The Story and The Rules

[Quasqueton]

If a DM has something happen, or an NPC do something that "breaks" the rules, does it bother you in any way?

Is it OK if the "something" is interesting, or makes for a good story?


If a DM prevents or disallows a PC from doing something within the rules, does it bother you in any way?

Is it OK if the "something" would make the situation less interesting, or undermine the story?


Is it good DMing to bend/break the game rules for the sake of a good story?

Is it good DMing to make the story work within the rules?

Quasqueton

 

[Psion]

I expect you will see some pretty sharp divisions on this, but I am personally in the camp of "work within the rules where possible." I am usually the DM so that is pretty easy for me to say, but I have something of a bitter taste in my mouth from a DM years ago who would house rule on the fly for the explicit purpose of making life difficult for the PCs. AFAIAC, that's not a good thing to do. In order for players to care about the world, I think it needs some stability to be taken as a credible mock reality. I know that if I feel like I am in a kangaroo court in the GMs head, I stop caring what happens.

Now I also recognize that the rules don't cover every instance and it's not worth trying to extend them to fit all cases. That being the case, I have no problem with GMs making stuff up as they go along to make a good story so long as they don't undermine the already established "rules of reality" of the game. For example, it's of no consequence to me whatsoever that an NPC suddenly uses an ability or spell that is not in any rule being used but could reasonably exist.

Edit: To put it another way, extending the rules to fit the story is fine. But morphing the rules to accomodate the story breaks the fourth wall and is the tail wagging the dog.

 

[Storm Raven]

If a DM has something happen, or an NPC do something that "breaks" the rules, does it bother you in any way?

Is it OK if the "something" is interesting, or makes for a good story?

There is no "story". D&D is a game, not a story.

 

[Seeten]

If a DM has something happen, or an NPC do something that "breaks" the rules, does it bother you in any way?

Not if there is a good reason. I prefer if he looks cryptic while we ask why he can break rules, as though he has a feat or magic item that allows it, or a spell.

Is it OK if the "something" is interesting, or makes for a good story?

Its always ok, he's the DM. The only thing that isnt ok is specifically targeting my weaknesses, or purposely negating my strengths, every single encounter.

If a DM prevents or disallows a PC from doing something within the rules, does it bother you in any way?

Yes, if he doesnt have a good reason for it. "It will ruin the adventure" is not a good reason. He knew the group makeup before he started running it.

Is it OK if the "something" would make the situation less interesting, or undermine the story?

No. In fact, Story is cardinal. Anything, including the rules, that makes the story worse is terrible.

Is it good DMing to bend/break the game rules for the sake of a good story?

Yes. Absolutely.

Is it good DMing to make the story work within the rules?

Yes. The perfect story is one that makes sense within the framework the rules provide. The occasional step outside the rules is ok, if it makes it better.

Changing the rules to "ruin" or invalidate a character concept, or to punish a character is not.

 

[John Morrow]

If a DM has something happen, or an NPC do something that "breaks" the rules, does it bother you in any way?

If I notice and the same sort of rule-breaking isn't available to the PCs, yes.

Is it OK if the "something" is interesting, or makes for a good story?

It's OK for a GM to make decisions based on anything that they want so long as the players are happy with it. Put another way, it's OK for the GM to fudge to keep their players happy. Just bear in mind that fudging makes some players very unhappy if they notice it, in which case fudging isn't OK.

If a DM prevents or disallows a PC from doing something within the rules, does it bother you in any way?

No.

Is it OK if the "something" would make the situation less interesting, or undermine the story?

It's OK for a GM to make decisions based on anything that they want so long as the players are happy with it. Put another way, it's OK for the GM to fudge to keep their players happy. Just bear in mind that fudging makes some players very unhappy if they notice it, in which case fudging isn't OK.

Is it good DMing to bend/break the game rules for the sake of a good story?

Is it good DMing to make the story work within the rules?

