The rules should serve the game, not vice-versa

[Ssyleia]

Let's not forget the #1 rule that supersedes all other rules: The Game Should Be Fun To All

If the party mainly consists of "rules oriented" people who take great pride in just twinching out that +1 bonus or 1 bonus attack by cleverly mixing skills and classes - so should it be...

If the party consists mainly of newcomers, try avoiding anything that goes beyond the Player's Handbook...

If one of the players comes to you and reasons "this feat should suit my character" and has reasoning for it but he will never meet the prerequisites - then just ignore the rules...

If your party consists mainly of avid role players then you should not have a problem with rules vs. game anyway...

So - if it is more fun for the players to break the rules for the sake of the game: DO IT. If it's more fun for the players to just tweak out that extra inch of power by using the existing rules: STICK TO THE RULES...

Just my humble advice...

 

[Drifter Bob]

Let's not forget the #1 rule that supersedes all other rules: The Game Should Be Fun To All

So - if it is more fun for the players to break the rules for the sake of the game: DO IT. If it's more fun for the players to just tweak out that extra inch of power by using the existing rules: STICK TO THE RULES...

This is true, to an extent, but it's also the case that the DM plays a leading, if not necessarily dominant role in setting the tone of the game. As a DM, I know that I am good at a certain range of playing, but a game in which the players are bickering with me about the rules, or in wihch they feel that I don't as DM have the right to tinker with or change them to make the 'story' work out better, just doesn't work for me. People who want to play that kind of game can find another DM.

And any player who starts taking the attitude that the game is a competition between the DM and the party is out... I can't stand that type!

DB

 

[Humanophile]

In a way, I have to disagree with prevaling opinion on these boards. The rules do two very important things, and both are quite necessary to the game.

The first thing they do is set tone. If you're playing one game with action points, and another with VP/WP and bell-curve rolls, they'll feel rather different. In this sense, I do agree that "the rules should serve the game", but in the sense that the rules engine should be tuned to the style of play given. This by no means gives carte blanche to tinker with the rules on the fly.

And second is a whole ball of balance issues. If one choice/approach is preferable to others, it effectively limits choice and punishes nonstandard approaches. (Remember 2e all-elf parties, anyone?) Furthermore, railroading and selective interpretation of rules are pretty widely agreed on as the mark of a bad DM, and hand-whipped up NPC's tend to be good at whatever they need to be good at, which kind of kills player expectations of balance. It takes versimiltide out back and gives it a good beating if the player can't do what the NPC does "just because" or some other arbitrary PC/NPC dividing line. So the DM is behooved to have balanced rules, and apply them equally, in the name of good gaming. And that's ignoring the versimilitude nightmare when the "laws of reality" work intermittently.

Now, I do agree that the ruleset should be twisted six ways to sunday if it makes the game more the flavor that you want. Custom feats are a great example of this, so long as the players know about them (or have a good reason not to), and can snap them up too. But the rules are there for a reason, and deciding that (say) the monk's DC to jump a 20 foot chasm is now 30 for no real reason... well... not a good thing, IMHO.

-And as to the original post, treating the "core" D&D ruleset as your first principles, and going from there, is an interesting and nifty thing. You've no doubt seen the countless estimations of how reality would turn out if life were like D&D, another wild crack at the idea is always fun.

 

[Snoweel]

And second is a whole ball of balance issues. If one choice/approach is preferable to others, it effectively limits choice and punishes nonstandard approaches.

Balance between PCs is one thing; balance between PCs and NPCs is another.

NPCs ultimately don't need to follow balance rules insofar as their ability to accomplish tasks within the rules - Just look at the fact that an NPC can be any level the DM wants her to be.

Suppose the DM wants an NPC with the combat ability of a 5th level fighter but also 8 ranks in Spot. That's what suits the game and it doesn't disrupt balance anywhere near as much as if the DM followed the letter of the rules and cranked the NPC's fighter level up to 13th to account for the necessary cross-class skill ranks.

