Worlds of Design: Golden Rules for RPGs

There are several Golden Rules, really. These are my three for role-playing games.

goldenrules.png

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.

Practicing the Golden Rule is not a sacrifice, it's an investment.” Byllye Avery

The topic today isn’t the one people are familiar with from religion and philosophy: treat people as well as you yourself want to be treated. That Golden Rule is present in some form in most religions and in many philosophies. These rules are the ones I use in my games.

Rule #1: The GM is the Final Arbiter​

The much-debated Golden Rule, also called Rule 0, is expressed many ways but amounts to “the GM is always right but should exercise that prerogative with much restraint.”

Especially if you favor storytelling RPGs, this is an obvious rule to follow, as the storyteller must be able to arrange things as they wish. On the other hand, if the storyteller promulgates outlandish conditions, the entire enterprise may fail as immersion is broken.

The reason this rule is sometimes controversial is because some players want the GM to only be the arbiter of the rules, not the rule-maker. This arbitration tends to happen with games that have enormous quantities of rules, many hundreds of pages; it’s not practical in games with short rules.

In team sports terms, some want the GM to strictly apply the rules, as many sports referees do, but others prefer that there is a large number of judgment calls for the referee.

Rule #2: Whatever PCs Can Do, NPCs Can Do​

The second RPG Golden Rule is, “whatever the player characters can do, the NPCs should be able to do, and vice versa.” Or to put it another way, “what's practical for the good guys is practical for the bad guys, and vice versa.”

If the good guys can kill an unconscious opponent with one blow, then the bad guys should be able to do the same thing. And since most players don't want that to happen to their character, then they will be reconciled to making it harder for them to kill an unconscious opponent. Saving throws may be required in certain situations as well.

When an RPG is played as a storytelling device, rolls can be as lopsided as you like. In stories the protagonists or heroes are often incredibly lucky. In games this luckiness happens much less often. This most common application (or lack thereof, depending on the game) involves critical successes and fumbles. Because players roll less frequently than monsters, critical hits or fumbles happen more often when monsters are using this rule because there are generally more of them.

This is something a GM should explain to the group before the campaign starts. Most players will see the logic of this when you explain it. It depends on the idea that they're playing a game and not telling a story, because it relies on the idea of applying the rules equally to everyone in the game, PCs and NPCs alike.

This is why I always say to GMs beware of players who try to find new rules that give them advantages even if the bad guys can do the same thing. The difference is that the player will always be involved in the action, whereas only certain bad guys will have that advantage.

Rule #3: RPGs Are Played to Have Fun​

I’d add a third rule, about which there’s likely to be less agreement: “RPGs are played for the benefit of the players too, not just the GM.”

As a player I hate to be manipulated by a GM who is doing whatever they like, rather than consider what’s best for the group in the long-term (even if the players think they don’t like it in the short-term, like having their characters potentially die). If your GM plays only for their own benefit, it may be time to find another GM.

Your Turn: What are your Golden Rules?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lewis Pulsipher

Lewis Pulsipher

Dragon, White Dwarf, Fiend Folio
At the most basic level, agency is the ability to make choices that make a difference. The ability to take action to affect the outcome.
Doesn't mean the ability to choose the outcome.

Not granting the players agency means that the outcome is predetermined and won't be affected one way or another regardless of whatever choices the players make.

And of course, it's only agency if the players if the players have a way to anticipate the general direction of events that their choices will lead to. It's not just about choosing actions, but about choosing the desired outcome. If you have no hints at what the consequences of your options are, picking one is not directed towards any goal, and as such not an intentional action.
I quibble with this a little bit. I don't think there's much connection between having the agency to choose an action meaning the PCs therefore must have agency to choose an outcome. If agency depends on picking both action and outcome then the possibility of failure (rolling dice) destroys player agency...further, lack of complete and perfect knowledge would destroy player agency. I don't agree with that.

I try to pick this lock. Agency.

I try to pick the lock but fail the roll. Still agency.

I try to open the chest. Agency.

I try to open this chest but discover it's a mimic. Still agency.

Neither the possibility of failure nor the possibility of incomplete knowledge destroys player agency.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

No, that's my point.

