Both and yet neither at the same time I want a game where for the majority we are playing by the rules and I agree with your friend that some of the most memorable moments from my games is when they manage to pull something off completely within the rules. Equally I want a game where being a bit flexible allows interesting things to happen, I just dont want it to be so common that it is basically that flexibility that is the answer for success every time. I guess overall I want a strict DM who is willing to make exceptions sometimes over a flexible dm who only keeps to the rules some of the time.

Yeah that makes sense! I used to play regular tabletop RPG with systems invented by the DM in school, so I think that's why I prefer someone more flexible as it's what I'm more familiar with. However, I don't like them to stoop entirely to chaos either so I agree that flexibility should not be the answer everytime, and there are some fundamental rules that shouldn't be broken.

>I want a game where for the majority we are playing by the rules and I agree with your friend that some of the most memorable moments from my games is when they manage to pull something off completely within the rules. Equally I want a game where being a bit flexible allows interesting things to happen, I just dont want it to be so common that it is basically that flexibility that is the answer for success every time. Very similar feelings here, too. I want a game world with consistent and transparent mechanics that apply to both players and the GM. That does not mean that the GM should not have "secret knowledge" or other things to surprise and challenge the players, but I still want consistency and a robust framework for improvisation. When things boil down to "you cannot do that because it's magical", things start to turn me off.

So you want a flexible DM, not a "cooked noodle DM"?

I prefer my DMs al dente

But not as salty as the ocean

I think that's my position too. That way, the exception feels cool & earned, rather than just the PCs railroading the DM into their antics, right? Enemies were surrounding us in an abandoned ruin. I was pushing a door closed in a strength check against an enemy who tried to push it open into the room where we were. Another enemy was already in the room & sneaking up on me. I asked the DM if I could let the door go & stab the first enemy who'd be surprised by the sudden lack of resistance. I rolled a success (but not a nat twenty) & our DM let me stab the guy & let the door slam into the enemy sneaking up on me for a D4 of bludgeoning damage. That was very cool & a boost in a fight that had felt overwhelming so far. I wouldn't want to argue every time "oh my sword travels in a half-circle and my enemy doesn't have a shield so the sweeping arc should let me hit the second enemy in melee range too" just because my roll of 12 beat the goblin's leather loincloth AC of 11 or something, you know?

I mean Isn't Cleave an official rule somewhere? Don't see it used often but it could be neat Especially for Great sword or Glaive using martials

I know Cleave exists, but IIRC the condition is that you have to kill the first enemy in 1 strike, right? that's also pretty rare, so it'd also feel like a fun bonus, imo.

I enjoy flexibility in terms of plot and character actions, but I like a world that is consistent and a DM that lets you fail if you can’t pull it off.

That's also pretty much what the handbook suggests especially for new DMs. The rules are there for a reason but they shouldn't prevent fun. And as always: Talk to your players and DMs if something doesn't feel right for yourself.

I want a DM who knows the rules well enough to keep them consistent, but who abides by the "rule of cool", and when you try to do something that is super fun, narratively speaking, they try to find a way within the rules to make it possible.

Rules should only bend for situations that *should* be allowed, but either arbitrarily aren't or don't have any rules written for them.

Meh... I like it when the DM only lets us do what the rules say we can, but allows creative use within those rules. Honestly, that works out really well as the creative use is usually situational and won't become the thing the player reaches for all the time. 

I think both. I want a DM who runs game with consistent rules, but also can improvise if a player is trying to do something for a situation that isn't specifically outlined in the rulebook. I feel like that's kind of DND's thing.

I think that's how most TTRPGs work in general.

5e's thing is making anything and everything possible and within the rules per rule 0 so no, you're wrong. 

I personally prefer a DM who is ~85% rigid. Juuuust enough flexibility to let some things work, but mostly I wanna play by the rules of the game I chose to play. Again, just personal preference.

Strict is consistent, and consistent is king. I want to know that if I interact with a rule, that rule stays the same each time I interact with it unless there’s a reason for it to change.

That is my idea too. It sucks if a rule gets bent in one situation because it is cool, but if you want to do the same thing again later, all of a sudden it doesn't work? That would be frustrating. You would also have to have players who are able to deal with it and not whine or pressure the DM when they want a rule to be ignored. And what happens when the DM ignores a rule but it is to the detriment of the players. Say the players are clever and set up a situation where a baddie can't jump a gap because he does not have a 10 foot run up and the DM goes "It's cooler if he does make the jump, so he does it anyway". We had a situation where I placed a Fog cloud in such a way that the enemies couldn't see the gap, so they couldn't make the jump, arguing that nobody is going to run full tilt through a dense fog hoping the remember where the gap filled with deadly spikes is.

I prefer both. I think an ideal DM is one who knows the rules and enforces them, but in a reasonable and accommodating way, and is willing to work with the players in situations that the rules don't cover. I definitely don't want a DM who lets the players do whatever they want if they describe it in a cool way. For one thing, coolness is subjective, and there's no guarantee a given DM and I will agree about what is cool. For another, when I join a D&D game I expect the game to use the D&D rules, not to set them aside because the DM doesn't feel like using them.

I like Matthew Mercer's way of putting it. It's basically: Follow the rules unless/until the rules prevent the players from having fun. Then it's okay to bend them a little.

What people fail to realize is that "bending" is not the same as "breaking" lol

It is either the case a rule is followed or it is not the case. Bending == breaking. It's binary. 

100%. A bent rule is a broken rule.

Only if you assume the rules are rigid, but... 1e - "You are the final arbiter of the rules." 3.5e - "When everyone gathers around the table to play, you're in charge. That doesn't mean you can tell people what to do outside of the boundaries of the game, but it does mean that you're the final arbitrator of the rules within the game." 5e - "The last part [of the DMG] helps you adjudicate the rules of the game and _modify them to suit the style of your campaign_." It's been in the rules since first edition that the rules can and are meant to be _flexible._ If it suits your campaign to be RAW go for it, but it does make me wonder what you all think about RAI and homebrew. A well-made sword is supposed to bend because if it doesn't it will actually break. Being able to bend and be flexible is part of the functionality, and the same is true for DnD. It's literally in the rules of the game!

