The Story and The Rules

[Odhanan]

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?

I love it when players are imaginative. This implies some kind of rule or houserule allowing them to use their imaginations and bend the rules sometimes. Like the Hero Points of Arcana Evolved. Or the action points of Eberron. Or the maneuvers of the Book of Iron Might. Or the forthcoming Iron Lore.

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

Yes, it does bother me. I'd want to be able to play heroic characters who can perform original actions at times. I try to participate to the story as much as I can as a PC, though, because I know from experience what a pain it can be when the PCs don't want to cooperate.

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

No. As a player, I would think twice about the impact of my character's actions on the story before doing it. See previous answer.

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?

This isn't good or bad in my opinion. One style is the storytelling style, while the other is the referree style. I think both can be effective, but both also have their counterparts.

See, a DM bending the rule has to earn and keep the complete trust of the other players. This is very hard to do, and even then, you have the risk of making the game less of a challenge, even predictable by the players, because they end up knowing your style of DMing, and knowing in which cases you'll bend the rules and in which cases you won't.

On the other hand, the referree style of the DMing is faced with the dissociation of the DM from the rest of the players. In clear, you are not telling the story with the players but just looking at it from the outside - and you could quickly get bored. The second risk here is the ressentment of your players. Sometimes, they won't understand your motivations in saying "no", and they can really get annoyed at a DM that would be a referree hiding behind the rules.

My solution, as expressed above, is to entrust the players with the right to choose when they want to bend the rules with some kind of artifice implemented in the rules themselves, like Hero Points.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

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

If it turns out that the only reason that the NPC could break the rules is DM fiat to 'make the story' then yes, I am indeed upset. Do it too often and one of us is on the road.

If the DM prevents the PCs from doing something within the rules he had darned well better have a reason that it didn't work that is also within the rules, not just 'it makes for a better story'. If it 'undermines the story' then he should have written a novel instead of run a game.

A good DM works within the rules, and creates the rules to work within. So for example just having a corpse lie after someone has cast speak with dead is not cool. Having the corpse lie after speak with dead has been cast but the party later finds a spell book with a spell called untruthful corpse it is a bit more acceptable, just don't do it very often.If NPCs can do it so can the PCs.

The Auld Grump

 

[Desdichado]

I'm not saying that you didn't. I'm simply trying to avoid a trip down the path of calling other styles illegitimate.

OK, gotcha.

Go to the reference section of a book store. Pick up books on writing "stories". The odds are very good that they won't tell you how to write real life. And I think that's closer to how most people understand the term. Yes, we can go down the path of rec.games.frp.advocacy or The Forge and jargonize the term "story" to mean whatever we want it to mean. But what do most normal human beings think if you say, "I'm running this game to create a story about your characters."? Do you think they'll imagine the sort of game that you are talking about?

I'm somewhat familiar with what books on authorship consider story, having read a handful of them. I'm not talking about some jargonized, specialized use of the word. A story without a plot is not a story. My games don't have plots. They have potential plots, but they aren't realized until the PCs take action and turn them into plots. Hence, my preparation does not involve writing stories, and the product of my games are stories. It's really quite simple, and it does involve "laymens terms" use of the word story, not some esoteric Forge iteration.

Really, the only reason I bring that up is that I'm very wary of writing a "story" and calling it an adventure for your players to run through. I'm even more wary of GM's that force the game into this "story." To get back to the original question, I'd honestly rather not a GM bend or break rules for the sake of the "story" because that often means "his story" that is already predetermined is more important that "our story" that we develop jointly by the PC's actions. I don't mind a GM making rulings of the fly, or even changing rules that don't seem to make sense. But I'm wary of GMs who do so for the wrong reason, the "story" is more often the problem than the solution.

 

[Janx]

I'd say I don't DM the way Dyal does.

I write a general plot outline of what I want to happen in the adventure. I double-check it to see if it is reasonable (ie. are the players likely to follow it, given logical outcomes and reactions). I'll also plan some contingencies, for spots where there are obvious choices. In short, I'm pretty sure the party will advance from Room A to Room B. I'm not sure if they'll attack the friendly ogre mage in the beginning of the adventure, so I plan accordingly.

The result is this:
If I plan poorly, I'll have to wing it as the players enter new territory or I'll see what I can recycle from my plan.

If the players make the same choices I predicted, then they get a richer presentation of their story, because I was prepared for it with locations, and dialogue.

If I were to simply outline the basic land and NPCs, and let the players wander willy nilly, I actually risk creating a non-story. A complex plot requires planning to make it consistent and intriguing. I don't think I could do that in the style that Dyal suggests. Naturally, by doing it my way, I run the risk of being a "railroad DM" or ending up totally unprepared when the players go left, and not right.

