How strict are you with the rules when you DM?

[Lancelot]

I stick fairly close to the rules for the players, because they have expectations as to their capabilities. They also have expectations that monsters are adhering to the same fundamental rules of combat that they are. So, a charging monster can't act after the charge unless it uses an action point... it needs to use a standard action to second wind... etc.

However, I'll cheat behind the scenes if it helps create good dramatic tension. A hit which "should" have killed an ogre might leave him with a couple of hp so he gets off a final attack... a fire giant might have an attack power that lets him pick up a PC and throw him 30 feet with a single hit roll... and a skill challenge DC might very wildly depending on how impressed I am with a PC's suggestion.

The challenge for me as a DM is that we have a long-standing convention in my group that all dice are rolled in the open. This means that we have a social contract that we accept the potential for high casualties, with few DM "saves". If the players see that a monster hits on a roll of 14 in one round, they're not going to accept that it misses with a roll of 17 in the following round. The reverse is also true.

So that limits my ability to cheat to things that can't be visually confirmed. 4e monster powers are a perfect example. Because they don't operate under the same assumptions as PCs, 4e monsters can do virtually anything. To paraphrase another thread on EN World, I wouldn't worry about the rules behind "trapdoor bugbears". If I want a creature to be able to spring out of hiding, grab a PC (with a hit roll), drag him back 3 squares, and close a trapdoor behind him... he does that. That's what his power does. The players can't confirm that he can't do that, because they know that "monsters are different" (...and besides, there are plenty of similar examples in the MM and MM2).

 

[Hereticus]

How strict are you with the rules when you DM?

Which rules?

I add house rules to the game, and they are explained clearly to the players before the game. But we all follow the rules we agree to before the game.

Regarding monsters, they are not all clones of each other. I willfully and deliberately modify some of them. That is not cheating.

And if I (as DM) adjust attack or damage rolls during combat, that is not cheating. My role is facilitator to make the game more enjoyable.

No player has ever said a game was good because a DM maintained perfect integrity to a set of rules.

 

[Dykstrav]

I'm pretty strict about adhering to the rules most of the time (some 90%-95% or so). There are several reasons for this, although you should realize that your mileage may vary. My play style isn't the One True Way or the "best" for everyone or anything like that.

First of all, I want the players to get a sense of consistency from the setting. I'd rather require Athletics checks every single time they are required, rather than handwave the rules until it becomes important. For example, if I allow a character to leap ditches and atop tables at the tavern without a check, it might come across as forced or antagonistic to require an Athletics check for a character to leap across a 10-foot chasm during an encounter.

Second, I want to avoid any appearance of favoritism. This means applying the rules fairly and evenly.

Sure, sometimes players gripe that their fighter with a +13 Athletics should be able to climb a mine shaft or leap across narrow gaps with ease. In such cases, I point out that they are free to take 10.

Also, I feel that players don't necessarily deserve a break all of the time. If the dice are against them, that's one thing. But if they try something dumb, they fully deserve to reap the consequences of their actions. I don't want players to feel like they can spit in a King's face, reasoning that the DM would never pit them against an enemy they couldn't defeat or put them in a situation where their character could ever get into a bad situation. If you leap over a 300 foot waterfall, you're not guaranteed to survive just because your character is a player character.

Adventuring is a deadly business. I believe that applying the rules fairly, impartially, and in a manner consistent with your narrative and source material is the best way to reinforce the idea that adventurers are lucky and ratchet up the tension during encounters.

 

[Haltherrion]

I've been playing 4e exclusively since the release (so this response relates to that edition) and between myself and my players, we know the rules pretty well.

As such, we follow them pretty strictly for the most part. If a question comes up and there is not a solid "this is how it works" consensus pretty quick, I call it one way or another and move on quickly. It's better to get one small thing wrong and keep the flow going than halting the game to figure it out.

In those cases, we look up the rule after the game so we know for future reference.

