The rules should serve the game, not vice-versa

[Karanov]

Drifter Bob, I agree completely.

The group I play with are rules-fetishists. They might not think of themselves as such, but they are. This only came to the fore when we made the switch to D&D 3rd edition. It's internal consistency and it's obsessiveness on 'balance' gave them the tools they needed to delve into their fetish with the rules. They never had this problem with AD&D 2nd edition, or at least a lot less, because the rules where vague and you had to use your common sense more than rely on the rules. Take away the rules they know and their focus shifts from rules to RP. I've always been a rules-light, RP-heavy kind of player. Thus in my opinion the D20 rules get in the way of the game... this is not because of the rulesset, but the way my group uses these rules. :\

 

[FireLance]

I guess we'll have to mark it down as a difference in DMing styles, then. The PCs may never know that I had given an NPC more ranks in a particular skill than he should have, but I would, and it would bother me.

Agreed, I could always use a variant class or give him some feat that allows him to take Spot as a class skill, but I would feel obliged to allow the PCs to have access to that class or feat as well.

I would also like to draw a distinction between a playing (and DMing) style that is rules-meticulous (to coin a term) and rules-lawyering. To my mind, the former simply tries to follow the laws, while the latter tries to milk ambiguities and inconsistencies in the laws for all they're worth. In my gaming group, we try (and usually manage) to achieve the former more than the latter.

 

[Snoweel]

Having to give the PCs (or NPCs) access to every character option isn't a rule - it's a flavour thing.

I mean, saying "If a character wants to take the Craft Rod feat, he has to find somebody to teach him" is in no way breaking the rules, and is a perfect way to both manage potentially game-breaking options and introduce new things that players might otherwise complain about not having access to earlier.

Regional feats anyone?

 

[Belen]

I guess we'll have to mark it down as a difference in DMing styles, then. The PCs may never know that I had given an NPC more ranks in a particular skill than he should have, but I would, and it would bother me.

Agreed, I could always use a variant class or give him some feat that allows him to take Spot as a class skill, but I would feel obliged to allow the PCs to have access to that class or feat as well.

I would also like to draw a distinction between a playing (and DMing) style that is rules-meticulous (to coin a term) and rules-lawyering. To my mind, the former simply tries to follow the laws, while the latter tries to milk ambiguities and inconsistencies in the laws for all they're worth. In my gaming group, we try (and usually manage) to achieve the former more than the latter.

Simple to fix: Skill Affinity (feat)- Any two cross-class skills becomes class skills.

I created this feat for my game. I got tired of being forced to write for the rules. If I wanted a fighter who was a Duke's son, then it would make perfect sense that this kid had Knowledge: Nobility and Diplomacy. Why should I be forced to created a fighter that cannot have that background? Yes, I know that you can cross-class, but I have yet to see a fighter cross-class in one of my games with the very few skill points they get.

I cannot believe that a similar feat has not been published in the core rules. For a game that talks about options, that has always seemed a very odd thing to exclude.

 

[the Jester]

Good thread...

I think the rules should serve the game, and if you don't, you write a house rule.

One of the beautiful things about 3.x is that I have almost no house rules. We use exploding dice on attacks rolls and a variant xp system, and that's about it. That, too me, is a sign that the rules are doing their job. (Of course I have lots of custom feats, spells, prcs, etc. but I don't actually change the rules- just work within them).

YMMV, of course, and obviously different groups get different results from the same stuff- but for me, 3rd edition is the one whose rules really work hard to serve the game flow instead of defining how the game flows.

 

[the Jester]

urk... wonky boards, double post.

 

[Desdichado]

We've been known to be fast and loose with minor rules. We allow a feat here and there even though a prereq might be missing, and we'll allow a cross class skill to count as a class skill from time to time, for example. NPCs are usually not statted out when I run; I just roll and add a modifier -- ability + rank + miscellaneous bonus all being just a total that I think is reasonable rather than something that is actually calculated. That's what I think of when I hear the rules should serve the game and not vice versa.

In terms of using some parameters to limit homebrewing, that's only natural. You can't have D&D style magic, and Sovereign Stone style magic and Elements of Magic style magic, and Wheel of Time style magic and Call of Cthulhu style magic, and Psionics, etc. all in one campaign, naturally, because it doesn't make any sense anymore. There have to be bounds.

I've kind of established an M.O. for a lower magic game that I can apply to any homebrew with a small amount of twists for setting specific details. I have, for instance, a list of standard classes that removes the magic-heavy D&D style classes and replaces many of them with alternate versions that are not so magic heavy (as an example, a ranger that doesn't cast spells, and an unarmed fighter that isn't so supernatural as the monk, etc.) In this case, again, I'm not letting the rules run the game, I'm specifically looking for alternate rules that facilitate the kind of game I like.

 

[milotha]

"The rules should serve the game, not vice-versa."

I've always felt that this meant that the rules used in the game shouldn't interfere with GMing situation. If for a particular situation the rules don't make sense, then don't pedantically adhere to them. Make something up that makes sense in the game.

Also, if as a GM you feel that a rule is pure rubbish, you don't have to play with it. There are lots of small rules that weren't necessarily written with your campaign or your adventure in mind.

The game is more than a set of rules.

 

[D+1]

Sorry to split hairs, but it depends on what you mean by "The rules should serve the game." If you mean that the DM has license to apply the rules inconsistently, I must disagree. There should be no "rule-breaking" NPCs like an 5th-level fighter with 8 ranks of Spot because he had received "special training". Either give that character some ranger or rogue levels, give him a set of Eyes of the Eagle, or allow PC fighters to take Spot as a class skill, too.

I disagree - the DM DOES have the right to apply the rules to his monsters and NPC's inconsistently - he also has the right to allow the PC'S to exceed the rules as well. As long as the PLAYERS are aware that the rules are not absolute laws that their DM is forbidden to bend or break then the DM has the right to bend and even break them.

This, however, leaps directly into the territory of WHY the DM bends and breaks the rules. Doing it just to be a creep is Bad Form. Doing so in order to accomplish quickly and easily the effect he wants or needs should be just fine. What does it matter if the DM achieves his desired effect by sticking ABSOLUTELY and MINDLESSLY to the "sacred" rules or does so by winging it occasionally? Nothing - unless he's abusing the inherent right to color outside the lines.

 

[Morpheus]

"The rules should serve the game, not vice-versa."

I've always felt that this meant that the rules used in the game shouldn't interfere with GMing situation. If for a particular situation the rules don't make sense, then don't pedantically adhere to them. Make something up that makes sense in the game.

Also, if as a GM you feel that a rule is pure rubbish, you don't have to play with it. There are lots of small rules that weren't necessarily written with your campaign or your adventure in mind.

The game is more than a set of rules.

Ditto...This is my belief as well.