When is it acceptable for a GM to ignore a rule specifically because using it wouldn't make for a "good story...

>Once, I was at a table when a wizard cast "Charm Person" on an ogre who was guarding a bridge we were trying to cross. I immediately sprung to my feet and exclaimed "that's wrong fuckface, ogres are "giant" type monsters, and charm person only works on humanoids!"
Your strawman falls apart because this is totally a rule worth calling out a GM's ruling over. It doesn't matter if it would be more fun for the table, there's a separate, higher level spell that's meant to charm monsters.

Rules? Whenever.

Rolls? Don't call for it in the first place if you're going to ignore the result.

I actually support the guy's original sentiment but yeah that was a retarded argument

Never, always.

I get that it's theoretically for balance, but Charm Person vs. Charm Monster says some unpleasant things about the personhood of a load of intelligent, free-willed sophonts. Are giants *not* people?

Humanoid type vs Giant type have no bearing on the philosophical assessment of an individual's personhood. They're different types of creatures, and humanoids are simpler to influence via magic than non-humanoids. Spell names have always been pretty arbitrary.

Go ahead and ignore a rule if it isn't fun, compelling or a means of needed balance.

If you're going to roll a die, then fucking use the result. The moment you let a die drop, you've made your decision.

Are you saying an ogre isn't a monster when you want it to be your friend?

It's still a problem. the language the game uses defines it's reality, but yhe spell doesn't do what it says it should do. The division is arbitrary, and worse it bakes in assumptions about the setting that should be left to the group.

Antagonism and personhood aren't mutually exclusive. Ogres may be brutal and dim-witted, but they can speak and use weapons. Would you say that an elf is a monster because he wants to stab you?

I'd say the elf is a monster because it has a monster stat block in the MM, Satan.

You're taking about the default name of the spell in a game where the default setting(s) have races where virtually every member is evil.

Never, but then we don't roll either unless it's something he should be able to potentially fail at.
As for "good story", we're playing a game not writing a novel.

As a caveat to this, I often roll stuff behind the DM screen. It's no fun for the new player to get fukken decapitated by the single orc guarding a treasure chest on room 1 of his first ever dungeon. Or sometimes I'll roll for shit that doesn't matter, or just roll and say "you don't notice anything unusual."

I'd say an ogre is a monster in the same way a salmon is a fish. A particularly smart salmon that is able to talk is still not a person, Satan

Always, as long as it's true that the story will be better. It often isn't by the way.

A spell that charms humanoids was called Charm Person, and a spell that charms other intelligent beings was called Charm Monster. Chalk it up to humanoidism. Another minor cause for progressives to rally around, yay!

If you do it and the players can tell, then it is a bad idea.

Expeditious Retreat doesn't just allow you to retreat expeditiously, it just increases your movement speed. Multiple editions call out that the spell name doesn't have bearing on the actual function of the spell.

Why not? What would the talking salmon have to do before it became a person? What is the difference between a talking salmon and a talking ape?

It's not about scoring political points, it's a practical issue as illustrated by the example that started this conversation. Mechanics that don't do what they say they do are bad even if the thing that is actually being done is worthwhile. The division between "easy to charm" and "not easy to charm" is a perfectly reasonable distinction, but the implementation obfuscates what is actually being distinguished, and makes broad generalisations by type, rather than more useful case-by-case rulings that don't pre-assume setting information that should be up for group decision.

The game already does this; look at Elves' resistance to charming effects. If a creature needs to be resistant, it can be made resistant without also doing the same to every other creature of its type.

That's a cutscene.

Sorry I just can't get behind this idea.

I feel his would cheapen the appearance of a 20. A 20 is supposed to be a special thing that everyone at the table can be happy about. Instead it's like saying "ah, no, that doesn't count". Plus, what about builds and feats that make crits in combat easier?

I one shotted my GMs first boss with a crit. It didn't ruin the moment, in fact it made it way better, since he'd been pissing us off for a while. Plus the boss had other goons so I wasn't exactly destroying the whole encounter.

If you don't want a crit ruining an encounter make your bosses stronger or give them goons, or make the fights more technical so they aren't just getting tanked and spanked.

Does it really work?

>I roll to seduce (enemy)
Does it count if your method of seduction is force-fed love potion?

Good posts on a conceptually mediocre thread. This is a good board.

