Rules as Law vs. Rules as Guidelines

[KenNYC]

I change rules on the fly and as DM don't mention it to the players. I am DMing a 5e game, but the truth is some old 1e rules make things easier as I am running an old Judges Guild adventure, transposing to 5e on the fly. They are about to encounter hordes of undead at low levels, and I think I am just going to toss out the 5e turning rules and opt instead for the more powerful 1e turning table. In another instance someone ran into yellow mold and I decided I was going to use the 1e rules of save or die. Now what to set the save at? That seemed arbitrary to me seeing how the result of a fail is death, so I just went with the save table in the 1e DMG and allowed the player to keep his 5e plusses for the save roll. Unscientific, but it made sense to me.

Basically I believe in rulings not rules, and whatever works. If the players think I am fair I am a good DM. If the players think my rulings suck I am a bad DM.

 

[MNblockhead]

The funny thing is that I can read these discussions and have strong negative reactions to how a DM describes his or her style or their reasoning and practices for following, ignoring, or altering rules. But at the table, a DMs adjudication of rules has never really been an issue for me. There are DMs who practice my preferred style whose games are unenjoyable and there are DMs who I can get into heated debates over rules on forums or pre/post game conversation, but whose games a thoroughly enjoy.

 

[aramis erak]

Guidelines... but in practice, I usually don't make many changes.

I typically choose the system to do the things I want it to in the first place. Over the years, I have found that broad strokes matter far more than small fiddly bits, so I don't bother much with the latter.

For home games, pretty much what Umbran notes above.

For public games, I try to run as close to RAW as practical.

For league play - only what's allowed by league rules. Disliking the league rules lead to no longer running league play.

 

[Zhaleskra]

I admit, especially with AD&D2E, I was quite the house ruler. Even house rules for "I think X would be cool" have to be taken with a grain of "can I already do that with the written rules?".

 

[5ekyu]

100% guidelines.