It's a style issue, so it will depend on the group. Whether a GM is good or not depends on the enjoyment of the participants in their game, not whether or not they use a particular technique or not.

Personally, I prefer GMs to run settings and scenariors so I have my problems with both GMs treating the rules as optional to tell a "story" and GMs treating the rules and holy writ that can't be changed. But my preferences are hardly universal.

 

[Ourph]

If a DM has something happen, or an NPC do something that "breaks" the rules, does it bother you in any way?

Is it OK if the "something" is interesting, or makes for a good story?

This is fine with me. I wouldn't even call it "breaking the rules" as the rules make it pretty clear that the DM is allowed and encouraged to create new things to add to the game and that all rules are merely guidelines.

If a DM prevents or disallows a PC from doing something within the rules, does it bother you in any way?

Is it OK if the "something" would make the situation less interesting, or undermine the story?

This is something I have more of a problem with. Obviously, if house rules are announced before play begins that's OK. However, preventing a player from doing something that he entered the game legitimately expecting to be able to do, IMO, hurts the game. Players should have a good idea how to be "effective" with their characters. The advantages of supporting the story usually (IMO) don't outweigh the disadvantages of players feeling they cannot count on the rules being consistent as far as the effectiveness of their character is concerned. I think it's important for players to be able to depend on certain things working consistently in the game in order for the game to remain fun. This is asssuming, of course, that the players haven't agreed to such changes in advance. If everyone agrees in advance that ALL of the rules take a back seat to preserving the story/theme/premise/what have you, that's cool too.

Is it good DMing to bend/break the game rules for the sake of a good story?

Yes, sometimes.

Is it good DMing to make the story work within the rules?

Yes, sometimes.

In general, however, I would say that most groups I've encountered would rather have the players/rules interaction create a "story" rather than having a predetermined, plotted "story" that takes precedence over both rules and player choice.

 

[TheEvil]

If a DM has something happen, or an NPC do something that "breaks" the rules, does it bother you in any way?

Depends. I would generally rather the NPCs be bound by the same rules as the PCs.

Is it OK if the "something" is interesting, or makes for a good story?

It would about have to be to not bother me. It kind of depends. For example, the BBEG auto-succeeding his saving throw almost never thrills me.

If a DM prevents or disallows a PC from doing something within the rules, does it bother you in any way?

GM better have a real good explaination here. If it seems to be a GM lack of rules knowledge, I will be very put out. In one case, the GM didn't want me nerfing the encounter by tripping/grappling the enemy cleric. He even said as much. No dice rolls, just 'It doesn't work.' That was the first and last game with that GM, for far more reasons then that.

Is it OK if the "something" would make the situation less interesting, or undermine the story?

I imagine this would bother me. Breaking the rules to make the game LESS fun...

Is it good DMing to bend/break the game rules for the sake of a good story?

Used properly, yes. It shows flexibility.

Is it good DMing to make the story work within the rules?

Quasqueton

Yes. It shows a good understanding of the rules and making sure they are applied fairly.

 

[Mallus]

There is no "story". D&D is a game, not a story.

Then what do call all that narrative-looking stuff?

 

[iwatt]

If a DM has something happen, or an NPC do something that "breaks" the rules, does it bother you in any way?

No

If a DM prevents or disallows a PC from doing something within the rules, does it bother you in any way?

No

Is it good DMing to bend/break the game rules for the sake of a good story?

Yes

Is it good DMing to make the story work within the rules?

Usually. Changing rules on the fly doesn't bother me though. And sometime shoehorning the story into the rules bothers me more than just changing them.

 

[Arnwyn]

For me, as DM, I prefer to work within the rules where they exist. Really, the rules are what allow the players to interact with the game on a meaningful and consistent basis - and our group in particular very much values consistency.

If the rule does not explicitly exist, though, then all bets are off. We consider it good DMing when he/she makes things up then.