Breaking the Rules: Do you do it, and why?

[Rali]

I'm telling a story, and sometimes you can't leave things to fate (or a bad roll of the dice). Some things need to happen, and to that end rules may need to be broken.

[Vrykolas2k]

I picked the second one.

[lather]

I voted "Yes: I break them every so often to help with pacing and style" but I think it's the same as "Yes: I break rules a good amount of time for everyones sake".

[bigbobsr6000]

I voted "Yes: I break them every so often to help with pacing and style" but I think it's the same as "Yes: I break rules a good amount of time for everyones sake".

Same Here

[drewkitty ~..~]

I voted the middle choice, however, I never break the 1st rule of GMing.

The GM is always right.

[Spinachcat]

My view on game rules is this. If I buy a book, the contents are mine to do with as I wish. I houserule, convert, pervert, alter and tweak to my heart's content to make any game do what I want it to do.

There are very few games where I play as written.

[Sentinel]

I make a lot of modifications in order to aid style and pacing, and then I adhere to those rules modifications.

Example: I allow N&SS martial artists to add 2 attacks per melee, same as other Palladium characters. It aids the characters, supports the style of wild kung-fu action, and keeps the N&SS characters consistant with the rest of the Palladium menagerie.

[Rockwolf66]

Yes, I do occationally break the rules for a palladium game I'm GM'ing. Usually it's because the rules are unclear(or non-existant) or for plot purposes. Usually if there's not a rule for something in one palladium game I try and find it in another palladium game. if it's not in any of the palladium games I discuss it with the GM's among my players until we can come to a concensus. I use this system to avoid the game from takeing the homeruled to munchkinland train.

[Vrykolas2k]

I voted the middle choice, however, I never break the 1st rule of GMing.

The GM is always right.

Unless the GM is wrong...
It happens.

[Sentinel]

For me, the rules are there to support the story, but also to prevent stuff from coming into being simply because a player wants it. Sometimes rules prevent things from getting out of hand in an impartial and objective manner, while story preservation can be very subjective.
While I certainly don't need rules on a level of complexity like GURPS (for example), I do prefer a little more structure than "storyteller" style sytems and games.

[bigbobsr6000]

"BREAKIN' THE RULES, BREAKIN' THE RULES. heh, heh...heh...heh....yeah..."

[verdilak]

I voted "Yes: I break them every so often to help with pacing and style" but I think it's the same as "Yes: I break rules a good amount of time for everyones sake".

Same Here

The main part of the game is to have fun. If you dont every break the rule's not once, the fun can be lost.

[lather]

"BREAKIN' THE RULES, BREAKIN' THE RULES. heh, heh...heh...heh....yeah..."

I thought that was breaking the law... ?

[bigbobsr6000]

"BREAKIN' THE RULES, BREAKIN' THE RULES. heh, heh...heh...heh....yeah..."

I thought that was breaking the law... ?

It is, was adapted just for this thread. heh, heh...heh...heh....yeah...

Note: This adaptation was done by professionals on a closed computer. Do not attempt.

[lather]

Ah I heard someone remake Army of Lovers song once.

This is so much better than that was.

[DhAkael]

Without voting and without reading anyone elses posts.
YES!
Often!
With no hesitation or regrets.

Reason being (sing it with me lads and lassies); "The final call on any rulling or rules set is the province of the GM. Period. Dot. The END."

Any disenting views with this truth will be met with derrision and complete apathetic disinterest.

Thank you and have a pleasent day

[bigbobsr6000]

Nee!

[KillWatch]

I voted stupid but again not actually the case.
I have a host of house rules so it isn't a one time I break this rule kind of thing. I've either broke the system and setup my own, or added to it.

[GA]

I'm wondering if its possible to NOT break the rules especially the fuzzy ones.

[Rimmer]

Hell Yeah ! i think i break more rules thyan i follow, lets face it, with PB's rules you kinda have to, otherwise i would have far to many PC's scratching thier heads.

[KillWatch]

The rules don't and they can't cover everything, but what are they muddy about?