Because THIS is what my 11 year old self was told on p3 of my Basic book concerning the subject:
"While the material in this booklet is referred to as rules, that is not really correct. Anything in this booklet (and other D&D booklets) should be thought of as changeable - anything, that is, that the Dungeon Master or referee thinks should be changed."
~~~
Last sentence of the section: "The purpose of these "rules" is to provide guidelines that enable you to play and have fun, so don't feel absolutely bound to them."

*Guidelines being bolded is part of the exact quote, not my own emphasis btw.

So I've known since day 1/Dec.25th 1980 that the rules are merely guidelines.
And then Gygax told me practically the same thing again in the intro pages of 1e.

So just to be clear - the reason you treat rules as guidelines is because the rules clearly and explicitly told you to way back in the day?

That's like a zen moebius strip of cause-effect.

Nice.

 

[smuckenfart]

It depends on the rule in question. Is there a viable reason to change the rule, or is it merely because the status quo doesn't suit your needs?

Allow me to provide two examples I've recently encountered:

One of my friends was claiming that his animated "dancing" tower shield should provide him total cover, where the PHB says that a tower shield can be used for cover only if you forgo your attacks. This didn't suit what he wanted the shield to do, so he said the rules are just guidelines, and to him it makes sense that standing behind the animated shield is like standing behind a door. Total cover. He didn't factor in the size of the shield nor the reach of a weapon at the extension of an arm.
Holding a tower shield on your arm isn't enough to provide total cover, it's also animated by the movement of your arm. A shield protects a defender as an obstacle obstructing a clear line of attack. The attacker has to wield the attack around/over/under the shield in order to strike the opponent, no one strikes a shield to hit their opponent. Without that free range of motion to hit, the attacker gets a penalty to hit in the form of a shield bonus to AC to the defender. The larger the obstruction, the harder it is to bypass it, thus a buckler provides a +1 shield bonus, a tower shield a +4.

No, he didn't want to have to forgo his attacks, he wanted to forgo his attacks against that one attacker and still be able to fight on the other side of the shield. A 4 foot shield is not large enough to provide total cover. If the shield were imbued with an enlarge spell effect making it one size larger, I would accept that, but changing the rule because his understanding of how a shield works...
To me, that isn't a good reason to change the rule, but to him the rules are always "just guidelines".

After some discussion, he accepted that in order for the animated shield to prevent the attacker from just attacking around the shield it would have to strategically triangulate itself to physically block the attacks with 100% proficiency, and that to get total cover he would need to crouch behind the shield like a low wall.

An example of a reasonable rule modification, is with the mending level zero spell. Some players believed that a slender dagger could have its broken blade welded back on and a severed rope mended back together. I disagreed because the topic sentence specified that the tear or break must be small. A cut/frayed rope is small but severed is not. Would you rather have a cut finger, or a severed finger? One is clearly small, severed is not. They felt that the spell specifically mentions "slender" dagger, and in his mind the blade that has broken off is a small break. If you think about it, the dagger is actually only small relative to the human holding it. Hold a pencil in your hands and apply pressure to the middle with your thumbs. You'll hear it crack. Small break. Then it'll snap. Medium break. Then it'll break in two. That's definitely a large break. The break in an object isn't relative to its size. 33% is 33% whether it's a tiny object or large.

The noun "break" is defined as a gap or an opening. Even the synonyms listed do not imply broken off or into pieces. The creators were probably well aware of the limitations of words they carefully choose. Despite this, he still insisted it was a small break and the spell should be able to mend a rope or two pieces of a slender dagger together. I disagreed.

I then pointed him to the PHB about breaking objects and damaged objects, where it says that an object that has been reduced to zero HP is ruined/destroyed. Ruined and destroyed are not words to describe small, and to sever a rope or sunder a weapon/shield, it is reduced to zero hp. I purported that if the item has any HP, it can be "healed" just as a person could be healed with a heal spell, but if the item was "dead", as a dead player, it cannot be mended but it could be "brought back to life" with the cleric spell, Make Whole.

The rope? It has 2 hp. Cut it in half doesn't destroy the rope, but it does render that one piece ruined, and now you have two new pieces each with 2 hp. Partially sever the rope, it can be mended.

By definition of the words used and the rules of the PHB, an object that has been broken off, cut in half, separated, cannot be mended. If you refer to the "bow string" argument, that string can be mended as it is still part of the bow, and the bow is in tact. The string is just a "small break" on the bow, still attached. If the bow was reduced to zero HP and cut in half, it could not be mended.

That said, an item retains full functionality so long as it has HP remaining. What if you threw the dagger, it hit the stone wall and the tip broke off? The dagger could still be used, it suffered 1hp damage, and still has 1hp left. We decided that to measure the size of the piece that broke off, that if it was less than 20% of the total size of the blade, it could be mended, but more than that would be a medium break. Although the definition stated that a "break" is a gap or opening, it was within reason to amend the rule that the mending spell could in fact weld or reattach objects that have separated from the whole provided they meet the "small" criteria.

One argument is self serving, the other is a rational conclusion. It depends on the context and rule in debate

 

[Maxperson]

An example of a reasonable rule modification, is with the mending level zero spell. Some players believed that a slender dagger could have its broken blade welded back on and a severed rope mended back together. I disagreed because the topic sentence specified that the tear or break must be small. A cut/frayed rope is small but severed is not. Would you rather have a cut finger, or a severed finger? One is clearly small, severed is not. They felt that the spell specifically mentions "slender" dagger, and in his mind the blade that has broken off is a small break. If you think about it, the dagger is actually only small relative to the human holding it. Hold a pencil in your hands and apply pressure to the middle with your thumbs. You'll hear it crack. Small break. Then it'll snap. Medium break. Then it'll break in two. That's definitely a large break. The break in an object isn't relative to its size. 33% is 33% whether it's a tiny object or large.

