Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="overgeeked" data-source="post: 8721303" data-attributes="member: 86653">Exactly. The good rulebooks give guidelines not hard-and-fast rules for everything, they trust the referee to run the game. The player in this case doesn't trust the referee enough to run the game so they thump the rulebook, thinking there's somehow &quot;reality&quot; or &quot;authority&quot; to be found between those covers. There's no &quot;reality&quot; or &quot;authority&quot; there, only guidelines. The referee's in charge of the game, not the rulebook. Relax and trust the referee. It'll be okay.This is exactly the draw of looser, more free-form games and playstyles like FKR. At the end of the day the referee has to make things up. They have to improvise and adjudicate. Use their judgement and make rulings. The referee running the game is the killer app of RPGs. It's the feature, not a bug. Instead of shying away from that and being afraid of it, lean into it and embrace it. It makes for much less stress all around (except for the rules lawyers) and is a much smaller cognitive load...with the perk of not having any charts to look up.If you're going to try to codify things, give general terms and leave it at that because you cannot possibly give the specifics on every possible instance. That's literally the fun of RPGs. Shenanigans. If you think that adding a rule for everything the PCs try over the course of a campaign is a good idea, you're going to have a mountain of house rules, rulings, and edge cases to deal with. Run two campaigns and suddenly your mountain of paperwork is bigger than the actual books with the rules for the game. That's an utterly untenable way to run games.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="overgeeked, post: 8721303, member: 86653"] Exactly. The good rulebooks give guidelines not hard-and-fast rules for everything, they trust the referee to run the game. The player in this case doesn't trust the referee enough to run the game so they thump the rulebook, thinking there's somehow "reality" or "authority" to be found between those covers. There's no "reality" or "authority" there, only guidelines. The referee's in charge of the game, not the rulebook. Relax and trust the referee. It'll be okay. This is exactly the draw of looser, more free-form games and playstyles like FKR. At the end of the day the referee has to make things up. They have to improvise and adjudicate. Use their judgement and make rulings. The referee running the game is the killer app of RPGs. It's [I]the[/I] feature, not a bug. Instead of shying away from that and being afraid of it, lean into it and embrace it. It makes for much less stress all around (except for the rules lawyers) and is a much smaller cognitive load...with the perk of not having any charts to look up. If you're going to try to codify things, give general terms and leave it at that because you cannot possibly give the specifics on every possible instance. That's literally the fun of RPGs. Shenanigans. If you think that adding a rule for everything the PCs try over the course of a campaign is a good idea, you're going to have a mountain of house rules, rulings, and edge cases to deal with. Run two campaigns and suddenly your mountain of paperwork is bigger than the actual books with the rules for the game. That's an utterly untenable way to run games. [/QUOTE]

Verification