But, as Dyal also admits, each DM has a preference and style. Ultimately, the players won't know or care, as long as they feel like their choices are their own. So regardless of method used, the players have to feel that they are in control. Thus far, I've been guessing right, and anticipating their decisions.

Now to the question of the original post?
I don't always follow the rules in defining an NPC, item or special effect. The players can't see my notes, so it doesn't matter how something works, as long as it is "reasonable". This makes for faster NPC design, as I don't always go through a full NPC definition (which is what many DM's complain about having to do for 3.x).

I don't disallow a legal action during the game. If the rules allow it, then your PC can do it. I won't disallow the action, just because it foils my plan.

I reserve the right to fudge the NPC's rolls when it serves the game or plot. If my plan is to have the NPC fight for a bit, then run away, then I'll try to get him to run away. He certainly won't be foiled by a silly jump check or something. Conversely, when the PCs are actively preventing this, then the dice take over again.

Case in point, my last adventure. The main NPC was an Ogre mage who was REALLY evil. The party had to seek him out for information on a PC's sword. The paladin of the group went blind in the bad guy's presence. I had decided this while writing the adventure, as a special feature of the bad guy, overloading the paladin's Detect Evil. In short, it worked differently than the RAW. There was no combat involved with the NPC (and the blindness almost ensured it). Continued exposure to the NPC burnt out the ability (and the paladin's normal sight returned, sans Detect Evil). By the RAW, this broke the rules. In discussion with the player before the game, we both agreed that I could cripple his Detect Evil, since it got in the way of some of my plans for future games. Now as a DM, I could have done lots of different things without touching the Detect Evil. But it was a special effect that changed the PC. Later, I may give Detect Evil back, or give him a replacement power (he's owed a replacement for Summon Mount, which never gets used on a sailing campaign). The reason he lost it, may not even be the reason his character was told, even. But it made for a good story.

Conversely, that adventure led to results I had not planned (but sufficiently reacted to). The paladin refused to help the other PCs go on a job for the NPC. Later, the Paladin resigned/asked for transfer. This led to further adjustments in my plan. So the PCs have definite effects on my game, but I tell a story and morph it to the PCs.

 

[John Morrow]

I'm somewhat familiar with what books on authorship consider story, having read a handful of them.

I was hoping you would be.

I'm not talking about some jargonized, specialized use of the word. A story without a plot is not a story. My games don't have plots. They have potential plots, but they aren't realized until the PCs take action and turn them into plots. Hence, my preparation does not involve writing stories, and the product of my games are stories. It's really quite simple, and it does involve "laymens terms" use of the word story, not some esoteric Forge iteration.

I think I get the distinction you are trying to make. The problem is the risk, as Janx points out in a later reply, "If I were to simply outline the basic land and NPCs, and let the players wander willy nilly, I actually risk creating a non-story." If the players in your game simply "wander willy nilly" and don't generate a plot (and thus produce a non-story), do you consider that a problem? This can and does happen for many groups. And do you take steps to make sure that a plot is followed and a story happens?

Really, the only reason I bring that up is that I'm very wary of writing a "story" and calling it an adventure for your players to run through. I'm even more wary of GM's that force the game into this "story."

Well, there are degrees of "force". Some GMs use subtle fudging while others fire up the steam engine for the full-blown railroad experience.

To get back to the original question, I'd honestly rather not a GM bend or break rules for the sake of the "story" because that often means "his story" that is already predetermined is more important that "our story" that we develop jointly by the PC's actions. I don't mind a GM making rulings of the fly, or even changing rules that don't seem to make sense. But I'm wary of GMs who do so for the wrong reason, the "story" is more often the problem than the solution.

Well, do you fudge results at all to produce more (story logic) satisfying outcomes or eliminate certain (story logic) unsatisfying outcomes?

The problem that most GMs face, if they want a story, is what to do when the PCs won't bite. Yes, I agree that presenting an interesting array of possible things to investigate or get involved with is a good way to role-play without railroading but it still runs the risk of producing a non-story if the players don't cooperate or pick up on the right clues. How heavy handed are you willing to get to make sure that the players discover your potential plots and choose one and are you willing to let a game produce a non-story if that's what the player's choices would produce?

 

[Quasqueton]

I'd argue that most role-playing games don't make good stories, which is why listening to other people talk about their campaign or what their characters did last week can be so utterly boring.

John Morrow, may I start a new thread with this statement? I think it would make for a good discussion.