Some believed it could weld a broken dagger because by RAW it can. It's even mentioned in the spell description.

"It will weld broken metallic objects such as a ring, a chain link, a medallion, or a slender dagger, providing but one break exists."

The noun "break" is defined as a gap or an opening. Even the synonyms listed do not imply broken off or into pieces. The creators were probably well aware of the limitations of words they carefully choose. Despite this, he still insisted it was a small break and the spell should be able to mend a rope or two pieces of a slender dagger together. I disagreed.

Yep. There's a gap between the two broken pieces. And I don't know what you are looking at. Broken is an adjective as it describes a noun. The dagger(noun) is broken(adjective).

"bro·ken
/ˈbrōkən/

adjective

1. having been fractured or damaged and no longer in one piece or in working order."

I then pointed him to the PHB about breaking objects and damaged objects, where it says that an object that has been reduced to zero HP is ruined/destroyed. Ruined and destroyed are not words to describe small, and to sever a rope or sunder a weapon/shield, it is reduced to zero hp. I purported that if the item has any HP, it can be "healed" just as a person could be healed with a heal spell, but if the item was "dead", as a dead player, it cannot be mended but it could be "brought back to life" with the cleric spell, Make Whole.

You're ignoring that a small break like in a slender dagger or chain links does in fact ruin those things without being large. You are conflating severe(ruined) with small(size). The break in the slender dagger is no more than an inch or two. It's small despite ruining the dagger. The break in a rope is less than an inch, despite being severe enough to ruin the use of the rope at its former length.

If you changed the RAW to like that on me, I'd be upset that you basically wrecked a spell based on flawed reasoning.

 

[robconley]

My viewpoint is that asking Rules as Law versus Rules as Guidelines is the wrong distinction. For me, it is the setting of the campaign that dictates what players can and can't do as their character. If the rules conflict with how things are defined in the setting then it is the rules that must change.
Also, another important consideration is that no rule system can handle everything a character could do within a setting. At some point, a ruling will be required. Another still is the level of detail, which is more about preference than need. You could run a campaign in a fantasy setting with Microlite 20 or you could run the same fantasy setting with GURPS with all the relevant sourcebooks. Which option is better, along with those that are in between, is a preference.

Finally, does the system work with how you think of the setting as a player or referee? I could use many systems to run my Majestic Fantasy Realms but I prefer only a few as they align more with how I think of my setting and thus less work and more enjoyable for me to use. Different folks will have different answers to this question.

An alternative to the above is to let the setting conform to how the system works. Perhaps go as far as saying that characters can only do the things described in the rules and no more. Not my preference but I have seen more than a few groups play this way.

My two cents.

 

[aco175]

Law. The players are the lawyers and I'm the judge.

The players deserve to know what to expect. If we are playing 5e, I try to stick to RAW.

But laws need to be interpreted. Players are not only allowed to question a ruling but I expect them to help me make rulings. We all have a responsibility to know the rules and help apply them. Where there is disagreement, I make a ruling and we move on.

That said, all of us together can agree to create or change the law. For example, we've used crit cards, home-brew rules for inspiration, and have discussed and decided on various variant and options rules in the PHB and DMG. But once implemented we follow the new rules.

What I try to avoid is ignoring or changing a rule on the fly because I don't like it. If I don't like falling rules, for example, the time to overturn them isn't in the middle of a session, when a character is falling.

Pretty much this. At least to start a new edition. We did this with 4e and 5e to get a feel for the new rules before we tried to add and changes. If we took all our old baggage over to start, we would not know what the designers wanted to have and by playing a campaign with RAW at least allows you to see where the holes are.

Since 5e started we have added several homebrew rulings, but seemed to keep most of the rules intact. Smaller things that pop up are ruled on and can be modified after the game with more though and some back and forth, but stuff like limiting movement wearing shackles make sense and are generally taken care of on the spot.

 

[Maxperson]

My viewpoint is that asking Rules as Law versus Rules as Guidelines is the wrong distinction. For me, it is the setting of the campaign that dictates what players can and can't do as their character. If the rules conflict with how things are defined in the setting then it is the rules that must change.

I define it a bit more simply. The mechanics and fluff must match. If they don't, one has to change so that they do. So a campaign setting that describes all races as having the inherent ability to fly must create mechanics to match. There are some exceptions for mechanics which create nothing perceivable in the game world, such as what treasure tables monsters in 1e rolled on.

Also, another important consideration is that no rule system can handle everything a character could do within a setting. At some point, a ruling will be required. Another still is the level of detail, which is more about preference than need. You could run a campaign in a fantasy setting with Microlite 20 or you could run the same fantasy setting with GURPS with all the relevant sourcebooks. Which option is better, along with those that are in between, is a preference.

Agreed.

As for my opinion on rules as law vs. rules as guidelines. They are law for players and guidelines for the DM. Now that doesn't mean that the DM should run around changing them on a whim or even during a campaign(unless it's disruptive), but the DM gets to decide which rules are in play and what those rules do.