The rules keep stealing my thunder!

[Slife]

Just a note, it's often easier to disarm a pc than to sunder their weapon, and then the party has to recover it. (And why didn't your sunderer not have improved sunder?)

And it's even easier for them to steal it with sleight of hand.

 

[gizmo33]

But now that even players know D20 rules so well because they are so easy to learn, I find it hard sometimes to make a scenario more stimulating & exciting.

You hold 99% of the cards -- the players don't know the dungeon, the NPCs, or any of the items, magic or otherwise, that they're finding. How could you possibly need even more control than that? I think you're selling yourself short - my guess is that you might be accomplishing your goal more than you think.

I will think of a really clever & unique action for a character to do, only to find out that because of one miscellaneous rule, I can't do it without breaking the rules. I can't get away with it because the players will catch me

Most (almost all, really) of the rules exist within a framework. That framework includes, for example, the "circumstance modifier". The circumstance modifier is a bonus or penalty that you assign to any dice roll for pretty much any reason whatsoever. Anything that has a convincing reason to happen in your campaign should be able to be articulated as a justification for a bonus/penalty. Without examples there's not much more I can say.

Sometimes as a DM, I will do something that I know will scare players into thinking the situation is going to be bad, but I don't have the intention to actually screw them over.

If you just ran the game and let the dice fall, the dice would screw them over periodically and then they actually would be scared just sitting down to play. However, if you insist on maintaining 100% control over everything that will happen, then it will take them at most about 2 game sessions (IME) to figure out that nothing bad will ever happen. Ex: see "Boy who cried wolf". The lesson is that people learn (eventually).

I just want to make them think they are screwed so when they thwart my attempts, they will feel even more heroic. But it sucks when a rule gets in my way.

All rules, by definition, get in your way of doing this, because all rules define the chance of success/failure. The only thing you have going for you is that the players don't usually know the relevant stats. Though you're probably giving them information that they shouldn't know. In your example - they just shouldn't know what kind of weapon an NPC is using against them in order to realize that Sunder doesn't apply.

What's scary to people (and interesting/worth exploring) is the UNKNOWN. And if you're just going to turn over the equipment lists of your NPCs to the players when they encounter them, you're not using what you have.

When I announce that the NPC attacks her bow and she gets an AoO, she freaked out, "WHAT?! MY BOW?! What the hell am I going to do if I lose my bow! CRAP!". She was genuinely worried.

Mission accomplished then. What else do you want. If you just wouldn't have blabed about what kind of weapon your NPC was using, you could have rolled dice behind your screen all night, cackled evilly, and no one would have been the wiser. You went ahead and (apparently) told the players all about your NPC's equipment before they earned the right to that information. You failed to sunder the bow - that round. That's all the players needed to know.

Then the players rejoice.

First fear, then rejoice?! And your'e not happy? How much control do you want? You got what you wanted from what I can tell.

So I suck it up, and try to think of other ways to be "original" and get the players nervous so they can reminisce about that moment later on.

You know one thing that would be "original" would be if a PC sat down to a plate of stew, and stabbed himself to death with his spoon while eating it. That would also suck though, and I think what players are expecting is for the rules so make some sort of sense.

I also see it happen with players. Sometimes a player wants to do something clever and he can't because he lacks some stupid feat or something.

If the feat is that stupid then change it! If the rules say that you can't jump more than 5 ft horizontally without a feat, then that's clearly stupid and I have no idea how you'd lose anyone's trust by house-ruling it.

On the other hand, if the PC wants to jump 200 feet horizontally and you decide that it's a good idea just because it's Tuesday and you've been watching Spiderman movies all day, then you'd probably be in trouble. The nature of the DnD game, IMO is that the rules are codified for a reason. The role of the DM is to facilitate an exploration of a shared fantasy world according to a set of common rules.

Maybe Action Points are in order here. The down-side to Action Points is that they're still rules, which means you'll still be constrained by whatever rules govern them. IMO there's just no way to avoid learning how to work within a rules system if you're going to DM something that you want people to believe is a game.