First, a choice between different options must result in different outcomes. Picking between different options that have the same outcome is not a meaningful choice.

Second, the players must have some rough idea of the general outcomes in case the option they choose succeeds or fails. Picking between different options when you have no idea what the consequences will be is also not a meaningful choice.

Success or failure of any chosen course of action is still up in the air. That's why pretty much all RPGs make extensive use of dice rolls. But the potential risks and rewards of different choices must be predictable to make a choice. Otherwise you could flip a coin which option to pick, making the decision meaningless.
 

First, a choice between different options must result in different outcomes. Picking between different options that have the same outcome is not a meaningful choice.

Success or failure of any chosen course of action is still up in the air. That's why pretty much all RPGs make extensive use of dice rolls.
Agreed.
Second, the players must have some rough idea of the general outcomes in case the option they choose succeeds or fails. Picking between different options when you have no idea what the consequences will be is also not a meaningful choice.
Disagree. Being presented with a T-intersection that the players don't know what's down either corridor is still a meaningful choice so long as the choice matters in that what's down one corridor is different than what's down the other corridor. You don't have to tell them what's down each corridor before they make the choice for that choice to be meaningful.
But the potential risks and rewards of different choices must be predictable to make a choice. Otherwise you could flip a coin which option to pick, making the decision meaningless.
Disagree. Not knowing all the potential consequences has no bearing on whether a choice is meaningful. Simply knowing that the consequences will be different depending on the choice means it is a meaningful choice. Whether they travel north or south, left or right, should matter. One direction has one set of obstacles and opportunities while another direction has a completely different set of obstacles and opportunities. The players not knowing which is which in no way makes the choice meaningless. It just means they're operating without complete knowledge. Neither the players nor their characters can possibly have complete knowledge of the possible consequences of an action.
 

Except - as Kirk proves with the Kobayashi Maru scenario - that loss isn't necessarily guaranteed. Now sure, Kirk's "player" metagamed the hell out of it, but then the KM scenario isn't fair to begin with and Kirk's player could be said to merely be fighting fire with fire.
The thing is, Kirk missed the point of the scenario; how to deal with a no-win scenario. An officer has to be able to deal with loss. While in fiction, it's great that we can craft the story the way we want so that the hero is triumphant, real life doesn't work that way. And I actually find that more interesting than fiction, where in the end, despite everything the protagonist does, and no matter how in the right the character may be, they still lose.
 

Disagree. Being presented with a T-intersection that the players don't know what's down either corridor is still a meaningful choice so long as the choice matters in that what's down one corridor is different than what's down the other corridor. You don't have to tell them what's down each corridor before they make the choice for that choice to be meaningful.

Its only meaningful if they have some way to make some sort of informed decision; otherwise all they're doing is the mental equivalent of a coin flip.

Disagree. Not knowing all the potential consequences has no bearing on whether a choice is meaningful. Simply knowing that the consequences will be different depending on the choice means it is a meaningful choice.

Don't agree with this either. A choice who's consequences you have literally no idea of is meaningless; its a human randomizer.
 

The thing is, Kirk missed the point of the scenario; how to deal with a no-win scenario.
What's the point of learning how to deal with a no-win scenario, though? If it really is no-win, you and your crew are almost certain to be space dust by the end anyway; and there seems little future in learning how to become space dust.

The better lesson is how to turn no-win situations into something better. Which means, Kirk is the only one who really got the point.
An officer has to be able to deal with loss. While in fiction, it's great that we can craft the story the way we want so that the hero is triumphant, real life doesn't work that way. And I actually find that more interesting than fiction, where in the end, despite everything the protagonist does, and no matter how in the right the character may be, they still lose.
The KM scenario is more than just a loss, though - it's the spaceborne equivalent of a TPK.

Yes, I too like it when protagonists lose...but not when that loss is forced upon them no matter what they do. (same goes for auto-win scenarios)
 

The better lesson is how to turn no-win situations into something better. Which means, Kirk is the only one who really got the point.
So, we (or our characters) are always going to win? Remember, none of the cadets knew it was a no-win scenario. Originally, Spock was supposed to stay dead, and Kirk had to learn the meaning of the Kobayashi Maru test the hard way. It was Spock who truly understood that his sacrifice was necessary and was the only way out (and recall, there are many stories online corroborating that Spock was supposed to stay dead and Nimoy wanted it that way).

