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

[Liolel]

Do I bend the rules, yes sometimes. But only in certain ways, like there being a rare event happening in the back plot that there are no rules for. (for example a massacre at the site of another massacre causing a very short lived temporary portal to the negative energy plane to open from all the negative energy caused by the deaths.)

I also have many instances where I've created new monsters and classes, which I don't consider bending the rules, this I consider just adding new rules to the game.

 

[Olive]

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

Except a game where the rules only apply to 4 of the players and not to the other player isn't a good game. What you're saying is 'if it makes a good story then use it'.

I don't let NPCs do things I wouldn't let the players do, precisely because it makes it a bad game. And it's much more rewarding when a player says 'but he couldn't cast X spell, so how did he do Y' for me to say 'interesting isn't it'. And it's much more rewarding for a player to figure out how the NPC did itlater on as well.

Plus, it all becomes a bit redundant with one use wonderous items and the like. What CAN'T be done? One rule I break a little is the NPC cash rule, but that's more a guideline anyway...

 

[FireLance]

I tend to go by the rules, but that's because my game worlds tend to be fairly orderly and "law-abiding". If the rules appear to have changed, that should signal to the PCs that something odd is going on.

I personally believe that consistently applying the rules to PCs and NPCs helps in achieving the suspension of disbelief necessary for a good game. The player's interaction with the game world happens within the framework of the rules. So, like gravity, the laws of motion and other physical laws, they'd better be apply to PC and NPC alike. An NPC who seems to break the rules would be like a person levitating in our world - there had better be a good explanation.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I'm in the "What's good for the PCs is good for the NPCs" crowd -- I treat 'em all the same, and they all play by the same rules. If the party encounters something that appears to violate the rules, it's either because they've found some new and intriguing magic, or the DM's found an interesting rules combo

 

[hong]

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.

The rules don't say anything about background plot or how monsters/NPCs got the way they are. Assuming you need to "fudge" anything wrt to these game elements is therefore silly.

 

[Keeper of Secrets]

I certainly try to keep things legit but I am not going to obsess over it.

I try to keep much closer to legit encounters in a modern setting because otherwise players/characters tend to ask a lot of questions. In the lawlessness and ecology of a fantasy setting, such as a dungeon, I don't put as much thought into it but still can hardly justify a dungeon with a bunch of critters that live in perfect harmony without some kind of reasonable explanation.

 

[Mouseferatu]

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!).

Got a question for you, Wormwood--and this is an honest question, no sarcasm or anything.

Why do you treat Buffy or Mage differently than D&D? I mean, I know their rules are less complex and less all-inclusive, more free-form, but is that the only reason? If Buffy or Mage had a rules set as complex as D&D, would you treat them the same way you play D&D now?

I'm just wondering, because on a personal level, I try not to let the system influence the way I play a given game too much. (Some influence is obviously unavoidable, but I try to minimize it; while there's more social play and less combat in Vampire than there is in D&D, I try to keep them in the same general ballpark, or at least the same neighborhood.) Just curious.

 

[Wormwood]

Got a question for you, Wormwood--and this is an honest question, no sarcasm or anything.

Why do you treat Buffy or Mage differently than D&D?

Well, let's see.
When I play D&D, I expect and desire a strategy game with roleplaying elements. Like a pen-and-paper version of Final Fantasy, or a game of Magic where you can occasionally talk with the Serra Angel.
I want clearly defined rules, strong internal balance and a high strategy:success ratio.
Essentially, I want a *game*---nothing more, nothing less. D&D meets (exceeds, actually) these expectations. d20 is like a fine-tuned gaming engine.

Other times my group and I want something more free-form, less structured. When we're more interested in story and drama than the finer points of gamesplay, experience has tauight us that it's easier to do this with Unisystem/Storyteller systems than it would be to start tinkering with d20.

But that's just us. I personally know many people who play D&D fast and loose, or World of Darkness like it was a wargame. YMMV, and usually does.

 

[Psion]

I'll cut corners/take shortcutes, but usually not anything I can't back-justify into the rules.

I may make rules on the fly, if need be, but try to stay within the structure of the game. If I spontaneously need an NPC or creature that can do "foo (su)", then I'll make up a creature or class on the spot that can do it, if need be. AFAIAC, I am the ultimate authority on "what is the rules", not the books.

 

[Al'Kelhar]

Bizarrely, I'll inevtiably come up with some background rationale for why monsters are where they are, what they're doing there, and why they act the way they do. "Bizarrely", because unless this is so integral to the campaign plot that the players have to understand it, they could care less. It's more for my own need for logic and internal consistency.

Of course, as some others have observed, this issue isn't about rules.

Like another poster, I take pride in creating monsters and NPCs who are strictly legal. The "adventure construction" side of the DM's job is essentially my private hobby; I spend probably twice as long designing adventures as I do running them, and everything has to be "just so".

Of course, I throw strict adherence to the rules out the window during play for good dramatic effect. Like the Huge earth elemental who doesn't squeeze through the 10' wide breach in the wall, or takes an attack action to "attack an object", it just smashes that bit of the wall that's in the way as a free action and keeps going.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar