Rules rules rules!

28 posts / 0 new
Last post
Howdy Forum-Goers,

If I've learned one thing about D&D in the year or so since I started, it's that it means many different things to different people. I'm fine with this of course. Not everyone has to share my tastes and preferences. But I am curious what people out there think.

Here are two questions that I hope will capture some aspect of one's preferences in D&D. Pick your answers and I'll tally the results at some point.

1) Complete the sentence that pretains to you:
In D&D, I want my DM to treat the rules as...
or
In D&D, the way I like to DM, the rules are...

A) Suggestions: Used as tools and inspiration by the DM to create the desired gameplay experience.
B) Guidelines: Used as a baseline, but freely modified by the DM as desired.
C) Directions: Followed generally, but modified sometimes.
D) Rules: Followed in the vast majority of circumstances, and modified only occasionally.
E) Law: To be followed exactly in all but the most extreme circumstances.

If your answer depends on whether you are a player or a DM, explain.

2) If a DM wants to make a rule modification that impacts the players, what level of consent should be sought? The change is large enough to be relevant, but not huge.

A) The DM should discuss the change with his players, but generally should not need to seek consent.
B) The DM should ensure that at least a majority of his players do not strongly oppose the change.
C) The DM should ensure that at least a majority of his players do not oppose the change, and few strongly oppose the change.
D) The DM should ensure that at least a majority of his players support the change.
E) The DM should ensure that all of his players support the change.

Have a good Friday, everyone!
In both situations I find the rules are guidelines. They are to be followed until they get in the way of the fun, then they go out the window. On both sides of the field.

As for modifications; I'll go with F: Nobody should be strongly opposed, and a majority should actively support it. Note that as a DM I don't mind players coming up with rules modifications; and theirs follow the same rules, except I keep a veto in case I feel that it would really ruin the game. But that's only partly based on me being the DM and more on me being far more experienced and having a better grasp what would and would not ruin the game.
Epic Dungeon Master

Want to give your players a kingdom of their own? I made a 4e rule system to make it happen!

Your Kingdom awaits!
Update 5th Sep 2011: Added a sample kingdom, as well as sample of play.
C/D, and E. I would never change rules in a game without my players consent. Though I might make small adjustments well before the campaign started, but all of that would go out to my players to have their input.
1) In D&D, the way I like the DM, the rules are well, rules. They are followed the vast majority of the time. Most my modifications are things I find WoTC didn't do right (ie, the free action restriction, exptertise). I'd like to be able to run the rules as law, and is what I did in the very early days of 4e for the most part. In the end fun is most important though, and I like rules changes to have as small of reprocutions throughoy the system as possible.

If I am a player, I'd probably be comfortable with D as well. I have seen crazier modified systems, and they can be fun, but you have to have alot of trust in your DM.

2) D again. I've never really been in a situation where I've changed things to the point a consensus had to be reached anyway, but if it was something major, I'd search out a majority approval. Most small changes I make have gone through without objection.
I love that I "could" now trust the rules to follow the rules as rules .. but ahem we play very flexibly. And I am similarly if the dm wants to change the rules in a way which is obviously in keeping with the style of the game thats great... its only when its substantively distinct that I prefer every one be on board. See another yes/no answer. Dont you love those.
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

I'll give two notations, because running public game with people you don't know intimately and running private home games with friends you game with all the time is different approach IMO.


For my private Home Campaign as a DM I:

1) C

2) D

For my public Online Gaming it's as a DM I: 

1) D

2) B
   
as a GM i follow the rules as strictly as possible until they start conflicting with the story the group is trying to tell; at this point, if they start conflicting we, as group, come to a concent on how to change or adjudicate as needed.

3rd ed SRD, character sheets, errata & free modules 4th ed test drive - modules, starter rules, premade characters and character builder & character sheet, errata Free maps and portraits, dice, printable graph paper, campaign managing website, image manipulation program + token maker & zone markers

"All right, I've been thinking. When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back. GET MAD! I DON'T WANT YOUR **** LEMONS! WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THESE?! DEMAND TO SEE LIFE'S MANAGER! Make life RUE the day it thought it could give CAVE JOHNSON LEMONS! DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?! I'M THE MAN WHO'S GONNA BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN! WITH THE LEMONS! I'm gonna get my engineers to invent a combustible lemon that's gonna BURN YOUR HOUSE DOWN!" -Cave Johnson, Portal 2
Whether I'm DM or not isn't relevant, my answers are the same on both sides of the screen.

