Recently, Wizards produced a "Save My Game" article called "Do the Right Thing" by Stephen Radney-MacFarland.  (You need to have an active subscription to view it.)  It basically says that you shouldn't be a slave to the rules and that you should feel free to break the rules to "untie knots" when the game hits a snag.  Stephen very responsibly goes on to offer advice how to do this without being a jerk and even offers up an example from play.  So let me say first that I think that the article is a good one and makes some important and useful points.  All that said, I felt the need to comment.

"If you're driving your friends around in your car and turning left causes the car to shut down, you don't have to just sit there, you can get out and push!"  That's hardly a shining endorsement of your vehicle.  And that's what the article suggests about D&D.  "If it doesn't do what it's supposed to, you can just make stuff up yourself".  Yes, "pushing the car" is better than just sitting there, but why not make a car that doesn't stop working for no good reason in the first place?

The article points out that the DM is not a computer, and shouldn't try to be, because the DM is better than a computer.  He's able to adapt and improvise and overcome.  And this is true.  However, that's still not an excuse for a system that doesn't do what it's supposed to do.  Again, it doesn't matter if there's a person or a computer behind the wheel, the car shouldn't shut down when you turn left.

But let's assume some "operator error" here.  "I was driving along, I turned left and the car shut down".  "Well, the car wasn't designed to drive in lakes."  Or off of cliffs, or through walls, or whatever.  I think it's important to know what the rules are expected to handle, and the manual should say as much.  And then you and your friends should discuss it as well, so that when they encounter that lake, they know that they're going to have to go around, or get out of the car and push it across.  That is to say, when the players encounter a situation that the rules don't handle, they'll know that they're going to have to avoid the situation, or use some other system (DM fiat or player agreement or a coin flip) to resolve it.

So once again, the advice in the article is good, but it bothers me that it implies that system failure is not only expected, but acceptable.

So, what's your opinion?

---

"If you fudge dice rolls, your system is failing you!" -Sons of Kryos

"I genuinely think that some people measure their free will by reading how unhappy their GM is." - TonyLB

That's the golden rule of RP-games. 

If I had to wait till the books/system stand up and give me the answers to the dead end I just hit, I would be food for my players. I must say that I sometimes hate when people just follow the books like it was some kind of sacred book or something... yes, the rules are there for a reason, but fun and playibility should always come first for troupe than being obsessive-compulsive with the rules. If something doesn't work, discard it, asap.

I had this kind of argument the other day with a friend of mine who doesn't like D&D(or any other d20 related game), he said that it's incoherent and a lot of stuff. I simply told him "it's a fantasy game, so... we are playing a GAME not emulating reality, there are a lot of games for that, even LARPS" then he said "But you should always have a limit", I replied with my philosophy for all RPs... "No, we don't. RPGs are games to do what we can't do, in a game you don't need to have -limits-. If you and your DM are having fun, who cares that some people think it's illogical to switch feats since it doesn't make sense to switch one's knowledge".

About your last line, I think that system failure it's acceptable. Because I have played with a lot of people, and everyone plays the game on their own terms. Everyone has some kind of complain with at least one of the rules, either because it hurts their gameplay or because they think there are better ways to deal with those issues, and that's make them think/act like if the game is broke.

The DMs is there for a reason, and it's the referee on the situation. If something doesn't work, we DMs are in our duty to improvise and make things better for the sake of the game.

But why are roleplaying games exempt from good design?  Why do they need that "golden rule"?  Sure, maybe you can't wait for the system to bail you out of a dead end, but how about a system that doesn't take you to dead ends in the first place?  Yes, fun and playability should come first, but why does that need to conflict with the rules?  If you were playing a board game where the rules weren't fun and playable, you'd play a different game (or fix it), not make excuses for it.

A "game" without limits is no longer a game, it's just a toy.  And that's fine.  Perhaps RPGs should be considered toys more than games.  Personally, I like my RPGs to be either games or works of "art" (like a story).  Both of which benefit from "limits" or "constraints".  In a game, they provide a challenge to be thwarted.  In a story or other work of art, they provide a handle for creativity.  That said, I don't feel the rules need to "simulate" reality any more than a movie or novel might.  So I might disagree with your friend as well, but for different reasons.