In three years, with games every week, I've only had to give out two. There was much debating beforehand. The rest of the time, I just let things happen as the dice dictate and weave the story around that.

It's always acceptable for the GM to ignore a rule for any reason they like.

The caveat is that they should always be taking actions for the good of the group as a whole, thus what their players prefer and find acceptable will limit how they can apply the above statement. However, there is nothing innately sacred in the rules themselves, and if changing or ignore them would benefit a game, the GM is obligated to do so.

I think with ignoring rolls it's very much a case of not ignoring or downplaying player side rolls. What you do behind your GM screen is up to you.

Although it's also important to be clear that this only applies to rolls you call for. A player rolling a dice before you can say not to doesn't get shit, no matter what number appears on the dice.

Absolutely never. I once played with a DM who insisted on rolling some dice hidden behind his screen, no doubt so that he could fudge the results of it suited him. Well, I wouldn't have it, and I let him know!

I kicked him swiftly on the chin under the table. He just looked around at us in pain and confusion, as if he didn't understand exactly why he'd gotten a kick in the shin. Clearly, I had to take this one step further and my position clear as day, so I stood up and screamed right into his face as loud as I could. The mongrel once again only displayed confusion at this. So, as I screamed, I grabbed hold of the table and began shaking it violently. Books thumped, character sheets sailed off the table, I'm pretty sure one drink fell over, but most importantly of all that infernal DM screen fell over. Or at least, it would have unless the sub-human of a DM hadn't caught it in his lanky arms.

Shaking the table was fruitless, but I kept screaming. I screamed right into his stupid confused face, even as he had the gall to laugh at me. I screamed. I screamed till my face pounded like a with rushing blood, and I began flailing my arms across the table, sending papers, books and models off into the distance. By now it wasn't just the DM anymore. The whole table was laughing at me. I managed to hold back the tears long enough to rip the DM screen off the table and fling it into a shelf behind me before I stormed out to grab my cloak and cane before leaving to never return.

Generally I'd say do what you need to do to keep things interesting, that could mean ignoring a rule or a roll, but you should plan ahead to never be in a situation where a single roll or rule could ruin things

According to the handbook, whenever he feels like.

>where a single roll or rule could ruin things
I don't think anyone is saying that you should put yourself in this situation, but there are several where a series of unfortunate rolls can really throw a wrench in the storytelling. For example, let's say that one player has a very sound idea for how to get the party out of a bad situation and uses himself as bait to get it to work. Under normal circumstances the plan should be foolproof, however, it just so happens that he rolls extremely poorly while the enemies roll extremely well and he's quickly killed. Now, I say, is where the GM should fudge things somewhat, and make it so that whatever happens next the rest of the party actually make it out alive, preferably due to the confusion caused by the now dead character, so that his sacrifice wasn't pointless. He failed, sure, but let him take some kind of glory in his well thought out plan.

>I feel his would cheapen the appearance of a 20. A 20 is supposed to be a special thing that everyone at the table can be happy about.
I feel like 20s happen too often for them to be as special as people make them out to be. 1/20 isn't that bad odds compared to something like a d100.

>The division between "easy to charm" and "not easy to charm" is a perfectly reasonable distinction,
But it has nothing to do with a particular type of creatures being resistant or susceptible to charms in general. Certain spells just work ONLY on creatures of a specific type, not because creatures of that type are particularly susceptible, but because the spell was designed to work on that type of creature, and thus doesn't work on creatures that aren't of that type. Charm Animal is also a first level spell, but you still can't use charm person to charm animals because it's not about animals being easy to charm, it's about whether or not this particular spell works on animals or not. How easy or hard a particular creature is to charm depends on their will saves and specific bonuses against charm and enchantment spells. A wizard could just as easily develop a spell called Charm Giants, but that just doesn't happen to be a common spell and thus isn't found in the core book.

Not a terrible idea, but haven't they ever asked to cash it in right then and there?

Give me an example. Then I judge.

but this is an example of bad story telling user. OP said good story telling!

Acceptable? According to whom? Bunch of neckbeards from Tanzanian straw rug-weaving newsletter?

Fuck them, do what you think is right when a situation arises.

Whenever they fucking want. Don't like it? Be the GM

It completely ruining fun or killing someone just because random encounter that doesn't matter? Ignore it. It can ruin story, but can lead to a new one? Use it.

