Quote from: Archangel Fascist;675402Not to derail too much, but have you considered switching your blog to Wordpress?  Xanga is so...high school 2001.  Wordpress generally allows a cleaner presentation and looks more professional.

I don't really care; it seems to have worked fine for me.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Sommerjon;673434Rules being over-ruled by an arbiter means there are no rules for the arbiter.

That's the issue for some people.  

The players have to follow the rules, the arbiter not so much.

Cue "good gms blah, blah, blah." and other hair-splitting.

Socially it is the referee's table not the players. After it all said and done the players only choice is to decide whether to show up for that game or not. And the choice is one that is made for many reason and the issue you are bringing up is just one of several that could factor in. In different degrees of importance for various individuals.

And the issue of arbitrary referees is largely a phantom one. Oh it gets talked about a lot both in the letter page/forums of Dragon Magazine in the early days and on the Internet today. But for most gamers and most gaming situations it is a non-issue compared to others particularly where  they personally like the referee or not.

The only area where it even a true concern is organized play simply because of how this aspect of roleplaying games is managed. And that unfortunately got baked into D&D 4e to its detriment along with other organized play issues that should not been part of a general release of a RPG.

The simple fact is that the human referee is both the weakness and strength of tabletop RPGs. A weakness because referee are only human, a strength because out of all the other forms of roleplaying it is only with tabletop where the full range of human imagination gets free reign.

Quote from: RPGPundit;675319Yes, that's absolutely right. There are no rules for the GM in the RPG. The GM is god. That's part of how RPGs work.  ALL rules for him are just suggestions.

That's true in any RPG that is a real RPG and its stupid to think otherwise.

RPGPundit

Agreed.

I have met people that seem to think the rules have better judgement than a gm though. Seems irrational to me.

Good rules are good suggestions.  Ignoring good suggestions is a bad sign.  

If there is any discussion of 'DMs can and/or should ignore rules', it's bad to ignore a discussion of why they should change the rules.  In general, it's a bad idea because most of the reasons a DM is tempted to change the rules are bad.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;675872Good rules are good suggestions.  Ignoring good suggestions is a bad sign.  

If there is any discussion of 'DMs can and/or should ignore rules', it's bad to ignore a discussion of why they should change the rules.  In general, it's a bad idea because most of the reasons a DM is tempted to change the rules are bad.

Even rules that are mostly good can use some lattitude in interpretation. It is far more important that actual play be conducted in the spirit of the rules instead of the precise wording.

This doesn't mean rules get changed. The rule may remain in place even if a particular application of it gets interpreted differently via a ruling due to extreme circumstances.

There is no ruleset that is completely immune to exploitive shenannigans. Because of this, rulings can be beneficial to even the most complex rulesets, not to make rampant sweeping changes, but to ensure the spirit of the existing rules are maintained.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;675872Good rules are good suggestions.  Ignoring good suggestions is a bad sign.  

Generally, I ignore or change rules in advance for one or more the following reasons:

a) The rule provides a procedure that is too complex and/or time-consuming for how (un)important what it covers is in my campaign and/or play style.

b) The rule does not fit my setting or play style as written.

c) Either I or my player do not like the rule.

Rules are ignored or modified in play when a specific situation comes up where applying the rules produces a result that goes against the established setting reality in my opinion as GM.

QuoteIn general, it's a bad idea because most of the reasons a DM is tempted to change the rules are bad.

Whether a reason for changing the rules is good or bad is seldom objective truth. For example, Person A  believes setting and play style ALWAYS trump the rules-as-written. Person B believes that setting and play style should ALWAYS be changed to match the rules-as-written. Person B will probably see every change Person A makes to the rules as bad while person A will see them as good. There is no objective good or bad here, it's all subjective -- even with both parties claim their position is position is the objectively true position.

Quote from: RandallS;675909Whether a reason for changing the rules is good or bad is seldom objective truth. For example, Person A  believes setting and play style ALWAYS trump the rules-as-written. Person B believes that setting and play style should ALWAYS be changed to match the rules-as-written. Person B will probably see every change Person A makes to the rules as bad while person A will see them as good. There is no objective good or bad here, it's all subjective -- even with both parties claim their position is position is the objectively true position.

Sure, I'll grant that whether every change is good or bad is 'subjective'.  But there are lots of situations where I think a solid majority would agree that a change is bad.  

For example, while there are people that think changing the rules to achieve a desired outcome is good, most people here on these boards would probably disagree.  If you want to achieve a specific outcome, play a storygame!

Quote from: deadDMwalking;675937Sure, I'll grant that whether every change is good or bad is 'subjective'.  But there are lots of situations where I think a solid majority would agree that a change is bad.

I will not argue that, but the only majority that really matters is the majority at the table using the house rules. If those playing at my table think house rule X is good, what does it matter if 3.99 million of the 4 million RPGs players in the world (pulling these numbers out of thin air as examples) think it is a horrible rule that they would never use?

QuoteFor example, while there are people that think changing the rules to achieve a desired outcome is good, most people here on these boards would probably disagree.

You're right. I wouldn't use such a rule (nor, I suspect, would most other posters here), but that does not make it a bad rule (especially not an objectively bad rule), especially if those using it like it and find it enhances their game.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;675937Sure, I'll grant that whether every change is good or bad is 'subjective'.  But there are lots of situations where I think a solid majority would agree that a change is bad.  