With 4E, more strictly myself. 4E seemed to remove some of the clutter which makes it easier to "go wtih the rules". And the longer I ref, the easier I find it to defer to the rules as much as possible. Yes, I can probably create a better rule in some situations but these days, I only bother if the official rule just seems too foolish or too unbalanced. In all other cases, it is generally good enough as is and not worth the trouble of maintaining an exception.

Regarding whether I distinguish between my own actions and the players, I still try to go with the rules as a ref. The general exception might be abstracting something that just doesn't really seem to matter and isn't worth the time looking up something if I don't have the rule at my finger tip.

 

[Oryan77]

When I first began DMing and wasn't very knowledgeable with rules, I was extremely lenient on the rules. This caused a lot of my friends to argue with me about rules because they didn't even know the rules. So I began to study them better, but I still did not really care about being a rules guru.

Then I had to form a new group due to real life getting in the way for most of the players. The new players that joined would become irate whenever I was light with the rules. They argued with me about rules even more than my old players. So I studied the rules even more.

As years went by, it seemed like more & more players were rules lawyers and would stop the game to look up rules even when I'd ask them to discuss the rules after the game instead. I was basically forced into learning the rules to the point where I was almost a walking PHB.

This caused me to be strict on rules with the players since I got so used to players being strict on me about the rules. I finally have a group of players that are laid back enough and don't need me to be strict on the rules. So I'm being more lenient about the rules and letting them get away with things at times because they let me get away with things at times. I'm not sure what qualifies as being strict, but if I didn't already know most of the rules I wouldn't care much at all if we weren't following a rule correctly.

 

[Roger]

This thread needs poll. I'd like to see an actual poll on the subject, anyway.

 

[Glade Riven]

On the other hand, I'm not sure what you call cheating is always what I consider cheating. 'Cheating' in my book is only changing what you've previously decided on based on player propositions. If you write down that the 1 HD monster has 29 h.p., that's not cheating. If you decide in the middle of the fight that the 1 HD monster shouldn't die, and in responce to the monster getting damaged you give it 20 more hitpoints to prevent it, that is 'cheating'.

Mostly I end up tweaking HP to kill the critter a little earlier rather than spend 3-4 rounds of "whack a mole" when the PCs are obviously going to win, although sometimes I'll have a boss take an extra hit or two. A lot of it depends on gaging player reaction.

Ok, now that is 'cheating'. Most of the time that I've done this behind the screen, I've regretted it (including most saliently a PC death that occurred when the NPC's bad luck suddenly swung wildly the other way). I don't think its worth it. Some fights will just be brief and anti-climatic. If your plot can't deal with that, then you've got a bad plot with too much novelization and not enough consideration of what works in an RPG.

I'm actually less concerned about holding to a story than having my players have fun. I've also noticed that as long as I'm actively trying to kill the PCs, they have a tendency to survive. It's when I try not to kill them, someone ends up dead in a very cheap manner. My Pathfinder campaign is still young (prior to it I ran a SW Saga campaign), and I've got my (now second level) PCs nervous about dying, yet so far they've survived.

This isn't exactly cheating, but its too much DM manipulation for my tastes. The problem with this is that you tend to end up unfairly punishing a player who has made sacrifices to be good in one area of the game. If the player takes Skill Focus as a feat, he reasonably assumes he'll succeed more often than if he doesn't. If all DC's a scaled according to a meta-game consideration ('What I want them to know' or anything like it), then you might as well not have skill ranks or progress them.

It's more like a flexible sliding scale. Usually, the rules have a 3-tiered check, and so I add some flexibility. Then occasionally something that is impossible needs to be impossible and occasionally one has to break out the spiked clue bat. I've got good enough role-players in the group that most of the time, what is found out is done w/o a skill check, anyways.

Basically, anything that the DMG 3.5 puts a caution under, I'm willing to munkey with. Mostly it's time management, with a bit of letting the players do cool things.

 

[wotmaniac]

Pretty much, I hold myself to the same standard as I hold the players. This will, of course, vary based on what kind of game I'm running at the time.
My players, knowing that this is how I operate, will only push things so far as they are willing to have me go.
At the same time, I will only push things as far as I'm willing to have the players go.

This goes a long way to keeping the entire game dynamic self-governed.