Often, I see the statement that DMs in RPGA are not allowed to change or house rule the rules. This often comes up in discussion of rules interpretation.
However, I could find nothing in the text either of the character creation guide, or the beginning text of a module, that indicates that house rules are unacceptable so long as they don't violate RPGA access rules (you can't allow someone to use something they don't have access to) or create new items, etcetera or raise rewards beyond the caps.
"Make decisions and adjudications that enhance the fun of the adventure whenever possible."
If Bob's supercombo/exploit of not-yet-errataed power/minmaxed cheese twink/whatever-your-problem-is character ruins the fun for the table, I'd say that has a pretty negative impact on the fun of the adventure, not to mention "Don't make the adventure too easy or too difficult for the group."
I can find no text that indicates the historical ruling that DMs must follow RAW as written slavishly in the RPGA.
Now--I can certainly understand that this is desired, and I agree with it in ninety-nine point nine percent of the cases in which it comes up. It seems like a good idea. However, it's that last .1 percent that's the problem. When I'm running a table of tactical/strategic numbers players (what's the politically correct term for minmaxing power gamers?) I'm more than glad to allow them whatever tricks they want to use with their characters to optimize them and run RAW from the perspective of the monsters to increase the challenge to a point where they get to show off.
But when I'm running a mixed table of players, where a powergaming min/maxer is mixed with other players who are there for a different kind of experience, I see no problems with making house rules as necessary to alter things. I'll be perfectly clear with the rules lawyers why I'm doing it, that it's temporary, and all the rest of that jazz, to enhance the fun at the table.
Where does it say I can't do this?
Of course, there is no RPGA police, so if you are using house rules in your own private games there is really no way for us to check. To be honest, we don't really care either as long as your players are having fun. In fact, more than likely they build their characters based on your interpretations. In public games with a random group of players though that is not the case. The DM's knee jerk reaction might completely invalidate a character and as a result ruin the fun of that one player and nothing has a stronger tendency to ruin the fun of all at the table than an irritated/dissapointed player.
Personally, I feel that too many people assume that powergaming/number crunching players ruins the fun of others at the table because it tends to be highly irritating for the DM. In my experience, players rarely care as long as they can shine on occassion. It is the DM who is the biggest fascilitator to make sure both have fun by making sure everybody that wants to gets their shining moment. I try to work within the rules to make the game fun both for the number cruncher and the more casual gamer, and you can do so without changing the actual rules.
Where does it say I can't do this?
To which I ask, why does it have to? Do we need to "legislate" common sense?
If you're running a home game, do whatever you want. If you running public LFR events, where people are bringing in their PCs and expecting the game to play a certain way and then you alter the rules, how is that serving the players? Your home game players know that you don't like rule X and so you changed it into Y. If I came to GenCon or a public Gameday and had you as a judge and I tried to use rule X and you told me that at your table it was Y I would call shenanigans.
DMs have the power to interpret gray areas in the rules at their table. The hallmark of a living-style RPGA campaign is a consistent play experience with your own characters regardless of the venue, all with an eye on keepign things fun. In public RPGA games, table variation is a bad thing. Some rules are gray and/or poorly written and one has to expect table variation on it. (Warlock's Curse, Rod of Reaving/Corruption combo, prone and immobile until the end of your next turn, etc.) If you decide to houserule that every race gets to start with 2 feats, not just humans, then you have just invalidated all your player's characters to ever play at a public RPGA event like GenCon.
I would hazard a guess that the rules for MtG tournaments don't include a statement that you are to follow the games rules and not introduce your own. Why should we expect different from RPGA DMs in public games? It has been stated by the RPGA and WotC in the past and even at the start of LFR that the official stance is you run the rules presented in the books. It's just common sense. It's not our "sandbox." It's Wotcs/RPGAs sandbox. you don't take a doodie in someone else's sandbox. ;)
However, in the spirit of fun that doesn't mean that you can't let that player try some crazy stunt. If he wants to swing from a chandelier while reciting the Illiad to strike fear in the hearts of his enemies... then let him do it. It works within the skills in the game even if they don't cover it in the rules. Sayign that you don't like the fact that you can't hit allies when shooting into melee and makign up rules for it, that's a no-no.
