in the middle, then.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm with Monte on this one: The rules don't inhibit creativity. Though I do drop unwanted rules like a dead weight, in a jiffy!

 

[shilsen]

I do what irdeggman and Psion described - I have no problems house ruling something for reasons of flavor, but I am always consistent about it. For example, if you can use a spell in a manner which isn't covered by the RAW once, you can always do that with the same spell.

 

[Saeviomagy]

First up, I'm all for the "if it's more fun" school of DMing. However whenever I'm considering a new ruling, I always consider
Does it make the game faster?
Does it make the game more realistic?
Does it make the game more fun?

If a new ruling gets 2 out of 3, it's in.

Obviously one risk is that the idea may be actually much better than it seems at first sight, and later you may repent having allowed it.

Then you revoke it. You say to the players "That new rule we're using has these bad consequences, so I'm revoking/changing it".

Using Grease on yourself to avoid being grappled or to escape a grapple, even if the spell cannot be cast on creatures.

Which, as others have pointed out, is perfectly legal.

Allowing Resistance with Persistent Spell, even if the feat shouldn't work on touch spells.

See - I fail to understand how giving someone a permanent +1 to their saves is increasing the fun of the game. It seems more like breaking a rule for the hell of it.

Be quite free in manipulating little objects with Mage Hand, such as pulling a level or turning a key.

I really don't see how that's a problem.

Allow the use of Floating Disk for self-transportation.

Again, it seems to be fine by the RAW, as well as a cool visual with minimal deleterious effects.

And finally... allowing Polymorph to retain your own low-light/darkvision when the new form also has it

Yeah, well the polymorph rules are rooted, especially with the sage's "clarifications" which make polymorphing into an Ooze so totally stupid it defies belief. If I thought they were going to be a problem in my campaign any time soon, I'd probably work with the casters of the spells and sort something out.

 

[Li Shenron]

Allowing ... Permanency to work with non-personal spells, for instance, would definitely not work. If you want a 3rd-level spell-effect, cast a 3rd-level spell.

See - I fail to understand how giving someone a permanent +1 to their saves is increasing the fun of the game. It seems more like breaking a rule for the hell of it.

I need to clarify about Permanent Spell with Resistance

I quoted this as example because the cantrip Resistance gives +1 on ST for 1 minute only, so you have to cast it when the battle is starting. At mid-high levels it is rarely used because you have much better spells to cast and Resistance is almost a wasted round.

The feat Permanent Spell makes it 24 hours for a 5th level slot, definitely not a cheap price for a simple +1 which doesn't stack with the cloak.

It does make the game more fun IMO, but not because of the bonus because the player has found a way to make an old cantrip useful at higher level. And it's fast because you can just permanently mark out one 5th slot and add the bonus to your char sheet. Not an example of character's creativity but of player's creativity, but still...

What I have broken in the rule is that IIRC Permanent Spell says "spells with fixed range or personal", probably to avoid the use on others (almost all fixed-range spells are detects or protections). Resistance has range touch because you can cast it on the others. I allowed this use only on the caster's self, which I think it was still with the spirit of a "personal" spell.

 

[suburbaknght]

What you did was completely within the rules. As Monte Cook frequently reminds people (and as is written in the DMG), rule zero is that the GM is always right PROVIDED what he does makes for a better game. And a better game is a game that's more fun. If you and your players are having more fun greasing creatures than not, change the grease spell.