For example, while there are people that think changing the rules to achieve a desired outcome is good, most people here on these boards would probably disagree.  If you want to achieve a specific outcome, play a storygame!

Sometimes rules are just bad.

In 4E dnd, for example, the only creature in the multiverse that resists being pushed back is a Dwarf.  Not Giants, not Dragons.

Just Dwarves.

So 4E rules missed the detail that large creatures would reduce how far they get pushed.

If a gm told me large creatures get a -1, huge -2 etc.. on resisting, or even how far they can push smaller beings, I would say "Sounds good to me"

I would only complain if the gm was adjusting to protect a pet npc, or 'hurt' a character, or something extreme like that.

Quote from: Bill;675979I would only complain if the gm was adjusting to protect a pet npc, or 'hurt' a character, or something extreme like that.

That's what I've seen the most.  The DM thinks that something 'shouldn't work that way' because it has an effect that they don't like - a planned recurring villain gets taken down too quickly and easily, for instance - and suddenly they're changing the rules to prevent that outcome.  

The consequences of doing so usually far outweigh the benefits.  

Now, I agree that there can be issues with character abilities being 'too powerful' for the game you want to play or run.  An 'I win' button doesn't make for interesting or immersive game play.  But don't change the rules in the middle of the game.  Either figure it out in the beginning or offer the player a compromise.  And I'm not just talking about 3.x optimization - a character spends 6 levels struggling as a low-level wizard in 2nd edition and they start to actually have world-altering power - now is not the time to start nerfing them.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;675985That's what I've seen the most.  The DM thinks that something 'shouldn't work that way' because it has an effect that they don't like - a planned recurring villain gets taken down too quickly and easily, for instance - and suddenly they're changing the rules to prevent that outcome.  

.

This is something I saw a lot more of when I was younger and just do not see much anymore these days. None of the GMs i play with now worry about protecting npcs. I am sure it occurs, but that isnt the sort of situation people have in mind when they talk about overiding the rules. I pretty much do things by the book 99.9% of the time. But there are occassions when the rules dont fit well with events in the game. they may work fine in almost every case, but when they fall short, i have no problem ignoring thm or taking another path. Sure if you are doing it to screw the players or protect an npc, that isnt a good call, but if you are doing it to accomodate the group's style of play, i do not see an issue. And i just need to restate, i do believe in using rules and in applying them consistently. I am talking about edge cases here.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;675985That's what I've seen the most.  The DM thinks that something 'shouldn't work that way' because it has an effect that they don't like - a planned recurring villain gets taken down too quickly and easily, for instance - and suddenly they're changing the rules to prevent that outcome.

I just don't see much of this and never have -- at least not with adult players and GMs. The only place I've ever seen this regularly was GMs running heavily railroaded modules where the module did not allow the early death of an NPC (without the module completely derailing). Many of these adventures would even tell GMs to do anything to keep certain NPCs alive and active.

I have no problem about discussing about when and why a GM could change the rules, or when they shouldn't, in the sense of "Good GMing skill-development".  The problem I have is with the suggestion that the GM cannot in fact change any rule he wants (regardless of the discussion of whether or not it would be a good idea to do so).

RPGPundit

Taken to an extreme, you wouldn't consider someone changing most rules to be playing D&D anymore.  The specific point where it becomes a 'different game' might vary from person to person, but if you're not planning on cleaving close to the established rules, it makes sense to find a game that's more your style.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;676541Taken to an extreme, you wouldn't consider someone changing most rules to be playing D&D anymore.  The specific point where it becomes a 'different game' might vary from person to person, but if you're not planning on cleaving close to the established rules, it makes sense to find a game that's more your style.

Why?

I know (TSR) D&D well. I own lots of stuff for it. I have years of experience running D&D and tailoring the rules of D&D to suit my needs. While should I waste hundreds of hours of time (and probably many hundreds of dollars) buying and reading lots of different fantasy RPGs hoping that one will be so close to what I want that I can use it RAW?  Especially when I know from all the fantasy RPGs I bought in the 1970s and 1980s that this is extremely unlikely to happen and at best I'll find a few ideas in another game I want to adapt to my personal version of D&D.

I could save almost all of that research time and save all that money, just by spending 10-20 hours writing whatever new rules I need for my campaign and group for whatever version of TSR D&D seems best for the game. It often doesn't even take that long as I have house rule documents dating back to 1975 to draw on.

Part of it, of course, might be that I've never seen any benefit to playing RAW in any RPG. I see all RPGs as guidelines/toolkits for the GM to built the game the GM and his players want. I guess am just a DIYer when it comes to RPGs. I'd rather spend some time customizing the rules and have the result be 97-98% of what I want instead of settling for 80% or so of what I want RAW.  I'd rather use rules I know well but have to customize than spend lots of time and money chasing a set that might be 95% of what I want as written.

Another part of it is definitely that I started playing in 1975 with the little brown box which was clearly described as guidelines for the GM that GM was expected to customize for his campaign. I don't want to play in the game designer's world with the game designer's players and their preferred style. I want to play in my world, with my players and our preferred style.