1-C
2-F - None of the above, I'll explain


Rules are important.  They lay the foundation of expectation.  The point of having rules rather than just freeform roleplaying is so that capricious interactions are minimized.  While it is possible for people to freeform effectively, it's vastly more difficult to do.  The rules exist for the rest of us to have an expectation of what is going to be happen.  "I swing my sword at the orc" could have a lot of different potential results, but the rules narrow it down to a set of expected results.  That allows for a method of ensuring fairness through meeting expectation.

As far as changing rules, agreement and consensus isn't relevant, but reason is.  A DM or a player could propose a rules change, but there should be a reason behind it.  Far too many DMs get caught up in the "It's my show, and I'm running it" mentality and impose rules that constrain players in unuseful, unproductive, unfun ways.  The list of bad examples is too long to go into, but I'm sure you know what I mean.  "But Mand, clearly those rules changes can be done away with if the players agree to it!" Potentially, but in this sort of circumstance the DM isn't going to be inclined to listen to the players anyway.  The agreement or lack of agreement doesn't hold any bearing on whether the DM insists on the change.

 Having a reason to change the rules, though, is what matters, regardless of whether or not there is agreement.  A good example would be "I'm going to make this a low-magic campaign, and implement inherent bonuses to maintain the math."  Two different groups of players could have very different reactions to such a change.  One group could say "Awesome, sounds good, it'll be like Middle-earth" and the other group could say "But I have my character planned through all 30 levels and what items she needs to be a total badass based on the parcel distribution rules!  I hate it!"  Yet in both circumstances, the DM has reason, and that reason is the same.  The players should accept decisions with reason backing them up, and reject capricious decisions that are demonstrably bad or narrow-minded.

And by reason, I mean something very specific:  knowledge of what the current rules do and why, an accurate understanding of the impact the modification to a rule has and how it interacts with the other rules as well as the players, and a justification for making the change.  Using the above example, "I want a low magic campaign, so there will be almost no magic items" doesn't meet my criteria for a good change.  Making a statement like that without any other adjustment ignores the function of magic items within the game, their interaction with how the characters work and the destabilizing effect it will have on balance, which will require adjusting encounter experience budgets in order to not TPK the party, making more work for the DM in order to avoid campaign failure.  That's a change without reason.  But, the addition of inherent bonuses plus some plot-driven magic remedies the error, maintains the established expectations and creates a more stable campaign.  The likelihood of the players having fun is higher as a result, which means that the change has reason.

This philosophy is why I spend so much time in Rules Q&A, but why I find it insufficient simply to regurgitate the RAW (rules as written, for those unfamiliar).  My goal is to understand precisely what all of the rules in the ruleset do, why they do what they do, what ones should almost never be touched, what ones have weaknesses and should almost never be used, and most importantly how to analyze any particular rule, written or proposed houserule, to determine its impact on the game and the people who play it.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
I've got two answers for one preference: C and D.

I feel its important to distinguish where you are willing to break the rules. Say for instance, in character creation, it's more okay for me to change stuff or have things changed. Usually this is going to benefit the player. For instance: Arcane Defiling, Free Expertise Feats, Multiclassing changes...

But things that affect my character on a session to session, encounter to encounter basis? I don't like that and I want to play by the rules.
D when running combat.  B when running skill challenges and anything else non-combat.

Regardless of the rules, I always adhere to my golden rule: Rules never get in the way of gameplay.
  

Celebrate our differences.

Howdy Forum-Goers

Heya.  Wazootyman .. there has to be a story there? ;) 

1) Complete the sentence that pretains to you:
In D&D, I want my DM to treat the rules as...
or
In D&D, the way I like to DM, the rules are...


In D&D, I want my DM to treat the rules as important and integral to the shared understanding of what is, and is not, possible.  
and
In D&D, the way I like to DM, the rules are important and integral to the shared understanding of what is, and is not, possible.

  You gotta be consistent, ya know!   
   

  
A) Suggestions: Used as tools and inspiration by the DM to create the desired gameplay experience.
B) Guidelines: Used as a baseline, but freely modified by the DM as desired.
C) Directions: Followed generally, but modified sometimes.
D) Rules: Followed in the vast majority of circumstances, and modified only occasionally.
E) Law: To be followed exactly in all but the most extreme circumstances.