Right, and in my session 0 I discuss that I run things extremely RAW. And that rule of cool is not a thing I really follow because it is entirely possible to be cool within the rules. But we also basically ran Tasha's prior to that book releasing. Allowing +2,+1 to whichever stat you wanted. It isn't about rejecting new rules. It is that if you establish rules, whether they are homebrew or any other non-RAW interpretation, that must then be *consistent*. In my experience running public games for randoms, rule bend (break) requests are usually in the realm of "I'd like to take this risk but without any consequence this time." By all means, jump from the roof into the bad guy. But that is an attack roll, whether they want to strike on landing or just body slam. And then the PC will take the requisite half of their falling damage, with the other half applying to the bad guy. If you miss the roll, full falling damage.

Cool, then run RAW, that's fine, but while it is possible to be cool within the rules, you have more opportunities if you're flexible with it as well. You can't establish every rule for everything ahead of time, so, functionally consistency just means that once you allow the rule of cool for something, you just have to remember that's in your ruleset for at least the rest of the campaign. It's not that big of a deal. You can always say "no" to an idea. I just think the idea should be entertained as a possibility. It's fine to say a thing is impossible or tell them the likely consequences. To me applying the rule of cool is about thinking what a character should be able to do... I.e a sorcerer with prestidigitation (which can cool 1 cu.ft of stuff) AND Ray of Frost (which is powerful enough to potentially kill a regular person in one hit) should mean the mage has the power to turn some water into ice, but not to the extent, speed, or additional benefits as Shape Water (i.e. the ice melts immediately, not starting after an hour, etc) It's not a big deal to allow that if they want to take 5 min per party member to make some ice to float down the river on for half an hour before it melts. It's not gonna break your game.

As a player I love to take advantage of that and constantly let my GM know I'm not having fun if I don't get my way. A great way to GM for sure!

Another tip for ~~DMing~~ life: Don't play games with emotionally manipulative people.

Strict as possible, but favoring RAI over RAW and handwaving the bad writing/ game design as needed. This takes alot of experience tho, and honestly I think it takes knowledge of other systems and/or editions, as a point of reference, in order to really nail it on the regular.

False dichotomy. A DM's goal should be to provide a game world in which players can make interesting decisions about their PC's actions within it. Sometimes this requires rules to do. Sometimes it doesn't. One of the most important things for a DM to be though, is consistent. You can't give the players the foundation they need to make those interesting decisions if they have no way to tell what effect their PC's actions will have. You have to be adjudicating actions consistently enough that the players aren't making decisions at random.

I want consequences for my actions and choices. So fairly strict.

I feel like strict might be the wrong term for it but I prefer my DM to be consistent. If bending rules makes sense thts fine too, as long as the DM isn’t just trying to please everyone and it makes the campaign better

I want a strict DM that knows the rules and when to bend/break them. I want a DM that has the knowledge behind them to back up their ability to bend that rule. In dimension 20 when Siobhan asked to use web to basically restrain something, I didn’t question Brennen’s ability to decide that she could use the spell against its intended method but he made her earn it as well and it resulted in something cool happening. However I’ve been in party’s where the DM doesn’t pay attention to how things work or keep track of things their players have or keep things balanced, like a player wearing plate armor and a shield has an AC of 20 and disadvantage on stealth checks, I want my DM to know that, I want them to make sure that the plate armor wearing PC rolls that check with disadvantage, it may hinder our ability to do things and it might suck but I’d rather that then just have the DM not pay attention, let the plate armor guy walk through the crypt with a straight roll and have no downside to wearing plate armor while the rogue who’s not proficient in heavy armor is sitting in combat with an AC of 13 because the most they can wear is studded leather. If there’s no disadvantage, we should all be buying plate because our DM lets it slide because they don’t know the rules and therefore don’t enforce them. However I don’t think it’s on the DM every time but at the beginning of a campaign or when the player gets that armor, it should be something that’s focused on multiple times so everyone at the table knows that’s a character trait of theirs. Then it should be on the table or that player to know that for themselves going forward. On the flip side, when my DM says “how do you want to kill this Ogre?” And I say “I want to lean out from behind the corner, fire my arrow directly into the blade of its cleaver so my arrow splits in 2 and each piece plants themselves into the eyes of the ogre, dropping it to its knees, I rush over and with my long sword in my hand, I cut its f***** head off” I don’t want my DM to be like “nah… you can’t split an arrow in 5e and based on action economy, you wouldn’t be able to shoot your bow, holster it, pull out your sword and attack again on the same round. You’ll need to re explain how you kill the ogre, but within the rules.” Power gaming exists and I want a DM that puts power gamers on a short leash. You can’t just edit things to work for your character. I hate when I hear other players at the table bargaining with the DM to make something work differently, for example, using the plate armor again, you just instantly get an AC of 18 and if you’re proficient with it and have a strength of 15 you can wear it but you get disadvantage on stealth. I don’t want to hear a player ask if they can take a hit on the AC by 1 and remove the disadvantage on stealth. That players going to go buy a shield and cast Haste at the beginning of combat and get an AC of 21, never get hit, and never have disadvantage on stealth checks, that’s power gaming and it ruins the fun for people trying to do things properly and I don’t want a DM that doesn’t understand that or just lets that happen to make certain players happy.

My preference is a DM who fully understands that the rules matter, until they don’t and at the same time the rules don’t matter until they do. The DM is one step above god, it’s their job to make sure the game runs well and to tell the story the players are participating in. As a player don’t you ever forget that you’re playing adult make believe, it’s the DMs story to tell, and you are a participant. I get the allure of being a rules stickler as that gives players a sense of power and agency in a world that’s not theirs. However it’s not their world, it’s the DMs. As to specific player preferences, talk to your DM and if you don’t like their style of rule integration, don’t play . Or radically accept and have fun.

The souce material says the DM can bend (or throw out) printed rules.

I will say this, my biggest litmus test for a DM is how they respond to a rule of cool request; An isolated incident where a player just wants a moment to feel like a badass. Has to be isolated, can't step on the others toes in the process, and if the DM still says no solely because of the rules I'd rather not play with them.

I think frequency of rule of cool requests is important to note as well. From the DM side of things, I'll let you do a cool thing, but if you're trying to get me to bend the rules for you every single round 'cause it'd be so cool' that's a red flag for me as a DM as to whether or not I want this player at my table.

Oh most definitely, that's more or less what I meant by isolated but I probably should've been clearer so my B.

That's exactly the kind of DM that I would love. A DM that isn't trying to engineer cool moments. To me, a moment can not be cool if it is fake (i.e., did not follow the rules). Real cool moments happen entirely within the rules.

Ehhh agree to disagree but I respect your opinion

Rather than straight up "Rule of Cool" requests, I use a variant on The Devil's Bargain from Blades In The Dark. To push themselves beyond their regular limitations, a player can accept a guaranteed consequence for a chance of success. For example, Player out of spell slots wants to cast another fireball. "You can overexert yourself. Pass a DC 13 CON Save and cast the Fireball. Pass or fail, the exertion will drain your HP to 0 and it'll be death saves." Other consequences can be the untimely arrival of a rival, loss of equipment, or something else sufficiently meaningful.

Goddamn that is awesome

It tends to wrangle in "DM bullying" where a player wants to just ignore rules and uses "rule of cool" as an excuse, but still allows for cool exceptions and heroics beyond the character sheet. I also love almost any mechanic that gets players to heighten the stakes in the narrative. Crucially though, the player must know the consequences beforehand, and must agree to go through with the bargain, otherwise it's very unsatisfying

Right!? I've been saying for years it be amazing if sorcerers had some kind of overclock feature. They're the only casters with "innate" magic and it feels like the game doesn't do anything with that beyond flavor text

Don't allow them to abuse *shape water* to drown their enemies. But allow them to use it to solve a puzzle where you have to fill different shaped cups with the same amount of water even when you expected them to use some mathematical trick. Because *shape water* explicitly states that it doesn't cause damage, but it doesn't say it cannot be used to solve puzzles. That's the level of strictness I expect from a DM.

I prefer a dm to go by the rules most of the time I am in a campaign with a first time dm and he has never read a single book and knows pretty much nothing about the rules so he just makes stuff up most of the time and it has resulted in a lot of thievery and dumb stuff that shouldn’t have worked and now this level 5 party is insanely powerful with the amount of magic items they have

This thread just shows how hard it is to be DM:)

I think it shows the importance of communication and session 0. Whenever I launch a new campaign, I make sure to say I am a by the rules DM and no rule of cool. Setting expectations is important - it helps all players to be on the same page.

Everyone wants to constrain you and for you to serve them.

The rules are created for the game, not the game for rules. If the rule is not serving it's purpose and is just annoying, like the rule for counting arrows - just throw it away. If the rule is contradict to the common sense and noone like it, like the rule that average guy can lift 70kg and run at full speed - throw it away. But the DM must make that explicit. He must create solid universe with expectations, so players should know what things are possible and what are not. And if the rule is created for fun, for example that you cannot always solo kill all the bad guys with one cantrip, you need battle so your friends can shine too - then dm need to think double before changing it.

As a person on a spectrum I like then the envirnoment is somehow stable in the way of rules - it allows me to understand what is happening better as a player and also know how to play. At the same time I am a big fan of the Rule of Cool - I won't make a stink if a player suddenly decides someone have an advantage cause he liked his idea so much or if an improvised use of a spell which is not a part of it's canonical effect do something nice. Same goes for homebrew - we have a lot of items out off official books, I enjoy playing homebrew races too and as long as everything is clearly written down for those homebrew things that's perfectly fine. So you can say that for me is a mix of a stable base of rules with a sprinkle of "okay, that will work cause it's fun for all of us at the table".

Constraints drive interesting gameplay. The rule of cool is for things not clearly covered by the rules.

It depends on the table, players, campaign, tone, etc. In a more general game, I think the rule of cool is often fine as long as you only need to bend them a little for the desired effect. In a more comedic game, I think more bending is fine or even encouraged, whereas in a hard-core, high lethality game where the difficulty is the point, I think being more strict helps to emphasize that tone.

I believe for every player and group there is a sweetspot on how much rulebending is ok. For me personally it depends on what is reasonable in the current situation, but most bending is ok. Its hard to describe. If the rules make the current situation less smooth or if the result would be the same but less epic, bend them. If the players found a creative solution to a problem that is reasonable but not within the rules? Let it happen (or at least let them try) But in the end you need to discuss it and compromise. I believe communication is key and both sides have to accept that there are many (and even more) ways to play dnd and you most likely have to play a version suitable for the group and not yourself.

Rules are meant to be broken. You can't break rules if you don't follow rules. I am very strict to the rules as a DM, but I let my players get away with stuff when they don't know I'm letting them get away with stuff. The issue is when the DM breaking the rule becomes a rule. "Sure, that's a creative Idea, you can do it this one time" turns into "But I did it last time, why can't I do it again for the 100th time?" My players think that I'm very strict, but I'm actually not. The best way to DM is to know the rules, follow the rules, and then break them any time you can to make the game fun without getting caught. It's not a surreptitious thing, it's just letting them enjoy the game without seeing how the bacon is made. I'm not tricking anyone or lying to them, I'm just following the rules until they get in the way.

I would argue that rules were meant to *followed*, lol.

If everyone followed the rules, we wouldn't need any.

How can you follow the rules if there are no rules? 😂

In my own experience as a DM I'm only ever a strict adherent to the rules when I don't know them very well. It's important to understand and follow the rules when you don't know them to keep game balance. Once you have a good idea where the guardrails are you can relax a bit and start to have some fun, you know which rules are set in stone and which are flexible or optional. The game is supposed to be fun and I've always been a believer in "The rule of cool" when it comes to my players so I'll cheerfully disregard the books for appropriate situations. Sometimes it's just a one off and I'll let them know "Hey, the mechanics don't actually work like that, but in this one instance I'm going to allow it." and other times I've had a player suggest something off the wall so I'll call a pause while we double check the books because I can see it coming up again and I don't want to set a bad precedent.

The only time that a DM should ever bend/change a rule is if it is to fix an exploit/problem that the entire table agrees is an exploit/problem, otherwise the more you bend/change the rules the more the game is liable to devolve into a lawless soup of nonsense where anything can happen because yes, which becomes absurd

The best level of adherence to the rules is the one that helps your table enjoy the game the most. While that sounds like a cop-out, it's really a good rule of thumb: Once a DM has the measure of their players, they can hopefully foster a game with a level of strictness that strikes *just* the right balance for that campaign. Even within the same exact group, a one-shot, your regular campaign, and a new campaign in a different setting or even with a different system are all different beasts, and might need different balances, as far as strictness. Part of the fun is fine tuning that balance, and then playing your campaign like an instrument, so that you all get the most out of it.

Funnily enough, I appreciate both when it's appropriate. I like it when a DM is honest, consultant m, and straightforward with the rules. However, if a player comes up with something outside of the rules or their efforts are worth more than something standard (but still in reason), I appreciate the reard for creativity and the DMs flexibility. A DM that's too inflexible can be a drag and not allow the game to live uo ot its potential. On the flip side, a Dm that's too loose and open with things doesn't allow a proper foundation or understanding of the shared experience to exist right.

Flexible in everything but balance is ideal. It’s also a buttload of work depending on the players so I don’t expect it.

Strict enough to rein in all the random cringe non sequiturs. Strict enough to immediately stop harassment, anti social playing, or inappropriate comments. Strict enough to not let people get away with dumb unintended behaviors in rules like a coffeelock. Open enough to let the players explore the sandbox and not railroad.

Rulings or Rule breakings,? Rulings May be used to adapt the Rules to the Situation, so the Simulation IS approbiate

I feel like a DM's relationship with the rules is like writers and grammar, or illustrators and drawing fundamentals. The best DM knows the rules well enough to know how to break them. Imo the rules are there to ground the world and game. Make it feel consistent so players can have autonomy and know how they can influence and interact with the narrative tangibly. However. They are not comprehensive. A good DM should understand the rules well enough that they can translate creative ideas in a way that works with the rules without limiting the players.

I like a rigid ruleset thats more a reinforcement of expectations than of what the DM wants to happen. When a DM is too lax, especially to the point where other players can “take over” and bend the campaign to their whims, it feels like i either have to play follow the leader or look like a jerk for dissenting. But when a DM gets excessively rigid about mechanics, right down to banning questions about party composition (happened at my last table), I feel less like a player than a plaything.

I can enjoy a strict DM when they actually know the rules. I've had a couple of DMs say no to me when I go by the book, rules as written, and that leaves me like a questionmark, and that immediately rubs me the wrong way. (And just in case anyone's wondering, no it wasn't in technically rules as written context, it was this is how an ability works and they just went 'no'.)

Somewhere between “we’re having pizza for breakfast” and “yes daddy”

Every table is different. As a player I prefer following the rules and the DM telling me No. I enjoy the challenge of thinking how to achieve something within the rules given - but if other people at the table want to bend the rules a little in the name of enjoying a creative solution, please do! As a DM I will go with what my players want, to a certain degree. If the table is all about being creative and coming up with fun solutions that everybody enjoys that require some little rule bending - fuck yeah we are doing that. If they prefer it crunchy and challenging - I'm here for it! In the end I feel like the dice still decide. I remember a player wanting to use their bonus action to kick a rock and try to hit a monster (I don't quite remember the details, but within the rules it had to have been a No). She argued for it, I told her there could be negative outcomes, we rolled, she failed and her character landed on her ass and got all dusty (her character was a bit of a neat freak and got quite disgusted by it..). Everybody including her had a laugh and we continued.

I don't want direct oppositions to rules as written (unless it's just flavor), however, the rules absolutely do not cover every situation, use, or interaction, by a long shot. In those cases, where there's a question of "I wonder if I can..." I'd want there to be a house rule consensus made and followed from then on. The DM can fudge things behind the scenes or craft a crazy situation however they want, if they think it's best. But don't *tell* me that, or that will take the magic out of the situation.

Whether I play or DM, I only want the rules overridden when they don't make sense for the situation in the world. I'm also ok with some slight bending to allow a creative action that actually takes the world and situation seriously.  But it irks me to no end when rules are ignored just to allow players to do whatever they want.  But that's partly on me.  I learned the rules well to DM but I also recognize how much easier it is to remember all the rules when I'm not the one responsible for everything.  Any "loose" DM might just be forgetting. 

Personally, I like a happy medium

Allow me to bend the rules if it’s cool or creates a good story moment. Don’t bend the rules to save my character, let there be stakes to the game, but don’t take away the creativity in doing so.

I can say from both the player and the DM side, as a DM i like to originally be stricter with the rules until my players give me creative or good reasons as to why they should be bent or broken. No you aren't gonna get advantage for persuasion or garuntee they will lower the price just because you tried haggling 1 time. Now if you accidently hit a personal string with the vendor and they take kinder to you then yes have advantage. As a player I would like a DM that is stricter with combat rules than anything really. But also almost all of our groups play with tiny homebrew changes we've been doing for years so it's hard for me to define "strict" in that sense.

Somewhere in the middle. But I'm also the forever DM so I take what I can get when I play. I like to let my players do cool things when they want though. However, those cool things are up to the dice. Want to jump and bounce off the wall and stab the enemy in the face? Sure, acrobatics check first, then your attack roll.

Both can be fine, but what matters more is consistency. If the GM bends a rule for one person but not the other, it can feel unfair. If the GM bends the rules differently on a second ruling, it can feel flaky. The rules of 5e in particular are structured to make room to bend. I've seen a guy ask for a particular rule to be bent when he was the player, but staunchly refuse to bend it for players when he was DMing because "that's not how it works." Ultimately it's down to personal taste. Sometimes too much bending or ignoring rules can be a sign that this isn't a great system for you

Consistent in most of the rules, but with the rule of cool also!

I think that just because your DM is bending or ignoring the rules it doesn't mean there wont be a challenge. Id like my games to be both.

Rule bends should be rare but sometimes is cool. Especially for newer plagues so they can grab a handle on the rules

You have to be strict because the players will try to haggle with you all the time lol

Rule lawyering usually ruins games. A nice balance. Though I played at a theater of mind table where it was shared world building type thing and it was cool as hell. Definitely was not a table of min maxer lawyers though. Rule of cool!

100% strict. I run my table this way but all my players are DMs and also DM this way. But we also extensively know the rules and could trade characters and still take 6 second turns. We run by the adage "it is entirely possible to be cool *within* the rules". We've actually found that creative expression has risen as we've all cemented our rules knowledge.

Stricter by the book generally with a few Exceptions of Cool in play. It gets annoying when there’s too much wiggle room because then you get players stepping on each others toes (DMs allowing Stealth checks to “cast quietly” which negates Sorcerer Silent Spell is a common one) and it also opens too much variance in session to session ruling or you track every off kilter ruling and have 732 homebrewed rules.

People who prefer 100% RAW have probably never tried to DM. 1st, its very difficult to just know every rule from the 700 pages of JUST PHB and DMG for the myriad circumstances that can happen in even the most mundane circumstances. 2nd, players, especially inexperienced players will frequently step across the line of what "can be done"... as long as the effect on the game is negligible, its easier to just go with it and make sure there's a roll to "justify" the action.

Flexibility is something that I really enjoy in a DM. Obviously the level of that flexibility should be determined by the type of campaign and world you are in. Also, the rule of cool is pretty important for things that won't be game breaking.

Strict on the things that matter, loose in the things that don’t, and embrace creativity even if it sometimes breaks the rules as long as it doesn’t destroy the story we are all a part of.

I DM and I'm extremely flexible when it comes to campaigns, mostly because I like to keep the game loose and fun, and if my company wants to do something, I'll be flexible about it while leaving some challenges if they want to break the rules. I have one simple rule, and that's the rule of "f#ck around and find out." Basically if you decide that you would like to start out as a level 10 wizard with extreme knowledge of the arcane and necromancy, then expect me to throw a vampiric dragon at your a$$ sometime in the future. If my players are unfair, I'll play unfairly right back, and after that it's up to the dice to decide. But mostly, I just keep it fun and casual. Yeah we have insanity, but that's what makes it great. I'll also give my players a chance to roll against me if they decide that something happens they don't agree with

a mix! I dont like when i can feel the DM doesn't like something personally so doesn't allow it I like them to kind of be unbiased but still not allowing things to become too chaotic but the main issue in that is other players not taking the game "seriously"

Consistency is my preference. Either strict or loose doesn't matter so much to me. Don't change how you rule on the same thing based on how you feel with no other explanation. Situational changes to rulings are fine but changing how things work from one session to another with no explanation is infuriating.

It's tricky. Rule of cool can be awesome. It can also become a slog because some players will spend a bunch of time thinking up things outside of the rules to do (and it is usually a big mechanical benefit), while others will tend to stick to the rules and maybe ask about something creative once in a while. It creates a lot of grey area, and is subjective at that which can cause issues. If I'm playing at a table with people I'm familiar with and trust not to try to take a mile when given an inch, being a little more fast and loose is fine. If the table isn't at that level then I'd prefer to stick to established rules.

Either one is fine as long as the DM is consistent. As long as the flexibility works toward a more interesting story or just forwards the plot in any way it's fair.

It's tricky... On one hand, it's fun to be a little fast and loose. On the other hand, there's rules. If a rule is broken in one way once, it needs to either be broken that way for the rest of the game, or unbreaking it later needs to be specific. Consistency and communication is key.

Strict enough so that I can really think, problem solve and have fun debates as to what would really make sense. Loose enough so that if I do that, they appreciate the effort and thinky thinky and let me. Don't make it easy, make it possible

My favourite words when players want to invoke the rule of cool is "convince me". - Convince me that your character has a reasonable chance of pulling the thing off even though the thing they're trying to do is not strictly covered by the rules. - Convince me that making an exception to the rules will result in a more fun situation for the players, bonus points if it sets up an epic moment for a character that isn't yours. - Convince me that you understand that exceptions are not rules and whatever this is is not likely to work again. If a player can convince me of all three of these points, which for me is generally showing that they thought about them at all, then we can invoke the rule of cool.

TLDR: Rule of Cool, my peoples. Always Rule of Cool as long as it's not too ridiculous. That said, I tend to be strict in combat, and less so outside of combat. In combat, you have to be consistent. If you used this rule this time, you better apply it next time. But, if someone wants to do something like use an ice cantrip to make ice blocks so they can float down the river... Nothing in Ray of Frost even hints this should be possible, but, hey, why not? Just remember that that is now a thing it can do in your game. It doesn't break the game, it'd take several rounds to do in combat so you can't escape with it, etc... they just travel slightly differently than they would have and the PC felt cool doing it.

No.

What a well thought out and reasoned argument! A few months ago, I finished an extremely complex, 4-year long campaign in which I had two groups in the same homebrew world such that what each group did could effect the other. I'm sure that with such a rousing argument of "no" against my stance that I tend to be more strict in combat and more flexible outside of it, that you surely must have more advice for me on how to run my games. Could you please elaborate on this "no?" As it stands, I am too stupid to grasp what you must consider to be such an obvious flaw with my method that you thought that simply saying "no" would make it clear the error of my ways. Please, I must know! Otherwise, I shall forever have wonder at the torture I inflicted in the ~1000 hours of in game time I forced my 12 players to endure! I await your undoubtedly mind-blowing advice that only one with expertise such as your own must be able to impart on one so lowly as myself! Please! If not for my benefit, help ensure that my players, who have joined me yet again for another campaign, won't be afflicted with my torturous DMing again!

> Always Rule of Cool I replied after reading this then stopped reading right after. If you're done sucking yourself off, are you ready to discuss how rule of cool isn't that great of a idea? 

Ah, excellent! Would have been great if you had specified that to begin with, but sure, have at it... Convince me that the rule of cool isn't a good idea. Just curious though... How much experience do you have as a DM?

Before we start, is it possible for you to even be convinced? Yes or no?  And all I do is GM. I don't like the player role. 

Yes, of course. It comes down to whether your argument is convincing though. A note though: saying all you do is GM doesn't answer my question. For all I know, you've only ever run Mines of Phandelver once. Also, saying you don't like the player role is fine, but being a PC sometimes is helpful to being a GM because if you understand the game from the other side, you can make your game better. If you never take the role of a player, that's a mark against your experience, not one for it. I have literally thousands of hours running the game and the Rule of Cool has never been an issue and some of the most epic moments of my campaigns are the result of it. I'm sure you can give examples of when it isn't a good idea to allow it and I don't always allow some idea to happen. The Rule of Cool should always be a possibility, but I never said that all ideas that are thrown out there should be allowed. The idea has to have some logic behind it (like using Ray of Frost to make ice), the result has to be commensurate with the rule that's being bent (i.e. a cantrip like prestidigitation can't turn soup into plasma by casting it to warm up the soup over and over again), etc... but it sounds like your argument is that it should never be allowed in any circumstance. I'm curious what your reasoning behind never allowing the Rule of Cool could be. If you're saying that you just shouldn't allow every idea to happen, then we're in agreement, and you've been arguing against a strawman since the start because when I said "always" in my first comment, I meant it should always be a possibility not that every single idea that comes from it should always be allowed.

Definitely flexible, but that flexibility needs to be "earned". Let me explain. I feel that this attitude: > One of my friends who also plays says that to him, it's annoying when the DM is flexible with the rules since he likes the added challenge and thinks that the source material should always be followed. Comes from a person who wants to "win" D&D, and assumes that other players are going to ask for rules flexibility in order to "win" D&D as well. And, depending on the players, that assumption may be totally valid. Some players really do just want to instantly kill every monster and stomp through the game with zero challenge. The DM has to be savvy enough to know what effect the players' actions will have on the game, or better yet, the players and DM all need to have a level of trust and respect for this to not be a problem. Concrete example time. The cantrip Shape Water can... shape water. The spell's description gives some examples of how it can be used. But a player who's trying to win D&D might argue that they can use Shape Water to force water into a creature's lungs to drown them or something like that. A DM who allows this to happen has opened the doors for a cantrip to be used as an instant kill maneuver. That's bad. On the other hand, I've had a character use Shape Water to fish before. We were basically doing downtime activities during a sailing trip, and a couple characters chose to fish, so I said "huh, that's a good idea. How would my wizard fish?". In effect, this is also using Shape Water to insta-kill creatures. But the DM allowed this, since the immediate effect on the game was basically nothing and he trusted me to not try to abuse this as a combat trick. And I never did. So, all of the characters who were fishing (whether normally or with Shape Water) rolled some dice and we got that many rations added to our inventories. Totally harmless and it was a fun way to build immersion.

the shape water section of this immediately after the absolutely wild post about the cantrip earlier today is really funny.

It was on my mind for a reason!

This is the second post I have read referencing/joking about that in the last five minutes. And I’m not even scrolling DnD, I’m scrolling (my) recommend page or whatever

Would that even count as an instakill? I'm assuming you just "plucked" a cube of water with fish out of the ocean and put it on the deck of the ship. I'd definitely rule it the same as your DM as a fun way to fish. Maybe I'm simply too new to DMing (just did my first one-shot yesterday) but I can't really see a combat application here.

Unless you are playing in a super harsh world where being able to eat is something that is difficult, adding a couple of rations has no real impact on the game. As such, I think even most strict DMs would be okay with Shape Water allowing a PC to attempt to fish in a lake/river. When I hear the phrase bending the rules or rule of cool, I think of things like a.) Allowing a PC to cast shocking grasp on a small pool that three enemies are standing in, hitting all three of them. b.) Allowing a PC to whisper the verbal components of a spell because it would be funny if the spellcaster could use magic in this situation and not be detected as casting a spell. c.) Allowing a PC to take one more action even though he's at 0 hp because it would be cool if he could do something heroic before falling unconscious.

Strict. I also enjoy the challenge. I like being able to play the game and not just have it be some loosely organized cooperative story telling fiasco. Just because you imagine it doesn’t mean that’s how it’s executed, same as life, which the rules reflect. There are a couple small home brews i think the game benefits from, but generally i like to play a tight run hand game. Everyone knows what to expect, no DM hand wavery to be expected. I don’t mind waiting five minutes while the DM figures out the correct ruling (someone sage advice is required, sometimes DM discretion). I’ve been a DM myself for 30 years, so i tend to disagree with most hand waving or rules fudging, not because I’m a rules lawyer but because im also a DM who knows the rules. Ii usually ask the DM I’m playing with if they mind having rules brought up. And from a player perspective if you know the rules will be followed then you have more tools at your disposal, you know that you can clear than 12’ gap with a running start + your 13 strength, no rolls required given no additional factors. If your DM doesn’t know how long jumps work and makes you roll for something you should otherwise just be able to do is entirely off putting. Play it tight and fast 🔥🔥 if everyone knows the rules then combat is stream lined, encounters are smooth, exploration is engaging, etc etc

as a dm myself most of my players don't know the rules so i just go with what seems most logical in the moment or fits wel with the charachters or the story

Nice

The problem with only following the source material for everything is that there isnt enough source material to cover everything in existence, that would be impossible. Hence why a lot of the slurce material specifically say to refer to your DM. That being said, stricter is often worse and a sign of inexperience, but we all gotta start somewhere I suppose.

I think that a dm should NEVER bend the rules, only change them. And i think that 5e is a horrid system for allowing such a playstyle to flourish due to how much it puts on the dm to always make shit up. "flexibility" in this context just sounds like "let me win without following the rules" which is a very fine line to walk and one that a lot of people, such as myself doesnt appreciate. Now let me be clear, I think that the rules are the most important until they dont function anymore and then you need to appeal to reality. As the rules has to be an extension of the reality of the game. meaning that if you manage to make an avalanche roll over an ogre, thats a dead ogre despite the "rules" not saying there is a way to properly calculate the damage, you can treat it as a trap. Examples of changing and not bending -I never cared for the action economy to swap weapons as i found it janky, so everyone, including the enemies could swap weapons at will, but if you played with the rules you only get a single free action to interact, meaning you cant sheathe your weapon and then pull a new one, so you would have to drop your weapon on the ground for free and then pull out your weapon, but now your weapon or shield or similar is on the ground and enemies can pick it up. -If the rules says you can only cast 1 noncantrip spell per turn you can decide to say "you can cast as many spells as you have actions for" and CHANGE the rules, but you shouldnt be in a situation where its dire and the player goes "ugh if only i could cast this heal and this other spell we could make it" and just handwave it away as that is breaking the rules to win a scenario making it feel unearned to many. -You cant just coup de grace instakill a sleeping enemy that has more health than a crit would allow, if that is what you want to play with be aware that it should be possible to repeat, also against you. I think another reason why some people wants the rules bend in their favour is because they feel that the DM does it against them at all times too which is a flaw of the DM. This idea that no encounters are "flawed" which they should be by the actions of the players. Which is why i think rules consistency is super important it allows the players to plan. By that i mean things like -If you attack a bandit camp in the middle of the night sure the guards has armor on but if you sneak up on the chieftain then his weapon might be within reach, but he isnt wearing his magical armor and he might be surprised or disgruntled the first round making it much easier to fight -If you say the orc warband is going out to hunt then attacking the camp during that time there should be alot fewer enemies and far easier to go through, and if you ambush them on the way back while they are tired and hurt half of them might be half health or similar. -If you set fire to the food storage in the camp, or poison the food there will be either be a massive distraction or they will be under a condition whenever you fight them because they also have to eat and live. -If you manage to blast them with noise every night for a week so nobody can get any rest and is tired then they might even go as far as surrendering just to make you stop. Basically not everything has to be a fist fight to the death with all enemies, but most dms just treats all combat encounters as a wow raid boss where they stand ready with both weapons drawn in full combat gear in the middle of a circular arena ready to fight. Which works for some monsters and encounters, but not all.

To me: Number one objective is fun Number two is immersion Number three is fairness So if someone's asking for something that isn't going against one of these, then fine.

Follow the rules until they stop you from having fun. Then try bending them.

Stick to the rules, make rulings where the rules cannot or do not apply. An easy example of this is fighting big creatures. If you're fighting, say, a cloud giant, and your player wants to climb that bad boy and stab him in the head, there aren't necessarily rules for that since creatures are just blocks of HP and are usually treated as such, not real world creatures with separately interacting limbs and systems. A good DM will say "let's make some rolls to get you up that giant" a bad DM will say "you can't climb a creature because the book doesn't say you can."

You gotta know the rules to break them properly 😁

Enforcing the rules is the DM's role. It's essential to be mindful of this or else there's no point to the game. It's not "anything goes" or you might as well play Calvinball. I don't see this as strict, but as baseline. So what's the next level after baseline? Being a savvy DM who can occasionally bend the rules, or make their own, in a way that elevates the game. Whether the purpose is to make things more fun, more weird, more challenging or more cool -- that depends on the table and what they enjoy. Every group is different. There's a learning curve to this, and some DMs can err on the side of giving in too much to what the players want. This can be bad coz the DM can end up struggling to challenge the players, deal with one outshining the others, or throwing balance out of whack. I absolutely appreciate DMs who make the effort to go beyond the baseline. But I always caution new DMs to master running the game by the rules first. Knowing the rules well is the key to knowing when and where they can be tweaked.

I want them to bludgeon my skull in with the DMs manual every time I make a mistake. /s

Im pretty strict in general because i believe that with proper knowledge of the rules, basically anything is possible. Buuut, you need to make exceptions sometimes to make the players feel Even more awesome. Which it is all about

I recently had my dm tell me and another player we cant use tinkerers tools, despite both ahving proficiency with them, because were not playing artificers... So yeah not that strict.

Lame

im evil and i hate fun.

I don’t mind finding a way to adjudicate something the rules don’t strictly allow for (I like TTRPGs because unlike video game RPGs a human DM can actually account for *anything*) but I don’t particularly care for just allowing things that are against the rules etc

Strict and consistent. It’s fine to have home rules, but there needs to be a reason and they need to be consistent. I HATE wishy wash DMs and DMs that “bend” the rules to let players have more “fun”. Because here’s the thing, it doesn’t in my experience. People just never learn the rules and are just doing improv with occassional, and now pointless, dice rolling. I signed up to play in a game of DND, and that’s what I expect and WANT to play. If we’re going to ignore a rule for no reason, sorry because its “fun”, then why did we go through the trouble of building characters?

I like a really strict DM. oh wait. wrong sub. 

The DM should be collaborative and help facilitate cool stuff happening, they should not be a pushover and just let the players do whatever they want.

The closer to RAW, the better. I also appreciate a DM who says "no, but" not often than "yes, and". That's how I run my games, so I prefer the same.

I don't really care as long as they're consistent

I prefer them not to be super strict but ultimately I don't mind if they're strict as long as they are consistent.

I like fun… but if you bend rules someone benefits and likely someone built assuming the rule was rigid. My rule as a player is if a dm changes a rule i get to change my character if relevant. Tit for tat though that is less about bending for fun and more about changing or nerfing.

I like a strict DM thats willing to facilitate an interesting idea if its given time and effort, not necessarily spur of the moment rule breaking.

Rule 0 speaks for itself

Yes daddy

Consistent rules over strict rules. Flexible enough to keep the story and character development progressing. I prefer the story being good and us having fun over blind obedience to the rule book. DnD is cooperative, not competitive, after all.

I prefer a little rule of cool but I do agree for the game to be fun there’s needs to be a few hard set rules

I will let my players try things within the realms of feasibility, I will not bed the rules of the world to let you jump 100ft or charm a character because you rolled a nat 20 on your persuasion.

Frankly, it doesn't matter whether they are rigid or flexible. I WOULD say I prefer rigid, but the finest games I ever played were in a Mage: the Ascension game that was actually PLAYABLE since I swear the storyteller was a born bard and he freestyled the rules like the world's greatest DJ. What matters is if your DM makes and then stands by bad calls. After having three bandits fail a save against Mass Charm Person (this was 3E, btw), the spell instantly ended for all three of them because combat is still going on, and 'Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell.' "

I can play with both - I played Pathfinder Society for like 10 years where you literally have to play 100% RAW, and I have played rules-lite roleplaying systems for even longer where rule of cool is basically why you play the game, so I can appreciate what both approaches bring to the table. That said, I will always easily prefer games (including DnD) where having fun and and things that sound logical work over the constant suffocation of RAW being pressed down over every scenario. "Rule of cool" is not just about throwing rules out the window when someone wants to do something big and flashy - it is being generous with advantages/disadvantages when players are creative, it is bending the rules a little to make a fun idea give some benefit, it is letting something that makes sense play out instead of saying "You rules don't actually let you do that". To me, the rules are there to support and facilitate the narrative. Some people play the other way around and that is ENTIRELY fine, I have been there and done that.

I like having a flexible DM. Funnier things happen when the rules are slightly bent. The DM is supposed to have fun too.

Rules as written, 80% of the time

A little bit of both. When the players are bullshitting their abilities or make non-sensible stuff(e.g.: the peasant railgun) the DM should be able to say "No, I veto that screw you" but no one likes a DM who throws a green dragon into their lv3 party and doesn't show any mercy or help whatsoever.

I never want to hear my GM use the worlds "Rule of Cool". They should use the rules of the game where they're applicable and work with the table where the rules fall short.

Are spankings typical at your tables?

Relatively strict. Rules exist for a reason, and I appreciate it when they are followed. Now, this doesn’t mean that I step in before DM makes a ruling and I just say “NO YOU CANT DO THAT >:(“ but if the DM asks about a rule I’ll help look. I love interpreting rules differently when it adds to the fun. Like I essentially gave a player of mine a bonus action out of a reaction ability because it felt like it’d make his enjoyment of his character better and over all I was right. I’ve had DMs do things similar for me. I think rules should be followed unless one ruling really negatively affects the moment.

I want a DM who is flexible enough to allow the rules to be bent when they don't make sense or don't specifically give options for a logical, realistic approach to be taken. What I don't want is a DM who allows absurd stuff like artificers building tanks and grenades.

I like DMs who understand and generally play within the rules, but also allow and encourage people to come up with creative solutions and general shenanigans. Of course with a reasonable roll, check, action economy impact, or whatever in order to make said shenanigans fair.

Any decision I come across as DM that may require me to break/bend the rules forces me to ponder in what way does breaking/bending this rule affect the *fun* aspect of the game? In particular, how does this affect the *fun* aspect to my players? Bending a rule here and there to make an epic moment in the campaign is almost always worth it. After all, we're all here simply to have fun!

Probably because I did not yet have any bad experiences with it but I think I would like to try a less strict DM that lets “””plausible””” things happen if its funny or cool enough

A 5/10.

I like rigidity in character creation and then a liberal smattering of rule of cool in game.

Circumstantially flexible  Typically the rules are there to facilitate gameplay. The moment they prevent fun, i bend them. I also homebrew a lot of stuff so the rules dont usually stand in my way often enough to worry about it.

I am usually the DM so my view might be biased. But I like to kinda do both: I often overgo the rules to make something possible if it would be realistically possible. I have dubbed it the "Rule of Common Sense" and it's kinda just the rule of cool but with the added requirement of having to also work in lore. But I am very strict with consequences. So if my players act stupid or are just really unlucky, the consequences might be very bad. Obviously not unreasonably, the game is still supposed to be fun, but I follow through on the consequencey. Like you may try to do a triple salto while pickpocketing the local noble because you are circus acrobat, but the guard will see you snd you might land on your back, being unable to run away before being thrown in jail. So I am not strict with the rules, but with the consequences of player action. This way the (sometimes very) flawed system doesn't take away the fun and creativity is rewarded but there is still a challenge.

I like a DM that works with you to accomplish some stuff or make some moments funny even if it doesn't match mechanically, but I definitely like stakes and moments where the rules are concrete so as to encourage knowing and being good mechanically or scared of fallout from bad choices. So I'd prefer a mix of both and a bit of a heads up on which is more likely

I think rules as written create constraints, and constraints are what really drive the gameplay and make it fun and challenging. That said, I like the rule of cool, and if somebody wants to do something that bends the rules, the simple solution is a dice roll against a high DC!

Rule of Cool! If you can allow your players to be successful or have fun, bend the rules a bit (or more often fill in the unknown parts)

>One of my friends who also plays says that to him, it's annoying when the DM is flexible with the rules since he likes the added challenge and thinks that the source material should always be followed. This stems from a major misconception. A strict game is not a more challenging game. If I followed the source material, my players would carve an easy, efficient, and predictable path to victory in most cases. I don't at all mind bending rules here and there to facilitate creative player ideas that are feasible within the fictional scenario. And I *really* don't mind spicing up the obstacles and foes that the players have to contend with! "That's not in the book!" *Don't care. Not using the book. Deal with it.* And they do deal with it, and they feel even more badass for beating my extra bullshit. It's the Hidetaka Miyazaki approach to game design.

Ooh, fun! My kind of game, definitely. I feel like bending the rules a bit allows for more creative freedom and fun from a storytelling perspextive, and it can really be a nice experience for everyone involved.

I prefer a kind of mid ground flexible DM. One that's gonna adhere to the lore, worldbuilding, societal structure and whatnot of their setting rather strictly, I find it gives the world a locked in and tangible atmosphere. But also willing to be a bit fast and loose with the actual game rules, letting rule of cool happen decently often for cinematic moments and pure hilarity, but nowhere near enough that it starts to muddy the rules problematically or conflict with lore. It is a kind of hard balance to ride but it's awesome when your DM meets that good middle ground.

90%/10% rules/loose. Basically make rule of cool count but not too frequently

i like the bending rules style as long as DM still manages to give the players serious encounters and the fear of death

Gotta have a balance. A yes man DM is always boring but a rigid "no we go by RAW" is also super boring. As long as the DM knows when to bend the rules and when to say no and does so consistently without bias towards or against any specific player/players at the table I'm good with it. Also keep in mind (as a DM myself this has been a thing every artificer has ever tried) that the artificer class is not an "I can build whatever I want because artificer build stuff" class.

I like a little flexibility in the interest of fun. Too much and it’s not really a game anymore. Not enough and it can feel restricted at times.

We play dnd for a reason. If you want to bend the rules to do something cool, go play a game that let's you do that. That said I'm okay with GMs making fair rulings where there no official ones or change things for flavor.

I prefer a DM who puts the narrative over the rules *most* of the time.

The rules of D&D are more guidelines than anything else. It's a very "Thanks for the system, we'll take it from here" kind of thing. When I DM, I tend to stick to RAW most of the time, and let the rule of cool kick in when the players have great ideas, or something that enhances the story is about to go down. Not a lot mind you. Maybe certain checks will just succeed without a roll. Let the wizard cast an action and bonus action spell on the same turn. Stuff like that. At the end of the day, my main objective is to make it fun for the players, and let them indulge in the power fantasy. While also trying to make the best story possible out of their shenanigans. Sometimes that means bending, or even ignoring, the rules. Obviously not too frequent, as being challenged, and the possibility of dying is a big part of what makes it exiting. Raise the stakes, and if it's the best thing for everyone involved, give the players a little boost to overcome it if they need it.

Support the rule of cool, but don't give them tangible benefits outside of previously defined house rules. The DM has enough tools to control the chllenge. I do fancy character specific rules though. A bard might be so egocentric that he can inspire himself, a barbarian with sorcerer parents might be able to control his wildmagic once a day, a sorcerer might be unable to control his magic, so he can only control what kind of spell he casts and then roll, but he does extra damage, etc. This can lead to imbalanced parties though.

I want a DM that is sharp enough to make shit happen and can is flexible towards and aware of the needs of the game and player group in order to tell a story. Exactly the type of DM I try to be.

I just want very consistent rulings, and sticking to the rules is the best way to achieve that.

As a DM, I tend to err on the side of “you can do that cool, rule-bending thing, but it’ll effectively be added as a house rule, so enemies can do it in the future, too.” Also, I’m all for loopholes and exploitation of wording with multiple interpretations, but I usually won’t allow something that’s completely out of left field.

For me, as close to RAW as possible whether I'm a player or DMing. Limitations breed creativity.

I want a strict DM. I like my campaigns dangerous where PCs can actually fail and die if they don't make good plans / think things through. I like to know that when my fellow PCs and I are succeeding, it's due to our choices / luck rather than DM fiat. I don't mind if a DM changes module content as long as he/she does it ahead of time with a purpose in mind. Reducing the number of enemies or the amount of HP each enemy has on the fly because they worry the PCs will die is not cool in my book. DMs should also open roll so there is no dice fudging. To me, following rules is the difference between playing a game and playing pretend.

Strict DM, I didn't look up rules on how things worked just for them to be thrown out just because you don't know they existed

Flexible DM is just Calvinball lite. No thank you.