Be me,
DnD session, we make it to the bbeg. He's a vampire.
Has special ability to control lots of hd.
Dominates 3 of our group.
They're now playing for team GM and trying to kill the rest.
I read dominate after session and, that's not how it works.
1. full round to cast,
2. move action to redirect dominatrix :)
3. will save at +2 to break against unnatural action.
All of these were ignored, but I'm having fun in encounter. Things could go badly when we finish up encounter next week, but i'm inclined not to say anything.
So, as a player/gm do you see rule bending occur and let it slide?
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM, I try to follow the rules and not introduce oddball houserules in the middle of a session. Changes to the rules should be deliberate and not ambush the players. That haveing been said, often there are things going on behind the scenes the players don't know about. Especially with monster abilities, as the GM can just make up whatever they want and call it a new monster.
As a player, if I see a player or GM make a rules error, I try to politely point it out if that would not be disruptive. Usually along the lines of, "Normally that situation works like x, is this an exception?" Again, I don't know what extra stuff is going on behind the screen. Never argue about the rules during a session.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dominate (Su)
A vampire can crush a humanoid opponent's will as a standard action. Anyone the vampire targets must succeed on a Will save or fall instantly under the vampire's influence, as though by a dominate person spell (caster level 12th). The ability has a range of 30 feet. At the GM's discretion, some vampires might be able to affect different creature types with this power.
Also, one command would probably be enough for a fight.
That said, you're right about the second save, and that's a pretty important balancing factor of dominate.
If the rule-bending leads to a total party kill then no I can't let it slide. For example, my first GM forgot the rule of getting saves to shrug off poisons. After hitting us with one at 6th level, only two members of the party survived. The fighter, wizard, rogue(me), and the ranger's wolf companion all died. the cleric and ranger dragged us out and got us resurrected. I didn't take the resurrection though. I crossed out the name on my character sheet and wrote down a new one to introduce his older brother. He let it slide because my character only died due to his ignorance.
If the dice are fudged a little to bump the story then fine. My current GM buffed a villain so we didn't waste him in one round. He also buffed the party after one of us died so it was all good. It might for a more climatic final battle and we all had fun.
Bending the rules for humor can work too. My barbarian took DM of the Rings' advice to dealing with siege ladders (pull them up and over to our side of the wall) and it was awesome. I didn't even have to roll a strength check because my GM was so flabbergasted by the tactic, he let it slide due to rule of cool.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rules allow a consistent predictable world. If you can't be sure how something works, you cannot plan to use it and there isn't really any suspense from the threat of enemies using it.
So the GM can do whatever he wants but he should strive for consistency. If he's got Dominate working this way with Vampires, then it should always work that way for Vampires. And, theoretically, the Vampire should give more rewards (xp, treasure) for being demonstrably stronger.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As Rogue Eidolon shows, monster abilities don't always follow the same rules as the spells/class abilities they may be based on.
To answer the question though. My groups let things slide all the time. Rule of Cool is a big thing for us, which is why our last session in Reign of Winter went by with only 2 rounds of combat, because my bard decided to be the best damn bard he could be, and diplomatted, intimidated or bluffed his way through almost all opposition. Sure, the GM was being lax on how some of it would have worked, but the whole group thought it was fun, so we ran with it. (For the curious, a full account can be found at Reign of Winter: The Bard and the Dragon - Caution: Spoilers for the first two books of Reign of Winter).
Similarly, in the Shattered Star game I run, the group (which consists of the other players from Reign of Winter, and the RoW GM) decided they wanted to
There were no rules for that in the AP, but rather than say it wasn't possible I just grabbed the Chase Decks and laid out a chase scene for them to see if they could do it. Created another memorable session.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the rule-bending leads to a total party kill then no I can't let it slide. For example, my first GM forgot the rule of getting saves to shrug off poisons. After hitting us with one at 6th level, only two members of the party survived. The fighter, wizard, rogue(me), and the ranger's wolf companion all died. the cleric and ranger dragged us out and got us resurrected. I didn't take the resurrection though. I crossed out the name on my character sheet and wrote down a new one to introduce his older brother. He let it slide because my character only died due to his ignorance.