There are moments in life where we don't have a choice, or all our choices are crappy. How do we deal with that? Does the character die a coward, a knife in his back trying to flee, or heroically, buying time for their compatriots to escape?

How do you model loss or sacrifice, if there is always a way out? It cheapens sacrifice, if in that kind of story there is any sacrifice at all. This is my disagreement over the idea that player agency is sacrosanct.
 

Disagree. Being presented with a T-intersection that the players don't know what's down either corridor is still a meaningful choice so long as the choice matters in that what's down one corridor is different than what's down the other corridor. You don't have to tell them what's down each corridor before they make the choice for that choice to be meaningful.
I think it's more complicated than a "yes absolutely meaningful"/"no not at all meaningful."

If you have two choices, and you have no idea what those choices entail, that seems pretty clearly lower on the agency totem pole than having two choices where you have some idea what they will entail. Using your T-intersection analogy, we could compare the following:
  • The group is lost, having fallen into an abandoned ruin. They have no idea where they are, nor what could potentially be in either direction, and may not necessarily be able to come back later. The choice is...pretty much devoid of impact, even if technically the results would be different had they chosen differently.
  • The group is exploring. They know some rooms in the dungeon are very dangerous, but there's lots of treasure as a result. They will go to as many locations as they can, but picking a wrong turn early can make their lives a lot harder or cause them to cut out early. The agency is small, but still present.
  • The group has a map, but it's not entirely reliable. They reach an intersection. The map is vague or cryptic, but they have at least some notion of what lies in either direction. Again, the agency seems weak but present, perhaps hinging in part on what the players are able to glean from the map or their surroundings.
  • The group has a map and it's reliable. They have a good idea of what to expect in any given location, at least in terms of what the room is for. Whether they know what defenses to expect is another matter. Moderate agency--ultimately both directions are gonna happen unless there's some kind of one-way passage, but priorities matter.
  • The group knows they can't take both paths, and has some moderate idea of what lies in each direction (perhaps taking a road that forks, with a map describing the different locations.) This seems like the maximal agency version of this choice, because their decision is informed (even if not perfectly so), there are real and observable consequences, and there won't be any backtracking to take both paths.

Disagree. Not knowing all the potential consequences has no bearing on whether a choice is meaningful. Simply knowing that the consequences will be different depending on the choice means it is a meaningful choice. Whether they travel north or south, left or right, should matter. One direction has one set of obstacles and opportunities while another direction has a completely different set of obstacles and opportunities. The players not knowing which is which in no way makes the choice meaningless. It just means they're operating without complete knowledge. Neither the players nor their characters can possibly have complete knowledge of the possible consequences of an action.
Again, I think it's more complex than that. If the choice can be replaced by a coinflip--because there is no reason to choose one thing over another--then it doesn't really make much difference whether the actual results are different. How could you possibly tell, unless you eventually get both things, at which point...did you really choose which, or simply the order? Again, I think these things result in weak agency, rather than no agency. It's not that it's a totally fictitious choice like quantum ogres or illusionism, but rather that the agency involved...doesn't really seem to amount to very much.

This might also explain why some folks, who are otherwise adamant about preserving agency, don't seem to be bothered by certain forms of illusionism, quantum ogres, and other false-choice techniques. That is, they care about "strong" agency moments, and want to support those, but "weak" agency moments (like picking between two nigh-indistinguishable paths, about which you know more or less nothing) are sufficiently thin that it does notseem to be a loss to abrogate them.
 

So, we (or our characters) are always going to win? Remember, none of the cadets knew it was a no-win scenario. Originally, Spock was supposed to stay dead, and Kirk had to learn the meaning of the Kobayashi Maru test the hard way. It was Spock who truly understood that his sacrifice was necessary and was the only way out (and recall, there are many stories online corroborating that Spock was supposed to stay dead and Nimoy wanted it that way).