The problem is that by doing so, you are impeding the fun of Bob the Powergamer. Who are we to decide who has more right to have fun?
As a tournament organizer who regularly organizes 14-16 tables a week of a large community, I do my absolute best to put the players I think will have the most fun with each other at the same tables.
But there's always exceptions, and when those exceptions come up, that's when my DMs might need to use house rules.
Who are we to decide who has more right? I don't know. I think majority rules apply--if there's one guy at a table of 6 who's powergaming his way through a mod, and other players are clearly not having fun, you start off by asking politely, and that usually works. But when it doesn't, that's when I think that, just maybe, a house rules fiat may be warranted.
The same applies in reverse. If I have a table of tactical/strategic players and one player is all about the roleplay and is dragging things out that other players have no interest in, you can use the same methodology, though rules rarely come into play in this situation.
Of course, there is no RPGA police, so if you are using house rules in your own private games there is really no way for us to check.
My question was not about private games. I don't run private games. I TO a large and vibrant community of RPGA judges and players. I am curious where it tells me that house rules are not allowed. I hear it said often; I have never seen documentation to prove it is the case. Considering most arguments that involve the possible necessity for house rules rely on people interpreting RAW as RAW and not accepting blithe statements of policy on boards but solely what is published...well, you see the problem here, I think.
Personally, I feel that too many people assume that powergaming/number crunching players ruins the fun of others at the table because it tends to be highly irritating for the DM. In my experience, players rarely care as long as they can shine on occassion. It is the DM who is the biggest fascilitator to make sure both have fun by making sure everybody that wants to gets their shining moment. I try to work within the rules to make the game fun both for the number cruncher and the more casual gamer, and you can do so without changing the actual rules.
I am a "powergamer" and don't have much problem at all with the numbercrunching people; I insist they do their math properly, and only rarely (if ever) will I disallow or dislike something. Rarely is this because it irritates me as a gamemaster; as an RPGA gamemaster the only thing that winds up irritating me is not related to the rules (and as the TO I can easily move players that are not compatible with me as a GM to one of my other tables). The point is fun. Moreover, as a store owner and TO, increasing fun is not only desired, it's essential to my game.
You are potentially trading a short term problem for a larger long term one.
-karma
To which I ask, why does it have to? Do we need to "legislate" common sense?
Are you serious? Half (if not most) of the RAW vs RAI arguments have to do with common sense vs. RAW. If common sense dictates X, but RAW dictates Y, we're advised to take X over Y (at least until the errata comes out!!). I am asking where the RAW is that makes me do this.
If you running public LFR events, where people are bringing in their PCs and expecting the game to play a certain way and then you alter the rules, how is that serving the players? Your home game players know that you don't like rule X and so you changed it into Y. If I came to GenCon or a public Gameday and had you as a judge and I tried to use rule X and you told me that at your table it was Y I would call shenanigans.
This has nothing at all, really, to do with whether or not I *like* rule X or rule Y. It has to do with the makeup of the table and satisfying the need for fun for the most people at the same time. If the arguments I have seen for how to deal with such problems (use DME to alter the mod by adding more monsters if a powergamed element causes less fun) can be more easily dealt with by asking the PC to alter something or making a house rule that the player is aware of, then why not? Springing something like this as a SURPRISE on a table is a bad thing, no doubt about it.
DMs have the power to interpret gray areas in the rules at their table. The hallmark of a living-style RPGA campaign is a consistent play experience with your own characters regardless of the venue, all with an eye on keepign things fun. In public RPGA games, table variation is a bad thing. Some rules are gray and/or poorly written and one has to expect table variation on it. (Warlock's Curse, Rod of Reaving/Corruption combo, prone and immobile until the end of your next turn, etc.) If you decide to houserule that every race gets to start with 2 feats, not just humans, then you have just invalidated all your player's characters to ever play at a public RPGA event like GenCon.
That there is a problem, but that's not what I'm getting at. We're not talking about altering the game wholeheartedly, but rather, making alterations where rules are recognized generally as causing problems--stuff that has seen a lot of argumentation, like Guileful Switch or Rain of Blows or Bloodclaw Weapons.
