Live by it, die by it...

[iserith]

Also high, but not as extreme.

But all the perception stuff is only an example.

Sometimes, as a GM, I want to craft a particular scene. Setup is important, after which character decisions take the stage and they can resolve/derail the situation as they desire.

But I may have to have spells work a certain way, or in a certain combination, or give a character a way to cast two spells in a turn, or have multiple character types present if I want things to happen a certain way.

I like to give my players the opportunity to be surprised, "How did they do that?" and it would be better for that to happen within the rules, IMO. That way, the players might even be eligible to pursue a path to those abilities as well.

I don't always like the explanation of GM fiat or monster ability.

Since the DM's role to describe the environment, it seems to me that you can set things up as you will. It's not clear to me what issue you're having. Do you have any examples?

 

[Blue]

I was unclear.

A character with high perception not only protects themselves from negative surprises, but also potentially snuffs out any positive surprises - messages, parties, hidden doors. The challenge of "Will they notice this interesting thing to follow/avoid a diversion" becomes a foregone conclusion.

In these cases, a "by the rules" standard challenge is almost meaningless.

As a player, I would be rather upset by a DM who regularly negated my character's focus because they didn't want to deal with it.

As a player, I am completely open to my DM saying "you're perception is so crazy I can never pull anything off, can you tweak your character so it's not quite so high".

In other words, I'd hate a DM regularly just handwaving away my character's abilities, but be mature in a discussion about re-tuning my character to be more fun for everyone (including the DM).

 

[Blue]

I am greatly in favor of changing or customizing rules before the game begins, but I'm significantly less inclined to break those rules once they've been made. I don't want to undermine the efforts of the players by arbitrarily causing them to succeed or fail in ways that they don't know about ahead of time.

I agree. Beforehand, you making adjustments to make the system do what you want. but doing it afterward specifically because of this is setting up a framework of expectations, and then undermining player agency in their expression of them.

Personally, when I see rule changes to neuter a build, I feel it's like those HR rules that come out because a manager is affraid to talk to a problem employee. "You can't drink coffee, tea or anything but water at your desk" instead of "Bob, clean it up when you spill".

 

[merwins]

Hmm. Just to be clear, I'm not talking about global rule changes.

I'm talking about breaking rules in localized situations or for specific NPCs.

It's not the same as fudging die rolls, but the principle is similar.

 

[Sunseeker]

The rules are great guidelines.

 

[iserith]

Hmm. Just to be clear, I'm not talking about global rule changes.

I'm talking about breaking rules in localized situations or for specific NPCs.

Such as?

The rules come into play to resolve uncertainty which the DM establishes. If the DM decides an NPC does something with certainty, then it does, with no references to the rules required. There's no need to break rules in this scenario.

 

[toucanbuzz]

As a GM, you have the latitude to break the rules. Do it too much, and you might alienate your players. Do it too little, and you might stifle your imagination or cripple your storyline....For my own part, I NEVER break rules if I can help it...

I prefer not to script the outcome of my games, and breaking the rules scripts my games to turn out the way I want them to. For me, this pretty much applies to die rolls. I've not really had any other area that would tempt me to transgress. I've had this conversation with my players and they're cool with it, which should be the standard for any game regardless of your personal philosophy. If they believe I'm fudging the dice rolls to benefit the bad guys or to make it easier on them, it kills the thrill of the game.

 

[77IM]

My motto is:
There are no rules, only guidelines.

 

[Rhenny]

I don't necessarily break/change rules, but I do the following:

1) I make one or more foe in each encounter customized with some kind of extra power or ability that may not be from the rules.

2) I vary when foes are average hp, random hit points and maximum hit points.

3) I tell the players that the NPCs/foes they face are as varied and interesting as their own PCs so there may be variety in what they encounter even within the same species.

4) I tend to hand wave a lot of actions that the PCs attempt if and when I feel it makes sense and is feasible for the PC in question. Over the years, I've found that I don't like the pace of game to get bogged down by too much rolling and I like to keep the narrative moving in a positive direction when it makes sense for the PCs.

5) I don't use passive perception too often.

6) I let players use their inspiration dice as re-roll instead of declaring before hand when they will take advantage on a roll.

That's pretty much the extent of it.

 

[jasper]

1. When you were young and your book
Was newly open
You used to say PCs always live
(You know you diced)
(You know you diced)
(You know you diced)
But if this ever changin' editions
In which we game in
Makes you give in and cry
Say live and let dice
Live and let dice
What did it matter to ya
When you got DMING to do you got to do it well
You got to give all the players hell
You used to say PCs always live
(You know you diced)
(You know you diced)
(You know you diced)
But if this ever changin' homebrew
In which we game in
Makes you give in and cry
Say PCs live and PCS die
PCS Live and PCS die