The Story and The Rules

[Ranes]

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

A nod to JD for the 'how would I know' point. If it was obvious and the DM hadn't established a house rule beforehand then it would irk me. If the DM had invented some new rule, however, a feat, ability or spell, that's a different matter.

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

Not to me. I'm with those who argue that the story should be the product of play.

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

Given the caveat that I'm forewarned, no it wouldn't bother me. It's a DM's perogative to work with a subset of the rules. If, on the other hand, the DM's veto is arbitrary and exceptional, then it would bother me a lot.

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

Absolutely not.

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

No. In my book, that's the antithesis of good DMing.

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

Sign me up.

 

[Purzel]

No GM. No game.

No players no game, so what?

I know a couple of games which are similar to RP but don't use a gamemaster, and hell they work fine (lookup "Universalis" as example: http://ramshead.indie-rpgs.com/)

Rule zero was created to give the GM leeway in crafting worlds and encounters that go above and beyond the stock game. It allows the GM to add a unique quality to the game. The point of the game is to play and have fun, which is not the point of rule zero.

Hmm, that does that have to do with the "breaking the rules" subject of this discussion? Of course a GM can invent new stuff to a game above and beyond the basic game. But please, please, pleeeeaaase, stay within the rules as long as possible

I'm playing three characters in three groups, all in high levels (lvl 11 necromancer, lvl 13 clr/bbn, lvl 15 clr), and we rotating GMs never had a problem in setting up good stories, and never had to break rules just to kick the PC's butts with challenging encounters.

In your view, the GM is just another player. If you feel that way, then you should put just as much work into the game as the GM.

Hehe, actually i do that In all my current groups the GM duty is rotating around the players. And yes, both as player and as GM i'm doing quite a lot of work between games. Even in-game i'm taking some work off the shoulders off our GM by looking up rules and being the groups log book writer.

 

[Belen]

Your remarks were not addressed to me, but I concur: The GM is just another player, and the players should put just as much work into the game as the GM.

To get the most out of a game, a player needs to develop his/her character(s) - create details of family, associates, history, background, culture etc. with the GM's approval, just as the GM should consult players in developing the milieu. The fact that the GM remains the final arbitor does not mean the GM should have to create everything in the game solo.

If you think that writing a character history equates to the amount of work a GM puts into the game, then your GM does not do much.

I have written over a 100 pages for my current campaign, not including working up the various encounters. On average, character histories are a single page.

I have never seen a player come close to the amount of work a GM places into the game.

 

[Belen]

I'm playing three characters in three groups, all in high levels (lvl 11 necromancer, lvl 13 clr/bbn, lvl 15 clr), and we rotating GMs never had a problem in setting up good stories, and never had to break rules just to kick the PC's butts with challenging encounters.

Please find where I said that the rules should be broken for encounters.

 

[Belen]

Hehe, actually i do that In all my current groups the GM duty is rotating around the players. And yes, both as player and as GM i'm doing quite a lot of work between games. Even in-game i'm taking some work off the shoulders off our GM by looking up rules and being the groups log book writer.

Someone else willing to run a game. What a novel thought. Too bad it seems to apply to a minority of games.

 

[Purzel]

Please find where I said that the rules should be broken for encounters.

Sorry, of course you didn't say that. Was implying it because of the general direction of the discussion. Seems i'm mixing stuff up.

Someone else willing to run a game. What a novel thought. Too bad it seems to apply to a minority of games.

Dunno, this is the norm for the games i play in. *shrugs* Maybe that's normal for german groups. Being the DM is fun, despite the work behind it.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

If you think that writing a character history equates to the amount of work a GM puts into the game, then your GM does not do much.

FYI, I'm both GM and player (both online and ftf). My group has a habit of passing the GM role around from person to person; so I think I may not be seeing things the way you do.

A properly-written character history, to me, is where the player generates a full background. That means developing not just the main character, but details of parents/guardians, siblings, children, significant others, friends, colleagues, employers, associates and henchmen - including character sheets for all these if they're still around - plus developing the background and history of the character's culture, guild, trade associations, and so forth.

If a player in a game I'm GMing rolls a thief character, I'll ask that player to draw up a Thieves' Guild and submit it to me for approval. If s/he rolls a cleric, I'll ask him/her to flesh out the details description of his/her religion, high days and holy days, nature and frequency of sacrifices, and so forth. If s/he rolls a dwarf, I want to know about the dwarf clan, where it is now, what it does (mining? smithing? farming?), why the character's among humans, etc. And I'll review the details, generally edit them in a couple of places, hand them back to the player, and keep a copy. Bingo: something new was added to the campaign.