I would hazard a guess that the rules for MtG tournaments don't include a statement that you are to follow the games rules and not introduce your own. Why should we expect different from RPGA DMs in public games? It has been stated by the RPGA and WotC in the past and even at the start of LFR that the official stance is you run the rules presented in the books. It's just common sense. It's not our "sandbox." It's Wotcs/RPGAs sandbox. you don't take a doodie in someone else's sandbox. ;)
MtG tournaments are a completely different ball of wax--first, they're a competition environment, which demands a different standard; second, the rules for the game are pretty cut-and-dried even when they're complex: it's mostly a matter of depth and breadth of knowledge than anything else. It didn't used to be that way (hence the wide variety of banned cards and broken combos) but they're mostly gone from any format outside of Extended.
What I have asked (simply) is where it is stated in rules as written that I have to follow rules as written without making alterations to improve the fun of the game as I see it necessary.
However, in the spirit of fun that doesn't mean that you can't let that player try some crazy stunt. If he wants to swing from a chandelier while reciting the Illiad to strike fear in the hearts of his enemies... then let him do it. It works within the skills in the game even if they don't cover it in the rules. Sayign that you don't like the fact that you can't hit allies when shooting into melee and makign up rules for it, that's a no-no.
I see this argument so many times on one side but not on the other. It's totally OK to make rules up that reward crazy stunts that improve the fun of the game, but it's not OK to make rules up that stop the fun of the game by disrupting things through exploits found in the RAW. Can you really have it both ways?
Are you serious? Half (if not most) of the RAW vs RAI arguments have to do with common sense vs. RAW. If common sense dictates X, but RAW dictates Y, we're advised to take X over Y (at least until the errata comes out!!). I am asking where the RAW is that makes me do this.
if commons sense dictates x but RAW says Y, you're supposed to go with Y. Until errata comes out. Because common sense dictates in a public game that consistency of the rules is greater.
If the arguments I have seen for how to deal with such problems (use DME to alter the mod by adding more monsters if a powergamed element causes less fun) can be more easily dealt with by asking the PC to alter something or making a house rule that the player is aware of, then why not?
Because it is not within the purview of the DM to do so under the guise of DME. This has been stated by campaign admins more than once. (Quite a few times actually)
We're not talking about altering the game wholeheartedly, but rather, making alterations where rules are recognized generally as causing problems--stuff that has seen a lot of argumentation, like Guileful Switch or Rain of Blows or Bloodclaw Weapons.
Well, you're speaking of rules that are either gray or poorly written. If it comes up at the table you make a ruling based on the information available and you move on. That's not houseruling. It's not even DME.
MtG tournaments are a completely different ball of wax
I disagree. You still have a public game where people are coming in and expect the game to play a certain way.
What I have asked (simply) is where it is stated in rules as written that I have to follow rules as written without making alterations to improve the fun of the game as I see it necessary.
I'm starting to think that you don't really mean houserules rather rules interpretations. You are expected to make fair interpretations of the rules as a table DM. Most of what you seem to be trying to get at are the gray areas or the poorly written rules. Again, that's not houseruling. Houseruling is: giving starting characters 2 feats regardless of race, saying that you can hit allies when you shoot into combat, saying that a 1 on an attack is an automatic failure (did anyone else catch that the rule of 1 isn't in there anymore?), any kind of alteration to a player's legal character choices, etc.
I see this argument so many times on one side but not on the other. It's totally OK to make rules up that reward crazy stunts that improve the fun of the game, but it's not OK to make rules up that stop the fun of the game by disrupting things through exploits found in the RAW. Can you really have it both ways?
You're misunderstanding my choices of examples. One example is allowing something for the fun of then game that is within the structure of the rules but is not explicitly covered by the rules for the various skills. The second example is making a rule up that is not supported by the rules. One is DME, one is houseruling. Take it as you will.
if commons sense dictates x but RAW says Y, you're supposed to go with Y. Until errata comes out. Because common sense dictates in a public game that consistency of the rules is greater.