If the dice are fudged a little to bump the story then fine. My current GM buffed a villain so we didn't waste him in one round. He also buffed the party after one of us died so it was all good. It might for a more climatic final battle and we all had fun.
Bending the rules for humor can work too. My barbarian took DM of the Rings' advice to dealing with siege ladders (pull them up and over to our side of the wall) and it was awesome. I didn't even have to roll a strength check because my GM was so flabbergasted by the tactic, he let it slide due to rule of cool.
Agreed on pretty much all parts here. If rule-bending or misruling leads to a TPK (or in some cases, an unfair killing of even a single character), I will call it out. It's pretty much always a case of mishap before malice, so we retcon it as needed.
Fudging is something I have no issue with as long as it's within reason. Making things exciting and fun is the GM's role, and I enjoy doing it. I won't do things like add crits where there are none, and if they miss they miss (unless I know that fudging a hit isn't going to result in a death and the players are finding being untouchable boring), but making them a little more durable is okay in my book.
And yeah. Rule of Cool. One of the most important rules :D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
** spoiler omitted **
Hah! Love it. My group didn't think of that, but I loved the chase idea. Worked really well too.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, as a player/gm do you see rule bending occur and let it slide?
As a GM, I have no issue with a little rule-bending. Sometimes, I'll point out the rule that being bent and why I think the bend is justified. Other times, I just let the action roll on. On some occasions, I'll let a player bend a rule if they can give me a good reason for why it should be bent.
-Skeld
Yes, we do.
Our GM keeps forgetting that we cannot charge into combat and then use all our attacks. He forgets for the monsters as well, but we are getting more benefit because we move to combat a lot more and there are more of use to get the extra attacks.
I gently reminded him once, but he evidently forgot again so I'm perfectly happy to let it slide!
|
I have a standing house rule that if you describe your actions well enough, or come up with a REALLY cool idea for how you do something, you're probably going to succeed, if not at least get a huge bonus. Every once in a while I'll handwave something, but only if it's obviously going to take more than a minute to look up the actual rule, and even then I tell my group exactly why I'm handwaving it.
|
As a GM? Always. If you're using the rules wrong, I definitely let you know. I might let it work anyway, but I'll say something like "That's totally not in the rules, but it's cool and makes sense so I'll let it slide."
I actually consider a GM letting a player unknowingly break the rules without that kind of note to be inappropriate behavior, as it means they now have an incorrect idea of what the rules are. You're effectively teaching them the rules wrong, which could be very unpleasant for them somewhere down the line in someone else's game.
I also have an extensive list of House Rules, but have them all written out, and, when questioned about the rules, note when they're in use and changing the main rules: "What stat do I use for Will saves?" "Well, officially, Wisdom, but in my games you can use Charisma instead, if you like."
As a player, I'll note major rules issues, the kind that can result in character death, pretty much immediately (the second save on Dominate and getting to save vs. poison would both qualify). Less important issues, I'll tend to mention after the game if I remember to, but they're just not nearly as big a deal.
My advice to the OP: Since you've discovered this between sessions, approach the GM with it when the other players aren't there, they'll probably apologize and give additional saves at the beginning of the next game, all without losing face. Assuming they're a reasonable person of course.
If it makes for a suitably cinematic experience, then sure. If a player goes to swing on a chandelier before attempting to air-assassinate the evil chancellor AC-style, failing his check by 1 or 2 points or taking one too many move actions isn't going to stop me from letting them go for it. Although I may ask them to roll a d100 to see how lucky they are.
This. Or if that little rule bend is the only thing standing between TPK. Which I don't really want to happen until the climax of the story.
I would like to start by saying GMs cannot bend rules they are the rules (dread style).... consistency among players is one thing but a NPC villain having a power or two not in the books or auto-rolling a save now and again is well within DM rights....
Players bending rules is unfair to everyone. There is a fellow player in a game with me that plays dumb a lot. He uses the fact that the DM is busy and worrying about 'secondary' things like plot and setting to take advantage. He knows the rules and ignores them. Casting Animal Growth on himself, for instance, so i call him out ... a dumb mistake can be forgiven cheating because you dont like a rule and keeping it quiet and just trying to slide it by is just sleazy......