As for people playing games differently, that's true, but that's an incompatibilty between what the game does and what the player wants, not (necessarily) a failure of the system.  D&D, for instance, is all about resource management and tactics, tied together with some improvisational theatre between encounters.  It's about challenge.  It's not trying to simulate anything.  All of the fantasy world stuff is just color.  You can change the setting, rename the races, make the game modern-day and get rid of magic, and the core of the game will remain unchanged, that is, mission-based skill challenges and tactical combats with some improv in between.

The DM's job isn't really to "referee".  How can it be when he's playing for the other team?  The DM's job is to provide challenges for the PCs in a reasonably consistent fantasy setting.  That's D&D of course.  Other games might have different roles for the GM, like "simulating" the world and its NPCs, or providing dramatic choices for the PCs to make, or more likely a combination of some sort.

My point is that there are games out there that don't require the DM to ignore the rules.  You can follow them strictly, and they will work every time.  More creative, active, invested players will have more fun, just as they will in D&D, but following the rules will never "break" the game.  So basically, there's little excuse for a game to require that sort of "on-the-fly" patching.

In the article, the fight was "too hard" so the DM gave the PCs an advantage that they didn't have before so that they wouldn't lose.  I guess the question here is, if PCs aren't ever supposed to lose combats, why is it an option in the rules?  If the PCs can't lose, what's even the point of breaking out the battle-grid in the first place?

---

"If you fudge dice rolls, your system is failing you!" -Sons of Kryos

"I genuinely think that some people measure their free will by reading how unhappy their GM is." - TonyLB

I haven't read the article so I'm mostly giving some feedback on your comments.

I do agree that the game shouldn't seem broken on every corner, that's why you got a rulebook in the first-place. But I have always seen the rulebooks more as guidelines than actual rules, but that's something personal to improve the game based on my experience with my players. The comic had a good example on how the DM can break the game a few strips ago, the "favorite-npc-syndrome", the one who would save the day if something proves too challenging to them.

I am not one to kill all my players, but they do taste loosing when they don't play their cards correctly(or a lot of other factors). I really don't take into account most of D&D's developers ideas sometimes, because usually they make it seem like you need to take the players by their hands and be carefull not to wipe out their party... An RP is a story, and as a DM I have to get that story going, but there are a lot of factors like luck, not thinking, and a lot of things on the big picture.

But, then again, if you try to come up with a game that covers every little aspect without a chance of breaking at some points, sometimes you end up with a book with a million charts .

As for fantasy oriented games I mostly play D&D and for modern games I use nWoD's storytelling system. I think that both cover the things I need to run my game smoothly without having to come up with houserules(I rarely use them unless I have an idea on mind).

I have yet to actually Play 4th edition. Does that article is about RPs in general or there's something that some people consider broken on 4th? That would help me having a more specific reaction on your comments :)

Be careful Drako, Jason is trying to trick you into turning your back on D&D and playing "abstract" story games.  Down that way madness lies!

j/k  uh...kinda.

The goal of playing a roleplaying game for most people is to have fun, not to follow rules, not to make things up, not to have a truly memorable story, or anything else.   Many people, particularly DMs, have different goals than the players.  They want to make a memorable story, or they want to see how the rules interact to create a unique experience that they don't trust themselves to make on their own, or they want to have the rules create an interactive fantastical creative experience that they lack the imagination to create on their own without something pushing them, or any number of different reasons.

But most players in my experience play roleplaying games to have fun.

So D&D apparently does its job pretty well, which can be evidenced by the fact that many players feel satisfied with D&D or other simulationist games like it, and often don't seem as satisfied (if not outright angry) about more gamist games that cover all the basis, or more abstract games that simply avoid creating rules for simulating reality at all.

So which game accomplishes its task better? Obviously D&D (or Shadowrun, or Mutants and Masterminds, or any other game that is "traditional")...at least when you consider which accomplishes their goal for the most people  most of the time.

