Save my Game: Do the Right Thing.

[catsclaw227]

I can't view the article but I agree that the rules should not get in the way of a good time.

That said, if the rules are getting in the way often enough to publish an article that explains why they should be ignored then perhaps the rules should be reconsidered.

Whats the purpose of having a large rules structure if having fun requires ignoring large portions of it?

You have to read the article to understand what he is trying to say. He is not saying or implying that the rules are too complex, or too large, so you should ignore it.

I don't want to copy paste sections since it is a DDI article. But his advice is strong advice for ANY edition of D&D, all of which would benefit from what is said in the article.

 

[MrMyth]

I can't view the article but I agree that the rules should not get in the way of a good time.

That said, if the rules are getting in the way often enough to publish an article that explains why they should be ignored then perhaps the rules should be reconsidered.

Whats the purpose of having a large rules structure if having fun requires ignoring large portions of it?

That is hardly what he is saying - he's saying there will be a time and place in many games to ignore the rules, and the DM shouldn't feel it is wrong to do so. What circumstances that demand it will change from player to player and DM to DM, even shift based on setting, atmosphere, mood - any number of things.

He isn't putting out a list of flawed rules to ignore - he's saying that there are times when a judgement call can make the game more fun, because no rule system can account for the millions of different sessions of different campaigns being run by different players and different DMs.

In one fight, a group might smoke a climactic boss just a bit too quickly, so it might be acceptable to give them a final round to make the fight feel epic, rather than a disappointment.

In another, the boss might have a few too many hp, so it might be acceptable to have it keel over when the last person standing rolls that lucky 20 with the last attack they have left...

The same rule system can produce both situations. You can't fix both problems in the rules without enforcing that all players have identical characters who always roll the exact same dice in every situation. What you can do is encourage DMs to use their own judgement on what matters to the game they are running - the story, the cinematics, the challenge, the numbers, the triumphs, the defeats... every game has a different balance, and every DM will need to make their own calls.

All this article is saying is that they should feel free to do so, and focus on what is best for their game and their group, rather than adhere to some absolute principle that might reduce their enjoyment.

And I agree with him wholeheartedly.

 

[ExploderWizard]

That is hardly what he is saying - he's saying there will be a time and place in many games to ignore the rules, and the DM shouldn't feel it is wrong to do so. What circumstances that demand it will change from player to player and DM to DM, even shift based on setting, atmosphere, mood - any number of things.

He isn't putting out a list of flawed rules to ignore - he's saying that there are times when a judgement call can make the game more fun, because no rule system can account for the millions of different sessions of different campaigns being run by different players and different DMs.

I didn't get to read the article but I agree with the sentiment, especially the part I put in bold text above.

Its because I agree with it that I wonder why such a bloated tome of rules is necessary in the first place. A game company that produces highly detailed and complex rules instead of guidelines for making judgement calls and then puts out an article like this is not putting its product where its mouth is.

The message:

Here are 999999 rules to do X. Please buy it.
Ok you don't really need 999999 rules to do this, just ignore it.

 

[Obryn]

The message:

Here are 999999 rules to do X. Please buy it.
Ok you don't really need 999999 rules to do this, just ignore it.

By and large, let's say the 4e rules work well 80%-90% of the time. You have stuff to cover the situation you want covered, and it's a fun way to do it.

Just because you want to ignore them in 10%-20% of circumstances where they don't work doesn't make everything else a waste. It's not "Ignore the rules all the time! It'll be great!!" It's "Learn when to ignore the rules, for this is the way of the Master."

-O

 

[garyh]

I didn't get to read the article but I agree with the sentiment, especially the part I put in bold text above.

Its because I agree with it that I wonder why such a bloated tome of rules is necessary in the first place. A game company that produces highly detailed and complex rules instead of guidelines for making judgement calls and then puts out an article like this is not putting its product where its mouth is.

The message:

Here are 999999 rules to do X. Please buy it.
Ok you don't really need 999999 rules to do this, just ignore it.

I think that 4e is a step more towards "guidelines" than 3e.

I'd suggest a continuum:

Rules - 3.x - 4e - 2e - 1e - 0e - Guidelines

In any case, I wish I had read this article back when I was running my 3.5e campaign. Would have done me good.

 

[Rokes]

I'm glad WotC finally published an article saying that RAW shouldn't be the primary focus.

-AND-

I'm saddened that WotC felt they had to publish an article like this. To me it means that there was a large enough base of DMs who felt like they had to sacrifice a good time in order to follow RAW.

 

[MrMyth]

I didn't get to read the article but I agree with the sentiment, especially the part I put in bold text above.

Its because I agree with it that I wonder why such a bloated tome of rules is necessary in the first place. A game company that produces highly detailed and complex rules instead of guidelines for making judgement calls and then puts out an article like this is not putting its product where its mouth is.

The message:

Here are 999999 rules to do X. Please buy it.
Ok you don't really need 999999 rules to do this, just ignore it.

That seems an absurd dichotomy. If you don't feel the need for any extra rules, you don't need to buy it.

I find that extra content enhances my game - that has no bearing on the fact that I might make freeform rules calls in specific situations. You seem to be saying that the fact a DM should occasionally fly free from the rules indicates, to you, that those rules are useless.

Frankly, as a DM, I certainly don't want to have to invent 99% of the game as I play, arbitrarily deciding what works and what doesn't, what hits and what doesn't, and so forth. I'd rather 99% of the game was smooth and polished and ready to use - and that I was given the capability to then make alterations in situations where I feel the need.

You seem to be saying that recommending the use of judgement calls is completely incompatible with a complex rules system, when in truth, there is absolutely no relation between the two. This isn't a matter of putting their money where their mouth is - the two concepts are entirely unconnected.

You bolded the party I mentioned about how many different games are going on. I'm not even remotely sure how you can then try to turn that point into a mark against having a large variety of content - the more options there are, the more ability for each game to cater to the specific tastes of those playing it.

But, again - this has nothing to do with judgement calls. The lesson here isn't that rules are useless - it is that the game is a fluid one, and while the rules might provide an excellent framework to build upon, they aren't the be-all and the end-all. How you conclude, from that, that they should be thrown out entirely... well, I honestly don't know how you made that leap.

 

[ExploderWizard]

You seem to be saying that recommending the use of judgement calls is completely incompatible with a complex rules system, when in truth, there is absolutely no relation between the two. This isn't a matter of putting their money where their mouth is - the two concepts are entirely unconnected.

I have to disagree here. The two are actually incompatible if you end up ignoring a great deal of whats written, which was my original point.

Old school style play uses rulings rather than rules. There is a difference.

 

[malraux]

Somewhere between 6-8th grade, everyone learns to write a keyhole essay. Keyhole essays, by and large, are not all that good. They also, by and large, are not that bad. So why do we teach them? Because learning how to write an ok essay is a step toward learning how to write a good essay. Similarly, running a game by RAW is not the formula to a great game, but it also helps avoid a bad one. DMs need to learn to play by the rules so that they can learn how to break the rules correctly.

 

[catsclaw227]

I have to disagree here. The two are actually incompatible if you end up ignoring a great deal of whats written, which was my original point.

Old school style play uses rulings rather than rules. There is a difference.

First, nowhere does it say that you ignore a great deal of what's written.

Second, using rulings rather than rules is not Old School style. People do it for 4e, do it for 3.x, 2e, 1e, etc. It's a measure of DM experience, not an Old school style vs. New school style.