I can't speak for how any other tables should or shouldn't run the game, but with mine, I try to stick to RAW as much as possible, however I also adjudicate on the fly. I hate pausing the game to look something up, so I avoid it at all costs (hence my love for this product lol).
So if something comes up at the table that I'm iffy on, I make a judgment call with what makes the most sense. Most of my players are new to D&D, and the one who isn't is new to 5e, so there's an understanding if something is unclear, and everyone usually agrees that something is fair. I make the caveat that if you do the work to look up the rule and prove me wrong, we'll absolutely use RAW. The cool thing about 5e is that my guess is usually correct if not at least close. I find it to be an extremely intuitive system that makes a lot of sense.
Also, if I make an unchallenged ruling, I will go research it later. If it's proven to be wrong, I'll let my players know in our private FB group that even though things worked a certain way before, going forward we'll be using the actual rule. It helps us all to learn the game together.
One major issue is some people, DMs included, fly with RAW, and look at any exceptions to RAW as aerodynamic "drag", in a gaming sense. Others look at
RAW as the fuselage of the plane they use to fly the campaign, but imagination is what provides power and fuel to the engine.
One method I employ, as DM, (in the few instances where I DM a campaign) is I reward coordinated teamwork
and well thought out plans of action with a small bonus, either as loot, or +die upon dice rolls. Many times this will help the party overcome the minor differences in RAW
The DM is taking their time to run the campaign and it's possible they don't like some of the rules as they are so they decide to alter them to something they like and feel better suited to. All in all they are the Dice Jesus for the campaign so they should be able to DM it how they wish to.
3.5 is a whole different beast from 5e - I came from that and balance is really hard to come by. If you are experienced, there's a good chance you will be able to build a more optimized character than someone who was having trouble calculating their stats. Sidenote, thank the gods that LC is gone...
As for DMs sticking to RAW, my philosophy is that optional features, house rules, and things that get completely ignored should be covered by the DM in Session 0. It's a game and everyone is coming to it with the same set of rules. Any change to those need to be covered upfront so that everyone is on the same page. This will save so many issues from popping up.
Now in 3.5, you had rules for just about everything. There were pros and cons to that. In 5e, there are a number of things that are left up to the DM and I believe those should be covered up front. Optional features like feats, multiclassing, flanking, disarming, etc. along with fuzzy areas like stealth, hiding in combat, illusions, and passive perception need to be covered because they can have a profound effect on certain characters.
When it comes to adjudicating during play, I like to make a ruling quickly if I don't know the answer and then go look it up later. I make it clear by saying "I'm not sure, so we'll say it works this time. I'll look it up later and let you know how we'll handle it going forward."
I believe sometimes for the narrative or to keep players from breaking the game with loopholes rule breaking can be helpful. Only as long as it isn't to control them completely. Some dms forget we are h here for the players not ourselves.
IMO the rules should always exist to provide structure and fun. As both a player and a DM, I PERSONALLY love to see the rules bent slightly for cool moments.
In the case of race traits and base mechanics, if the DM has house rules or home brewed something to be slightly different, thats fine- But it is something that should be communicated to all players, ideally before a session.
Personally I don't view myself as "subject to the rules" but I view myself as "subject to my players".
My view is that there's a "higher level" than the rules - that being common sense, and the internal logic and consistency of the setting world it'self.
If I feel the need, I'll pretzel the hell out of rules - and given that my current campaign is "gritty realism, low magic", I have - I've also used "by the book" monsters exactly twice in our current campaign.
However - players need a consistent set of rules and any and all "table rules" were well discussed in session 0, and follow-up emails. Any permanent rule changes as the campaign has progressed have been well discussed in the group before they've been implemented.
In situation which the rules are "fuzzy" on, I use the same approach as Mittens- make a "hard and fast" ruling on what seems to be logical according to the setting and to common sense - and sort it out later.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
However much the DM and the players agree. If the group wants the DM to obey the rules-as-written, then he should; if the group doesn't care, then he can change whatever he wants. The important part is that the players should consent to whichever route they go.
It's important for the DM/GM not to get overzealous in his modifications. I have seen a lot of newish DMs for various game systems come out swinging changing half the rules / settings / story. It can be hard for older players to adjust and often the modified rules aren't as good as the RAW. I would say modify story/setting/lore to your hearts content, but once you start messing with rules / gameplay you risk messing the game up.
