When creating adventures, do you "fudge" the rules?

[dreaded_beast]

When creating adventures/encounters for your players, do you fudge the rules a bit?

What I mean is, in terms of the background plot, how monsters/NPC got where they are, or even giving them the ability to do something the rules don't say they are able to do.

Do you worry about the "how and why" something in an adventure is the way it is, assuming that the player's will never know the how and why?

 

[BiggusGeekus]

I try not to.

If you work all that stuff out you'll be better prepared when the PCs come up with Wacky Ideas ... which they do all too often.

 

[Dirigible]

Sure. But when it comes to

What I mean is, in terms of the background plot, how monsters/NPC got where they are, or even giving them the ability to do something the rules don't say they are able to do.

Specificially, I don't normally. It's too important to the suspension of disbelief.

 

[Trickstergod]

In general, I don't let my NPCs do anything I wouldn't let my PCs. In general. I do break the rules, so to speak, and often enough, don't tell my PCs that I have, but generally, if similar circumstances crop up, I'll do the same for the PCs as I have my NPCs. So if an NPC sorcerer uses a spell in a certain way that the rules normally wouldn't let him, speaking in general terms, and a PC came up with the same idea, I'd let him do it, too.

I do believe there should be a how and why, though, even if the players may never find it out. Letting a cleric cast magic missile without a reason is just lame, in my book. The explanations don't always have to be good, but they should be there. "Just 'cause" doesn't cut it.

 

[Tonguez]

When creating adventures/encounters for your players, do you fudge the rules a bit?

What rules? In creating an adventure I beleive a DM should be creating an scenario where the "how and why" is intergral to the logic of the setting regardless of what the rule systems says is and is not possible.

In otherwords if it makes a good game than use it - rules are just guidelines

 

[Wormwood]

Depends on what game I'm running:

When I'm crafting a scenario for a game like Mage or Buffy, I rarely (if ever) consider the rules. I concentrate on plot points, dramatic elements and cool SFX.

But when I'm running D&D, I'm all about the crunch.

For example: I *love* compiling full stat blocks for NPCs and monsters. I pride myself in ensuring that everything in that block completely, painstakingly legal wihin the rules.

Skills, feats, spells, items. Everything. I spend hours at this---it's one of the highlights of my day (granted, I'm at work at the time. It's not like I'd waste any real life on this!).

Of course, I fully undertand that 95%+ of what I've worked so hard to write will be completely irrelevent on game night.

The fact that Drow Guard #2 has 5 ranks in Knowledge: Local* won't make one iota of difference to my players (especially since Drow Guard #2's primary purpose in the campaign is to provide the Barbarian PC a chance to use his Cleave feat).

* Giving him a +2 on Gather Information checks—which you'd better believe I noted in his stats.

 

[Liquidsabre]

With the flexibility and variety available with the d20 system, often times I've found that there is almost always a way mechanically within the rules to accurately reperesent whatever it is the DM conceives of for plot/monsters/etc. Failing that there are always Gods and Artifacts with their own special magic. In most cases that I've seen a DM come up with a great concept but ignores the rules for it, the PCs had no idea how to deal with it until the DM TOLD them how. And in these same cases there were also mechanical ways to represent the concept in the d20 system that were passed over or ignored by the DM. Just lazy DMing IMHO.

 

[Altalazar]

When it comes to stats and such, I just use the rules, though I may do it shorthand.

When it comes to magic items or other things I put in, I often just make stuff completely up whole-cloth. I like items and locales with flavor. I don't worry too much about "cost" or things like that. I do worry about balance overall, but not in the pure gold-piece sense of how much equipment an NPC should have or how much treasure should be found. Typically, there isn't a lot of non-magic treasure, and the magical stuff is custom made for the campaign. With a few other trinkets thrown in there here and there from the DMG.