One of my players wanted to play a Titan Mauler Barb and didn't realize it never actually give you the ability to wield a large weapon. I didn't say anything because it's too awesome.
Thanks for all of your comments. I should clarify, when I say "bending" it was more overlooked rules. I am having fun because the encounter is challenging. I do see it leading to at least 1 party death. I like the suggestion of mentioning the specific rule on dominate to the gm before next session. I should mention it because although I'm having a good time, other players might not. I do see the consistent theme of "rule of cool" which I would apply here. At least I could mention the way it actually is so that we know that the rule isn't being followed in this instance.
Thanks for all of your comments. I should clarify, when I say "bending" it was more overlooked rules. I am having fun because the encounter is challenging. I do see it leading to at least 1 party death. I like the suggestion of mentioning the specific rule on dominate to the gm before next session. I should mention it because although I'm having a good time, other players might not. I do see the consistent theme of "rule of cool" which I would apply here. At least I could mention the way it actually is so that we know that the rule isn't being followed in this instance.
I'd suggest having a chat with the GM first, just quietly. Could be that he honestly didn't understand how the vampire variant of dominate works (i.e. the same as the spell, but a standard action instead of a full round).
The only reason I'd really be upset about it is if it did lead to a TPK. Not that I'm saying this is upsetting for you, just that yeah, I'd probably let rule of cool slide as long as it wasn't rule of cooling my party straight into an early grave.
As a player, I try to be honest and tell when something is not going according to the rules (although I gotta admit I occasionally succumb to temptation and "forget" to correct fellow players. I'm not made of stone after all, but I do resist that urge more often than not). I'll correct the GM too, if I think he's made a mistake, but if he says "nah, it works like this because it's a custom monster/ability/spell/whatever" or "that's how I want it to work" I won't insist on following the rules (if I think it's a really bad ruling, I might argue over it a little, but I won't try to supersede the GM's authority).
As long as the GM doesn't remove player agency, I don't mind if he bends the rules every now and then, although I do value consistency.
As a GM, I don't mind players bending the rules a little if it's more about doing something cool and less about cheating the system. I'll point it out, but not necessarily forbid it, usually saying something along the lines "Well, that's not how that works, but it's a cool idea, so I'll allow it", "That's not RAW, but it actually works better that way, so if you guys don't mind we can use this idea from now on" or, if it is a house-rule "Yeah, that's a house-rule, so it works that way". Also, when in doubt of how a particular set of game mechanics work, I rule it however would be most benefitial for the players and then check it out after the session is over.
There is a tension between role-playing and simulation.
Simulations thrive on rules precision. Role-playing thrives on creative momentum — the suspension of disbelief.
The two need to be balanced, but it's not easy to do, especially when not everyone at the table knows the rules by heart. If everyone were to know the rules by heart, and I mean all the rules (good luck with that), then it's much easier to stay in the role-playing flow. The rules would be automatic, like driving a car for an experienced driver.
I am going to speak up, but as a GM I can sometimes tell when another GM is intentionally ignoring a rule. In that case I stay quiet. As for dominate when used as an SU it is only a standard action. SU's are not cast. Spell are.
Sounds like a great system to me.As long as the GM doesn't remove player agency, I don't mind if he bends the rules every now and then, although I do value consistency.
As a GM, I don't mind players bending the rules a little if it's more about doing something cool and less about cheating the system. I'll point it out, but not necessarily forbid it, usually saying something along the lines "Well, that's not how that works, but it's a cool idea, so I'll allow it", "That's not RAW, but it actually works better that way, so if you guys don't mind we can use this idea from now on" or, if it is a house-rule "Yeah, that's a house-rule, so it works that way". Also, when in doubt of how a particular set of game mechanics work, I rule it however would be most beneficial for the players and then check it out after the session is over.
Thanks. The reasoning behind this system is a simple "If a mistake happens, at least it'll increase the players' fun".