I recently went to join the group that was just starting out and the DM sat me down and started dictating to me point by point all the rule changes. Honestly there must have been like 50 house rules. In the end it was a completely different game. It was presented in a heavy handed sort of way and I ended up bowing out after the first session.
Some DM's have a story to tell and just want to see players act it out. For that kind of DM I will just read a book instead.
It's an interesting question, honestly. You would hope that they are following the rules, or why have them (and spend so much money to get them)? But they are the Game Master/Dungeon Master. Their interpretation of the rules is final. CWard83 has the right idea at the end of the day. Either you're willing to play in their kingdom/world/dungeon, or you find another game to play.
But the spirit that everyone should be bringing to the table should be one of friendship and fun. You are all there to forge bonds, have fun and enjoy a hobby. You should be talking to each other to sort out differences, again not in a competitive way but in a friendly way.
My DM and I just had a difference of opinion on rules on an attack I made and whether I had left the creatures reach, causing an attack of opportunity. I expressed my views. He listened and made a decision. I didn't have to agree, but I still had to live with it. Next time it happens, I know how he rules so I'll use that to make my decision. But we were able to discuss it as friends, and once we were done, it was done.
Rule changes/house rules should exist to make the game better/more fun for the players. Ideally, rule changes should be negotiated at the table or at least informally agreed upon by the players. I'm not a fan of GM fiat, particularly not GM fiat for the sake of GM fiat, and I don't particularly care for the traditional conception of Rule Zero/The Golden Rule that the GM is always right (they aren't) or that if you don't like a rule you should just ignore it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
DM: The Cult of the Crystal Spider (Currently playing Storm King's Thunder) Player: The Knuckles of Arth - Lemire (Tiefling Rogue 5/Fighter 1)
how about someone asking what you meant by it? Changing the AC of a monster mid-battle (effectively saying if something hits or misses)? Upping or lowering AC on stats before the game? Changing how AC works in some other way (though not sure how that would happen)?
Modifying the AC in the stat block (pre-game). In 5e, we've been blessed with bounded accuracy, and we must honor the gods by not besmirching it's holy virtue.
I've never known a DM to make an issue out of lowering a monster's AC though, so mostly I meant raising it (and really when I say raising, I mean raising to absurd levels to try to mitigate a party's DPS thereby causing the players to waste turn after turn swinging at a nigh on impossible behemoth where he then loses control of the fight if players don't roll exceptionally well.) In practice, you'll almost never need to touch AC, and when you do, just give the thing a different name. Oh this is a redguard sentinal. Totally different from the Redguard veteran. watch out. Messing with AC is a bad habit to be in. You can account for the probability of a fight, and target a set number of rounds of combat much more effectively when you modify HP first, thereby lessening the odds that your party will be accidentally creamed by an easy or medium encounter that you expected them to walk over because you got over zealous. Also, people LIKE to hit. They like to do damage. They DON'T like wasting 3 turns missing 6 consecutive attacks while the rogue with a stupidly high dex (hey, back on topic ^_)^ and a +9 to hit that he "shouldn't have" cough, cough...shows off! No, not even tanks who might be poorly optimized for DPS, or face characters who might be moreso like to wiff every turn. So leave that AC at 12-14 until you get to around CR5 stat-blocks, and even then, respect it.
I subscribe to the plus or minus theory. If you have 3 bandits, they may have a slight variance in AC. By like 1. Plus or minus from the stat block. I like the dynamic of not all are equal. I understand what you are saying because the second fight my table got into a year and a half ago (I wasnt dm) we almost wiped because the mobs had 18 ac and we just had bad rolls the whole fight.
I'll never forget it because I think the DM let me have a rule of cool moment. 4 allies death saving, me and one other nearly dead (I think I actually had 1hp from a nat20 death save) and the statue was going after me. Instead of healing, I wanted to leap into the air, flip and heel drop his head in (I was running UA Immortal Mystic at the time) and succeeded the bit by 1. But my damage was total 3 it something like that and he said it crushed his head into his chest.
