The rules should serve the game, not vice-versa

[ConcreteBuddha]

I am a stickler for the rules.

I admit it. I am the definition of the guy you don't want in your group if you are inconsistent on a saving throw DC or an attack roll. Giving an NPC fighter spot and listen as class skills reeks of laziness. That's not meant to be an insult. I have DMed, and generally that kind of thing happens when I am not prepared.

"Fudging" things annoys me. (NPCs should cross-class just like the PCs.)

IMX, whenever a DM has given NPCs unattainable abilities...

Suppose the DM wants an NPC with the combat ability of a 5th level fighter but also 8 ranks in Spot.

...I get irritated.

In Star Wars, they give Luke Skywalker (and all of the Skywalkers) a special ability that lets them be better Jedi than everyone else. That makes me not want to play the game because my character isn't special.

As a player, I want my character to have that special ability, and I want 8 ranks in spot for a 5th level fighter. The game is not believable, fair, or consistent otherwise. All of which I consider important for me to have fun.



In short, I do not enjoy playing house. I prefer tag, which has definite rules.

 

[Snoweel]

As a player, I want my character to have that special ability, and I want 8 ranks in spot for a 5th level fighter.

Now suppose the 5th level fighter is using a DM invented fighter variant class that has Spot as a class skill at the expense of (whatever it is that might deter a PC from taking said variant) while having absolutely no detrimental effect on this particular NPC.

Maybe he's added Spot as a class skill at the expense of heavy and medium armour proficiency? (Which wouldn't matter if the NPC character-concept was of a lightly armoured swordsman.)

Most people wouldn't take that trade, but if you would and you get pissed at your DM that you weren't offered the option, realise that there is a chapter in the DMG about tweaking classes (among other things).

And your DM isn't obliged to think of all the possible tweaks you might take at character creation - if you want a fighter with Spot as a class skill and that is your vision for your character, then tell the DM and he'll work with you to balance it.

But by the sound of things, you'll probably just complain the minute he thinks of some other class variant kewler than your own. "WH... I WANTED THAT VARIANT INSTEAD!"

In short, I do not enjoy playing house. I prefer tag, which has definite rules.

This isn't about fudging or breaking rules or even being vague with them; it is about houseruling/adding variant options to suit the game.

Options not restrictions, y'know?

 

[Drifter Bob]

The point, to me, is that it's just a waste of time to even get that far into the rules for most players. The DM needs to know the rules, and a good party should have at least one or two players who are savvy enough to keep the DM on his toes, but really, most players basically only need to know what their characters can and cannot do.

Think about it. Was D&D more or less fun when you first played and didn't know every damn rule?

The fact is, the D&D rules simply aren't that internally consistent or logical, so a lot of pepole feel like it is an unecessary chore to get some meticulously into them. Why can't a 5th level NPC fighter have some kind of bounty hunter background within the core rules that can give him 8 spot ? Why can't he have played hide and seek so much as a child that he heas it (within the core rules)? Because the rules aren't that flexible. Maybe one day they will be. In the meantime, let the DM make it up if it's going to further the plot (if the DM is trying to 'screw over' the players, why not just place dragons and demons in their path instead?)

Until then, lighten up for chrissakes. Use the rules when you need to, the rest of the time, make up your story, role play, adventure, have fun.

I really think this is a major issue of game expansion. A lot of the people I turn on to role playing games enjoy playing but really don't want to bother learning hundreds of pages of rules any more than they want to do other peoples taxes for free.

I remember I had this shocking experience one time when a guy I thought of as an intelligent and sensitive fellow, who happened to be an experienced gamer, started screaming and sneering and insulting my girlfriend and her friend because they didn't know the rules during their first ever time playing an RPG... it was postively freaky.

If you are that deeply into the rules, play some war game like advanced squad leader. Hell, even if I want complicated rules in a role playing game, I will play something like Riddle of Steel which at least has the payoff of combat being realistic to compensate for having to delve that deep into technicalities.

