Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Context Switching Paralysis, or Why we Will Always Have the Thief Debate
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 8749482" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>I don't want to engage heavily with this because I don't think I can do so without a bunch of people getting really upset. But, I don't think is just a matter of taste. I think it is an objective matter. I think "rulings not rules" is objectively nonsense, and have already made that post.</p><p></p><p>What I think though is that by Celebrim's 2nd Law of RPGs, how you think that about playing an RPG and how you go about preparing an RPG has more of an impact on play than the rules of an RPG. And, under the 2nd law, "Rulings not rules", while objectively a nonsensical statement, can be a proxy for very powerful and important claim about RPGs that is more complex than that overly simplistic and trite statement. The statement is "true" only if it is standing as a short hand for that larger idea. And that idea is that fundamentally the GM of an RPG is not merely the crank of a rules engine operating in a mechanical fashion. If that was true, then cRPGs would give a better experience in every regard than tRPGs. Fundamentally, to run a good table you as the GM frequently have to apply your judgement and handle things according to the situation that the rules designer didn't account for. In other words, "rulings not rules" if it means something like "the GM is greater than the rules and that's a good thing" is something that I think people need to hear and something that a player or GM introduced to the game in certain eras, that if they hear it, can so radically change how they think about playing the game as to be revolutionary to them.</p><p></p><p>And that's great and good, and I think that a lot of the people who defend "rulings not rules" fall into the category of people who needed to hear that and needed to change the way they thought about the game. But that still doesn't mean that as a bare statement, "rulings not rules" isn't objectively nonsense and often used as such or that a game that relied heavily on "rulings not rules" didn't objectively have a huge glaring objective problem.</p><p></p><p>And I think at some level, when you get away from how you feel about me saying "rulings not rules" is objectively nonsense, that you get that. Because you go on to say this:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And I can totally agree with that. But what I see you writing about there is in fact how rulings are rules, that as a table plays together and a skilled GM creates rulings, those rulings become rules in the same way that a judge ruling on the law becomes a common law ruling. That is to say, common law created by the judiciary ruling is as much rules as the written legislative law. Most tables don't take the step to write their common law down, but they do know it and abide by it. You don't think of that as being "mechanical systems", but in fact it is basically not any different than the mechanical systems. The game became more consistent, logical, through dialogue, but the product of that was indistinguishable in practice from a rule. And if isn't indistinguishable in practice from a rule, then it's going to fall into that area of arbitrary rulings you agree no one wants.</p><p></p><p>The craft of good GMing includes turning rulings into rules, even if you never write them all down.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 8749482, member: 4937"] I don't want to engage heavily with this because I don't think I can do so without a bunch of people getting really upset. But, I don't think is just a matter of taste. I think it is an objective matter. I think "rulings not rules" is objectively nonsense, and have already made that post. What I think though is that by Celebrim's 2nd Law of RPGs, how you think that about playing an RPG and how you go about preparing an RPG has more of an impact on play than the rules of an RPG. And, under the 2nd law, "Rulings not rules", while objectively a nonsensical statement, can be a proxy for very powerful and important claim about RPGs that is more complex than that overly simplistic and trite statement. The statement is "true" only if it is standing as a short hand for that larger idea. And that idea is that fundamentally the GM of an RPG is not merely the crank of a rules engine operating in a mechanical fashion. If that was true, then cRPGs would give a better experience in every regard than tRPGs. Fundamentally, to run a good table you as the GM frequently have to apply your judgement and handle things according to the situation that the rules designer didn't account for. In other words, "rulings not rules" if it means something like "the GM is greater than the rules and that's a good thing" is something that I think people need to hear and something that a player or GM introduced to the game in certain eras, that if they hear it, can so radically change how they think about playing the game as to be revolutionary to them. And that's great and good, and I think that a lot of the people who defend "rulings not rules" fall into the category of people who needed to hear that and needed to change the way they thought about the game. But that still doesn't mean that as a bare statement, "rulings not rules" isn't objectively nonsense and often used as such or that a game that relied heavily on "rulings not rules" didn't objectively have a huge glaring objective problem. And I think at some level, when you get away from how you feel about me saying "rulings not rules" is objectively nonsense, that you get that. Because you go on to say this: And I can totally agree with that. But what I see you writing about there is in fact how rulings are rules, that as a table plays together and a skilled GM creates rulings, those rulings become rules in the same way that a judge ruling on the law becomes a common law ruling. That is to say, common law created by the judiciary ruling is as much rules as the written legislative law. Most tables don't take the step to write their common law down, but they do know it and abide by it. You don't think of that as being "mechanical systems", but in fact it is basically not any different than the mechanical systems. The game became more consistent, logical, through dialogue, but the product of that was indistinguishable in practice from a rule. And if isn't indistinguishable in practice from a rule, then it's going to fall into that area of arbitrary rulings you agree no one wants. The craft of good GMing includes turning rulings into rules, even if you never write them all down. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Context Switching Paralysis, or Why we Will Always Have the Thief Debate
Top