Rules Style: How do you Determine the Rules

[Rystil Arden]

So nobody uses Pielorhino's method?

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

As a DM, I try to determine what the rules precisely say, and then tweak them as I see fit. Unfortunately, "as I see fit" usually ends up being quite a bit more than "tweak" normally calls for-- but I make it clear to the players in advance what those rules are.

I prefer DMs that either stick to the RAW or they House Rule in advance-- I prefer having a clear understanding of the rules in any game I play. (Mao drives me insane, but I've learned to enjoy it. Mostly.)

DMs that interpret the rules subjectively, and then claim that they are the RAW, drive me to screaming blood frenzy. If you want to House Rule, that's fine-- but don't try to tell me what the rules say when I've read them myself. As far as I'm concerned, that's just getting the rules wrong.

I have a hard time with "rules-lite" systems and games where the rules are seemingly invented on-the-fly. They're difficult for me to play, difficult for me to enjoy, and just overall unpleasant to me.

 

[Rystil Arden]

As a DM, I try to determine what the rules precisely say, and then tweak them as I see fit. Unfortunately, "as I see fit" usually ends up being quite a bit more than "tweak" normally calls for-- but I make it clear to the players in advance what those rules are.

I prefer DMs that either stick to the RAW or they House Rule in advance-- I prefer having a clear understanding of the rules in any game I play. (Mao drives me insane, but I've learned to enjoy it. Mostly.)

DMs that interpret the rules subjectively, and then claim that they are the RAW, drive me to screaming blood frenzy. If you want to House Rule, that's fine-- but don't try to tell me what the rules say when I've read them myself. As far as I'm concerned, that's just getting the rules wrong.

I have a hard time with "rules-lite" systems and games where the rules are seemingly invented on-the-fly. They're difficult for me to play, difficult for me to enjoy, and just overall unpleasant to me.

DMs that interpret the rules subjectively, and then claim that they are the RAW, drive me to screaming blood frenzy. If you want to House Rule, that's fine-- but don't try to tell me what the rules say when I've read them myself. As far as I'm concerned, that's just getting the rules wrong.

I agree, if not quite as strongly, with this. This is my exact sentiment, multiplied and made even stronger by the power of bloof frenzy (perhaps you have the Frenzied Berserker Prc?)

 

[Jack Simth]

DMs that interpret the rules subjectively, and then claim that they are the RAW, drive me to screaming blood frenzy. If you want to House Rule, that's fine-- but don't try to tell me what the rules say when I've read them myself. As far as I'm concerned, that's just getting the rules wrong.

If they are actually doing it that way, then they probably honestly believe they are using the first or second listed methods in the poll; I try not to assume malice where simple incompetence could cover it.

 

[Goblyn]

Both as a player and DM I prefer to follow the rules to the letter. If one doesn't make sense, it is examined in the light of other, related rules and thusly understood. If this results in something silly happening in a particular combat, then something silly happens. Silly things happen.

House rules are made, in my experience, only to cover situations not already covered by existing rules.

 

[Rystil Arden]

If they are actually doing it that way, then they probably honestly believe they are using the first or second listed methods in the poll; I try not to assume malice where simple incompetence could cover it.

Believe it or not, if you read some of Pielorhino's posts near the end of the jgbrowning, Rystil Arden, and Hypersmurf talk amongst themselves thread, there are people who do just what Korumyr hates and consider the rest of us out of touch with the spirit of the rules, as they see it, by not allowing subjectivity to decide what the true rules are.

I found it hard to believe that my personal point of view was not obvious, as well. 0/6 of people who use method 5 have admitted that their take is a House Rule when I ask them to, saying that its still the RAW even if it isn't in the RAW. Confusing...

 

[Felix]

In order to make good rulings, or even have a good idea for a house rule, you have to know what the rules are, so you can understand what you are changing in the system.

House Ruling is A-OK, but just as long as the players get a heads up for it, and the DM knows what he's changing the rule from, and as long as it's clearly labeled "HOUSE RULE" and not RAW.

I have a distaste for folks who change the system without knowing what the system is. Similarly, I don't like it when there is a rules question on the table, I know the rule, provide the rule, and offer to look it up while gameplay continues, and am resented for it. Seems to happen from time to time...

Korimyr the Rat:
I completely agree, and comisserate.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Similarly, I don't like it when there is a rules question on the table, I know the rule, provide the rule, and offer to look it up while gameplay continues, and am resented for it. Seems to happen from time to time...

I remember once in the 2ED days I made a dual wielding figher in a game run by someone I didn't know. I made the character, and the game started. First combat, I roll to hit and say the AC I hit. He says I'm wrong, I didnt' calculate it right. I point out that your dex bonus counteracts the penalty to dual wielding, but he's never heard of that. So, I looked it up and showed it to him. You should have seen the contempt in his eyes. I didn't go back after that.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

As a DM I tweak the rules to fit the campaign. As a player, I really don't care how the DM handles it, as long as we [the group] knows what his stance is on it.

 

[Darkness]

Do you mechanistically follow the rules to their conclusion? If so, do you then Houserule the rules to work as desired?

Yes and yes.