Point being, we had six players, or CR tolerance was a bit higher and you are right, shifting the AC affects the difficulty in potentially massive ways, but small variances can give those awesome phew moments where you truly feel like a hero.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
You only lose if you die. Any time else, there's opportunity for a come back.
Change the stat block if you want, but be prepared to make concessions if you're about to wipe the players. I'm not for babying players, but if you've upped the AC and now a PC is going to die.... you've probably messed up in your estimation on what the party can take on and should have stuck with the original AC
Or.... use a cinematic ending to the encounter to get them out of hot water.
I think it's partly up to the players, since they may want to be sure of a balanced game. But Book is not law, so if everyone wants to ignore or change some things and that will make it more fun for them, there's so reason not too!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I can't speak for how any other tables should or shouldn't run the game, but with mine, I try to stick to RAW as much as possible, however I also adjudicate on the fly. I hate pausing the game to look something up, so I avoid it at all costs (hence my love for this product lol).
So if something comes up at the table that I'm iffy on, I make a judgment call with what makes the most sense. Most of my players are new to D&D, and the one who isn't is new to 5e, so there's an understanding if something is unclear, and everyone usually agrees that something is fair. I make the caveat that if you do the work to look up the rule and prove me wrong, we'll absolutely use RAW. The cool thing about 5e is that my guess is usually correct if not at least close. I find it to be an extremely intuitive system that makes a lot of sense.
Also, if I make an unchallenged ruling, I will go research it later. If it's proven to be wrong, I'll let my players know in our private FB group that even though things worked a certain way before, going forward we'll be using the actual rule. It helps us all to learn the game together.
One major issue is some people, DMs included, fly with RAW, and look at any exceptions to RAW as aerodynamic "drag", in a gaming sense. Others look at
RAW as the fuselage of the plane they use to fly the campaign, but imagination is what provides power and fuel to the engine.
One method I employ, as DM, (in the few instances where I DM a campaign) is I reward coordinated teamwork
and well thought out plans of action with a small bonus, either as loot, or +die upon dice rolls. Many times this will help the party overcome the minor differences in RAW
and streamlined play.
The DM is taking their time to run the campaign and it's possible they don't like some of the rules as they are so they decide to alter them to something they like and feel better suited to. All in all they are the Dice Jesus for the campaign so they should be able to DM it how they wish to.
I read something interesting today:
"Maybe the rules lawyers are playing the wrong game. There's a special type of D&D for folk who insist on sticking solely to RAW.
It's called Chess..."
3.5 is a whole different beast from 5e - I came from that and balance is really hard to come by. If you are experienced, there's a good chance you will be able to build a more optimized character than someone who was having trouble calculating their stats. Sidenote, thank the gods that LC is gone...
As for DMs sticking to RAW, my philosophy is that optional features, house rules, and things that get completely ignored should be covered by the DM in Session 0. It's a game and everyone is coming to it with the same set of rules. Any change to those need to be covered upfront so that everyone is on the same page. This will save so many issues from popping up.
Now in 3.5, you had rules for just about everything. There were pros and cons to that. In 5e, there are a number of things that are left up to the DM and I believe those should be covered up front. Optional features like feats, multiclassing, flanking, disarming, etc. along with fuzzy areas like stealth, hiding in combat, illusions, and passive perception need to be covered because they can have a profound effect on certain characters.
When it comes to adjudicating during play, I like to make a ruling quickly if I don't know the answer and then go look it up later. I make it clear by saying "I'm not sure, so we'll say it works this time. I'll look it up later and let you know how we'll handle it going forward."
I believe sometimes for the narrative or to keep players from breaking the game with loopholes rule breaking can be helpful. Only as long as it isn't to control them completely. Some dms forget we are h here for the players not ourselves.
DM's are here for everyone at the table, players and DM alike. The game is supposed to be fun for everyone.
Professional computer geek
IMO the rules should always exist to provide structure and fun. As both a player and a DM, I PERSONALLY love to see the rules bent slightly for cool moments.
In the case of race traits and base mechanics, if the DM has house rules or home brewed something to be slightly different, thats fine- But it is something that should be communicated to all players, ideally before a session.
Personally I don't view myself as "subject to the rules" but I view myself as "subject to my players".
My view is that there's a "higher level" than the rules - that being common sense, and the internal logic and consistency of the setting world it'self.
