Mark CMG
Creative Mountain Games
Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (The Temperature of the Rules)
What are your thoughts on the matter?
What are your thoughts on the matter?
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Legends and Lore - The Temperature of the Rules
- Thread starter Mark CMG
- Start date
Derulbaskul
Adventurer
The basic problem remains that it all depends on the group and the "social contract", if you will.
A good group will negotiate around rules that get in the way of fun; a bad group will make the game hell for the DM and/or other players no matter what.
A sliding scale of rules simply makes more rules. Better to set the rules more or less in stone and then let individual groups negotiate their way around those rules, or make this the topic of DDi articles.
A good group will negotiate around rules that get in the way of fun; a bad group will make the game hell for the DM and/or other players no matter what.
A sliding scale of rules simply makes more rules. Better to set the rules more or less in stone and then let individual groups negotiate their way around those rules, or make this the topic of DDi articles.
delericho
Legend
Present the rules, then explain to the DM how to go about changing them.
This allows the newbie DM to learn the rules, without getting hit with esoteric discussions of how (and whether) to change the rules. That way, he can get to grips with how things work without having to worry about why things work. (And newbie DMs probably shouldn't be changing the rules anyway.)
Experienced DMs, on the other hand, don't really need to be told that they can change the rules. If they don't like something, they will change it anyway - and probably would even if WotC didn't mention the possibility at all. The one thing that WotC should definitely do for those DMs, just to cut down on arguments, is put a nice, clear statement in the PHB that "the DM can change the rules."
This allows the newbie DM to learn the rules, without getting hit with esoteric discussions of how (and whether) to change the rules. That way, he can get to grips with how things work without having to worry about why things work. (And newbie DMs probably shouldn't be changing the rules anyway.)
Experienced DMs, on the other hand, don't really need to be told that they can change the rules. If they don't like something, they will change it anyway - and probably would even if WotC didn't mention the possibility at all. The one thing that WotC should definitely do for those DMs, just to cut down on arguments, is put a nice, clear statement in the PHB that "the DM can change the rules."
Klaus
First Post
This.
I think 4e does a great job in teaching the art of DMing (seriously, the two DMGs and the DM's Kit are the best DM books ever). And it gives many tools to facilitate improvisation. These just have to be emphasized, so as to not fall by the wayside.
If by DM books you mean, literally, "DM books" then you may be right.
If by DM books you mean "GM books" then I don't agree at all. I know at least three better GM guides - Maelstrom Storytelling, the Burning Wheel Adventure Burner, and HeroQuest revised edition (some parts of which are cribbed by Robin Laws for his work on the 4e DMG2). And these are not just better GM books in some abstract sense - they have better advice for a 4e GM than the 4e GM guides do!
The main thing that is missing from the 4e GM guides is a discussion of the story (as opposed to tactical) elements of encounter building and resolution. Worlds and Monsters is actually a lot better on this, and it's a pity that such a good GM's book was relegated to "preview" status. In the 4e DMGs and Kit, the only story element that is discussed from the point of view of game play (as opposed to the point of view of the fiction) is languages (in particular, the explanation of why the game has only 10 languages).
I don't really agree with this either. If we're talking about particular game elements - power mechanics, race mechanics, weapon mechanics etc - then I'm not sure the GM should be given the unilateral right to change them. This seems to me a matter of group consensus (although in a traditional group the voice of the GM will presumably be the loudest).
If we're talking about the basic rules of character building and action resolution, then I'm certainly sceptical of the idea that the GM has the unilateral power to change the rules. This is particularly so in a ruleset like 4e, where the quality of the rules as printed is measured not in terms of their fidelity to a simulationist ideal, but their tendency to produce a particular type of game experience by distributing narrative authority to various game participants in particular ways. As a comparison, I'm thinking about those parts of the Burning Wheel advancement rules which say "You can't substitute one sort of test for another - this is hard and fast" - the rules aren't a simulation that the GM is encouraged to tinker with, but a way of producing a particular solution to the problem of "always use your best skill to try and maximise success", and if you try to solve that problem a different way then, in effect, you've departing from what Burning Wheel was written to be as a game.
That's not to say that it's a crime to tinker with the rules of a game. But the designers should have the courage of their convictions - present the rules that they think will deliver the intended "D&D experience", and explain how and why they will do this. (The Adventure Burner is an excellent example of this, in my view.)
If we're talking about page 42 stuff (which [MENTION=607]Klaus[/MENTION] suggests with his reference to improvisation) then I see that as something different again. This isn't about empowering the GM to change the rules. This is about encouraging the GM and players to use the action resolution rules - including the page 42 elements of them - to their maximum extent.
I think the essential question could be reframed like so...