Another funny thing I've noticed, is that one of the reasons people used to play D&D instead of other games is that it was less complicated than the other more specialized games out there. Now it's very complicated, IMO, compared to games like say, Dying Earth RPG. I think this is more due to the culture of the players (I think very influened these days by CRPG's) than the core rules, but I also do think they should revisit the idea of have some kind of sliding scale of complexity, even though they weren't successful at implementing it before (from basic to advanced anyone?) I'd like to at least have a realistic option of letting fairly inexpereineced players roll characters without computer software again...

It's also interesting to consider the old players and the old game designers were more influenced by what you might call the original "core literature" (Tolkein, Vance, Leiber, Zealazny, Moorcock, Lovecraft, Howard) while today, I think Neverwinter Nights, Diablo, Everquest, Icewind Dale etc. are far more of an influence...

JR

 

[Zappo]

Think about it. Was D&D more or less fun when you first played and didn't know every damn rule?

If I have to be entirely sincere, it was less fun. That is, it was just as fun for most of the time, except that we'd have arguments every now and then on whether a DM call was fair or not. Knowing the rules reduced that to almost nil.

 

[S'mon]

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.

Yup - I have a 'minimum weight by STR' table I use for both* genders, eg a PC created w STR 18 should be at least 150lb. I put my initially-STR 16 female fighter ("athletic build, wirily muscular") at 120lb, the least possible weight I could see as being credible for the STR, helped by that she's an Ironborn in the Midnight setting and thus unnaturally tough for her size anyway.

*Yes, this is unrealistic, women have less muscle mass by weight, there should be a body-fat ratio multiplier, etc etc.

 

[S'mon]

In Star Wars, they give Luke Skywalker (and all of the Skywalkers) a special ability that lets them be better Jedi than everyone else. That makes me not want to play the game because my character isn't special.

Even though I disagree with the rest of your post (I think it's fine to eg give an NPC a +2 DC save bonus to their fire spells if they're a fire mage, balancing that w eg a feat slot & no access to cold spells, just like I think it's fine to make NPC Fighters w Spot as a class skill, balanced by loss of other powers) I agree strongly w this point - IMO the PCs are very much the stars of the show, I want them to feel special, often that means IMC they _are_ special, with unique gifts available to few or no NPCs. In DMG-standard D&D the PCs are special because they have more magic items for their level than anyone else. IMC the PCs typically have better stats than almost anyone else, they often have unique & powerful magic items (though less generic gear than the standard table), they may have special gifts & powers, be favoured of gods, have important destinies, and such. IMC the PCs _are_ Luke Skywalker - one reason I generally prefer running a homebrew world than someone else's preexisting universe. If a PC wants to be a Fire Wizard or a Bounty-Hunter - and is willing to give stuff up as well as gan stuff - I will certainly work with them to make it possible. Only, no halflings.

 

[S'mon]

And your DM isn't obliged to think of all the possible tweaks you might take at character creation - if you want a fighter with Spot as a class skill and that is your vision for your character, then tell the DM and he'll work with you to balance it.

Exactly.

 

[Desdichado]

IMO the PCs are very much the stars of the show, I want them to feel special, often that means IMC they _are_ special, with unique gifts available to few or no NPCs. In DMG-standard D&D the PCs are special because they have more magic items for their level than anyone else. IMC the PCs typically have better stats than almost anyone else, they often have unique & powerful magic items (though less generic gear than the standard table), they may have special gifts & powers, be favoured of gods, have important destinies, and such. IMC the PCs _are_ Luke Skywalker - one reason I generally prefer running a homebrew world than someone else's preexisting universe.

In my campaigns, the PCs are special because they're the stars of the show, not because they've been given better stats, better treasure, etc. than the NPCs.

 

[The_Gneech]

In my group, if somebody has a neat idea that will make their character special, and it isn't terribly unbalancing, we generally say, "Go for it!"

My character has a leopard familiar. Another character has a blink dog. The other player's paladin has one of those flying horses from MM2 as his mount.

Similarly, if an NPC has some kind of quirky special ability (such as the super-spotting fighter), we just accept it and get on. Maybe he has Alertness; maybe he poured all of his skill points into Spot instead of Ride and Intimidate. Maybe he just has a super-high Wis. Who knows? Who cares? The play's the thing!

-The Gneech

 

[diaglo]

considering i have always thot of my role as a referee, i agree. the rules should serve the game.