Don't really see the difference between A-C.  Most people don't view E as default as there are enough paragraphs in any DMG about the DM's ability to change any rules he wants.  D is clearly the correct answer.  Gold star, please!  ;)  

2) If a DM wants to make a rule modification that impacts the players, what level of consent should be sought? The change is large enough to be relevant, but not huge.


A) The DM should discuss the change with his players, but generally should not need to seek consent.
B) The DM should ensure that at least a majority of his players do not strongly oppose the change.
C) The DM should ensure that at least a majority of his players do not oppose the change, and few strongly oppose the change.
D) The DM should ensure that at least a majority of his players support the change.
E) The DM should ensure that all of his players support the change.

Common sense goes with D and E here .. E is ideal but one dissenting voice in a group SHOULD be okay to ignore.  


Comments

As a player, I get frustrated when a DM doesn't understand or doesn't seem willing to take the time to learn basic rules, like how charging works, what the difference is between pushes and slides, and when you KNOW he's running a monster 'wrong' based on meta knowledge, but you aren't sure if he's making genuine errors or altering the monster powers on purpose to make them 'harder' or 'different'.

It's also frustrating when you use a skill 'correctly' but the DM again doesn't understand or doesn't seem willing to want to learn the rules (Monster Knowledge and Stealth are two easy examples of skills that always never seem to be understood and/or used properly).

As a DM, I find most players respect the rules and just want the DM to know the rules, and enforce them properly.  Despite 4E being quite complex, I find having DMed all editions that 4E has THE LEAST number of rules arguments of them all.  This is in part to the age of my cohort going up from edition to edition (kids --> teens --> college age --> mature adults today) but I think it also speaks to the strength of the 4E ruleset.

Cheers!



  
DirectionsInnocent

In a home campaign, the rules are Guidelines/Directions (B/C), and there should be active cooperation between the DM and players as to whether and how the rules should be modified (not really a presented option).

In LFR or similar public and sanctioned gaming, the rules are Law (E), and if there is to be a change, then ALL players should support that change (E).

t~

Here are two questions that I hope will capture some aspect of one's preferences in D&D. Pick your answers and I'll tally the results at some point.

1) Complete the sentence that pretains to you:
In D&D, I want my DM to treat the rules as...
or
In D&D, the way I like to DM, the rules are...

A) Suggestions: Used as tools and inspiration by the DM to create the desired gameplay experience.
B) Guidelines: Used as a baseline, but freely modified by the DM as desired.
C) Directions: Followed generally, but modified sometimes.
D) Rules: Followed in the vast majority of circumstances, and modified only occasionally.
E) Law: To be followed exactly in all but the most extreme circumstances.

2) If a DM wants to make a rule modification that impacts the players, what level of consent should be sought? The change is large enough to be relevant, but not huge.

A) The DM should discuss the change with his players, but generally should not need to seek consent.
B) The DM should ensure that at least a majority of his players do not strongly oppose the change.
C) The DM should ensure that at least a majority of his players do not oppose the change, and few strongly oppose the change.
D) The DM should ensure that at least a majority of his players support the change.
E) The DM should ensure that all of his players support the change.


      As noted, the answers vary with the situation.  In your pure homegame, A-E becomes reasonable [tho both A & E are probably not wise].  But the more public you get, the more the answer becomes E-A.  [A+ actually since the DM is not to be changing the rules in this sort of case.]  If the module was run as a tournament/race/or such, E-A is almost mandatory.  You don't want table X to have a handicap/advantage that Y does not.
    In an LFR situation, This relaxes to a D-A.  The DM still has a duty not to change the rules and the approval of the players was gained by the very fact they sat down at the table.  But the need for precise duplication is weaker and the DM has other duties, such as getting the mod finished in 4 hours.

    In general, D is the best way to treat the rules.  The rather obvious fact is that our rules are just not that good and the DM who is careful about when and where can improve them.  But the player makes plans based on these rules and so the DM is not to deviate from them without good cause.  [Very good cause in most cases since the DM is mortal too and thus subject to the danger of replacing a bonehead rule with a worse one.]

     The spread of reasonable answers to the 2nd question is much wider.  In LFR or other organized play, the DM is only the umpire, not the rules maker and the opinion of those at his table is of only minor concern.  He largely changes the rules in cases such as not knowing the rule and deeming it too much trouble to look up. 
     It is in the homegame that the rules can be changed and here personal dynamics run large.  Often all involved simply don't really care and the DM can insist on whatever.  But they may be meeting at Joe's, the only place they can find and if he insists on something...  It is best to get as much player backing as possible, but how much to aim for will vary widely.   