There are moments in life where we don't have a choice, or all our choices are crappy. How do we deal with that? Does the character die a coward, a knife in his back trying to flee, or heroically, buying time for their compatriots to escape?

How do you model loss or sacrifice, if there is always a way out? It cheapens sacrifice, if in that kind of story there is any sacrifice at all. This is my disagreement over the idea that player agency is sacrosanct.
I will amend my statement here in one respect. Players should be warned ahead of time that the campaign may be bittersweet and there may be losses. I would hate to be tricked into going to see a tragedy, when what I wanted to see was a light hearted comedy.

But if the players agree, then anything goes. So in that sense, yes, you should still honor a player's expectations at a meta level. This of course also applies to anything X card like.
 

What's the point of learning how to deal with a no-win scenario, though? If it really is no-win, you and your crew are almost certain to be space dust by the end anyway; and there seems little future in learning how to become space dust.
The point is that every commanding officer is absolutely guaranteed to face choices that have no clear good answer, which involve conflicting values (e.g. "the lives of my ship and crew" vs "the lives of innocent civilians"), and being forced to face such choices prepares an aspiring officer to make other hard decisions from the command seat. TNG actually taught this lesson in an even better way when (then-)Lieutenant Commander Troi took the bridge officer's test and repeatedly failed, before finally succeeding: she was forced to make the difficult decision to send her good friend (IIRC Geordi) to his effectively certain death in order to prevent the destruction of the ship and the loss of everyone on it. A smaller-scale no-win scenario, that is also much more likely to actually happen on a vessel exploring deep space and which frequently encounters the bizarre and dangerous. Had Commander Troi learned that the "correct" response was to always find the loophole in the simulation, she would not actually have gotten the extremely important lesson that sometimes, commanding officers must put the good of the ship ahead of their personal feelings.

The better lesson is how to turn no-win situations into something better. Which means, Kirk is the only one who really got the point.
This is certainly the more aspirational message. And sometimes that is in fact the best response. But, to steal from SMBC, it's good to remember the Falling Problem: If you were thrown out of a plane with no parachute, you could quite easily determine how long it would take to reach the ground (perhaps even without a calculator!), what kinetic energy you would have, etc. That knowledge would not give you the ability to prevent the death resulting from that impact. Few things are too hard (especially in a post-scarcity technobabble society like the Federation)--many things are too fast.

Sometimes, you don't have the time to outwit the situation, even if an outwitting option theoretically exists. Sometimes, you must accept that, within whatever limits you personally have, you don't get to take a third option. People in charge, such as commanding officers, are especially in need of preparation for those exact moments.

Because it's only by surviving enough of those no-win scenarios that we can eventually build new options that can win.

The KM scenario is more than just a loss, though - it's the spaceborne equivalent of a TPK.

Yes, I too like it when protagonists lose...but not when that loss is forced upon them no matter what they do. (same goes for auto-win scenarios)
Certainly. And if the Kobayashi Maru scenario resulted in the actual deaths of many people, then it would be a horrible thing indeed. The fact that it is a simulation, however, is what enables it to work. Or, at least, it did before the secret got out; in Trek canon, after Kirk infamously broke it, the fact that it was a no-win scenario eventually became common knowledge, which eliminates its value as a teaching tool. Some of the expanded universe stuff (aka questionable canonicity) even claims that it still exists...as an exercise for engineers trying to find new and creative ways to break it.

Kobayashi Maru is not meant to be fun. It is not meant to be rewarding. It is not meant to be instructive on how you should deal with any particular situation. It is solely meant to (a) examine what an aspiring captain would do under dire circumstances, and (b) teach said aspiring captain that "you don't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you just might find, you get what you need."

I, personally, am quite fond of the "solutions" chosen by Hikaru Sulu and Mackenzie Calhoun. The former elected not to mount a rescue at all (but had to deal with a bridge mutiny as a result of his choice.) The latter elected to destroy the Kobayashi Maru, claiming that it was obviously a trap, and even if it weren't a trap and actually did have civilians on board, a quick death would spare them the terrors of being prisoners of war.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top