Look - DnD could have been a lot simpler if the rulebook consisted of a single page that said "Rule 0: The DM tells you what happens, the end." The rules, the dice, the prewritten scenario design - all of that exists for a reason.

And you have so much in your favor as it is! Why worry about that last 1%, figure out how to use the 99% of the game that you do control to accomplish your objectives. Strangely, it seems that you very much accomplished your stated goals anyway - the player was scared at first, and later they rejoiced. Are some DMs never happy?

Or maybe it's because he can't take a move action then a standard action and finish it off with a reasonable partial move action just because it's against the rules.

No, not just "because". I can't run to Wisconson and back on 1 round because of more than just the rules. Like I said above, if you reasonably think that an action is a partial action, then you can jam 15 partial actions into a single melee round because of time and space and because the rules purport to achieve something approaching a plausible quasi-reality.

It may be a case of special circumstances. If I'm a skilled fighter, I can move and draw my sword at the same time - the reasoning is that one action involves my hands/arms, and the other my legs, so I should be able to do both at the same time. Houserules like this, IME, are fine. In that case you're arguing from some foundation in reality.

And I can't let them get away with it because they prefer to stick to the rules (well, they prefer that my NPC's stick to the rules...they wouldn't mind getting away with things if I let them...and if I can't do it, they can't do it )

If your players want to play a game, then it's fundementally dishonest to change it into "railroad story hour" without their consent. You could always say "Hey guys, this whole rules/dice thing is getting in the way of me scaring you as much as I could. What-say we just put away the rulesbooks and I'll make up what happens and tell you about it?".

They could go for it. Or they could insist on the game, in which case if you want to be a DM then I guess it's about learning to work with the tools that you have. I think you underestimate yourself anyway, because AFAICT you're more successful than you think.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I've never done a Sunder before, never even seen anyone do a sunder. So all I knew of the rule was what I remembered reading in the PHB. When I announce that the NPC attacks her bow and she gets an AoO, she freaked out, "WHAT?! MY BOW?! What the hell am I going to do if I lose my bow! CRAP!". She was genuinely worried. I asked the players to find out the Hardness & HP of a magic bow for me while I moved on to the next initiative to keep the game moving. And of course, a minute later a player finds the text in the DMG guide that says a magic item can only be damaged by a magic item of an equal enhancement bonus. Seeing as how she has a +2 Legacy bow and very few NPC of mine wield magic weapons, this NPC can't even damage the bow even if he did a sunder.

Then the players rejoice.

As Oryan said, you did what you wanted to, because you got that moment of panic from your player. You said you never intended to screw your player by actually sundering the weapon (don't know how you would guarantee that from happening when you didn't know the hardness and HP of the weapon, but anyway), so you got exactly what you wanted. Maybe for a shorter duration than expected, but it happened.

Now, if you wanted to keep it going, the appropriate way to handle it would have been as follows:

Players: "It says in the DMG that you can only sunder the weapon with one of equal or higher enchantment bonus!"

You: "Really? Isn't that interesting...what was the hardness and hit points?" and put just a hint of a smirk on your face.

You could have then missed the strike, you could have hit but not have been able to get past the hardness, or maybe the NPCs weapon wasn't powerful enough to do it (never mind the rules errata, I'm basing this on what you thought at the time). Any of those outcomes do not tell the player anything other than, "it didn't work this round."

Its called a bluff, but unlike in the game, you can't just roll a d20 to see if you convince your players. You need to be convincing enough to make them think they don't know everything that is happening.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

It's nice to imagine that that's how it would work out, but my experience with playing with lots of different gamers is that as soon as the DM attempts something as nasty as sundering a magic item...every player at the table scrambles for his books to try and figure out a reason why the DM can't do it.

Maybe you need to change the tone of your games a little. Why are your players jumping for books to show you can't do something? That wasn't permitted in my games. If players wanted to argue or debate a rule, it was done after the game. Unless I specifically asked someone to check the rule for me, pulling out rulebooks for my actions as DM was not allowed. All it does is slow the game down and create more of an adversarial atmosphere.