But if the task were something else, like say telling a dramatic story good enough to be filmed and shown on tv...well D&D probably doesn't do that job so well.  Sure there will be excitement, but dialogue? No, probably not on average.  Nor will there likely be dramatic love triangles between the paladin, rogue elf, and tiefling...or if there are, it most likely results in the group disbanding. ;) 

But who wants that for their afternoon meetup?   Usually the observers, which is often the DM, but occasionally the silent player.  They want to be part of a story, or want to be part of this or that, because its like being in the middle of a story, and the combat or the bargaining for more wealth, or choosing magic items and feats and performing rituals to become a different race, well all of that are just the necessary boringness to get to where that player really wants to be, which is an immersive creative story.

So if you're playing D&D, and sometimes its not so much fun because the rules say Jimmy has to die, its nice to get a developer confessing that yes, in the interests of the goal (D&D's goal being to have fun), go ahead and break the rule, do whatever you need to do to for the group to have more fun.

Because it isn't the DM's job to provide challenges for the PCs in a reasonably consistent fantasy setting, its really the DM (or GM, or whatever game referree title)'s job to make sure everyone has a good time, a fun time. 

Unless the players get together and decide that it isn't enough to play with a toy, they want to do something "more", at which point, any number of other games (Jason can provide a list!) can probably satisfy those other different goals better. 

 

---

Richard M.
Grimfang
"Whisper"
Xaeraes

Don't worry Richard, I have had a few friends on zombie-like state trying to convince me that alignments is the worst idea ever and that I should burn my D&D books to play some weird games I still don't get .

Now, I do understand both ends... at least I have had the luck to get some really nice players which provide a lot of color to the story I'm trying to get them involved into. I am a RPer at heart, I would rarely throw a fight just because of it. I am not very into kicking-the-door kind of game, I like full immersion on each character background and what they want to accomplish within the world I have created. And even though I had an easier time in WoD than in D&D(mostly because people are more comfortable giving feeling to a character nowdays than a medieval-fantasy one), I have a LOT of memorable stories told in D&D and never stucked on something because of the rules. I think maybe Jason meet a few Ethans down the road j/k

The thing is, I have yet to see a game that doesn't require some kind of tweak to the rules... and I have been able to throw hard-core RP-involved stories to my players in any kind of game, but I usually go with the one I can both tell and story and have fun with.

I think I need a few examples of what Jason means about dead-ends because I haven't had a situation like that in a LONG time.

Drako, the article was a D&D article, so obviously it was D&D-centric, but I imagine that the author would apply the same technique to any RPG he played.

Don't let Rich get you all crazy.  D&D is great, and 4e is the best D&D yet in my opinion.  However, handwaving issues with "players just play to have fun" is meaningless.  People ski to have fun, too, but that doesn't make skis, poles and a slope into a good RPG.  Nor will RPGs replace skiing.  Each provides for different needs.  And within RPGs and skiing, there are even more specific agendas.  A competitive skier is going to be annoyed that you aren't even trying to win and are providing him no challenge.  Meanwhile, you're likely to be irritated with his taunts and the fact that he's always way up ahead when you wanted somebody to talk to while you skied through the scenery.

This is illustrated in the classic DM vs. players rift.  The DM wants to tell a cool story, but the players are killing shop-keepers for their loot and sleeping in their armor because the rules don't say that they can't.  Or the roleplayer vs. the powergamer.  Or the setting expert vs. the guy who has his own ideas of what his character is like.  Or anybody who's into the game vs. the guy who just shows up because his friends are there and doesn't really pay attention or care.  All of these people have different ideas of what "fun" is.  None of them are wrong, of course, but you can see that there is going to be a conflict or misunderstanding at some point, because somebody is going to "ruin" things for the other guy, just by doing what he thinks is "fun".

If the rules have a different (or even conflicting) idea of what "fun" is for the players, imagine how much more annoying that would be.  As an example, D&D wants there to have multiple, tightly-matched (or overmatched) combats to the death, but also wants the continuing story of a group of characters.  These are pretty much mutually exclusive.  The DM would probably like to take death out of the equation, or at least have more control over it.  The player might (from what I've been told) feel that combat isn't exciting anymore if there's no chance of death.  One side wants a building story, the other wants a game.  Sometimes they overlap, or at least don't conflict, but other times going for one ruins the other.