So...common sense applies when it comes to...not applying common sense over RAW? This is a very bad argument. If it were codified in rules that I must abide by to run RPGA events, it would still be a bad argument, but it would be one that I would be obliged to follow. However, it is NOT codified in rules. If that's what the RPGA folks want, they should probably do so.
Because it is not within the purview of the DM to do so under the guise of DME. This has been stated by campaign admins more than once. (Quite a few times actually)
And CS has stated more than once a number of different interpretations of the rules...but they're not in the errata and aren't viewed as official. The purview and responsibilities and authority of the campaign admins, by the by, is something that I'd like to know about. What can I bring to them in terms of issues? What do they do (aside from write and approve mods in their domains)?
I disagree. You still have a public game where people are coming in and expect the game to play a certain way.
My customers expect the game to be fun. Some expect the RAW to be followed slavishly; these folks I place at tables where the judge does so. Others prefer a more free-form environment. These I place at other tables. Where I have a mix of players at a single table, house rules are required to be stated before the session starts so that the players can then be moved if there's a problem.
I'm starting to think that you don't really mean houserules rather rules interpretations. You are expected to make fair interpretations of the rules as a table DM. Most of what you seem to be trying to get at are the gray areas or the poorly written rules. Again, that's not houseruling. Houseruling is: giving starting characters 2 feats regardless of race, saying that you can hit allies when you shoot into combat, saying that a 1 on an attack is an automatic failure (did anyone else catch that the rule of 1 isn't in there anymore?), any kind of alteration to a player's legal character choices, etc.
I am, in fact, talking about house rules in the sense of: Judge does not allow X at the table (where X=certain power he has an issue with), etc. etc. In such cases, I expect the judge to allow (for the purposes of THAT SESSION ONLY) a player with X to be able to use Y instead for the purpose of that session; a simple equal swap works just fine.
You're misunderstanding my choices of examples. One example is allowing something for the fun of then game that is within the structure of the rules but is not explicitly covered by the rules for the various skills. The second example is making a rule up that is not supported by the rules. One is DME, one is houseruling. Take it as you will.
The general idea that I'm getting at here is this:
* Altering the game so that the table is fun for the majority of players is good.
* Where the judge is altering the game based on this assumption, DME should allow him to house rule out certain things that he considers will diminish the fun of the table.
* The judge should not make these decisions based on any other consideration (he personally does not like the rule, etcetera, etcetera).
Your primary goal is enjoyment of the MAJORITY of the table. Players who do not care for this can (at my venue) ask without prejudice to be moved to another table; my judges are adults and know it's not a personal insult one way or the other.
(did anyone else catch that the rule of 1 isn't in there anymore?)
Technically, it wasn't in 2nd or 3rd edition either.
In both of those editions it was shoehorned in by Skip Williams via Sage Advice, because he liked the rule.
This even after one of the 3rd edition dev team stated plainly shortly after it was released that auto-fails were left out by deliberate design, that it was a bad rule.
It finally got writen in the 3.5 rules set, where, interestingly, the devs that disliked the autofail were no longer in the design team, but Skip was.
:D
When 4E came out, there was the half-serious joke that went around wondering how long it would be before Skip managed to get auto-fail shoved into the rules again.
-karma
However, it is NOT codified in rules. If that's what the RPGA folks want, they should probably do so.
Well, you have already been told by folks that this is the stance the RPGA takes. I can't help it if you don't like the answer. The best "codification" I can offer is this from the RPGA general Rules:
"GMs and players participating in RPGA-sanctioned events are responsible for knowing and following the most current version of the RPGA General Rules and any other regulatory documents, including any game rules for the appropriate game system or campaign."
Firstly, the rules exist in the old RPGA guidelines, where they state DMs enforce the game rules. I forget the exact text (Edit: ok, Dragon9 seems to have it in the above post), but it was quoted to me on these forums when I asked the question. On the CCG side, it is vague but has some wording that suggests support for the same. On the flip side, there is no language that allows changing core rules.
Secondly, and most importantly, there are two situations that might come up where a DM might think a house rules should be made:
1. The DM wants to use their own rules.
Maybe they like something that isn't in the rules. "Devas should fly."
Maybe they don't like something. "Deft Strike seems too strong to me."