MattR, I dont think small things like that are what is meant. Things like getting an extra attack of opportunity for moving are things a GM might be mistaken about, especially if it results in a crit, but in any event sometimes it is best to handle it after the game to keep things going.
My DM has been pretty lenient on it, esp when it comes to mistakes on character building (not all of us are using Hero Lab). Last campaign he let me qualify for the Battle Herald prestige class without levels in Bard (because lets face it prestige classes are underpowered as it is without triple classing).
Last game session it was pointed out that my Dwarf Cleric doesn't get proficiency with a Dwarven Long Axe because the wording on the racial ability was that I treat weapons with Dwarven in its name as martial weapons, not auto proficiency (we ALL thought you just got proficiency in racial weapons, it never came up but it got flagged as an error in Hero Lab so that's how we found out). DM said it made sense a Dwarf can use a Dwarf weapon so we ignored it.
Be me,
DnD session, we make it to the bbeg. He's a vampire.
Has special ability to control lots of hd.
Dominates 3 of our group.
They're now playing for team GM and trying to kill the rest.I read dominate after session and, that's not how it works.
1. full round to cast,
2. move action to redirect dominatrix :)
3. will save at +2 to break against unnatural action.All of these were ignored, but I'm having fun in encounter. Things could go badly when we finish up encounter next week, but i'm inclined not to say anything.
So, as a player/gm do you see rule bending occur and let it slide?
Slight problem here. GMs can't break rules. Everything they do is legal because they are the ones that make up the actual rules for your game. Now whether or not that is fair is another matter. Many GMs try to align their actual rules with the PF general rules, but that doesn't mean the GM is ever doing anything illegal rules-wise. You may point out to the GM that he/she is doing things not in-line with the general rules and if your GM is trying to play by those rules they may adjust what they are doing.
|
|
Slight problem here. GMs can't break rules. Everything they do is legal because they are the ones that make up the actual rules for your game. Now whether or not that is fair is another matter. Many GMs try to align their actual rules with the PF general rules, but that doesn't mean the GM is ever doing anything illegal rules-wise. You may point out to the GM that he/she is doing things not in-line with the general rules and if your GM is trying to play by those rules they may adjust what they are doing.
This is profoundly incorrect in many if not most games. Generally speaking (at least IME), the social contract for a game includes the GM either following the same basic rules as the players, or clearly stating any House Rules.
Violating the rules arbitrarily on the spur of the moment? That's either a mistake or inappropriate behavior in a lot of games.
There are certainly games where what you're saying is true, but they're by no means a clear majority, so you really shouldn't act like that's true of all games ever.
Slight problem here. GMs can't break rules. Everything they do is legal because they are the ones that make up the actual rules for your game. Now whether or not that is fair is another matter. Many GMs try to align their actual rules with the PF general rules, but that doesn't mean the GM is ever doing anything illegal rules-wise. You may point out to the GM that he/she is doing things not in-line with the general rules and if your GM is trying to play by those rules they may adjust what they are doing.This is profoundly incorrect in many if not most games. Generally speaking (at least IME), the social contract for a game includes the GM either following the same basic rules as the players, or clearly stating any House Rules.
Violating the rules arbitrarily on the spur of the moment? That's either a mistake or inappropriate behavior in a lot of games.
There are certainly games where what you're saying is true, but they're by no means a clear majority, so you really shouldn't act like that's true of all games ever.
The social contract by which you play game states that the GM should be fair (by having themselves and their players playing by the same rules) and where the actual rules differ from the general rules should be known to the players.
The GM can break this social contract(which would be bad), but they are never breaking the rules.
As a GM I do not allow rule bending by my players to slide. If you are doing it wrong, and I know it, I will tell you. One friend of mine who I play with in one shots of various systems now and again forgets rules a lot, typically in a way that benefits him. In the first game I ever ran (and thus, wasn't as knowledgable as I am now) he was getting away with a lot of things I didn't know about and some that I did know about but let slide because I wasn't experienced.
As a player, if the GM says something that I know isn't right I will bring it up, but the tone will be different.
Instead of "That's not the way that rule/spell/ability works." it's "Doesn't it work like X?"