Which of the following is true:
1) a rule describes what can/will happen in-game (regardless of context)
2) a rule describes what is likely to happen in-game (in an average context)
With boardgames, it's always #1. It's simple, clear, and predictable. You don't ask for human adjudication to account for context. Barring rule exceptions and houserules, the rule as an abstraction becomes more "real" than what it was originally imagined to model, even if the abstraction is a gross simplification.
With rpgs, it's often #1 (definitely with tactical play and rules lawyers) but others often prefer #2 and view the rules as a guideline. It also varies depending on the rule, of course.
Monte gave the example of a rule that: open door = move action. Let's say that there's a heavy stone door and the DM wants that it takes a full round to open.
If the group subscribes to view #1, then the DM needs to break the rule at the risk of arguments ("Yeah, yeah, I know the rule says 1 move action to open a door, but in this case, I rule that it takes 1 round"), or the system needs an extra rule at the risk of increased complexity ("exception: stone doors take a full round to open").
However, if the group subscribes to view #2, then there is no need to break the rule or add an extra rule. The average door is likely to take 1 move action to open, but this heavy stone door is not average. The important thing is to try to be consistent -- that's why I would consider this to the mature/advanced version of D&D.
Which of the following is true:
1) a rule describes what can/will happen in-game (regardless of context)
2) a rule describes what is likely to happen in-game (in an average context)
With boardgames, it's always #1. It's simple, clear, and predictable. You don't ask for human adjudication to account for context. Barring rule exceptions and houserules, the rule as an abstraction becomes more "real" than what it was originally imagined to model, even if the abstraction is a gross simplification.
With rpgs, it's often #1 (definitely with tactical play and rules lawyers) but others often prefer #2 and view the rules as a guideline. It also varies depending on the rule, of course.
Monte gave the example of a rule that: open door = move action. Let's say that there's a heavy stone door and the DM wants that it takes a full round to open.
If the group subscribes to view #1, then the DM needs to break the rule at the risk of arguments ("Yeah, yeah, I know the rule says 1 move action to open a door, but in this case, I rule that it takes 1 round"), or the system needs an extra rule at the risk of increased complexity ("exception: stone doors take a full round to open").
However, if the group subscribes to view #2, then there is no need to break the rule or add an extra rule. The average door is likely to take 1 move action to open, but this heavy stone door is not average. The important thing is to try to be consistent -- that's why I would consider this to the mature/advanced version of D&D.
IronWolf
blank
I do not think the DM adjudicating the rules is breaking the rules at all. The DM knows their own group the best and will realize if something needs tweaked to reflect something the rules did not or could not account for. I do think this style of play requires trust amongst the group though to be successful. I luckily game with a great group whom I trust, so this style of play has always worked for us. It leads to very fun games.
There are other situations where I think staying truer to the rules is the way to go, organized play games for example. There you frequently have a mix of players that can change from week to week or con to con. Here you need the rules to closer to as written in the book to keep the playing field level across tables and DMs.
There are other situations where I think staying truer to the rules is the way to go, organized play games for example. There you frequently have a mix of players that can change from week to week or con to con. Here you need the rules to closer to as written in the book to keep the playing field level across tables and DMs.
delericho
Legend
Perhaps I overstated my position, but it has long been the case that the DM is expected to house rule the system, to make changes, and to making rulings - some of which may be contrary to RAW. In general, it is better that these be made with a consensus from the group... but even that's not always the case.
All I'm saying is that the possibility of this should be highlighted in the PHB, just to cut out the rules-lawyer types and their "you can't do that; the rules state..." disruptions.
I just don't think that you can cut that sort of stuff out.
I mean, Burning Wheel doesn't have any statement like the one you suggest. Suppose a BW GM suggests some changes to certain game elements nevertheless (to my eye, there are a few spells and weapons that are mechanically a little overpowered, and could be toned down to the benefit of balance). Do you think the absence of the text you suggest is going to lead to more grief than 3E GMs would get in similar circumstances, despite the presence of that text in the 3E PHB?
I think it is other factors that produce the sorts of disruptions you are concerned with, and I don't think rules text will eliminate those factors. I really do think that what is more useful is more explanation from the designers of why they think the rules they've printed are good ones. As a very simple example, do the designers think that the published weapon stats are reaslistic? Or are they putting them forward as balanced, so that it is as mechanically viable to play an axe fighter as it is to play a sword fighter? This is the sort of information that I think can help groups reach a consensus on what sorts of changes to particular game elements they might want to make.
D&D has had a habit of treating this stuff either as obvious, or as mysterious, and either way therefore as not needing to be stated in the rulebooks. I think there is a lot to be learned from books like the BW Adventure Burner or Monster Burner that tackle these sorts of questions, as well as ideas about the balance between player and GM authority, in a very upfront way.
