The Story and The Rules

[Altalazar]

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

Well, if it is planned in advance, then it should be possible not to have to break the rules, just set it up so the situation would happen within the rules.

I don't like it when the rules are "broken" just because a PC is cleverer than the DM planned - after all, then you can just have a "Raiders of the Lost Ark" moment (Indy sees BBEG, then shrugs and shoots the BBEG) - enjoy the moment and move on. After all, the "story" is a JOINT creation of the players and the DM. It is often more interesting when it goes in totally unexpected directions.

So with me, it isn't so much rule breaking (which I also disfavor) but the shades of railroading that come with it.

 

[Desdichado]

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

Not really. Then again, how would I know anyway?

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

It's OK anyway, most of the time. I like a good story as much as the next guy, but I'm wary of bending or breaking rules for this reason, as it tends to also be accompanied with railroading.

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

You mean like if he restricts certain classes, feats or spells, or some such? No, not at all. Although I like to know ahead of time, at least.

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

Same as above.

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

Yes, it can be, but then again, "for the sake of a good story" is often an excuse poor GMs will use to simply break the rules that they don't like, too. I don't have a problem with this in theory, but I'm wary of it, because it's more often then not used as an excuse.

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

I think so. That's how I run. I tend to change a fair number of rules up front; I wouldn't even consider my d20 Fantasy game to be D&D anymore because of the changes it has; but once I set the rules, I stick to them for PCs and NPCs alike. They're open to discussion, after all I've got great players who are all GMs as well, but I don't really go for the "the NPC escapes because of .... he just does" school of GMing.

 

[Desdichado]

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

I'm quite sure you know that not everyone plays that way. To me, though, the story is the product of the game, not something the GM has already in mind before the game even starts. I mean, sure, I have some plot hooks and some vague idea of what will likely happen based on likely PC reactions, but I don't write a story and then cram it down my players' throats.

But I still play for the story. If there's no good story at the end of the night, I've wasted my time.

 

[IronWolf]

I always try to make my stories work within the rules. Now granted the NPC's have a lot of resources at their disposal so sometimes things are a little easier to obtain for them than it might be for the PCs, but I still work within the scope of the rules.

As a player I hope the DM does the same and works within the scope of the rules. Or at least doesn't take too big of an advantage over them.

 

[jonesy]

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's a reason that fits the parameters of the world. Or if it's something that adds flavour. Assuming I even notice that there's something like that going on. How would I know without looking at his notes?

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

Of course.

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

Depends on the situation. Impossible to say without further details.

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

Probably not.

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

Yes. Even better if he does it so well that the players never even suspect that something like that is going on.

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

Also yes. Even better if it doesn't sacrifice the "good" elements of his story.

 

[KB9JMQ]

As a player and a DM I don't care if a rule gets morphed along the way as long as it doesnt radically alter an already established rule.
To me it is just a game and as long as all the players are on the same page and they are having fun and little tweaking is fine.

Now if a DM was changing the rules on the fly to get a certiain results I would hate that.

 

[S'mon]

As a player I accept that the GM makes the rules, so the GM is free to make new rules; perhaps more importantly they're also free to adjudicate situations not covered by the rules - eg NPC with a mortal wound who can't be cured before dying but stays conscious long enough to deliver cryptic clue, in hp terms he's already at -10 hp or less, mortally wounded but still conscious. If I think the GM is misapplying/misremembering existing rules that they are trying to apply, I may point it out but I'll be _very_ polite.

 

[MonsterMash]

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?

Not particularly, but its better if it moves on the story or adds interest (as a DM I'll bend or break the rules for a reason not for the sake of it and I'd prefer other DMs to take the same approach)

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

It would if there is not a good reason as if it is within the rules and makes sense then why disallow it?

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

This would be the good reasons mentioned before.

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

Depends on the group - if its heavy on rules lawyers then no, but if its a simulationist group then why not?

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

That shows a DM who is a master of the rules (and preferably has house rules to fit their campaign), but I'd put the ability to keep a game flowing and organisational skills (and imagination) above rules mastery as desirable qualities for a DM.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Here's a quote by Frank Mentzer. I'm taking it out of context; it appeared in a sharply-worded answer he gave to someone else on a different forum, and it should not be misconstrued as aimed at Quasqueton.

I strongly suggest that you not bend the game rules to rationalise your inability to write for the system.

In other words, Mr Mentzer believes that the DM should generally write adventures to fit within the rules given. I don't personally agree with that view; I believe that there are certainly circumstances where the rules need to take second place to the story.

But I'm afraid disagree with the fundamental implications of the original post.

Quasqueton asks:

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?

Now, these are good questions if you accept the basic premise, which is this: "In a roleplaying game it is the DM's job to tell a story to the players."

That's Narrativism, and in my view it's a flawed view of roleplaying. The alternative view is this: "In a roleplaying game it is the DM's job merely to provide an interesting environment for the players, and the players create the story from the choices they make."

In this second view, which might be characterised as Emulationism, the DM is totally unconcerned with story and so the questions Quasqueton asks become meaningless. What the DM does is to arbitrate the choices the characters make without any regard to "plot" whatsoever.

I prefer Emulationism simply because I prefer an environment where the characters control their own destinies. In the Emulationist view the players' actions have far more wide-reaching consequences and player skill can have a real impact on the character's ultimate destiny.

In reality, of course, most games fall somewhere between the two. The DM usually has a fair idea of where the plot's going, but radical actions by the players can take the plot in an entirely different direction. I understand and appreciate this.

Nevertheless I believe that a good DM will usually approach the situations Quasqueton describes from an Emulationist viewpoint, and therefore must adjudicate the players' actions in accordance with the rules. To do otherwise is to frustrate the players' control over their characters' destinies.

(See "The Impossible Thing to Believe Before Breakfast" on the Forge for ancillary discussion).

 

[S'mon]

Now, these are good questions if you accept the basic premise, which is this: "In a roleplaying game it is the DM's job to tell a story to the players."

That's Narrativism, and in my view it's a flawed view of roleplaying.

Actually Narrativists (Edwards) would say that was Illusionism (GM creates an illusion of player choice while running them through a pre-plotted story). Edwards defines Narrativism as something like "drama founded on premise" - the premise being a question, like "What am I prepared to do for love?", and the game addresses that question.