Rich asks who would want to get together to tell cool dramatic stories with friends.  Well, I'll bet most DMs would.  Proactive players who get their characters into trouble, make difficult choices, make friends and enemies and get caught up in love triangles would be most DM's dream!  Now imagine if, instead of having to fight the system, or ignore it, or work around it, the system actually encouraged that kind of fun.  Why don't more players do that sort of thing?  Well, some just aren't interested, as Rich said.  Others are floundering in the structureless void of "roleplaying", which is poorly defined anyway.  They don't know where to start.  They don't know where to take it.  They don't know when it's gone on for too long.  They don't know what's "dramatic".  They have to guess at everthing and hope it's "good enough" for whoever judges that sort of thing.  Still others don't mind roleplaying, but they don't like to "lose".  They don't want their playing piece to get "weaker" or worse yet, taken out of the game for any period of time because they took a chance and "roleplayed" a dramatically sub-optimal decision.

EDIT: What if there were rules to guide roleplaying and mechanically reward it?  And the audience isn't just they guy who's not playing.  Optimally, EVERYONE is the audience, enjoying each other's contributions and how they interact at the table, even as they're playing.

Plus, for a lot of people, they've been indoctrinated for years with "the rules are just guidelines" or "real roleplayers avoid the dice" or "playing to the rules is powergaming" or "sub-optimal performance = roleplaying = sub-optimal performance" or "metagaming is a sin".

In a well-designed game, NONE of these things has to be true.

This is starting to tangent, so let me say that the rules AREN'T guidelines.  Guidelines are guidelines.  Challenge Ratings, Difficulty Classes, roleplaying tips, and most of the DMG are guidelines.  If the players have to follow them, unless the DM says otherwise, then they aren't guidelines at all.  Many of the cool games that I like to talk about have plenty of guidelines, but they don't call them rules.

Also, this isn't the same a changing the rules.  It's one thing to decide that you don't like a rule and change it.  It's another thing to use a rule, decide that you don't like the results, and ignore it this time.

---

"If you fudge dice rolls, your system is failing you!" -Sons of Kryos

"I genuinely think that some people measure their free will by reading how unhappy their GM is." - TonyLB

As you say, and as I referred to, many DMs would "dream" to have their players do all those things.  But thats not what its about, its about the players, because DMs can push weird games, weird rules, etc, but if its what what the players like, they'll start missing games, find a new DM, or even worse(depending on your perspective), revolt and kick the DM out of the DM position.   

There isn't anything wrong with a group of people getting together, no book, no rules, maybe not even paper, and telling an interactive story.  Heck, there isn't anything wrong with having a full system describing exactly what everyone can do.

The only thing I think is wrong, is implying that a game that is made to be arbitrated, shouldn't be.  And originally the DM was referred to as a game referree for a reason.  Your statement that the DM isn't meant to be a referee is incorrect, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeon_master for example, but I'm sure I can find real book references that specifically use the term "referee", and the fact that books and designers say the rules aren't meant to be rigid imply that the DM's job is to act as referee. Read some of the old books, read the original books, its pervasive.  The DM is meant to be the referee, and the rules are meant to cover best case scenarios, not all scenarios.  Maybe the rules make sense most of the time, but sometimes the rules don't make sense, or if strictly followed would be unfun.  Well thats where the DM's job as "referee"makes sense to come into play.

 

 

---

Richard M.
Grimfang
"Whisper"
Xaeraes

To skip the rules for certain situations... that's something I avoid to do unless I had it planned before hand, when I take something as I rule, I plan to use it that way, but I do think that before you begin the actual game the rulebook are just guidelines of what you might want to use for your game, tweak as neccesary, then begin playing. But not start changing rules on the fly...

I do agree that so far D&D 4ed is working out a lot of complains I had RP wise with 3.5, which in turn improved over 2nd. But the things you are pointing out will happen in most if not all games. When you put together a lot of different kind of players, each one of them having their own definition of what they want/expect out of a game, and the conflict will arise sooner or later. It's like the ski example you gave, but I think that there is simply no way of how to please everyone... that's another thing up to the DM in how to balance the game for his/her players.

So, my point is, that more than a broken-system issue, this is the eternal fight between gaming styles, this on the general picture of the mainstream games of course.