1 - D  (a rule is a rule? yes, quaint as it may sound)

2 - A  (as long as your DM tells you how he's changed the rules up-front, so you can take it into account)  Really, DMs do worse than this, you should have had a choice for 'spring rule changes on the PCs in play and not allow them to 'take back' the affected action, let alone re-build the character you just arbitrarily ham-strung'  and 'change the rules arbitrarily without telling the players, then change them again the next round.'

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

1a) Complete the sentence that pretains to you:
In D&D, I want my DM to treat the rules as...
E) Law: To be followed exactly in all but the most extreme circumstances.

1b) Complete the sentence that pretains to you:
In D&D, the way I like to DM, the rules are...
D) Rules: Followed in the vast majority of circumstances, and modified only occasionally.

As a player, I depend on the rules when I build my character, plan my actions, determine my strategy, and choose my tactics. When the rules are adjusted (on the fly), then all of these efforts are at risk of being nullified.

As a DM, I have to be more "flexible" to adapt to the player-created needs. Players are always coming up with neat ways to have fun that bend the rules to keep it fun. Being able to respond to that on occasion is a DM necessity.

However, although these seem to be contradictory positions, I-as-player-type-E could easily play under me-as-DM-type-D, because my "D" personality is player-friendly. If I tell a player "no" it is usualyl followed by an explicit rule. But if I tell my player "yes" when the rule says "no" I can explain why this is an exception.

2) If a DM wants to make a rule modification that impacts the players, what level of consent should be sought? The change is large enough to be relevant, but not huge.
A) The DM should discuss the change with his players, but generally should not need to seek consent.

I believe the DM "owns" the game world and its rules. The DM puts in the most work and has the greatest responsibility. When I DM, I am inviting players to have fun in MY world. When I play, I am accepting a DM's invitation to play in HIS (or her) world. If a player does not like that world, s/he can explain why. The DM must decide to keep things as is and risk losing the player or change. But it is still 100% the DM's decision. The player's choice is to play or leave. A DM who is unreasonable will find more players leaving than staying. The player who is unreasonable will find it much harder to find a game.
Here are the PHB essentia, in my opinion:
  • Three Basic Rules (p 11)
  • Power Types and Usage (p 54)
  • Skills (p178-179)
  • Feats (p 192)
  • Rest and Recovery (p 263)
  • All of Chapter 9 [Combat] (p 264-295)
A player needs to read the sections for building his or her character -- race, class, powers, feats, equipment, etc. But those are PC-specific. The above list is for everyone, regardless of the race or class or build or concept they are playing.
Howdy Forum-Goers,

If I've learned one thing about D&D in the year or so since I started, it's that it means many different things to different people. I'm fine with this of course. Not everyone has to share my tastes and preferences. But I am curious what people out there think.

Here are two questions that I hope will capture some aspect of one's preferences in D&D. Pick your answers and I'll tally the results at some point.

1) Complete the sentence that pretains to you:
In D&D, I want my DM to treat the rules as...
or
In D&D, the way I like to DM, the rules are...

A) Suggestions: Used as tools and inspiration by the DM to create the desired gameplay experience.
B) Guidelines: Used as a baseline, but freely modified by the DM as desired.
C) Directions: Followed generally, but modified sometimes.
D) Rules: Followed in the vast majority of circumstances, and modified only occasionally.
E) Law: To be followed exactly in all but the most extreme circumstances.

If your answer depends on whether you are a player or a DM, explain.

2) If a DM wants to make a rule modification that impacts the players, what level of consent should be sought? The change is large enough to be relevant, but not huge.

A) The DM should discuss the change with his players, but generally should not need to seek consent.
B) The DM should ensure that at least a majority of his players do not strongly oppose the change.
C) The DM should ensure that at least a majority of his players do not oppose the change, and few strongly oppose the change.
D) The DM should ensure that at least a majority of his players support the change.
E) The DM should ensure that all of his players support the change.

Have a good Friday, everyone!

In d&d I want my dm to treat rules as guidelines.

