Unpopular opinions go here

[Guest 85555]

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.

That is certainly a way of doing it. For me I would rather just make the ruling based on the particular situation as it arises. Sometimes the rulings will follow similar mechanical patterns, but not always. I am not particularly worried about mechanical consistency. I am more worried about making sure the ruling I make is one that feels fits the situation

 

[Guest 85555]

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.

I think it is important though to understand that people have very different views on this around mechanics. If you want rulings to essentially build you a system as you go, so you have a robust system by the end. That is fair. It is a good way to produce a home-brewed version of a game at your table. But if what you are looking for is to be not tethered to a situation that outlines everything, but have the players declarations lead your way mechanically (i.e. so and so decides to try some funky move, so you figure out a way to make that work on the spot), then rulings in the way I am describing works very well.

I will say I don't think there really is any way to bridge these two stylistic priorities. You can make a system that is somewhere in the middle, you can lean to one side or the other, or make a heavily focused RPG for one approach. With smaller RPGs that have smaller fanbases, this isn't a problem. Something like D&D that really needs to appeal to everyone (or at least to as many gamers as possible), is this big tent that always has this as a perennial debate (since I have been playing, there hasn't been a version of D&D that people didn't argue over about this kind of stuff)

 

[Guest 85555]

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.

Because my priority is making the players feel like they are there in a world, not like they are playing a rules system. So if I want that, one way to do it is with rulings that can be one offs. You can codify them if you want, but if you do, you end up with effectively a heavily codified and rules heavy approach (which is often not what people are looking for). The way we do it is when something comes up, the GM figures out how to handle it then, if it isn't part of the core rules. But we don't write that solution down, and we almost never make use of it identically again (some patterns will emerge but they are more broad patterns than specific rules to remember). We also don't worry about whether this mechanical solution to the problem is the same as the last one. Our concern is, does this mechanical solution feel appropriate now

Obviously this isn't for everyone. But I have been doing it for ages in a variety of systems, particularly when using more rules light systems, and I can definitely say it can work perfectly well.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because my priority is making the players feel like they are there in a world, not like they are playing a rules system. So if I want that, one way to do it is with rulings that can be one offs. You can codify them if you want, but if you do, you end up with effectively a heavily codified and rules heavy approach (which is often not what people are looking for). The way we do it is when something comes up, the GM figures out how to handle it then, if it isn't part of the core rules. But we don't write that solution down, and we almost never make use of it identically again (some patterns will emerge but they are more broad patterns than specific rules to remember). We also don't worry about whether this mechanical solution to the problem is the same as the last one. Our concern is, does this mechanical solution feel appropriate now

Obviously this isn't for everyone. But I have been doing it for ages in a variety of systems, particularly when using more rules light systems, and I can definitely say it can work perfectly well.

As you say, there's really no way to bridge that stylistic gap. What you're doing would absolutely not work for me.

 

[Guest 85555]

As you say, there's really no way to bridge that stylistic gap. What you're doing would absolutely not work for me.

that is fair. Out of curiosity, which edition of D&D that has been released (or OSR retroclone) gets it right for you in terms of these things?

 

[Micah Sweet]

that is fair. Out of curiosity, which edition of D&D that has been released (or OSR retroclone) gets it right for you in terms of these things?

My two favorite games are Level Up and the OSR game ACKS. I'm also fond of DCC and I've been getting into OSE lately through a neat podcast about it.

 

[Lanefan]

Because my priority is making the players feel like they are there in a world, not like they are playing a rules system. So if I want that, one way to do it is with rulings that can be one offs. You can codify them if you want, but if you do, you end up with effectively a heavily codified and rules heavy approach (which is often not what people are looking for). The way we do it is when something comes up, the GM figures out how to handle it then, if it isn't part of the core rules. But we don't write that solution down, and we almost never make use of it identically again (some patterns will emerge but they are more broad patterns than specific rules to remember). We also don't worry about whether this mechanical solution to the problem is the same as the last one. Our concern is, does this mechanical solution feel appropriate now

Thing is, that consistency is the best way of "making the players feel like the are there in a world".

Physics dictates that (absent human input) things generally work the same way every time in reality, with clear (if sometimes indiscernable) cause and effect loops behind it all.

The game mechanics are all we have available to simulate that real-world consistency, plus we have to account for the vagaries of magic.

Never mind the more practical issue: if you don't write it down and then rule differently the next time, sure as shootin' at least one player will remember the previous ruling; and if the new ruling is not in the player's favour then you've got an IMO legitimate player-side argument on your hands; an argument that's 100% preventable by simply locking in your precedents.

It also depends, I suppose, on how long you intend that game or campaign to last. If you're only running it for six months then it's less likely you'll run into repeating situations where precedent would matter. But when your intent is to run a forever campaign, precedent becomes much more of an issue.

 

[Guest 85555]

Thing is, that consistency is the best way of "making the players feel like the are there in a world".

I will respond to rest later when I have time. But having been in a number of conversations on this topic and having run RPGs this way and using greater consistency of mechanics, I think there is a huge variance if his true this is for each individual. Mechanics can produce consistent mechanics. But a gM using rulings can make a world and experience that feels more real to me than a comprehensive system if elaborate home brew. It takes things a step beyond the pre-programmed feel if video games for me, so the gM adapts the system to what best suits the momenT

That said, I get the opposite can be true for people. But this is a style debate. There isn’t a one right answer here

 

[Guest 85555]

Thing is, that consistency is the best way of "making the players feel like the are there in a world".

Physics dictates that (absent human input) things generally work the same way every time in reality, with clear (if sometimes indiscernable) cause and effect loops behind it all.

Except I find most RPG systems don't emulate physics all that well. And definitely break down when you apply them to niche situations. So a system that is sufficiently broad and gives me the ability to flexibly apply mechanics as rulings just works better for me here.

The game mechanics are all we have available to simulate that real-world consistency, plus we have to account for the vagaries of magic.

No, we also have the GM and the shared imagination of the players. You can devise a thorough and comprehensive, or at the very least, highly consistent system, and there is nothing wrong with that, but for me I prefer to prioritize what is happening in the imagined space and what best deals with things the players are trying to do

Never mind the more practical issue: if you don't write it down and then rule differently the next time, sure as shootin' at least one player will remember the previous ruling; and if the new ruling is not in the player's favour then you've got an IMO legitimate player-side argument on your hands; an argument that's 100% preventable by simply locking in your precedents.

This is a hypothetical. It certainly happens if styles are misaligned. And I think every game group has this problem whichever side of the fence they sit on (for every player who notices rulings being inconsistent, another is going to be irritated that all actions are being filtered through a rigid system). And arguments can still happen even if you are locking in precedents. But key thing for me is I am not making rulings to screw the players. One thing I often do is say to them 'this is how I think best to resolve what you are trying to do, what does everyone think of that?' . Sometimes people chime in with another solution and I use that. To me this is about how to facilitate what the players are trying to do in the setting. I don't want them to feel like they are simply mastering a set of rules in a game, and I don't want them to feel like am opposing them either.

It also depends, I suppose, on how long you intend that game or campaign to last. If you're only running it for six months then it's less likely you'll run into repeating situations where precedent would matter. But when your intent is to run a forever campaign, precedent becomes much more of an issue.

I run mostly long campaigns. This stuff is all based on my experience running years long campaigns.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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

You're talking to the person who would cheerfully tear up the D&D magic system from the roots if he was paid to rework the game, so you've come to the wrong address.