If you are a DM, you gotta point out what do you expect from the campaign, and your players to give you some feedback. Like this DM I had that he used to warn everyone that there weren't any ressurection spells/rituals available on his games. Most people don't like to loose, others want more realistic stuff on their games, others go with whatever they get. But this is something for the players to figure out themselves.

BTW, sorry If look repetitive or if I miss something sometimes, English isn't my first language

EDIT: I just saw Richard's reply. And I said back there that the DM was a referee quoting D&D 3.5 rulebook and WoD corebook :P Even if "playing the other side", the DM is the one who see the rules are followed or when/if some rule needs a tweak to keep the game going(to not let everyone to start arguing looking at books and throwing papers at themselves!)

Rich,

Ignoring for a moment that you've basically said that it doesn't matter what the DM wants out of a game and that he should apparently slave away all week, burning his creativity to put together an adventure that the players will probably wreck at first contact without any return on his investment, it isn't simply a DM vs player issue.  Players can want different things from a game than even the other players, and the rules are there to support what the people playing the game (GM and players) want from play.

Yes, the DM was called a "referee" plenty in the books.  That doesn't automatically make it true or accurate.  I suppose that a DM might be a sort of referee in regard to making rulings when the rules are unclear or non-existant.  That's fine.  That in itself is a "system".  Instead of "roll the dice" it's "consult the DM".  But again, that's not the same as actively going against the rules in play.  And if following the rules wouldn't make sense, or would be "unfun", then that's a failure of the design.

I'll revise what I've said before to say "design failure" rather than "system failure" in light of what I've just said here.  Having the DM override the rules when they fail is a system, and one that works well enough, I suppose.  But that doesn't mean the rules didn't fail.  And again we're back to pushing the car when it doesn't do what it's supposed to do.  Sure, it works, it's a system, but one certainly wouldn't call it a very "good" system, especially if they're given the option of a car that does work like it's supposed to when it's supposed to.

---

"If you fudge dice rolls, your system is failing you!" -Sons of Kryos

"I genuinely think that some people measure their free will by reading how unhappy their GM is." - TonyLB

Drako, your english is great.

I suppose I confused things when I got on about game style preferences.  The point is that if a game is well-designed, you shouldn't need to break the rules to make it work.  That should just be common sense.  The game rules are a tool.  If that tool doesn't work when it's supposed to, it's not a good tool.  Or it's been falsely advertised.  I don't see why RPGs are an exception here.

---

"If you fudge dice rolls, your system is failing you!" -Sons of Kryos

"I genuinely think that some people measure their free will by reading how unhappy their GM is." - TonyLB

No, I'm not saying a DM should slave away doing something he doesn't enjoy for players who won't appreciate it, I'm saying everyone has a choice to make when they roleplay, they play the way their friends like to play, or they find new friends.  It shouldn't be slaving, it should be be fun, or the DM shouldn't be the DM, and if the players want something else, they should be asking to play different games.  Its not a problem to want something else, its a problem to try to convince people that they're not having fun when they are.

A DM is "meant" to be a referee between the players and the game world.  He is their window.  The players don't have control of their characters, they can only tell the DM what they're doing, the DM has to interpret what they've said, has the characters do what the DM interpreted the player's request, then relays back to the players the results of the actions, which may or may not be what the player's intended.

That is D&D, and its a game that needs a referee. 

The game was designed to be referreed, it was designed to have that human in there interpreting things to keep them fun.  It wasn't designed to be turned into a video game, so the designers chose to invest their time creating rules covering the fun experiences and specifying that the DM should step in where things that are normally fun (like risking character death during a fight with a monster thats supposed to be tough) turn into things that aren't as much fun (the player rolls nothing above a 5 resulting in him dying while fighting bambi).  That was a "design" decision.  Another game might have made a rule that the players can't die from bambis, only boss battles or only big monsters, resulting in the players knowing they never risk death except under certain scenarios, or any other possible system.  For many people, those other options might be considered unfun.   But the way the game is, the way its "meant" for the DM to referee the game on the fly, makes it fun for hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people all over the world. 

They don't want a 500 page DMG telling them how to resolve every scenario, nor do they want some abstract system that resolves conflict in a vague abstract way.

Many other people do,and those people have switched to Hackmaster or FUDGE or whatever, nothing wrong with that.  But D&D doesn't fail when the DM breaks a rule, changes blue to red, makes the rivers part, or makes a terrifying orc suddenly become good, D&D fails when the system hampers people's ability to have fun.  Which sometimes it does, and I'd love to get into that discussion, what rules make your game fail or slow down, and how can they be resolved? 

---

Richard M.
Grimfang
"Whisper"
Xaeraes

I think, as Richard said, that D&D succeeds on its purpose with straight A's. The game is made in a way that the game should be moving forward trying to keep the fun rate at maximum.  I don't think that even if you follow the rulebook exactly how it is right now you would have a dead end right now, but that's just me.

But then again, the system requires a DM for a reason, to add the human variable to the equation of the game. He is the one who knows in which case and which way are the rules better applied at.

I do get Jason's point about things that should work the way they were meant to, but then again, there are a lot of things that come into play when you are using rules in a world that you could describe endless things with endless possibilities. It sometimes pisses me off when the developers say that "you should be aware of not throwing powerful stuff at your character, or get them out of trouble", I am against that.. but that is just a way of tweakin the rules, it's not that the system is broken.

ONe of my troupes once heard on an Inn about a dragon living on a hill, a very powerful dragon that was going to destroy the village sooner or later due stupid adventurers... and they decided to go there. The dragon was CR 20, and the characters where level 8. Sadly they lost their characters, all except 1, that one could eventually do something to bring them back(it was a GREAT plan though, but he could).

Now, some people would say that I did that to kill my characters.. other would say that I shouldn't mention a dragon if the characters can't actually beat it. But I just try to flesh out my worlds the best way I can. Without any information but the word of a drunk bard they went to the hills to fight a dragon, common sense tells you that it's not going to go well.

My players weren't mad, and they were a bit paranoic for a bit. But I think we all learned a bit from that experience.

I didn't tweak any rule there, and some would say I was wrong to do that. But I think fun isn't always getting alright out of everything.

That one who looses but learns, doesn't loose.

RichardM:

But D&D doesn't fail when the DM breaks a rule, changes blue to red, makes the rivers part, or makes a terrifying orc suddenly become good, D&D fails when the system hampers people's ability to have fun.  Which sometimes it does, and I'd love to get into that discussion, what rules make your game fail or slow down, and how can they be resolved? 

That's all I'm saying.  The rules aren't poorly designed because the DM has to breaks them, the DM has to break the them because the rules are poorly designed.  "That's what the DM is for" isn't an excuse for crappy rules.

And nobody's saying that people aren't having fun.  I played in a Castles & Crusades game, knowing what I was getting into, and it was a blast.  However, the rules are lousy in a lot of ways.  The success of the game fell squarely on the shoulders of the GM's ability to wrestle the rules under control.  Successful play shouldn't revolve around one player's ability to dodge around the game's shortcomings.  You shouldn't have to have a great DM in order to guarantee a good time.

That said, some people aren't having fun.  And with the mainstream gaming media saying "you're just not doing it right" or "you don't have a good enough DM" or "stop metagaming", they might not understand what the problem is.  One can choose to play with a loosely thrown-together ruleset with a great DM riding herd on it, but one should understand that it doesn't have to be that way.  That it shouldn't be the default.

And imagine how much better that DM would be if he could count on the rules rather than trying to avoid them?

---

"If you fudge dice rolls, your system is failing you!" -Sons of Kryos

"I genuinely think that some people measure their free will by reading how unhappy their GM is." - TonyLB

ArtMonkey:

You shouldn't have to have a great DM in order to guarantee a good time.

I agree with you in a lot of points except this one. Even with a great set of rules, that don't need any kind of tweaking, the game needs a good DM, maybe not great, but good enough, which comes with imagination and practice.

Most of DM/GM/ST books gives you alternate rules, and even give you ways to tweak the game without breaking it. I'm sorry, but even though I do agree with your point about the systems, the system has always relied on DMs and thats why they even have their own corebooks, and most of them with guides on how to make stuff on the fly for rules that weren't covered.