Good storytelling is subjective.

In my unpopular opinion: Strictly NEVER.

The rules are the 'natural laws' of the imaginary world. If you want to change them, then homebrew changes and inform the players beforehand. When play has begun then the rules are set in stone and should be used as written/agreed, and in each appropriate situation.

Fudges are zero-tolerance for me, but I can understand certain skips if it makes sense. Like not rolling 'predators taint' every single time you meet a new vampire in Vtes.

natural 20s are retarded anyway because DnD is shit. Anything to get around the cancer of "5% chance of eating ass no matter what" as far as I care.

>These are the rules that govern the world
>Suddenly don't apply because I am not intelligent enough to follow the rules while making good story

>The rules are the 'natural laws' of the imaginary world.
Sorry, but that's just idiotic. They are not, and they are not intended to be, the natural laws of the setting. They SIMULATE the natural laws and facilitate playing the game.

And what you're saying is autistic. Not necessarily wrong, but intolerably autistic.

Whenever the GM deems it necessary for whatever reason

Yes, an Elf is a monster

I agree with this guy.

If a rule is bad it should be changed at least prior to the session. If it has been used before then it's unfair to change it. Never ignore a roll. I've told my groups that the moment a roll is done, it's done.

The one stipulation is if I screwed up and didn't explain something well enough and they're rolling on a bad description. I'm know they take advantage of that sometimes but at least they feel bad and that reflects well on the cohesiveness of the plot.

Interesting. I'm of the literal opposite opinion. I trust my GM to get how the campaign is going a lot more than I trust a game designer to do so, generally speaking, so by and large I not only acept my GM fudging but tend to look at GMs that say they never fudge or change the rules mid-campaign rather askance. The idea of looking at rules as inviolable natural laws instead of just artificial frameworks for conflict-solving we've sort of agreed on *as long as they provide outcomes we're happy with and not a second further* is kind of unthinkable to me.

>Fudges are zero-tolerance for me
Oh, you're THAT moron.

>The rules are the 'natural laws' of the imaginary world.
Yeah, but many settings have gods and other beings who can tell the natural laws to go fuck themselves, and many stories have moments where the heroes say "...That shouldn't have worked. We should be fucking dead," as if the natural laws that should have killed them suddenly stopped working for just a moment.

...

/thread

With a bit of polish, this could be actually useful.

The 'outcome I am happy' with is 'If I die, i die; If I fail, I fail'.

If you aren't going to follow the rules, why not just free-form, zero rules? Metaphorical question, I know that you know why, and every fudge and ignored rule is one step towards free-form.

Because it's not a binary choice, you autistic fuck.

Whenever they feel like it.

Anyone who doesn't agree is forgetting Rule 0. And are therefore newfag interlopers.

Brah. Back before your Nat 20 herp derp system a Nat 20 we just the best roll you could make. Not even an auto confirm hit.

At best a Nat 20 should be an auto Hit with many a small Dice of dmg like adding a 1d4 if that!

I'm sick of this retarded new trend of "lol XD a NAT!!!! 100 100 Lound sounds insta good mode.

A 20 happens at a 5% chance. It needs to be nerfed.

>Not even an auto confirm hit.
I mean, if the action can't succeed even when rolling the best possible number, why force the players to roll at all?

Exactly. You roll to attempt something if you a) have a reasonable chance of success and b) there is a reasonable chance you will fail. You shouldn't call for an athletics check to stand up and walk across the room, and you shouldn't call for a sneak check to walk completely unnoticed past a sentry in broad daylight.

Before ignoring a major rule/roll, you need to ask yourself three questions:

1. Are you able to do it without the players noticing?
2. Do you usually do this only in rare occasions?
3. Will doing it make the game more fun/balanced to the players, and/or the story more interesting/fun?

If you can honestly answer YES to all three, go ahead.

Exactly. But if you are on a scale from Delicious steak to Shit, why would you even start spreading shit on the steak?

>badwrongfun

A talking ape is a mammal.

The spell 'charm mammal' would work on an ape, but would not work on a fish. Even if both are sentient sophonts and thus 'people', that doesn't mean they're humanoid.