 

[Inconsequenti-AL]

In most cases that I've seen a DM come up with a great concept but ignores the rules for it, the PCs had no idea how to deal with it until the DM TOLD them how. And in these same cases there were also mechanical ways to represent the concept in the d20 system that were passed over or ignored by the DM.

IME, it can work really well with the right sort of GM. - most likely one who will allow players to come up with equally unconventional answers to problems. Or even if the thing doesn't work within DnD rules, that it follows some obvious set of rules and is consistent.

Or it can suck!

I'd rather use the published rules... but I normally find that easier.

Skills, feats, spells, items. Everything. I spend hours at this---it's one of the highlights of my day (granted, I'm at work at the time. It's not like I'd waste any real life on this!).

That sounds strangely familiar - glad it isn't just me... and it's great having the SRD online.

Of course, I'd only do this when I've run out of proper work to do. Honest!

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Yes and no...

That is to say, I will often create rules or adapt rules/items/features from another source in order to provide an encounter or adventure with a unique condition. For instance, I wanted to establish an adventure where a sub-villain (read: occupant of a mountain fortress under which lied a forgotten temple where in the true villain dwelled) created monstrosities out of several of his followers in order to better serve and protect him. The Core Rules didn't provide such, but I found a Base Class in AEG's Magic (Flesh Mage) that fit the bill near-perfectly.

For background, I came up with the idea that the fortress had been built by a crazed Necromancer. Having died many centuries ago, his Norker slaves were now without a master. Most of the Necromancer's lore was lost, damaged, destroyed, etc., but some of it survived. Eventually, one Norker, somewhat brighter than the others, managed to decipher the writtings that remained and began to learn Arcane Secrets. In time, this new Base Class was "born" within the mountain fortress as the lore was passed down from generation to generation.

As most of the lore was passed on by oral tradition (class tweaked to be more akin to Sorcery than Wizardry), and as the Norker Flesh Mage and his apprentices were most likely going to get killed, this was a virtually guaranteed unique condition that would never appear again and, most likely, would not be available to the PCs unless one of the PCs made it a goal to salvage the scraps of written lore and rebuild the "science" of flesh magic. There was a chance to capture an apprentice or two, which would help preserve the lore. And even capturing the Flesh Mage himself (whom is relatively weak when denied his augmented servants) was possible.

The over-all effect is actually quite nice: A flavor-element that is intended to be unique but, through the actions/choices of the PCs, could become more common if pursued, studied, researched, and preserved.

Now, there are times when I stretch the bounds of the rules a tad. While I don't use Epic Magic all that often, it is a "fact" of the campaign world that such has existed before and will likely exist again (possibly via the PCs). In this, when fitting, I'll introduce an area/effect quality or item that can't be quantified by the standard rules. I don't bother to determine how it was done "epicly", although the fact is, Epic Magic does pretty much allow anything to be done. Granted, I wouldn't do this if the PCs actually encountered an Epic Spellcaster, as the specific abilities of such an NPC would require quantification in order to be used correctly (be the NPC an ally, foe, or plot device). But when found in ancient ruins, lost towers, forbidden temples, and the like, I see no need to spend to much time on it because Epic Spellcasting simply makes it possible.

As with anything else, the key is not to screw the PCs over; if used as an "oddity" or some such, great, but GMs should be careful to avoid railroading or (just as severe) bottle-necking the choices available to the PCs. For example, a painting (such as on the ceiling of a cathedral) may be empowered with Epic magics to depict the eternal war between Law and Chaos. While the painting does not move quickly (i.e., you can see movement only by staring at it for hours, with that movement being ever-so-slight), it does accurately represent the cosmic balance (the more Chaos reigns, the more the servants/champions of Chaos occupies the painting). As this has no bearing at all on the PCs, there's no need to quantify it. It serves as a plot device (the PCs may gleam information from it through careful study regarding the War Eternal) and as a symbol of the potential power available within the campaign (the ever mysterious "dweomers" of ancient eras that a PC may rediscover and eventually master).

So, yeah... My answer is "yes and no".