What do you guys think of "Rules Nazis" as DMs?

[LadySoth]

The question here is a simple one: when you're playing RPG, it can be RLoft, or anything else, do you find it necessary to follow the rules to the letter? If a rule or aspect of gameplay is patently not working for your group, are you OK with discarding it to improve gameplay, or must rules be followed above all else?

Friends and I have recently started playing the Warhammer Chaos in the Old World boardgame, and there are certain rules involving costs of spells, summoning creatures, etc. that we find slowed down gameplay and only allowed one character to really accomplish anything the entire round, so we eliminated some small rules to improve gameplay and all have fun, so every character had a chance to win. We've been criticized for this in our RPG society because we're not playing the game "the right way" but eliminating some of the more ridiculously technical nit picky rules has improved our overall gameplay and really been a great thing in our small circle. So what do you guys think of this, do you have to be a "rules nazi" and follow every rule to play a game successfully? Or is having fun more important?

Why play a game where you aren't having fun, is what I think. What about everyone else?

[Isabella]

That's a bit of a loaded way of phrasing the question, don't you think? I don't think the "rules nazis" are trying to make themselves miserable (though the certainly can make everyone else miserable!)

[LadySoth]

That's a bit of a loaded way of phrasing the question, don't you think?

Yeah, probably.

I was just thinking of one of my friends who is a complete and utter rules nazi to the other players. Yet somehow forgets to apply the rules to himself. We've caught him cheating several times, yet he's always the first to point out when one of us has "broken" a rule.

[Brandi]

I was just thinking of one of my friends who is a complete and utter rules nazi to the other players. Yet somehow forgets to apply the rules to himself. We've caught him cheating several times, yet he's always the first to point out when one of us has "broken" a rule.

And you are friends with him why exactly?

[Snake]

If the rule(s) is/aren't working for your group then I say change or remove it/them. However, I think it must be a unanimous decision among the players and GM. If someone disagrees with the change, then a different approch must be taken. We once had a player that strongly disagreed with a house rule we made, and he made it a point to express his dislike for the change quite loudly...every...session...

Needless to say he isn't in our group anymore, but you get the point.

[Isabella]

I was just thinking of one of my friends who is a complete and utter rules nazi to the other players. Yet somehow forgets to apply the rules to himself. We've caught him cheating several times, yet he's always the first to point out when one of us has "broken" a rule.

I'm not sure I'd call that a "rules-nazi" so much as a "cheater."

[Gonzoron of the FoS]

There's a difference between a boardgame and a role-playing game. I rarely use "house rules" in boardgames, but do so all the time in RPG's. With boardgames, there's a certain expectation that the rules have been playtested more fully and have to fit together more cohesively. I've played enough games that I can usually tell the difference between a rule that's broken and a rule I just don't like. But I'm much more likely to just move on to another game (there are plenty out there) than try to fix a game I don't like.

With RPGs, the rules are just there to make the story work. If the rules get in the way of the story, it's time to change or dump them.

[DilisnyaRevenge]

There's a difference between a boardgame and a role-playing game. I rarely use "house rules" in boardgames, but do so all the time in RPG's. With boardgames, there's a certain expectation that the rules have been playtested more fully and have to fit together more cohesively. I've played enough games that I can usually tell the difference between a rule that's broken and a rule I just don't like. But I'm much more likely to just move on to another game (there are plenty out there) than try to fix a game I don't like.

With RPGs, the rules are just there to make the story work. If the rules get in the way of the story, it's time to change or dump them.

Agreed 100% with board games.

With RPG's I would split my opinion into several different categories:

#1 - If it is me (as the GM) "breaking the rules" by fudging rolls or allowing a bad guy to be dramatically killed on a crit, even though he would have 2 HP left... Then yes! I do it all the time.

#2 - If it is a case where there is an ambiguity in a rule and there is an argument about what it means... I will make a ruling on the spot (usually in favor of the player) and then encourage discussion about it after the session. Then, based on feedback, I will make a decision and stick with it. The reason for this is I hate rules arguments during time we could be playing.

#3 - If it is creating a new ability, path, item power, etc. that fits with the setting and/or character... I do this all the time. I work with the player to make the power/ability/whatever as reasonable and balanced as possible, but I let them know that since it is a house rule, I reserve the right to tweak it at any time if I feel it is too powerful, etc. I will usually try to do this between sessions since (as I said above) I hate rules discussions in game.

