OK, so I've been working (off and on) on a game that is similar to D&D except that the Dungeon Master is an opponent that is encouraged for killing off player characters, but can be defeated and deposed by the player characters.

One idea I had is that some of the rules in the books have target numbers listed by them to indicate that players can roll to break or amend that rule. Any houserule put forth by the DM is required to have such a target number.
Each other player that agrees that the rule is B.S. adds a bonus to checks to break rules.

Also, the game will feature a Do-Over mechanic that gives players some recourse if they do something dumb and immediately regret it.

So, what do you think? Do you think this could be fun or would it be prone to devolve into chaos and bickering?

Definitely could be fun, but the negotation of those rule-breaking rules is going to be the central part of the game. Don't expect the game to be a trad fantasy RPG with some rule-breaking rules -- because then it's just a trad fantasy RPG.

Embrace the rule breaking, rule changing dynamic.

-L

Yeah, this is an interesting idea.  I think the key question will be how often the players can roll to change or create a rule.  I think the most interesting way to do this is to tie it to in-game actions.  So, for example, every time you kill an orc, you get a chance to change a rule.  Every time you kill a dragon, you get a chance to make a rule. 

Another question is going to be about what makes a "fair" rule.  Is it ok to say "I win all rolls, always?".  Perhaps a mechanic where one player proposes a rule, and the other players give it a difficulty?  (Which is stealing from Luke, I believe, but he won't mind)

The toughest decision you're going to make is about how "hardcore" your game is.  That means is it ok to go to any and all lengths to beat your opponent, or do you have to obey the "spirit" of the rules?  For example, D&D 4 promotes slightly competitive play, in that once the monsters are on the board, it's the DM's job to play them as tough as possible.  The players have to bring their best tactics and luck to win.  But at the same time, the DM isn't allowed to "cheat" by bringing in extra monsters just because they're losing.  That goes against the spirit of the rules, even though it's not agaist the letter of them.

In your game, does the GM play as hard as possible to beat the opposition, or does the GM also have a responsibility to provide a fair game?  What stops the GM from saying "rocks fall, everyone dies"?

Is this really about breaking rules? Or is it about someone invoking a rule and it just seems totally bogus? Like a jump check with a high difficulty, when you can get up from the game table and demonstrate you could step over the distance in question without effort.

Does the rule need amending, or does the invoking of the rule need amendment? Ie, the GM goes to invoke a jump check and you have the option to make a roll to try and de-invoke it, if you consider it bogus. Are the rules really the issue here, or is the issue how/when the rules are being called forth/invoked?

Simon:

Good thinking.

First, I think that there would have to be a few "Word of God" rules that cannot be broken or changed. These would be used sparingly however. Probably keep all of them to a single page.

Second, I'm thinking maybe the DM would have to be a lot more limited as far as 'rule breaking' goes, but may have a bit more power in 'rules making' provided that the DM's new rules don't contradict existing ones.
The DM's power is additive and normative. The Dungeon Master is an authoritarian force of Law.
The PC's power is subtractive and transformative. The Player Character is a rebellious force of Chaos.

The DM must play hir part as an agent of Law. The DM must enforce and maintain the integrity of the rules. The DM would be expected to play lawfully according to prescribed 'encounter budgets' and 'damage expression by level' tables.
It occurs to me that this is a bit of a role reversal from traditional D&D, where the DM is the maker and breaker of rules and the players must abide by the DM's decisions.

Callan:
I suppose that could very well be the case actually. I'll get back to you later. I have to think about this some more.

Cool.  I'm liking where this is going.

I think your expression of the roles in the game is a really interesting one. 

I'm really liking the idea of the GM being deposed by another player, through in-game actions.  I'd especially like this if it was something that happened fairly regularly (say, at least once a session, on average).

I'm getting a kind of "Amber" vibe from this - heroes who battle with the nature of reality as their weapon.  Some kind of cosmic, eternal struggle.

I'd like to start seeing some mechanics for this.

Well, it's pretty vague at this point, but here are some ideas I had:

1) Character growth focuses on breaking free from restrictions, such as class/race restrictions (a nod to older editions of D&D). For example...
"Restriction: Dwarves cannot be Wizards."
As you level up, you gain the option of removing restrictions that have been placed on you. Thus, your Dwarf can eventually become a Wizard.

2) Resolution
When attacking or performing a skill check, follow the steps below. A successful ‘rule bender’ check beforehand lets you alter one underlined variable.
Roll 4 d6.
Drop one of the dice (lowest, or your choice).
Add total of dice.
Add relevant ability modifier to total
If the total is greater than the target number, the attack or skill check is successful.

3) Attacks (underlined variables can be changed with a successful ‘rule bender’ check beforehand.)
Melee Attack: Add STR modifier. Opposed by target’s STR score.
Ranged Attack: Add DEX modifier. Opposed by target’s DEX score.
Arcane Magic Attack: Add INT modifier. Opposed by target’s (see spell description).
Divine Magic Attack: Add CHA modifier. Opposed by target’s (see spell description).

