Unpopular opinions go here

[Thomas Shey]

Good rules will not save a bad DM.

It can absolutely save (or if bad, harm) a mediocre one however.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

It can absolutely save (or if bad, harm) a mediocre one however.

Man I don’t know. Bad DMs are destroyer of worlds. Super codified like chess is one thing but rpgs are so different.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Man I don’t know. Bad DMs are destroyer of worlds. Super codified like chess is one thing but rpgs are so different.

I said "mediocre" for a reason. There's a lot more mediocre GMs out there than bad, and not giving them enough guidelines to work with is the worst thing you can do for them. And I just have to note that while they may not be D&D, games like RuneQuest have been getting along for a long time without being loosey-goosey.

 

[Campbell]

There is no such thing as a globally good GM. There are good GMs of specific games and/or styles of play. Skills developed to run one sort of game do not necessarily transfer to running a different sort of game and experience with running games in a certain way might not serve you well when running other games.

The value of a good game text is that it will both teach you and provide you with the tools you need to run a good game of that specific game.

 

[overgeeked]

There is no such thing as a globally good GM. There are good GMs of specific games and/or styles of play. Skills developed to run one sort of game do not necessarily transfer to running a different sort of game and experience with running games in a certain way might not serve you well when running other games.

The value of a good game text is that it will both teach you and provide you with the tools you need to run a good game of that specific game.

That assumes the referee in question will make the same assumption as you are, take the time to read the rules, fully grok them, and run the game as instructed by the rules. That's a long string of assumptions we cannot honestly expect to happen even most of the time.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There are approaches that don't require every spell to be a singular special case. The fact some D&D fans are allergic to that doesn't change that.

Those approaches require rewriting the entire magic system. Commit to that, and we can talk.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I said "mediocre" for a reason. There's a lot more mediocre GMs out there than bad, and not giving them enough guidelines to work with is the worst thing you can do for them. And I just have to note that while they may not be D&D, games like RuneQuest have been getting along for a long time without being loosey-goosey.

This is a style and preference dividing line though. I totally get that for some people, games that are more open, more rulings based, vague in places, not heavily codified, are less fun. That is a totally legitimate opinion. But the opinion @Warpiglet-7 and others are expressing is also quite valid. For my money, most GMs, but definition will be mediocre (if every GM was spectacular, all that would mean is the bar was raised and you would still have mediocre GMs in that span of quality), and I have no problem playing with GMs of varying quality within my styles of play. If a GM is trying to figure out how to manage a game that is rulings heavy, that is just a learning curve. Eventually they get good enough with it that the campaign functions well (and this is true both of GMs dealing with 'loosey goosey' systems and GMs dealing with games more like RuneQuest (in fact when I first started playing Runequest was one of the first alternatives I encountered to D&D and it seemed to very much scratch that itch for players who wanted that style). But this divide is there regardless. D&D was a lot more codified under 3E for example, and I played that game into the ground. It was a great system, but these debates still existed because some people like X, some people like Y. There is no one true way with RPGs and there is no one true way of design either

 

[Micah Sweet]

Agreed, but there's faster ways of accessing info than digging through a book; and ease of access is a virtue when you need that info right now.

Sure. The online method you described works. I just don't need spellcards. Too annoying to expand the list. I feel they're just an excuse for the company to charge us for something else.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Rulings work great for me and don’t add weight unless you are using them to set precedent. When I do them, I am not trying to create new mechanics to use going forward but just making the best ruling (which may create an ad box mechanic or play around with existing ones in the setting) to deal with a specific situation. I think I’ve adopted maybe 1-2 rulings as house rules if they really found a niche.

I don't see the point of a ruling you're only intending to use once, unless it's a placeholder for a more studied ruling after the session.

 

[Lanefan]

Rulings work great for me and don’t add weight unless you are using them to set precedent.

Every ruling I make sets a precedent.

Why? Because otherwise the next time the same situation arises (and it inevitably will) I won't have that precedent to lean on, and risk introducing inconsistency into the campaign by making a different ruling.

Many of these rulings are made before the campaign even starts, as I go through and nip potential problems, exploits, or unclear wordings in the bud. The rest arise as play goes along and unforeseen situations occur.

So, for a hypothetical example, if on the fly during play I rule that a character can cast a targeted spell while in darkness then a precedent is set for the remainder of that campaign (which in my case is many years) which says that targeted spells can be cast in darkness; and the rules will be updated (at some point) to reflect this.