When in doubt, follow the rules

[Quasqueton]

I had a situation in my last game where I allowed a Player/PC to "break" a [minor] core rule because I couldn't quickly justify the rule to myself in the two seconds I had to think about it.

Then one minute later, I had to enforce a very similar rule (arguably, the same rule) on another PC because breaking it this time would have far-reaching and unbalancing effects on the game.

Neither Player mentioned the "double standard", and I don't know if any of them even realized the situation. Heck, I didn't even really think about it till the next day.

Now I have to tell the first Player to go back to the official rule after "house" ruling it differently the first time. Not that this situation is all that complicated or problematic for my game, but it is just one of those little hiccups in DMing that really didn't need to happen. I need to remember my new mantra: When in doubt, follow the rules.

I can think of many times over the quarter century of playing where I've regretted breaking/bending/changing/ignoring the game rules for some reason. But I can't think of much where I've regretted just following the rules.

For instance, a TPK resulting from following the rules is sad and disappointing. But I can get over it quickly and I don't feel bad or guilty. But having a TPK result due to a house rule or rule change can haunt a DM for a long time.

Quasqueton

 

[Crothian]

Agreed, following the rules is usually better

 

[Jdvn1]

I have nothing to comment other than that I agree with you 100%.

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

Absolutely right. Allowing a rogue PC to flank with a bow from 10 feet away comes to mind...There's a mistake I won't soon repeat!

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Absolutely right. Allowing a rogue PC to flank with a bow from 10 feet away comes to mind...There's a mistake I won't soon repeat!

I'll just chuckle darkly, over here in the corner!

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

I'll just chuckle darkly, over here in the corner!

...and I'll do the same in the other corner...

 

[derelictjay]

Your absolutely 100% right.

Absolutely right. Allowing a rogue PC to flank with a bow from 10 feet away comes to mind...There's a mistake I won't soon repeat!

I get asked this question at least once a night (another DM allows this). And I think this guy thinks I'll let him do it, though right now he doesn't have a rogue (or even a rogue in the party), so the question only pops up every other night.

 

[Andre]

Absolutely right. Allowing a rogue PC to flank with a bow from 10 feet away comes to mind...There's a mistake I won't soon repeat!

Ok, I'll bite - what's so wrong about such a house rule? Two ways of looking at it:

1. Concept: Why does it make sense that a trained rogue can (melee) strike a vital spot while his target is distracted by another melee opponent on the opposite side of the rogue, but cannot do so when using a bow? Would the situation be different if the target was flanked by two melee opponents, in addition to the archer-rogue?

2. Play balance: This house-rule allows a rogue to use a bow and still gain sneak attack damage. Is this inherently unbalanced, compared to the core rules requirement that the rogue can only gain sneak attack damage with a ranged attack if the target is flat-footed?

As to the original posting, I'll agree that when in doubt, going with the official rule is usually safest. That said, some of the official rules make little sense, so I'm still willing to fudge things a bit at times.

 

[IronWolf]

I totally agree. On any occasion where I get tempted to house rule something one of my player's will steer me back to the path of playing RAW. In the end it seems to work out better and allows me to focus on learning the written rules better rather than trying to keep track of a binder full of modifications I made along the way.

 

[Glyfair]

I 100% agree with "when in doubt, follow the rules." I won't change a rule without a lot of deliberation, to make sure it doesn't break something else down the line (of course, I personally avoid having house rules because it's a barrier to new players in your campaign).

However, I also don't think a ruling made "on the fly" should necessarily be held to in the long run. If I make a ruling during a combat so I don't slow the game down, I won't promise to hold to that again. If I look up the rule, decide what I used during the game wasn't superior, I'll use the official rule from then forward.

Just because something happened once, doesn't make it written law for the campaign.