If I feel the need, I'll pretzel the hell out of rules - and given that my current campaign is "gritty realism, low magic", I have - I've also used "by the book" monsters exactly twice in our current campaign.
However - players need a consistent set of rules and any and all "table rules" were well discussed in session 0, and follow-up emails. Any permanent rule changes as the campaign has progressed have been well discussed in the group before they've been implemented.
In situation which the rules are "fuzzy" on, I use the same approach as Mittens - make a "hard and fast" ruling on what seems to be logical according to the setting and to common sense - and sort it out later.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
However much the DM and the players agree. If the group wants the DM to obey the rules-as-written, then he should; if the group doesn't care, then he can change whatever he wants. The important part is that the players should consent to whichever route they go.
It's important for the DM/GM not to get overzealous in his modifications. I have seen a lot of newish DMs for various game systems come out swinging changing half the rules / settings / story. It can be hard for older players to adjust and often the modified rules aren't as good as the RAW. I would say modify story/setting/lore to your hearts content, but once you start messing with rules / gameplay you risk messing the game up.
I recently went to join the group that was just starting out and the DM sat me down and started dictating to me point by point all the rule changes. Honestly there must have been like 50 house rules. In the end it was a completely different game. It was presented in a heavy handed sort of way and I ended up bowing out after the first session.
Some DM's have a story to tell and just want to see players act it out. For that kind of DM I will just read a book instead.
It's an interesting question, honestly. You would hope that they are following the rules, or why have them (and spend so much money to get them)? But they are the Game Master/Dungeon Master. Their interpretation of the rules is final. CWard83 has the right idea at the end of the day. Either you're willing to play in their kingdom/world/dungeon, or you find another game to play.
But the spirit that everyone should be bringing to the table should be one of friendship and fun. You are all there to forge bonds, have fun and enjoy a hobby. You should be talking to each other to sort out differences, again not in a competitive way but in a friendly way.
My DM and I just had a difference of opinion on rules on an attack I made and whether I had left the creatures reach, causing an attack of opportunity. I expressed my views. He listened and made a decision. I didn't have to agree, but I still had to live with it. Next time it happens, I know how he rules so I'll use that to make my decision. But we were able to discuss it as friends, and once we were done, it was done.
Rule changes/house rules should exist to make the game better/more fun for the players. Ideally, rule changes should be negotiated at the table or at least informally agreed upon by the players. I'm not a fan of GM fiat, particularly not GM fiat for the sake of GM fiat, and I don't particularly care for the traditional conception of Rule Zero/The Golden Rule that the GM is always right (they aren't) or that if you don't like a rule you should just ignore it.
DM: The Cult of the Crystal Spider (Currently playing Storm King's Thunder)
Player: The Knuckles of Arth - Lemire (Tiefling Rogue 5/Fighter 1)
I subscribe to the plus or minus theory. If you have 3 bandits, they may have a slight variance in AC. By like 1. Plus or minus from the stat block. I like the dynamic of not all are equal. I understand what you are saying because the second fight my table got into a year and a half ago (I wasnt dm) we almost wiped because the mobs had 18 ac and we just had bad rolls the whole fight.
I'll never forget it because I think the DM let me have a rule of cool moment. 4 allies death saving, me and one other nearly dead (I think I actually had 1hp from a nat20 death save) and the statue was going after me. Instead of healing, I wanted to leap into the air, flip and heel drop his head in (I was running UA Immortal Mystic at the time) and succeeded the bit by 1. But my damage was total 3 it something like that and he said it crushed his head into his chest.
Point being, we had six players, or CR tolerance was a bit higher and you are right, shifting the AC affects the difficulty in potentially massive ways, but small variances can give those awesome phew moments where you truly feel like a hero.
You only lose if you die. Any time else, there's opportunity for a come back.
+1 to Pseudoimmortal
Change the stat block if you want, but be prepared to make concessions if you're about to wipe the players. I'm not for babying players, but if you've upped the AC and now a PC is going to die.... you've probably messed up in your estimation on what the party can take on and should have stuck with the original AC
Or.... use a cinematic ending to the encounter to get them out of hot water.
I think it's partly up to the players, since they may want to be sure of a balanced game. But Book is not law, so if everyone wants to ignore or change some things and that will make it more fun for them, there's so reason not too!