Here, this is the domain of the home campaign, not of the RPGA. An RPGA DM cannot and should not alter core rules at their whim, no matter how great (or poor) their idea. To do otherwise is to invite many a poor gaming experience and to fail to represent the game WotC is promoting (now that they are the RPGA).
2. The DM wants to ensure proper table balance, and that the mod works as intended by the author/campaign/admins.
In this case, it might seem as if a house rule would do the trick. A Warlord uses Guileful Switch and it seems strong to you. A Cleric with various heal-boosting items drops two Battle Standards. A Warlock uses the Rods of Reaving and Corruption on minions. As DM, you decide this is not right. Your answer: to change the rules.
No. This just causes conflict and bad gaming experiences.
The correct approach is to use DME (which does not allow changing core rules) to shape the module appropriately so as to maintain the challenge level, if the table desires this. This is the right way to do things. No house rules needed. You simply assess the problem and shape the module accordingly using DME guidelines.
That's it. All problems solved and everyone is happy.
Otherwise, what you are doing is nerfing something that, likely, is working exactly as WotC intends it to work. And, in the process, you are running the risk of creating conflict at the table.
Here is an example and three scenarios:
In the first encounter, the DM notes that a player is using something that seems strong. It is strong enough that the DM thinks it will make the rest of the mod too easy (keeping in mind that mods often start with an easy encounter).
1. The DM issues a house rule, changing the power/thing the player is using.
Pros: According to the DM, problem resolved. Also, clear message/punishment sent to the player.
Cons: Player may be offended. Table may see DM as heavy-handed. Conflict may ensue. New players may be uncertain of the rules. The experience is not a core 4E experience.
2. The DM speaks to the player, explaining that they think the use of the power/thing is causing an imbalance, asks the player to voluntarily use it less/not at all.
Pros: The player is less likely to be offended. Player gets to choose, perhaps consulting with the table. Table likely has increased confidence in the DM for creating a dialogue.
Cons: Player and table may still create conflict. The Player may not listen, possibly creating conflict.
3. The DM lets everyone know they think the mod will be easy, in part because the party uses strong powers/things such as (the particular issue). DM asks the table whether the party would like a bit more of a challenge, using DME. If players are happy with an easy mod, DM complies. If players want a challenge, DM uses DME to adjust the difficulty.
Pros: DM serves the players, honoring their wishes above their own. Players are empowered to use their PCs as they built them, though they gain understanding of the DM's perspective. Conflict is avoided.
Cons: The players may feel differently than the DM, and the DM may not have as much fun at running rules in a way that the DM does not feel is optimal.
I've run all sorts of tables. I've run tables for young inexperienced players/children and tables for players with amazing unthinkable levels of cheese. I've never found the solution to be to change what the PCs do or the core rules. Shaping the encounter and the module to the difficulty level desired by the party has always been a superior solution. Sure, sometimes as DM you wish the rules worked otherwise, but that's why you are wearing the RPGA judge instead of running a home campaign.
There is no reason to alter core rules in the name of balance in the RPGA, especially with DME.
The best "codification" I can offer is this from the RPGA general Rules:
"GMs and players participating in RPGA-sanctioned events are responsible for knowing and following the most current version of the RPGA General Rules and any other regulatory documents, including any game rules for the appropriate game system or campaign."
Well, thank you--that is what I was looking for.
I would expand on it, but it covers the question posed in the initial post.
Technically, it wasn't in 2nd or 3rd edition either.
In both of those editions it was shoehorned in by Skip Williams via Sage Advice, because he liked the rule.
This even after one of the 3rd edition dev team stated plainly shortly after it was released that auto-fails were left out by deliberate design, that it was a bad rule.
It finally got writen in the 3.5 rules set, where, interestingly, the devs that disliked the autofail were no longer in the design team, but Skip was.
:D
When 4E came out, there was the half-serious joke that went around wondering how long it would be before Skip managed to get auto-fail shoved into the rules again.
You two might want to reread the PHB. The section of the Attack Result (page 276 in my deluxe edition).
"Automatic Miss: If you roll a natural 1 (the die shows a 1), your attack automatically misses."
Then again, 3.0 didn't have auto-succeed for saves either.
-karma