[Rockwolf66]

I voted "Yes: I break them every so often to help with pacing and style" but I think it's the same as "Yes: I break rules a good amount of time for everyones sake".

Same Here

The main part of the game is to have fun. If you dont every break the rule's not once, the fun can be lost.

yeah the point of playing is to have fun. In the games I run we all have fun within the rules set by the various games we play. Even in the local "Power Game" there are still the basic system rules that they follow. If everyone simply ignored the game rules that they didn't like then the games that we play would quickly decend into a place known as "Munchkinland". Now while the occational anything goes high powered game is fun it gets stale very fast.

Part of my stay close to the "official rules" attitude comes from playing with a group ranging from people playing their first game to those who still play origional D&D. As a GM, I view it as my job to make it fun for all levels of players in my games. As far as breaking them goes I have seen several games drop into the aformentioned "Munchkinland". As far as the games that go into "Munchkinland" I have only met one GM who runs such a game and remains even semi-respected in my area.

[bigbobsr6000]

That's my NUMBER ONE rule, we are here to have fun in gaming.

[Rockwolf66]

That's my NUMBER ONE rule, we are here to have fun in gaming.

I have no problem with that. It's just that without some universal boundaries in game it stops being fun for the whole party. As I said I GM for a group with a Diverse level of gameing experiance. I view it as my duty as a Gm to teach these younger players how to enjoy the game without getting into Rules lawyering or worse Munchkinning.

[bigbobsr6000]

I have no problem with that. It's just that without some universal boundaries in game it stops being fun for the whole party. As I said I GM for a group with a Diverse level of gameing experiance. I view it as my duty as a Gm to teach these younger players how to enjoy the game without getting into Rules lawyering or worse Munchkinning.

I agree with you. Sometimes it is hard to balance what one player's idea of fun with another's. That's where the rules come in, to settle such things. When I say rules I mean Canon, GM rules, House Rules, The Great Cosmic Muffin Rule, etc.

My 2nd rule is that everyone one knows the rules ahead of time before game play. Not neccessarily every single rule but at least like "We are using strictly the book rules." or "Here are my House Rules", etc. That way one can't (but they do) come back and say "I didn't know that." or some such. This has stopped a lot of problems for me.

I like the Great Cosmic Muffin Rules myelf.

[KillWatch]

The point in my game is to enjoy it but not necassarily to have fun. The Difference? YOu enjoy a horror movie, or a documentary, or a drama, but they aren't necassarily fun. Now don't get me wrong, I splash my canvas with monty pythonisms, but I like my xfile-ish games

[Gallahan]

Personally, I can't vote on this one. The reason is that rules are broken for all sorts of reasons: game balance, pacing, fairness... etc.

However, in my game, the story is a strong motivator for anything and everything. For instance, what if a very great adventure has led the players to the climax, and somehow, on a technicality, they are able to take out the main villain in less than 7.6 minutes!!?? If you KNOW they were able to take him out, maybe don't let them. --FOR THEIR OWN SAKES.

I know, it sounds stupid and counter-intuitive, but here's why. Think about a GREAT novel. There's a lot of DRAMA at the end. It's not like any great hero walks into the main villain's lair and in one paragraph SLAYS him/her/it!! NEVER.

So, in my games, if the PCs do this (and I won't admit to it), I tend to keep the battle going on until there is enough drama, and just when it reaches its ZENITH... they vanquish the bad guy. It's better for them; it's better for the story.

Hey, few people are satisfied with a too-abrupt resolution in real life, let alone in a game.

Sure, I'll allow the every-now-and-then sudden triumph, WHEN THEY NEED IT, but I prefer to make them fight for it. It's just a matter of GM style, and also, if I know they had the villain, I'll do my best to make sure no one dies during the elevated climax.

[KillWatch]

I take good for the goose approach. If they can one hit kill, so can I. sometimes it ends up anti climactic, like when a PC critted my main crime boss on the roof of a sky scraper and it sent him faling to the ground, going splat, on the first attack. She won inti, got a nat 20 with a DB, he failed his save and went over. That in itself is story worthy

[Gallahan]

A good way to do this and keep it fun for the players, and not POINTLESS is to give the players 3 FATE POINTS. Each one may be used to reroll a critically timed attack/defense, or to avoid a SPLAT-like situation.