2:

The dm should enusre all the players support the change.
Rules are just a tool for use in running the game, reference what Gygax had to say on the subject. Usually the smart way to DM is to use the existing rules because they're there, mostly work in 4e, and will be most familiar to the players. So for ordinary situations you want general consistency, but there's no need to have slavish devotion to the letter of the rules when it conflicts with how you or your players want the game to work. I don't think you can apply one of the OP's categories to the 'rules' as a whole though. Some are suggestions (how to run an NPC for instance), some are guidelines (how to build a combat encounter), and others are more like directions (most player-visible crunch).

If you're going to change the rules then it really aught to be a collaborative affair. Personally I dislike the situation where you go to play with some group and the DM has decided he's 4x better at game design than the pros and constantly rewrites half the rules to satisfy some obscure pet peeve or misguided notion of how RPGs SHOULD be played. OTOH there are perfectly good reasons for a group to want to customize the rules to some extent because of their play style or desire to bring out aspects of a certain sub-genre. In both of these cases all the people at the table are logically going to be involved. The players are going to care about whether the game is S&S or Epic High Fantasy. Likewise they're going to want to be on the same page about play style issues like how RP/social situations etc are handled and what sorts of activities they want to pursue in character. I'm not sure you need 100% total agreement on every detail though. No group of people is ever PERFECTLY agreed. Everyone should be SATISFIED, that is willing to play and able to enjoy the game as it ends up being played. I guess I could mostly go with that being "E", but with the caveat that I don't think it is a DM-driven process, though the DM will take a larger role in it than the players in most cases.
That is not dead which may eternal lie

1) Complete the sentence that pretains to you:
In D&D, I want my DM to treat the rules as...
or
In D&D, the way I like to DM, the rules are...

D) Rules: Followed in the vast majority of circumstances, and modified only occasionally.

If your answer depends on whether you are a player or a DM, explain.

2) If a DM wants to make a rule modification that impacts the players, what level of consent should be sought? The change is large enough to be relevant, but not huge.

C) The DM should ensure that at least a majority of his players do not oppose the change, and few strongly oppose the change.
D) The DM should ensure that at least a majority of his players support the change.
E) The DM should ensure that all of his players support the change.


1) I prefer the rules be left in place, for couple of reasons, some already mentioned:
--the players need a consistent, reliable, and accessible basis for building their characters and making game decisions;
--4e, like most major published systems, has fairly good rules which cover most situations that crop up; I prefer to explore how those rules work rather than deal with changes which typically (IME) don't take into account how the rules work and interact as a whole;
-- it's just easier! As a player, if I have to wade through pages of houserules after learning the basic game system, it greatly reduces my initial enthusiasm. As a GM (and as a player), I have enough just keeping track of regular rules, let alone a list of houserules and variant rulings - not to mention the necessity of explaining the houserules repeatedly to players who are new or forgetful

2) Houserules and rules changes should be explained fully, up front, and should have at least nominal buy-in by everyone at the table. Otherwise, the GM is just jerking people around (with malign intent or not). If the GM feels the need to change the rules, there should be a convincing reason, and it should be good enough that pretty much everyone can acknowledge its potential value, even if they don't agree it's a good idea.
...
All that said, I do feel the need to clarify that my hostility to houserules is mostly limited to actual game mechanics: how die rolls work, powers, levels, items, et cetera. Basically, anything that directly affects the players' character sheets is all but sacrosanct when I'm GMing. I am, however, a great fan and practitioner of adapting situations and tweaking things like monster builds, terrain effects, and the like. For example, I've used at least three variations of the Minion rules within the first 9 encounters of my 4e campaign, but I told folks at campaign start that I was going to be experimenting with minions, and in each case, as soon as the different status of the minion became apparent during a session, I explained just how it worked. (For what it's worth, the variations are: two-hit minions where one hit bloodies and a second kills; minions where one hit stunlocks them and the second kills (used for PC allies, so they can try to rescue/heal them); and minions which are normal monsters with full powers except they only have one hit point. Different dramatic effects, all which worked nicely to evoke different situations and reactions.)


D when running combat.  B when running skill challenges and anything else non-combat.



+1
In the ideal world, E.  In the actual world, C at best, A at worst.  Depends on the system and what I'm trying to do with it.
1 = C/D:  This is somewhat modified by campaign vs. rules elements.  The most extreme would be if we are playing Darksun then Darksin only may be strictly adhered to and if we are not playing Darksun then Darksun rules are not in play.  This can be applicable for any campaign.  If the DM says there are no gnomes in his campaign then there are no gnomes - end of story.  Same deal if he says (for some crazy reason) there are no fighters. 