The reason PC fighters don't have Spot as a class skill is so that the party fighter doesn't step on the shtick of any of the classes who do have Spot. NPCs don't need the same restrictions, because they are already severely restricted by the fact that they are not the heroes of the tale (one hopes) and are ultimately doomed to play second fiddle to the protagonists (the PCs).

It takes versimiltide out back and gives it a good beating if the player can't do what the NPC does "just because" or some other arbitrary PC/NPC dividing line.

The CR system is what ultimately balances PCs with NPCs.

I mean, NPCs have far more race options than PCs to begin with (ie. whatever race the DM wants them to be). Secondly, they can be any level the DM chooses, take any template allowable by the rules, command however many underlings, etc etc etc.

They don't follow the same rules because unlike PCs, who are intended to not compete with the other PCs, NPCs generally are intended to compete with the PCs.

And unless they break the CR system (ie. not offer enough reward for their challenge), which a fighter with Spot as a class skill clearly does not do, they don't ruin the game for anybody but the most anal rules-accountant.

-And as to the original post, treating the "core" D&D ruleset as your first principles, and going from there, is an interesting and nifty thing. You've no doubt seen the countless estimations of how reality would turn out if life were like D&D

Had you been here a couple of years ago, you could've seen the flamewar I instigated when I pointed out how different society would look if women really were as strong as men.

It was an absolute masterpiece.

 

[FireLance]

Hmmm... I seems as if a fair number of posters have disagreed with my statement that DMs should not apply rules inconsistently. Perhaps I should elaborate a little on my point of view.

I have no problem with DMs coming up with house rules, variant classes, new feats, etc. To me, that is not a case of inconsistent application of rules, simply the application of different rules.

I have a bit more problem when the DM comes up with new rules that only apply to NPCs, and that the PCs cannot benefit from. To me, this has the feel of player-DM competition. In addition, it brings back memories of 2e NPCs who had abilities that the PCs could not hope to duplicate and were thus much cooler as a result. Case in point: NPC drow had spell resistance while PC drow did not ("mysterious underdark radiation" indeed).

What bugs me the most, and it's a personal thing because I admit to being a stickler for rules, is when DMs create once-off "exceptions" to the established rules if they cannot get the rules to work out the way they want. If it bugs you so much, change the rules. Don't make exceptions, and especially don't make exceptions only for NPCs.

Heh . I just realised I've spent most of my posts on this thread justifying my need to follow the rules. Does following the rules make me a bad DM ?

 

[S'mon]

Suppose the DM wants an NPC with the combat ability of a 5th level fighter but also 8 ranks in Spot. That's what suits the game and it doesn't disrupt balance anywhere near as much as if the DM followed the letter of the rules and cranked the NPC's fighter level up to 13th to account for the necessary cross-class skill ranks.

This is an excellent point - "The bounty hunter NPC Fighter following the 3rd level PCs has excellent Spot skill... um, I guess he needs to be 12th level" is not a good idea.

Although, while I fully agree it's ok for NPCs to 'break the rules', the GM should do it with an eye to balance and fairness, not to screw over the PCs.

Eg - IMC there's a 12th level bounty-hunter Fighter with 14 ranks in Spot. Also he wears light armour and uses a hand crossbow (I didn't create this NPC btw, he seems rather offensively weak for his level but has tons of hp). Does this destroy the integrity of the game? I don't think so - if a player cares enough about this to ask, I can say off-the-cuff:

"Yeah, Trenton Dirge has the Bounty-Hunter background archetype*, this lets you treat Spot as a class skill and you can Track, but you lose proficiency in medium & heavy armour and in various weapons including bows, except for crossbows... Want to play one?"

*Like the ones in Mongoose's Quintessential series.

 

[S'mon]

Had you been here a couple of years ago, you could've seen the flamewar I instigated when I pointed out how different society would look if women really were as strong as men.