HOWEVER, describe to the player his/her death in detail and have fun with it. Cherish it. Make them grovel. Only after you are finished with the gritty details of their demise(s), allow them to use their Fate Point.

This way, they appreciate the dangers of the game, and can have fun continuing on, never taking it for granted. Plus, it allows you, the GM, to actually KILL OFF your characters... and rewind.

Don't worry. They (and you) realize that there are only 3 Fate Points per character.

They can only get more Fate Points for spectacular roleplaying, like sacrificing themselves for the greater good and that kind of thing (but it's never guaranteed, so don't like tell them: if you sacrifice yourself for the team, you'll get a Fate Point!). It has to be dramatic, well-played, unanticipated and sincere.

[Arioch]

I voted the middle choice, however, I never break the 1st rule of GMing.

The GM is always right.

Unless the GM is wrong...
It happens.

Rule #1) GM is always right.
Rule #2) If GM is wrong, see rule #1.

[Sentinel]

I prefer the approach of modifying the existing rules to be more workable (in whatever context that may apply), and then adhering to them once establish.

Example: Martial Artists in N&SS do not add 2 attacks to their Attacks Per Melee, but every body else from other games does. So, I modified the rule, Martial Arts O.C.C.s may now add 2 attacks like any other character, and I (and the players) stick to that estabished rule.

[Rockwolf66]

I prefer the approach of modifying the existing rules to be more workable (in whatever context that may apply), and then adhering to them once establish.

Example: Martial Artists in N&SS do not add 2 attacks to their Attacks Per Melee, but every body else from other games does. So, I modified the rule, Martial Arts O.C.C.s may now add 2 attacks like any other character, and I (and the players) stick to that estabished rule.

I would readily agree with that as your not totally breaking the rule already laid forth but amending them so that they apply to everyone equally. That is probably the best way to change the rules. I have known a couple very blatant Munchkin masters create rules that usually only affected their "chosen people". As a player that sort of BS ticked me off to no end as the game stopped being either fun or enjoyable to me.

[Sentinel]

Rules should make the game fair and unbiased. And they apply to the GM as well as the players.

The fun will follow.

While I have heard the old chestnut "The GM is always right..." since it was a new expression, I have also been willing to listen to players when they present their sides, on the off-chance that I have made a mistake.

[Vrykolas2k]

I voted the middle choice, however, I never break the 1st rule of GMing.

The GM is always right.

Unless the GM is wrong...
It happens.

Rule #1) GM is always right.
Rule #2) If GM is wrong, see rule #1.

It has been my experience that GMs with these two rules are egomaniacs who don't keep their groups for long.

[Gallahan]

Story outweighs rules. In the end, what are "rules" but a way to coordinate the fair play of an interactive story? As long as YOU are fair, then when you bend the rules (oblivious to your PCs), it's for their benefit.

[Dog_O_War]

I break the rules for the sake of my player's and my own sanity. The rules as written for this game are (in a word) awful.

Very few things make sense when compared to all the text presented, so I tend to re-write some things. Okay, alot of things. If something in the rules of the book are hokey or counter-intuitive, an one-the-spot ruling is given.


Excuse me as I backflip into 3rd level.

Seriously though, I think the rules need a major overhaul. A collective effort of the community, or perhaps a loosening of the purse-strings over in Palladiums' end to hire a team of actual designers would be prudent.

[mellowmaveric]

Sometimes i fudge rolls because i dont want to kill off the PC's. In a campeighn i recently ran i warned them right off the bat not to get too attached to their characters because there is a good likelyhood they would die during the game. The point was we had a new player with us and i was trying to set it up so they would learn how to use their character along the way. The players ended up dying so often though that it was starting to frustrate people so i started fudging the rolls so instead of a critical they just got a regular hit or if it was below a 4 it might be a critical miss for their oponents.