The Story and The Rules

[Ruined]

I like this question because it keeps my focus on both sides of the screen, instead of my normal GM approach. For me, a lot of it boils down to trust and fairness. I don’t mind taking certain liberties with the rules as a GM to make situations interesting or to increase the difficulty of challenges for the PCs. But in my mind, I always try to keep a fair approach to it. Our groups are all in it for the fun and the story, and the relation between Player and GM is not adversarial in the least.

That being said, I have taken offense when GMs seem to handwave certain rules because they are uncomfortable or feel threatened by them. Easiest example was Attacks of Opportunity. One of my best friends was running a 3.0 game and as soon as we launched into battles, he realized that he didn’t understand them and wanted to do away with them. Easy to see the difficulty, as it took me a while to get them under control, but to just throw them under the rug? And what of my character with Combat Reflexes? I got miffed at the time, but we worked it out. I took some time afterwards, taught him the ropes for AoOs, and watched out for them on both sides for the next few games. I also bowed out of a campaign I was recently invited to because in the writeup, the GM stated he felt that ‘wizards were too powerful’ and listed a bunch of scenarios where he would be putting the screws to all spellcasters. That’s cool if he wanted to play that way, being his game and all, but the whole combative sound of the post turned me away.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I wouldn't consider myself a rules lawyer by any stretch of the imagination, but it does bother me when a GM breaks the rules to force a story point. Bending the rules is fine. But outright breaking them is both poor storytelling and poor game-playing.

It's one thing to fudge the long-term BBEG making his jump check so he can escape the very first encounter with the PCs. It's another to have him miraculously escape when there is no conceivable way out.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

As a DM, I'll try to stay within the rules. But I'm not anal-retentive about NPC statblocks, so if he gets an extra + somewhere (or minus), I'm not going to sweat it. And I'll stretch things a bit if I want an NPC to have an extra feat, or a feat without meeting the pre-reqs.

 

[der_kluge]

I see this done more by less experienced GMs, or GMs who don't know the rules as well.

In my game, I'm the resident "rules lawyer", which isn't saying much, because I've never read any of the D&D books cover to cover. I've barely read the DMG at all, and there's probably a solid 33% of the PHB I've never read. It's just a group of really casual gamers, I just happen to know more of the rules than the rest.

And yes, it bugs me when the GM kind of sidesteps the rules. I consider it poor-planning. For example, we played yesterday, and we made our way into a "hollow world" for lack of a better term. We're well underground, but we found a city, and daylight, and trees. And all the monsters were larger than life. We fought a hill giant, a gargantuan spider, and then a fire giant. We were almost 5th level when we fought the hill giant. *almost*. When we finished the game that night, we were 6th level. We'd just made 4th level the last time we played.

I gritted my teeth.

The GM allowed sneak attacks on the fire giant ("because we needed all the help we could get") when sneak attacking shouldn't have been allowed (creature wasn't being flanked, had his dex bonus to armor class, etc).

Why we decided to make a party of 5th level characters fight a fire giant, I have no idea. Oh, and the only magic items we have are a handful of cards from a deck of illusion, and we used 3 of them yesterday, so now we have two left. Those are the only magic items we have.

 

[A'koss]

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.

This is how I see it as well. IMO, if you find there are certain rules that aren't working for your campaign, don't be afraid to alter them. Just don't do it in the middle of an encounter, talk it over with the group after the session is over.

Cheers!

 

[John Morrow]

Then what do call all that narrative-looking stuff?

Tilting at windmills?

 

[The Shaman]

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

Depends. If it is consistent with the rules, then I am likely to see it as a new feat, class ability, or such with which I'm not familiar. If it truly "breaks" the rules, then I'm not as happy.

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

Not really - usually this is the recourse of a GM who is kludging to make some plot point fit, instead of working within the constraints of the "laws of the multiverse" (i.e., the rules).

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

Yes, provided once again that it is unreasonable and inconsistent with respect to the rules - if it's something like a new spell or feat or ability, that's fine, provided the spell et al. is consistent (e.g., no contingent multiple miracle for a 7th level cleric).

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

Is it ever really a good idea for a GM to make a situation or story less interesting?

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

Not usually - too many violations of the "laws of the multiverse" and it blows my suspension of disbelief.

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

Absolutely.

Magic should, for the most part, function consistently, as should feats and class abilities. When planning an adventure, the GM should consider things like divination spells in a fantasy game or Internet searches in a Modern game, and what information the adventurers are likely to glean as a result. Saying that the spell fizzles or that Googling produces no information strains player credulity and often means the GM simply hasn't thought through the story very well, IMHO.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I think it's more fun for the way I like to play when a DM allows the story to twist and turn as the dice and the rules dictate. As I said in another thread: when you sit down to the gaming table, everyone present has slightly different expectations for how the story will play out. The players each have their characters' separate motivations and goals, the DM has his antagonists' motivations and goals and an idea of how the story can progress to a conclusion. All of these expectations can and will come into conflict from time to time.

When the game is run according to the agreed-upon rules, the results of gameplay add another complication to the resolution of this conflict and, crucially, provide a relatively fair and balanced method for determing whose expectations triumph and to what extent.

The reason I feel this way is that I've played in multiple games where the DM (or another, selfish player) had broken (or demanded the right to break) the rules for the sake of imposing their own expectations on the game. DMs have a lot of power to manipulate events in favour of their desires even when they play fair, but I've had DMs who were clearly crestfallen by the results the dice gave them and attempted to cheat their way out of it - or, even worse, ignored the players' own expectations for their characters and even their interpretations of the characters' goals and motivations in favour of the DM's own.

In my ideal gaming experience everyone is prepared ahead of time to let their expectations be mediated by fair and balanced gameplay. I don't demand that the rules be followed to the exclusion of fun - just that the fun concerned be fun for all.

 

[Mallus]

Tilting at windmills?

That's just crazy talk...

 

[fusangite]

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

Yep. It's not a problem in terms of fairness, though. Just in terms of suspension of disbelief.

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

Contradiction in terms -- a good story wouldn't damage my suspension of disbelief.

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

Not that much. But I much prefer it if the GM changes the rule in advance to avoid this problem.

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

I don't see how this could be, given my criteria for what constitutes a good story.

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

Nope. It is good for the DM to announce house rules at the beginning of the campaign that create a framework for this. I'm all for changing the rules as long as they're changed in advance.

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

For a good GM, rules=world=story. If your rules and your story conflict, you've picked the wrong story for the rules or the wrong rules for the story.