A question, because the GM has the right to change whatever they think will improve the game, but I have to know about it, and it needs to be clear when the GM is willfully altering a rule and when they are ignorant of it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Jaelithe, Markthus, and MattR1986:
I'm not arguing the GM doesn't have the power to change rules. I'm arguing that, in most groups I've seen (especially good groups) they have a certain obligation to note that they're doing so, so as not to confuse and annoy people...and in such a group it's reasonable to say they 'broke the rules' when they make changes without doing this. I'm also arguing that, being fallible, GMs make mistakes, in which case they are indeed (unintentionally) breaking the rules, since they didn't choose to change them, and indeed may not even wish to do so.
In short, "The GM broke the rules." is a legitimate statement to make in a lot of groups, especially when referring to an accident (as in the OP). It's not a legitimate statement in all groups, certainly...but Markthus's post I was responding to was acting like it was categorically untrue for all groups. It is not.
All you need to do to disprove the statement "All ravens are black." is find a single white raven. I'm not arguing there aren't black ravens...just that the original statement is false.
As a GM, I generally don't let players bend the rules. The only exception is cheating at rolling dice. If you're so desperate to succeed that you cheat on your dice rolls, I probably won't say anything unless it is really obvious.
As a GM, I bend the rules all the time. Logic is more important to me than following the rules. As an example, if you're fighting an ancient undead spellcaster that has spells you've never heard of (not in the book,) then no, a successful Spellcraft check does not give you all of the information on the spell.
As a player, if I see another player bending the rules, I will call them out on it in a friendly way the first one or two times. On the third+ time, I'll be less friendly.
In short, "The GM broke the rules." is a legitimate statement to make in a lot of groups, especially when referring to an accident (as in the OP). It's not a legitimate statement in all groups, certainly...but Markthus's post I was responding to was acting like it was categorically untrue for all groups. It is not.
I disagree. The GM may be able to break the rules he/she tries to set up for himself, but the GM can never break the actual rules since those are whatever he says or does. A player cannot correct the GM on the actual rules. Players can only ask for rules clarifications.
Rules discussions about the general rules are between two Pathfinder enthusiast not GMs and players. Pretending otherwise can only lead to confusion and strife in the group.
|
|
The point being made is that while the DM is "breaking the rules" in going against what the rulebook says, in the game the DM is above the law and actually is the law, thus he can't really break the rules. He is not subject to the law of the rulebook, he's above it and it doesn't have some mystical power over him that he has to obey it (as some people on here seem to suggest).
The GM 'is the law' to precisely the degree that group consensus and social contract says they are. That's often quite a bit (it certainly is in games I run), but almost never completely (since then you're not using other rules at all), and in some cases not to the extent that they can change absolutely any rule on the fly.
"The GM is breaking the rules." is a phrase that exists and is appropriate in some groups. That's all I'm saying.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not arguing the GM doesn't have the power to change rules. I'm arguing that, in most groups I've seen (especially good groups) they have a certain obligation to note that they're doing so, so as not to confuse and annoy people...and in such a group it's reasonable to say they 'broke the rules' when they make changes without doing this.
I see a ot of this, so I'd like to point out one thing: The core rulebook alone is over 600 pages. Add in the supplementary rules from the APG, UC, UM, etc, and the number of pages of rules climbs into the thousands.
Not all GMs work with a perfect instant recall of all those rules at all times. In fact, I'd wager that almost nobody does. I'd wager even the Paizo devs have to reference things if they want to run something purely RAW.
What's the point of my noting this? Sometimes maybe you don't notice that the official Pathfinder rule for something is, to be blunt, f~#%ing moronic. Sometimes you're not sure of how something works, you look it up, find the rule, and then wonder just how much heroin Paizo was doing when they let that rule through. So you can run with the pure RAW, even though you consider it to be an absolutely horrible rule, or you can change it to something you consider better on the fly. The problem with the latter is that you risk some player castigating you on these forums for not having informed you that you would be replacing this rule long before you ever knew the official rule was such crap. With the usual result being an overwhelming tide of "fire the GM" type posts, and you can usually count on Thomas Long 175 advocating physical assault against the GM.