I mean, who knows? A giant- creatures with the giant type- could have a different nervous system. Send nerve signals faster, so that giants react and move at the same speedy despite being so much larger. Who knows how a charm spell works? I just figure that making a spell to 'charm' people is easier than making a spell to 'charm' anything with a brain, with diverse biologies.

A good way to wean your players out of this mindset is to force them encounter swarms of weak, normally harmless monsters that each try to punch their characters to the moon, and keep trying until you get that nat 20. Then holler and tell that their characters are knocked flying over the mountains and die because ebin nat20.

What you described is just a string of critical successes or some such.

I think most of us agree that free-form is shit.

I'm pretty sure most of us ALSO agree that being anal-retentive about the rules does nothing to improve the game.

I'm with you. I think I'm ultimately kind of a narrativist. I think the unexpected that comes from rolls can be a good story aid, but when it ceases to be that, what's the point?

I mean, if the nervous system was dramatically different you'd probably expect them to act less like humans than they do. They don't seem psychologically alien the way, say, an octopus does. I guess I'm saying I think we have reason to believe a giant's nervous system would be relatively similar to a human's.

>I kicked him swiftly on the chin under the table
Your ERP group doesn't sound very fun.

>Anything to get around the cancer of "5% chance of eating ass no matter what" as far as I care.
Your ERP group doesn't sound very fun.

Because somewhere between delicious steak and shit is even-more-delicious dry-aged steak. If you go too far, yeah, you develop fatal diarrhea. But if you nail the balance then it's the best thing ever.

I never ignore rules because they aren't "good for the story". It's not a story, it's a game that a story can develop within.

I WILL ignore rules if I don't think the rule is good for the game.

>When is it acceptable for a GM to ignore a rule specifically because using it wouldn't make for a "good story?" How about a roll?
Never call for a roll if you don't want to gamble on that outcome, and make sure players know that they're not supposed to roll things unprompted: they say what they want to do, GM tells them to roll, GM describes outcome, players make another decision, etc.

And most RPGs are clear on one of two points: the rules are at the mercy of the GM, rather than the other way around.

>And most RPGs are clear on one of two points: the rules are at the mercy of the GM, rather than the other way around.
I am retarded and forgot the other point--"or that the rules are more suggestions than immutable thing."

My players are cool and don't do this.

What kind of polish?

Acceptable:
>the rules would produce an unrealistic result, like a dagger held against your throat not being dangerous when you have tons of HP
>making enemies less survivable, especially nameless cannon fodder
>going into more or less detail than the rules normally offer, depending on the importance of the act being performed

Unacceptable:
>anything to do with DMPCs
>letting the BBEG survive something that should have killed him because you didn't anticipate the players' plan
>killing PCs off without any roll

>because you didn't anticipate the players' plan

Man, I've not DMed a campaign but if my players came up with some way-outta-left-field plan to defeat the BBEG I'd be stoked as hell.

Now who's being binary.

I'd rather not have any poo-poo on my steak.

The one who doesn't get that in some cases, the best solution is between the two extremes?

a game
which is what you're playing
unless you just want to jerk yourself off and write a book, in which case stop playing games

>Killing a PC off with any roll

By this, do you mean that player characters should never die by a mechanic or rule of the game (like dropping to zero and failing death saves in D&D)? Are you arguing that players should only die if the DM thinks they should for plot reasons?

>killing PCs off without any roll
>without any roll
>without

Jesus I need to stop smoking in the morning.

>playing D&D when you want narrative

you should never bend the rules, and you should never fudge dice in particular. mind you that you can change the rules to better suit the way you want to play. or, you know, play a game that does this better than D&D. for example, FATE does this better by empowering players narratively. this is like my biggest gripe with the hobby, everyone always uses D&D for everything when the are other games out there that do certain things better. if you need to bend a rule, there's probably something wrong with that rule, is what I'm trying to say.

>if you need to bend a rule, there's probably something wrong with that rule, is what I'm trying to say.
Well, yes. If you have lots of rules interacting with each other, there are guaranteed to be rules that aren't perfect or edge cases where the result you get from strict RAW doesn't make a lot of sense.
This has more to do with how complicated a system is, and less with how good it is. It's not even remotely specific to D&D.

And yet D&D is the biggest game on the market and it's got this problem in spades. Either way I'd prefer games with less numerous but more powerful rules, i think, and there's so many games out there that need more love anyway.