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

[Pants]

I don't allow NPC's to go beyond the boundries of the rules, but I do allow effects in the world to be pretty much beyond the world. For example, in my world, ages ago epic magic was relatively common. Nowadays, there is none, so there are places where there are remnants of Epic crafting. A palace with towers which are all warded against teleportation and scrying. Vaults that bar out those who don't have specific items. None of this is in the rules, but them Epic casters back in the day devised it somehow.

A villain once used a psuedo-epic spell where he sacrificed all of the people in a city in order to become a Lich. Obviously, I don't have the exact spell written up, but if (god forbid) one of the players were to go down that road, then I'd write it up. It'd probably be near impossible to cast, but I'd have it written up.

I also try to have a rationale for why things exist where they are. Sometimes my reasons suck, sometimes they don't. But hey, I at least try.

 

[Whisper72]

Hmmm.. the whole issue is rather a non-issue as far as I am concerned. Since the PC's and even the players do not get to see any 'stat blocks' etc. for the NPC's and villains that they'll meet, the whole issue is pretty moot. If the robed guy casts healing spells and then lets fly a magic missile, hey who sez the guy is only a cleric, maybe he has a few levels of mage?

Similarly, if the PC's meet some door constructed by magic, I don't worry about what spells were exactly used to make it the way it is. It just IS.

I like making things a bit less predictable. If the body of some villain mysteriously disappears after having been slain, I am not going to worry whether this is due some special spell cast and what spell this then is...

So in a way, yes I fudge the rules, or rather, I do not always use the rules for everything...

 

[Li Shenron]

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?

I have read the other answers, but I am not sure anymore if I understood the question correctly...

"how monsters got where they are" -> I try to make it realistic, or at least not too unrealistic, that is for example I don't make dungeons with 1 monster in every room with no way to exit. I used to have players very picky and always questioning things like "how the hell did this monster get here in the middle of the orc stronghold without being killed or captured"? or "how does this thing survive down here?"

"giving abilities to do something the rule doesn't say" -> normally I use monsters and classes from published books. I think there is nothing wrong in simply writing down a different monster, or a variant monster with something different, after all it is what publishers do all the time themselves. Obviously this doesn't mean to break the rules, if you can always say "this special troll never provokes AoO" because of a special ability.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

No, I don't, at least generally.

And when I do it is that 'breaking of the rules' that is central, how something came to happen. In other words if the scenario involves a rogue construct how did to come to happen that it started acting on its own?

The Auld Grump

 

[S'mon]

Everything IMC needs to make sense _to me_. But my game-world's nature defines the rules I use, the rules don't define the game-world. The world has an existence independent of and prior to (about 14 years prior to 3e) whatever ruleset I use to run scenarios in it. So if 3e elements don't fit in my world I change those elements, not the world. This can take quite a lot of time & thought - eg I have NPCs & groups who don't seem to make sense in terms of 3e character classes so I've had to put a lot of thought into how I can tailor the rules to the NPCs. Martial orders of spear-wielding spell-casting Monks IMC is one good example. Powerful spellcasters with a connection to the Spirit World and a Jedi-like ability to live beyond death is another, or elemental aristocrats who appear as humans.

 

[S'mon]

Well, let's see.
When I play D&D, I expect and desire a strategy game with roleplaying elements...

I guess I like standard 3e to be a roleplaying game with strategy elements (primarily in combat). It's not a true strategy game since normally there isn't really any adversarial relation between the players around the table, or any balance between GM-side and player-side. My Conan RPG campaign is much more a roleplaying game and strategising beyond spur-of-the-moment improvisation is frowned on.

 

[Razuur]

The story is paramount, and the rules just a toolkit. The story wins everytime. So yes, I fudge when I feel it is necessary.

That said I have a lot of little techniques for making it look like it is in the hands of fate, when really, it is completely in my control. Teh players don't know/care, and feel like they have just survived a super dangerous moment.

Razuur

 

[Henry]

first of all, an apology to Psion for editing his quote by accident, and having to restore it - I fat-fingered the edit button instead of reply by mistake. He just says too many things I agree with!

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

Ditto, with an addendum. In my experience, to plan out every little nuance, every NPC, every plot, every why and wherefore, like I was writing a module - that way leads madness.

The fact is, I run sessions to be as fast and exciting and descriptive as I can make them, and if I focus so hard on situations and NPC's that my DM'ing is wrote and mechanical, then I've failed. I short-hand the NPC's, I put in plot elements without explaining all the why's, etc.

In real life, we'll never know all the specifics of the St. Valentine's day massacre - were there 4 accomplices, or 6? We may never know where Jimmy Hoffa is buried. We have murderers whom eve modern science can't find all the evidence for; we have back-door deals by politicians that we'll never have the answers to. That sense of "incomplete mystery" can also work in games. You don't NEED to justify every mystery and every reason for something to your players - because sometimes, there is no satisfactory explanation, and your players already know this (or they should).

Case in point: The Castellan calls in the adventurers to solve the murder of his nephew before inspecting the evidence himself. Why? Because he HATES the smell of blood. Or, because he really loved his nephew and it freaks him out to see the body. Or, he's secretly involved, and didn't MEAN for the adventurers to be called so soon, and an overeager scribe sent out the message, leaving the castellan to play it cool like he sent them in the first place, but he secretly is trying to bungle the evidence.

So not every inexplicable needs explanation.

 

[Mercule]

Story is paramount to me, which is why I say "Nope. Not usually."

I'll take a lot as a player, whether it's a grim and gritty, death at everyturn scenario or a monty haul dungeon slag. One thing I won't accept is a different set of rules for PCs and NPCs.

If an NPC can create a certain magic item (for example), then the PC should be able to do so, as well. It might take a boatload of research and sacrificing his soul to an arch-fiend, but he can eventually accomplish it.

Anything else strains suspension of disbelief to breaking. Which kills a story faster than TPK. Therefore, I'm dubious of anyone who claims to value story highly and is willing to break rules too often.

If the rules simply do not apply to something, then there is a deity involved.

As a footnote, while I won't break rules to set up an adventure, etc. I have no problem creating a new rule. I won't do it often enough to overcomplicate the game system (i.e. unwieldy amount of house rules), though.

 

[Arnwyn]

Yeah, I stick with the rules for the most part - but not perfectly. For example, I never give the villains the Leadership feat. But, to be honest, I can't much think of a time that I deliberately broke a rule. With 3e, I've found that I've never needed to. In the end, though, as long as the players are having fun, that's what counts for me. If bending a rule is necessary to achieve this, I'm there.

And I'm all about "lazy DMing" - of course, I've got a career and a life.