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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Worlds of Design: Golden Rules for RPGs
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="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8837946" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>Not really a fan of any of these rules, albeit for very different reasons each.</p><p></p><p><strong>Rule 1</strong> is used to justify a lot of crappy GM behavior. A <strong><em>LOT</em></strong> of it. Even the rephrased version (which I have never once seen before today, something I find very telling) leaves me cold, and again I find it very telling that the rephrased version does not actually appear in the linked Stack Exchange page. It can be <em>sort of</em> extrapolated from what was said there (two posters mention that it is possible for things to go wrong), but not a single one of them references a need to "exercise that prerogative with much restraint."</p><p></p><p>More importantly, my problem is that presenting this rule in this way, <em>even with the caveat of restraint</em>, positions the GM as god-emperor of the game and the players as their peons. It ignores or even outright denies negotiation, discussion, consensus, and compromise, things that are utterly essential for healthy and productive human interactions. By framing things as "absolure power" (a phrase very frequently used on this very forum) and resorting almost instantly to brinkmanship and nuclear options (the phrase "vote with their feet" and similar ideas is nearly universal here), this "rule" encourages problems on a regular basis.</p><p></p><p>My alternative would be, "<strong>The GM makes final calls when absolutely necessary, and otherwise leads discussion toward consensus.</strong>" I further reject in no uncertain terms the idea that the GM should never ever be bound by any rules. <em>Some</em> rules should not be broken--some rules are such that breaking them is <em>never</em> a good idea, no matter how cool the GM thinks the results would be. Such rules may not be common in all systems, indeed some systems may not have any such rules at all. But it is just as foolish to say that <em>all rules ever</em> are mere suggestions as it is to say that every rule must be followed to the letter without thought.</p><p></p><p><strong>Rule 2</strong> is simply a false belief held by a lot of designers, both amateur and professional. The purpose of game design in TTRPGs is to provide certain kinds of experiences. Mechanics, that is the numerical and procedural components of play (as opposed to <em>thematics,</em> the narrative and ecological components of play), exist to facilitate or induce those experiences in the player. There are many, many ways in which a perfect mechanical symmetry between player characters and non-player characters can be detrimental to the intended play experiences of most TTRPGs. Hence, NPCs <em>should not</em> work the same as PCs, unless doing so is reasonably compatible with the intended experience of play. 3rd edition is a huge cautionary tale here, as is its child, Pathfinder. One of the biggest complaints from 3.X/PF DMs is that DMing it is <em>exhausting,</em> in large part due to the workload required to create and run combat encounters that are actually interesting and meaningful. Though the single biggest problem is of course that the game's math and class balance are a dumpster fire, the fact that every monster <em>must</em> be built as if it were a PC is a huge contributing factor to this problem. The DM must effectively make whole new parties of player characters over and over and over again just to keep up.</p><p></p><p>Now, on the thematic side, this rule is less of a problem, but still imperfect. See, if enforced as you describe [USER=30518]@lewpuls[/USER], it has a huge risk of accidentally creating a perverse incentive opposite of GM intent. Instead of becoming more cautious and merciful due to knowing that if <em>they</em> can get an instant kill, so can the NPCs, it may instead drive the players to ever greater depths of viciousness and depravity in order to <em>guarantee</em> that they are the ones who get the drop first and thus instantly win. It's sort of like the problem of making all crimes punishable by death: if you are dead whether you rob someone without killing vs murdering them, perversely this punitive measure actually <em>increases</em> murders, because it is better to have no victim who can bear witness, when both things have the same result.</p><p></p><p>I don't think I would make a "golden rule" at all here, but if I truly had to, it would be something like, "<strong>Tell your players the kind of world you want to run--and that their behavior in that world will be judged and responded to in a way that supports the intended tone."</strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>Rule 3</strong> is worse than useless in 90% of cases. It is like telling a chef to change how they cook because people cook in order to have tasty things, so just make your food tastier 4head. Making "fun" the standard by which gaming is evaluated is not productive: "fun" is too undefined; the relationship between "fun" and the rules and procedures is too nebulous; and the obsession with creating "fun" over both short- and long-term meaningful play experiences is a detriment.</p><p></p><p>Instead, it should read, "<strong>The game is played for a purpose. Know what that purpose is, and make sure your players do too. As long as everyone shares that purpose, and the rules actually serve it, everyone will have a good time.</strong>" Note I say "that" purpose, but it could have more than one purpose bundled together. Point being, you need to know WHY you play a game, that game needs to actually <em>support</em> that reason, and the playwrs need to know and be on board with that reason. Just as striving for happiness directly very frequently results in failure, but striving toward other goals has a surprisingly high success rate at producing happiness as a result, striving for "fun" directly is often counterproductive, but one will often find a great deal of fun purely by striving toward some goal you believe worth pursuing for its own sake.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8837946, member: 6790260"] Not really a fan of any of these rules, albeit for very different reasons each. [B]Rule 1[/B] is used to justify a lot of crappy GM behavior. A [B][I]LOT[/I][/B] of it. Even the rephrased version (which I have never once seen before today, something I find very telling) leaves me cold, and again I find it very telling that the rephrased version does not actually appear in the linked Stack Exchange page. It can be [I]sort of[/I] extrapolated from what was said there (two posters mention that it is possible for things to go wrong), but not a single one of them references a need to "exercise that prerogative with much restraint." More importantly, my problem is that presenting this rule in this way, [I]even with the caveat of restraint[/I], positions the GM as god-emperor of the game and the players as their peons. It ignores or even outright denies negotiation, discussion, consensus, and compromise, things that are utterly essential for healthy and productive human interactions. By framing things as "absolure power" (a phrase very frequently used on this very forum) and resorting almost instantly to brinkmanship and nuclear options (the phrase "vote with their feet" and similar ideas is nearly universal here), this "rule" encourages problems on a regular basis. My alternative would be, "[B]The GM makes final calls when absolutely necessary, and otherwise leads discussion toward consensus.[/B]" I further reject in no uncertain terms the idea that the GM should never ever be bound by any rules. [I]Some[/I] rules should not be broken--some rules are such that breaking them is [I]never[/I] a good idea, no matter how cool the GM thinks the results would be. Such rules may not be common in all systems, indeed some systems may not have any such rules at all. But it is just as foolish to say that [I]all rules ever[/I] are mere suggestions as it is to say that every rule must be followed to the letter without thought. [B]Rule 2[/B] is simply a false belief held by a lot of designers, both amateur and professional. The purpose of game design in TTRPGs is to provide certain kinds of experiences. Mechanics, that is the numerical and procedural components of play (as opposed to [I]thematics,[/I] the narrative and ecological components of play), exist to facilitate or induce those experiences in the player. There are many, many ways in which a perfect mechanical symmetry between player characters and non-player characters can be detrimental to the intended play experiences of most TTRPGs. Hence, NPCs [I]should not[/I] work the same as PCs, unless doing so is reasonably compatible with the intended experience of play. 3rd edition is a huge cautionary tale here, as is its child, Pathfinder. One of the biggest complaints from 3.X/PF DMs is that DMing it is [I]exhausting,[/I] in large part due to the workload required to create and run combat encounters that are actually interesting and meaningful. Though the single biggest problem is of course that the game's math and class balance are a dumpster fire, the fact that every monster [I]must[/I] be built as if it were a PC is a huge contributing factor to this problem. The DM must effectively make whole new parties of player characters over and over and over again just to keep up. Now, on the thematic side, this rule is less of a problem, but still imperfect. See, if enforced as you describe [USER=30518]@lewpuls[/USER], it has a huge risk of accidentally creating a perverse incentive opposite of GM intent. Instead of becoming more cautious and merciful due to knowing that if [I]they[/I] can get an instant kill, so can the NPCs, it may instead drive the players to ever greater depths of viciousness and depravity in order to [I]guarantee[/I] that they are the ones who get the drop first and thus instantly win. It's sort of like the problem of making all crimes punishable by death: if you are dead whether you rob someone without killing vs murdering them, perversely this punitive measure actually [I]increases[/I] murders, because it is better to have no victim who can bear witness, when both things have the same result. I don't think I would make a "golden rule" at all here, but if I truly had to, it would be something like, "[B]Tell your players the kind of world you want to run--and that their behavior in that world will be judged and responded to in a way that supports the intended tone." Rule 3[/B] is worse than useless in 90% of cases. It is like telling a chef to change how they cook because people cook in order to have tasty things, so just make your food tastier 4head. Making "fun" the standard by which gaming is evaluated is not productive: "fun" is too undefined; the relationship between "fun" and the rules and procedures is too nebulous; and the obsession with creating "fun" over both short- and long-term meaningful play experiences is a detriment. Instead, it should read, "[B]The game is played for a purpose. Know what that purpose is, and make sure your players do too. As long as everyone shares that purpose, and the rules actually serve it, everyone will have a good time.[/B]" Note I say "that" purpose, but it could have more than one purpose bundled together. Point being, you need to know WHY you play a game, that game needs to actually [I]support[/I] that reason, and the playwrs need to know and be on board with that reason. Just as striving for happiness directly very frequently results in failure, but striving toward other goals has a surprisingly high success rate at producing happiness as a result, striving for "fun" directly is often counterproductive, but one will often find a great deal of fun purely by striving toward some goal you believe worth pursuing for its own sake. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Worlds of Design: Golden Rules for RPGs
Top