If, after the session, I was shown that I was incorrect in my application of the rules, we would work out a solution. Your situation would have been hard to figure out had you actually succeded in sundering the weapon, but since you had no intention of doing it, there would have been no real harm.

 

[Odysseus]

I'd tried disarming the bow.
I think as a Dm you need to have a range of combat tactics you understand, to keep the players on their toes.
And understanding, when to use things like sunder, trip, disram and grapple should be in there.

 

[Remathilis]

Adamantine is your friend (ignores hardness up to 20).

Beyond that, the next time a Player announces something like that, smile, say "I know" and continue on.

Half the game is chess, but the other half is poker.

 

[Pbartender]

As others have said, you need to know the rules your using. Situations like this are excellent excuses to learn those rules better. Here's what I do...

Before each session, I choose one particular rule, action, feat or ability that I (or my players) don't know the rules for very well and haven't used often. The goal is to highlight that particular rule for the purposes of learning how to use it. I choose only one such ability per session, and use it no more than a few times in one encounter -- you don't want the trick getting tiresome.

Ahead of time, I look at my bad guy and think, "Oh, this guy would be perfect for trying to sunder a player's weapon or shield. He'd be good at it, and it's a trick I haven't tried before." Then, I take the time to look up everything I can about sundering in the PHB, DMG and Errata. If necessary I jot down a few notes.

Then, when the sundering bad guy shows up, I look for an excuse to use it. When it happens, I take out the books with appropriately bookmarked sections and the notes, and go through the whole process, step by step, reading each step out loud, so that everyone knows whats going on, and everyone at the table gets a chance to learn the rule.

Eventually, everyone at the table learns the rules inside and out through sheer experience, and game play speeds up considerably... With fewer people looking rules up in the books, and fewer arguements over the rules.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Maybe you need to change the tone of your games a little. Why are your players jumping for books to show you can't do something? That wasn't permitted in my games. If players wanted to argue or debate a rule, it was done after the game. Unless I specifically asked someone to check the rule for me, pulling out rulebooks for my actions as DM was not allowed. All it does is slow the game down and create more of an adversarial atmosphere.

Interesting. If a DM took an adverserial tone to begin with, that rule would, ime, make it a lot worse, since he would be both adverserial and reserving the right to cheat. If you aren't adverserial to begin with, that atmosphere isn't, in my expereince, created by players helping keep the mechanics on the rails.

And a DM telling me what I am allowed to read, reference or point out in a game session would certainly "change the tone" for me. :\

 

[gizmo33]

Adamantine is your friend (ignores hardness up to 20).

Heck, for that matter Gizmonium is your friend. Gizmonium is similar to Adamantine in that it is completely imaginary and has whatever properties the DM says it has because it's his world and not mine.

The DM Guide is completely useless if you don't know what you're dealing with, and if you're playing in a game with someone who understands what DMing means - you don't. And just because you thought you heard me say "vorpyll blade" doesn't mean you know what that is. Looking up "vorpal blade" in the DMG will be of no certain usefulness - though I'm usually willing to go get a drink while that player is wasting everyone's time.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

Interesting. If a DM took an adverserial tone to begin with, that rule would, ime, make it a lot worse, since he would be both adverserial and reserving the right to cheat. If you aren't adverserial to begin with, that atmosphere isn't, in my expereince, created by players helping keep the mechanics on the rails.

And a DM telling me what I am allowed to read, reference or point out in a game session would certainly "change the tone" for me. :\

See, I guess in my group it wasn't taken in an adverserial manner. We rotated DMs, we all had the books, we all were prefectly capable of being rules lawyers and it would sometimes derail the game. In all honesty, I was one of the worst culprits when I was the player until I realized I was really stepping on the DMs ability to run his own game. As a result when I again became the DM, I implemented the new rule. I explained the reason behind it and we discussed it. I made sure that if something came up during the game we would work it out right after the session or by e-mail within the next day or two. It worked well enough that it became a rule for the game, no matter who was DMing

For us it helped establish the authority of whichever DM was running the game a little more clearly.