4) Skills (underlined variables can be changed with a successful ‘rule bender’ check beforehand.)
Acrobatics: Add DEX modifier.
Athletics: Add STR modifier.
Endurance: Add STR modifier.
Inspection : Add INT modifier.
Knowledge of Religion: Add CHA modifier.
Knowledge of Science: Add INT modifier.
Negotiation: Add CHA modifier.
Thievery: Add DEX modifier.

5) Defenses (underlined variables can be changed with a successful ‘rule bender’ check beforehand.)
Poison/Disease: vs. Target’s STR score.
Missile/Trap: vs. Target’s DEX score.
Insanity/Illusion: vs. Target’s INT score.
Hypnosis/Fear: vs. Target’s CHA score.

^
In addition to the skills posted above, players can create their own. Simply write down on your character sheet a situation that your character is prepared for, and what ability modifier you add to checks performed for that situation.

Ok, here's the two questions I think you need to think about here:

How do your game's mechanics reinforce what the game is about?

How does your game's setting reinforce what the game is about?

I'm reading your rules thinking "what, there are Dwarfs?"  What do Dwarfs add to what your game is about? Then I'm thinking Melee attacks? Why am I attacking with a sword when I can bend the nature of reality to my whim?  The more freeform skills you've just mentioned are I think a better fit.  Tell me your rules for bending rules.  I think everything needs to flow from there.

If you can bend reality, you can put dwarves or robots or backwards centaurs or whatever you want in the setting. Dwarves are just there by default.

OK, so here's my idea for rules bending.

Throughout the game's instructions, there are underlined variables.
You can change variables.
First, point out the variable you want to change, propose the change you want to make, and then ask everybody around the table what they think.
Then roll 4d6, and drop one of the dice. If the total of the dice is greater than 14, you can go ahead and make the change. For every player who agrees with the change, reduce that target number by 1. If the DM agrees with the change, reduce the target number by 3. For every player who disagrees with the change, increase the target number by 1.

I've had a French card game back in the 1980 that you'd be using while you played Chess. The players would draw cards and silly things would happen that twisted the Chess gameplay.

Why would you use a brand new game? I mean, you could just as powerfully (maybe MORE) put another layer upon your D&D game with the very same idea. Your game would overlay the D&D game and allow houseruling and rule-botching to the absurd. Not only would you fulfill your aim but you would also re-create the houserule madness of the glorious OD&D days, pushing it even further.

Could you also roll for "break the rule" to remove the rule-breaking-roll-rule? Of course that would be against the role of the players as rebels, but what if they really are so rebellious to remove their ability of being a rebel just to prove a point?

markhaselb wrote:
Could you also roll for "break the rule" to remove the rule-breaking-roll-rule? Of course that would be against the role of the players as rebels, but what if they really are so rebellious to remove their ability of being a rebel just to prove a point?

My apologies if this has already been covered, but I didn't see it. When you say a GM can be deposed, does that mean another player can take the GM position? Personally I think it could be a lot of fun to have a bunch of GMs getting together and wrestling over control of the game! :D

So, is the rule allowed to be broken once or is the rule changed permanently from that point on? It seems from your description that it is just altered temporarily but I was a little confused when you talked about the groups calling a rule BS and house rules.

How much are players allowed to alter a rule (will it depend on their level of success) and are there going to be any rules that are off limits?

I think this is a great idea, simple and versatile. I think it has the potential to encourage some real creativity in play.

M. wrote:

markhaselb wrote:
Could you also roll for "break the rule" to remove the rule-breaking-roll-rule? Of course that would be against the role of the players as rebels, but what if they really are so rebellious to remove their ability of being a rebel just to prove a point?

Never have I witnessed such pure hubris.

I'm kind of disappointed by the limited scope of your rule-changing rules.  It seems to be limiting players to only changing rules that are "safe", making sure that the core of the game, and the GM's authority, goes unchallenged.  Screw that!  The fun for this game I think is the fun of changing things, and not knowing what the results may be.  I want to see scope for crazy, ridiculous rules.  I want more backwards centaurs!

I think the best way to achieve this is with a very limited initial set of rules.  Throw out your ideas about dice rolling.  You want a barely functional stub of system.  I'm going to digress here to talk about system:

System is the method by which players agree on what enters the shared imagined space of the game.  It's how you decide what's "real" in the game. 

Digression over.  I think all your system needs is something very basic like "The GM says what's going on in the world, the players say what's going on with their characters.  When those two things come into conflict, the GM can make up a rule to say what happens.  If the players don't like this rule, they can change it by X"

You might want to look at the game Universalis, which has rules for shaping the rules of the game using in-game resources.  I think that will open your eyes to the scope of what's possible.

As they level up? Or instead of levelling up!

Levelling up, especially in recent D&D, just shifts around the same basic encounter structure bit by bit. What if the players get to change the rules and the GM gets to use bigger monsters that are more and more out of place? It's like a desperate GM hammering his players with big fat threats, but actually as the main point of the game!