There is also many areas where the game seemingly leaves a ton of open design space for the DM to do as he pleases and thats perfectly fine.  If the DM wants to modify a Red Dragon to breath cold 'because it has a special enchantment from its rider the ice witch'.   Well thats pretty much just the DMs story and is always legal. 

On the other hand I want the actual rules for how the game functions to be more clearly adhered to.  Changes should be much more minimal and meant speacifically to deal with some percieved problem that is actually reasonably sizable. 

2 - C:  The players should mainly be on board and should ujnderstand where the DM is coming from but it is the DMs game and he gets to make the call unless dessent is wide spread among the players.
I want my DM to treat the rules as 'law' if possible (without slowing down the game though). Same with how I DM.


2) If a DM wants to make a rule modification that impacts the players, what level of consent should be sought? The change is large enough to be relevant, but not huge.

A) The DM should discuss the change with his players, but generally should not need to seek consent.
B) The DM should ensure that at least a majority of his players do not strongly oppose the change.
C) The DM should ensure that at least a majority of his players do not oppose the change, and few strongly oppose the change.
D) The DM should ensure that at least a majority of his players support the change.
E) The DM should ensure that all of his players support the change.

According to DMG p.189: "More important, do the other players agree to the need for a change? You have the authority to do whatever you want with the game, but your efforts won’t help if you have no group."

So A is all that is required, but D is probably recommended. fwiw: I will (and have) left DM's that have very many rule changes.
In D&D, the way I like to DM, the rules are...
C) Directions: Followed generally, but modified sometimes.

2) If a DM wants to make a rule modification that impacts the players, what level of consent should be sought?

A) The DM should discuss the change with his players, but generally should not need to seek consent.
1 D
2 D. And what does that spell? D&D

1) Complete the sentence that pretains to you:
In D&D, I want my DM to treat the rules as...
or
In D&D, the way I like to DM, the rules are...

C) Directions: Followed generally, but modified sometimes.


I like to play mostly by the rules, but there are places where the RAW isn't what I want it to be or where it's outright inferior to a simple house rule. In those cases, I've no compunction against changing things as a DM. As a player, I'm actually disappointed when a DM plays strictly by RAW.

2) If a DM wants to make a rule modification that impacts the players, what level of consent should be sought?
The change is large enough to be relevant, but not huge.

C) The DM should ensure that at least a majority of his players do not oppose the change, and few strongly oppose the change.

Most of the players should be on board, though generally it's a moot point IME. If the players are really uncomfortable with a rules change, they're probably not a good fit for the DM anyway.
For 1 I would be C/D
For 2, D defenitly. Though this is one where it only really matters with a bad DM, as a good DM is not going to be making house rules that detract from the groups experience, but anything less then group aproval and to many people will go on a power trip. 
1) Complete the sentence that pretains to you:
In D&D, I want my DM to treat the rules as...
or
In D&D, the way I like to DM, the rules are...

D) Rules: Followed in the vast majority of circumstances, and modified only occasionally.

As others have said, the game rules give everybody a shared expectation of how things are going to work, what they can and can't do with their characters, and basically avoids situations like an Eladrin with a Radiant stone trying to Fey Step his hand into a vampire's head.

2) If a DM wants to make a rule modification that impacts the players, what level of consent should be sought? 

D) The DM should ensure that at least a majority of his players support the change.
E) The DM should ensure that all of his players support the change.

That being said, as a DM I always -- and I know this is a wild and crazy idea here -- discuss potential rule changes with my players before instituting them.  Why?  Because it's their game too.  Yes, I as the DM am "in charge of" it, and yes, I'm probably putting more work into it than any of them, but that doesn't change the fact that we get together to game because it's something we all find enjoyable.  So E is the "preferable" answer, inasmuch as the goal is to find a variation of the rules that we can all get along with.  D is the "if you've got someone who's just going to be ornery, the DM and the rest of the players can override hir" answer.

loose [loos] vt. to let loose; to release; to unfasten, undo or untie; to shoot or discharge. lose [looz] vt. to come to be without (something in one's possession or care), through accident, theft, etc., so that there is little or no prospect of recovery; to fail inadvertently to retain (something) in such a way that it cannot be immediately recovered; to suffer the deprivation of. LEARN THE DAMN DIFFERENCE. 

Sign In to post comments