Joyful GMing: Fun, Factual, and Fair Rulings

Referee Football Helping - Free photo on Pixabay​

Being a GM is a lot like putting down railroad tracks while the train is already moving behind you. You have to work hard, move fast, and be ready to improvise. Making rulings is a core skill of GMs that set RPGs apart from computers and board games. GMs can interpret and with player input act to move the story forward. Here are three ways to make rulings on the fly to keep the players engaged and the game moving.

What Are Rulings?​

Rulings include the GM filling in the blanks for situations that rules don’t cover. However, rulings are bigger than that. The entire game a GM runs is a series of rulings, one after the other. Leaning on rules from rulebooks can help with the fairness of rulings, but the rules of the RPG are not the actual game or campaign. The game is the players making decisions based on GM description and the GM making rulings on how to determine the results of those decisions based on the shared situation. Rules inform this process, but the GM guides the process and makes the final judgment.

Fun​

The PCs strive to achieve goals and no one knows if they will succeed or not. Will this ruling make the game more enjoyable for everyone? This principle is trickier than it sounds. A PC missing an attack may not sound fun. Or a PC or entire party getting killed may not sound fun. So what is fun?

Running and playing RPGs takes effort to achieve positive results. Without that effort, the game is not fun. In normal games, the effort is a contest between two players or teams. In an RPG, that effort is a struggle by the PCs to achieve their goals in an indifferent and sometimes hostile world. What is fun is the PCs striving to achieve goals and no one knowing if they will succeed or not. Rulings should take this principle into account.

The opposite is true as well. If every one of your players hates puzzles, pull all puzzles out of your game. If using a rule would never be fun, avoid the situation that calls for that particular rule.

Factual​

The game world has its own reality. Each RPG has a unique take on the world the game takes place in. In early editions of D&D combat is deadly and achieving goals requires planning, guile, and the right gear. Later editions of D&D involve a lot more combat with rewards focused on defeating monsters. A ruling needs to reflect the reality of the game world itself. As a default, use an understanding our own Earth to make a ruling. Modify to take into account the world of the PCs.

I recently ran Amazing Adventures and a PC was shot by a rifle. Getting shot nearly killed the PC. However, AA is pulp and PCs have Fate Points as they are destined for greater things. I reminded the player of their character being destined by Fate for great things and the player chose to spend a Fate Point and the shot he thought was taking him down actually passed through his sleeve without harming him. In a gritty game, the PC would have been down and likely bleeding out instead. The game would have still moved forward, but in a different direction.

Fair​

When the outcome matters and is uncertain, let the dice decide. Don’t roll dice unless you need to. If I was GMing for a player of a ranger tracking a deer in a forest, I would never make the player roll to succeed. Track orcs across rocky ground with a three day head start? Then the dice come out. How do you know if the dice are needed? The first two principles should help you decide. If in doubt, ask the player what he thinks and take that into account as well.

Once you determine the PC wants to do something that may or may not succeed and the results matter, you need to make a ruling. First, ask the player exactly what his character is attempting to do. The rules can guide you and may have a ready-made solution.

If not, involve the player and ask him what abilities his character might be able to use. If the player can’t come up with something but you think it should be possible, you can always use the 50% rule. It happens 50% of the time. You can mix this up a bit and have the player roll and try to get evens or call out three numbers on a die six and the player tries to roll that number to succeed.

If you involve the player and the player understands the stakes, the ruling will be fair whether it succeeds, fails, or falls somewhere in between and regardless of the final roll. However, the roll itself will add interesting tension and the player will be invested in the result.

Future Results​

If a player wants their character to do something and the GM makes a ruling that is fun, factual, and fair that group is well on its way to participating in a balanced games with rulings the players will appreciate. If the GM involves the players in determining how to make rulings, that GM will be both making both his job easier and helping the players shape the action and the possible outcomes of the campaign which is exactly what a GM wants. A player learning to be part of rulings may even decide to become a GM one day.

 

[aco175]

The DM should root for the players to succeed, while still maintaining some sort of neutrality.

 

[GMMichael]

Once you determine the PC wants to do something that may or may not succeed and the results matter, you need to make a ruling. First, ask the player exactly what his character is attempting to do. The rules can guide you and may have a ready-made solution.

I'm a fan of the exit-interview method too: ask what the outcome was, knowing what the rules have to say about it.

If not, involve the player and ask him what abilities his character might be able to use. If the player can’t come up with something but you think it should be possible, you can always use the 50% rule. It happens 50% of the time.

The 50% rule sounds good for getting things moving, but it's too close to the succeed/fail dichotomy for me.

Running and playing RPGs takes effort to achieve positive results. Without that effort, the game is not fun. In normal games, the effort is a contest between two players or teams. In an RPG, that effort is a struggle by the PCs to achieve their goals in an indifferent and sometimes hostile world.

I mean, I guess you could call the GM an "indifferent and sometimes hostile world." I'd take it as a compliment.

The opposite is true as well. If every one of your players hates puzzles, pull all puzzles out of your game. If using a rule would never be fun, avoid the situation that calls for that particular rule.

If they "hate" puzzles, yeah. If they just don't like puzzles, I wonder if the fun could be significantly increased, knowing the players succeeded in the face of un-fun. It might be like turning the last page of a Harry Potter book. Ah, sweet relief!