I think that trying to do this in a single-page character history is just half-assed, frankly.

 

[Darkness]

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

If an NPC does something that's normally impossible (for someone with her abilities), she'd better have a magic item, template or similar explanation for it.
If that's not the case, i.e. the DM is just making stuff up, that might bother me, depending on the nature and scale of the incident.

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

If what you're planning is that good, you also should be able to provide a satisfactory start. Including a reason why some things temporarily don't work as they ought to.
Anyway, it needs to be interesting or good. Otherwise, why would you even go to this effort and confuse your players with inconsistent rulings?

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

That's where I draw the line. If you cross it, there need to be some serious mitigating circumstances for me to play with you again. (Note: Playing isn't a big interest of mine - I'd rather GM. So if I am to do something I don't prefer, it'd better be worth my while. YMMV.)
Once again - there's a lot you can do with magic (items), templates, etc. Need a to give a character the (e.g., spell-like) ability to use mass charm? Well, find (or create) a template, give it to the character, and find a reason why she has it. Same thing with items.

Sure, that doesn't make a railroading, if applicable, much less of one. But if you're going to resort to heavy-handed tactics, the least you can do is find an in-game explanation. That doesn't break suspension of disbelief as much and also means the PCs might well have a chance to deal with this special power (or its source) later on.

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

No.

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

That depends on what your players want.

As a player, I don't care for stories that require heavy-handed DM intervention so they can follow a script or some such.

As a DM, I'm willing to gently nudge things a little every now and then if it makes for a better game for my players. If such very subtle methods don't get the job done, I'm unlikely to intervene more forcefully.

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

Obviously, assuming you can indeed pull it off well. It's not always easy, after all.

 

[Desdichado]

Oh bull. The players are characters in a choose your own adventure scenario. The players do not create the story. They do not sit down and tell the GM that "today, we will find a village being overrun by Orcs. Make it happen."

The DM creates the stories and sets up the encounters. A good GM incorporates the actions, desires, goals, and choices of the PCs into the game so that it seems they are having an impact on the world.

The world is still the domain of the GM who has to create all the NPCs, factions, bad guys, cities etc for a character to interact. A good world has a story that exist independent of the PCs. Good players interact with the world and try and affect it for the better.

It is the absolute responsibility of the GM to create a story and environment that engages the characters.

Yes, but the GM does not decide what the PCs will do, and thus does not write a story in any conventional sense of that word. Heck, as a GM, I like to throw multiple plot hooks at the players, with an idea of where they will go for each one, and then as they decide, I start to more strongly develop "the world" down the path they went, but not before. I think maybe we're not that far off really, but are arguing semantics, but in my experience, what the GM does is not create a story. He creates a living breathing setting, that will march on if the PCs don't do anything, and then sees what the PCs do and how they impact that setting.

For instance, my "bad guys" have an agenda. If the PCs don't interrupt his agenda, it will likely come to pass and the setting will adjust accordingly. I have multiple "bad guys", each with agendas, that in some cases contradict. If my PCs jump on one plot hook and follow it, then the others that they're ignoring will progress as planned. In fact, I'm quite looking forward to them getting back into town after their current hiatus of wandering around in the wilderness.

But I don't consider that story. The story is what happens to the PCs. The rest of it is just background.

 

[Hand of Evil]

I think you're totally wrong here. The DM does not "own" the game -- infact, this is the worst, illogical, unsatisfying possible excuse for bending a rule. Rule Zero should be something like: "It's just a game, play to have fun." or something else using common-sense.

A roleplay is something a group is doing, not some show-off-solo-ego-trip of the gamemaster. Keep that in mind. One of the DMs metagame-jobs should be to make the game enjoyable for everyone at the table, not just her.

Thus when breaking the rules leads to frustrated players, the DM made a bad choice by doing so.

You are right he does not own the game, he runs it and when all is said and done he/she is the person that has to be answered to. It is a group function, DM and players come together to interact in the game but the role of the DM/GM is the running of the game to the best of their ability for the enjoyment of the group and not just one player, the outcome is to have fun, yet players ask, even demand a lot from the DM/GM, who has to be visionary, prophet, mom, dad, friend and foe, and gods to the group. He does not own the game but he/she is the interpreter and arbitrator of the game.