I remember back in thev '80s a lot of people were offended that in the Runequest game, male human PCs & NPCs rolled 3d6 for STR, female human PCs (and presumably NPC adventurers) rolled 3d6 for STR, but 'normal' female human NPCs rolled 2d6+2 for STR. One main complaint was that although 2d6+2 averages only 1.5 under 3d6 roll, capping female human STR at 14 was unrealistic as well as sexist, and not using the same rule for PCs made it even worse. I tend to think WoTC was right not to go near this whole issue; there's no need for gender differentiation in the PHB rules on creating PCs and what the DM does with the NPCs in his/her campaign is really up to them - sure IMC the average female human NPC's STR is maybe 7-8, but that shouldn't stop a player making a female human fighter with STR 16+ if that's what they want to play (& my female human fighter PC in Stalkingblue's campaign has STR 17).

 

[Snoweel]

I have a bit more problem when the DM comes up with new rules that only apply to NPCs, and that the PCs cannot benefit from.

I have a hunch, dude, that you don't have any idea why CR and ECL are often different.

Tell me if I'm wrong.

Do you not see why Cure Serious Wounds at will (for example), while quite powerful for NPCs, is positively game-breaking as a PC ability?

In addition, it brings back memories of 2e NPCs who had abilities that the PCs could not hope to duplicate and were thus much cooler as a result.

Like how Dragons can fly and breathe fire and generally kick arse and how Vampires can turn gaseous and drain levels and how Medusae can turn you to stone with just a look - at will!!!!

All pretty cool abilities that generally don't belong in the hands of players (except maybe in a one-on-one adventure/campaign).

Heh .

Hnhhhh.

I just realised I've spent most of my posts on this thread justifying my need to follow the rules. Does following the rules make me a bad DM ?

Not at all, though to be honest dude, I don't think I'd enjoy having you as a player.

 

[Snoweel]

I tend to think WoTC was right not to go near this whole issue; there's no need for gender differentiation in the PHB rules on creating PCs and what the DM does with the NPCs in his/her campaign is really up to them - sure IMC the average female human NPC's STR is maybe 7-8, but that shouldn't stop a player making a female human fighter with STR 16+ if that's what they want to play

Yeah, I think that if you're going for over-the-top cinematic action style then physically powerful women are pretty cool, and why not have them in your game.

I mean, I loved the main character of Kill Bill - she was hella cool, but in all seriousness, to be able to swing that sword so quickly and deftly requires an insane amount of physical strength (not that the D&D rules consider this insofar as STR affecting your parry). Thing is, Uma's a tall, athletic looking woman - as women go, she looks dangerous.

OTOH, the web enhancement for Complete Warrior (for example, and btw - Hi Darrin ) has an NPC Paladin with STR 17 and she's described as small and petite, for God's sake.

Not that size = STR in so few words, but there is a reason boxers compete by weight division.

Anyway, like so many people will be tempted to interject: "This is a fantasy game blah blah blah..."

And there is already a couple of threads about that.

 

[kamosa]

It depends on why you are bending the rules

I think it comes down to why the GM is bending/breaking the rules for the NPC's. If they are doing this as a way to beat the players, they are a sad excuse for a GM, and it is totally lame. If they are doing it as a way to make the game more fun, or facilitate the game some how, then I think it is perfectly fine.

Slavish adherence to the rules is boring. Let's face it, this game used to have a lot less rules and we all got by. Chance are that there will never be a streamlined system that thinks of every situation and handles is gracefully. Knowing when to throw a rules exception is a good GM skill.

That said, you can't use it as a weapon against the players and expect happy players. If your going to alter rules on the fly and have NPC's that don't follow the letter of the law you better make sure you have good GM-Player trust. If your players know you aren't doing it to screw them, than they won't mind the occasional NPC that didn't obey the rules. If your players think your a ratbastard GM and you always make up rules to keep them down, then even the slightest deviation from the rules by an NPC is a major insult.

That said, be fair and be true to the spirit if not the letter of the game, and your players probably won't mind too much.