 

[Koloth]

For the anti-puzzle group, leave the puzzle in but offer an Option B that achieves the same goal without the hated puzzle. Possible this is the day that one of the Players is in a puzzle solving mode. If this is that day, maybe simplify the puzzle a bit so the player might leave the game with a bit less puzzle hate.

For that Ranger tracking a deer, perhaps as GM, you roll some dice and say "You don't know why but the deer trail goes cold." Even if the tracking is not really important to the story, a small unexplained failure can remind players that Things can go wrong. And a little mystery can be good. Even if it has nothing to do with the story. Or does it?

 

[Piperken]

Appreciate this piece taking this framing-- joyful. Yes! That gets lost in pages of heavy discussions over game theory, design, philosophy. Make the ambiguous like joy, unambiguous.

 

[Celebrim]

The hardest part of GMing is that the (typical) player simultaneously wants to struggle but not to fail. The heroic narrative in other media that are static and non-participatory have this arc where the character faces seemingly impossible odds and, no matter who they are, even if they are Batman or Superman, still struggle and have to strive to win. But then in the end, they do, and they are validated.

That's the experience that motivates most players, and the problem is while you can give them Batman or Superman to run, you can't actually make them Batman or Superman. They have to do that on their own, and it's work. It's a challenge. Challenges aren't always fun. And then the game stops being joyful. But the trouble is, if they get there without the challenge, then the payout isn't joyful either.

So you have to strike a balance and walk a pretty fine line.

 

[J.M]

The game system can also influence how rulings are made and envisioned. For example, I've found that games with binary "pass/fail" resolution systems don't really encourage people to engage with the fiction and therefore can feel a bit mechanical in play. On the other hand, systems that produce a greater range of results or mixed outcomes (e.g. success at a cost, critical failure....) encourage people to visualize and discuss what's happening in dramatic/cinematic terms.

 

[payn]

The game system can also influence how rulings are made and envisioned. For example, I've found that games with binary "pass/fail" resolution systems don't really encourage people to engage with the fiction and therefore can feel a bit mechanical in play. On the other hand, systems that produce a greater range of results or mixed outcomes (e.g. success at a cost, critical failure....) encourage people to visualize and discuss what's happening in dramatic/cinematic terms.

This. There was a time I was all about rules over rulings and wanted a mechanical sub-system for every possible encounter. Now, I just want a solid resolution mechanic that has a lever for easy, average, and difficult. However, the kicker is it also allows for degrees of success to make things interesting. With that in place I can make rulings with confidence my players will agree and have fun with.

 

[Celebrim]

The game system can also influence how rulings are made and envisioned. For example, I've found that games with binary "pass/fail" resolution systems don't really encourage people to engage with the fiction and therefore can feel a bit mechanical in play. On the other hand, systems that produce a greater range of results or mixed outcomes (e.g. success at a cost, critical failure....) encourage people to visualize and discuss what's happening in dramatic/cinematic terms.

I find that not everything lends itself to binary pass/fail and not everything lends itself to having degrees of success. Sometimes you are testing true/false and sometimes you are testing a range of potential outcomes. Shoe horning everything into one or the other for me tends to be a problem. Sometimes stakes are "Something happens or it doesn't." I don't want a world that conjures a trap into being because I looked for it or conjures reinforcements into being because I tried something strategic. I've played those games and winning them (in the sense of staying alive and accomplishing some proximate goal) becomes entirely about metagaming the GM and the system, where often not making a choice and being passive is the best strategic decision because it avoids fumbles and gotchas.

"Discussing what's happening" on its surface doesn't feel that fun. What do you mean by that? Do you mean, "Describing what I intend to do?" or "Describing what I want to happen?" Because those sound like they are the same but in my experience actually aren't. The worst though is "What would be fun to have happen now?" I'll leave a table where that becomes a discussion. If I wanted to collaborate on a screen play and have that experience, I'd just do that instead of playing an RPG.

 

[J.M]

I find that not everything lends itself to binary pass/fail and not everything lends itself to having degrees of success. Sometimes you are testing true/false and sometimes you are testing a range of potential outcomes. Shoe horning everything into one or the other for me tends to be a problem. Sometimes stakes are "Something happens or it doesn't." I don't want a world that conjures a trap into being because I looked for it or conjures reinforcements into being because I tried something strategic. I've played those games and winning them (in the sense of staying alive and accomplishing some proximate goal) becomes entirely about metagaming the GM and the system, where often not making a choice and being passive is the best strategic decision because it avoids fumbles and gotchas.

"Discussing what's happening" on its surface doesn't feel that fun. What do you mean by that? Do you mean, "Describing what I intend to do?" or "Describing what I want to happen?" Because those sound like they are the same but in my experience actually aren't. The worst though is "What would be fun to have happen now?" I'll leave a table where that becomes a discussion. If I wanted to collaborate on a screen play and have that experience, I'd just do that instead of playing an RPG.

What I mean by “discussing what’s happening” is the difference between “I hit…three points of damage” and “(The GM, after player rolls partial success): The deck of the ship lurches violently as you swing, knocking you off balance; roll damage at -2.”

I agree with your point that not everything lends itself to degrees of success. You shouldn’t have to be forced to come up with new stuff when all you wanted was a yes or no answer, and you shouldn’t be constantly robbing players of clear-cut victories by always putting caveats around their successes. So while I’m a proponent of degrees of success in general and when used within reason, I do agree that they are over-used in some games.