Quasqueton

 

[Desdichado]

I think I get the distinction you are trying to make. The problem is the risk, as Janx points out in a later reply, "If I were to simply outline the basic land and NPCs, and let the players wander willy nilly, I actually risk creating a non-story." If the players in your game simply "wander willy nilly" and don't generate a plot (and thus produce a non-story), do you consider that a problem? This can and does happen for many groups. And do you take steps to make sure that a plot is followed and a story happens?

There's that risk, but for my group at least, it's very small. Not only are all my players also GMs, but they're also long-time roleplayers. They can inately sense a plot hook when it dangles in front of them, and tend to bite fairly quickly. It's only at the beginning of a campaign that I really have to try and give the game some kind of direction of my own; after that, they do tend to drive the game on their own. All I have to do is be aware of where they're heading. I don't plan more than about a session or two ahead, and what I do plan is very closely based on where I can already see the PCs heading. Even then, I have to be ready to play pretty fast and loose in case they do something completely unexpected on me, which does happen from time to time. For other groups, it may be more of a problem; I've certainly gamed with folks that essentially wanted the GM to tell them what to do or they just sat there listlessly waiting for something to happen to them. But, again, I'm talking about an ideal, Utopian situation. Recognizing that it doesn't always, or even necessarily often, come about. However, I'm really lucky right now in having a group in which it does.

Well, there are degrees of "force". Some GMs use subtle fudging while others fire up the steam engine for the full-blown railroad experience.

True, and I'm not above using some subtle manipulation myself from time to time. As long as its sufficiently subtle.

Well, do you fudge results at all to produce more (story logic) satisfying outcomes or eliminate certain (story logic) unsatisfying outcomes?

Very rarely. I assume you mean something like, fudge so that the BBEG isn't defeated too early and anti-climactically, for example. Luckily, my game is open ended enough that I can add layers at the drop of a hat. Oh, you defeated the BBEG? Well guess what? He was just a stooge of this other guy over here... And likewise. I'd rather play the game out, and then work between sessions to make sure that the campaign itself is satisfying, even if it means soap-opera-like twists to accomodate what actually happens in-game.

The problem that most GMs face, if they want a story, is what to do when the PCs won't bite. Yes, I agree that presenting an interesting array of possible things to investigate or get involved with is a good way to role-play without railroading but it still runs the risk of producing a non-story if the players don't cooperate or pick up on the right clues. How heavy handed are you willing to get to make sure that the players discover your potential plots and choose one and are you willing to let a game produce a non-story if that's what the player's choices would produce?

Frankly, if I had players that didn't bite on plot hooks, I probably would burn out really quickly on running a game for them. It'd be a moot point because the game would stall due to apparent disinterest on both sides.

 

[gizmo33]

I think there are two kinds of DMs, and I don't know what to call them. Maybe "game first plot second" GFPS vs. "plot first game second" PFGS (kinda like that Myers-Briggs personality profile). Maybe it would just simplify things if people identified themselves as one of the two.

Are there shades of the two? Can you be 50/50 GFPS/PFGS? Yes, but I'm not sure it's a good idea. The thing is, IME players fall into one of the two categories and I can't think of any players I've met that ever said anything like "I don't mind a little bit of cheating from the DM" or "I sort of don't care about the plot, but then again maybe I do." The problem with trying to split the difference is that IMO your DMing style won't be fun for either player type - I guess I just don't think there are players in the middle. If there are DMs in the middle, I think they're trying to have things both ways, but as long as dice are involved, I don't think you can.

I am a GFPS DM, and my players are mostly GFPS (as I guess you would expect). I've played in a group with a PFGS DM and players, and they had a blast. No one cared that the DM fudged constantly, super-powerful NPCs blipped in and out to give advice, etc. People only died (like my character) when the DM was tired of them. I didn't care for it at all but I wouldn't want to try to convince them that they should do things differently.

So my basic opinion on this thread is that the "story" is something that takes form after the smoke clears from all of the dice rolling, and hopefully your design has made it an interesting one. My players would not be satisfied with a story that I obtained "on the cheap" by fudging the rules and the rolls. But I say that as a GFPS DM who targets his style towards players of the same mind-set. IMO all parties (GM and players) are necessary to the game and everyones gaming style should be respected, no matter who does the most work.

 

[John Morrow]

John Morrow, may I start a new thread with this statement? I think it would make for a good discussion.

Sure. If you can, please include some mention of my point about the idea that some games are an experience rather than something that you appreciate at the end.

 

[kigmatzomat]

I generally shy away from outright rule breaking. I've fudged the rules in the sense I haven't given the players all of them yet, but I try to avoid it.

Of course, I love to appear to break the rules. Someone will say "he can't do that!" and I'll get the evil grin. "Sure he can. If I were a player I could do that. I might be able to do that with your character right now."