#4 - If it is changing a core rule, altering the way a published player ability works, etc. This is something I typically hesitate to do. I figure that the rule was usually written that way for a reason and I go with it. Historically I have had a lot of "aspiring game designer" type players who really enjoy changing rules for the sake of changing rules. As a consequence I tried to put a stop to the constant tweaking. Worse yet, I hate keeping track of all the rules changes. It gives me a headache. When I do decide to change something, it is always for good reason (i.e. rule is clearly broken) and I try to disclose everything to my players in advance.

Overall, I just think that as long as you are consistent, open, and fair about it, I don't think anyone has any room to complain. Anyway, this post ended up way longer than I intended, so I am just going to stop here... Happy playing!

[LadySoth]

I'm not sure I'd call that a "rules-nazi" so much as a "cheater."

[/quote]

Exactly. Its fun to point that out to him. Of course, he doesn't see anything wrong with the way he plays. A pretty decent guy in most respects, just gets a little too carried away with winning. One of our circle put it best when he said to the guy, "you know, you can be a reall a-hole when you're playing board games". Besides we need a 4th player and its a heck of a lot of fun when we catch him cheating and then can rub his nose in it, tease him about it a little.

But the question in general of following rules vs. not is such an interesting one to me. I really like your approach, Gonz, that seems to make the most sense to me too. Dump rules if they don't work. Gameplay should be about having a good time.

[LadySoth]

Overall, I just think that as long as you are consistent, open, and fair about it, I don't think anyone has any room to complain. Anyway, this post ended up way longer than I intended, so I am just going to stop here... Happy playing!

This is a great point as well! Thanks for the response!

Apologies for double post.

[Nukdai]

certain mechanics rules such as line of sight and spel effects or costs should be set in stone but as far as can that even in dugeoncraft articles Monte Cook writes that the ruleas are flexible and the DM has the ultimate say not another player. At my table we have a house rule if it's way out side the box then it's up for vote by everone at the table but what the players can get away with so can the NPC

[Jester of the FoS]

If you're not going to follow a rule of the game then that rule should be singled-out ahead of time. Players walk into a game with the assumption they will be using the same rules as the DM and that neither side will "cheat". If the DM changes rules on the fly then it's breaking the essential trust between the DM and the players.

That said, not everyone can know every rule. It's better to admit you're unsure of a rule and say you'll look-up the specifics at a later date rather than derail the game with a book search or rules discussion. Except when a PC's life is at stake.

I like the harness rules lawyers. When you're unsure they're handy to be able to turn to and say "refresh my memory". But you have to make it known that when you overrule them they have to remain quiet.
After a long time playing Living Greyhawk I grew to be quite the rules lawyer, but still a little fuzzy in places.
But the hardest part of the game is remaining silent when an ally is accidentally fudging the rules or the DM is making a mistake in your favour. It's hard to narc on the party.

[brilliantlight]

If the rule(s) is/aren't working for your group then I say change or remove it/them. However, I think it must be a unanimous decision among the players and GM. If someone disagrees with the change, then a different approch must be taken. We once had a player that strongly disagreed with a house rule we made, and he made it a point to express his dislike for the change quite loudly...every...session...

Needless to say he isn't in our group anymore, but you get the point.

The way I see it the GM's word is pretty much law. He certainly can and should ask if everyone is happy with his rule change and should be willing to not go through with it if his player's are unhappy but in the end it is his decision. If he keeps making poor decisions he won't be a GM long anyways.

[brilliantlight]

There's a difference between a boardgame and a role-playing game. I rarely use "house rules" in boardgames, but do so all the time in RPG's. With boardgames, there's a certain expectation that the rules have been playtested more fully and have to fit together more cohesively. I've played enough games that I can usually tell the difference between a rule that's broken and a rule I just don't like. But I'm much more likely to just move on to another game (there are plenty out there) than try to fix a game I don't like.

With RPGs, the rules are just there to make the story work. If the rules get in the way of the story, it's time to change or dump them.

Board games are also competitive while RPGs are pretty cooperative. You don't have clear winners per se.

[Snake]

The way I see it the GM's word is pretty much law. He certainly can and should ask if everyone is happy with his rule change and should be willing to not go through with it if his player's are unhappy but in the end it is his decision. If he keeps making poor decisions he won't be a GM long anyways.

I never said the GM should let the players decide instead of himself/herself, just that he should make sure all his/her players are happy, which you seemed to say as well in a different way.