Worlds of Design: Golden Rules for RPGs

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

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

EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

aramis erak

Legend

Rule #1: The GM is the Final Arbiter​

Has been a problem for me more often than a benefit.
I utterly reject it as gygaxian dross of the highest order.

The group concensus replaces it.

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.”
I don't hold to this, especially since many games do not mechanically support it. It's only required for the simulationist mode.

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 GM, I play to have fun; if the player's aren't having fun, they're free to complain politely or leave...
If I'm not having fun, whether the players are or not, I'm unlikely to continue running.
I refuse, however, to hold myself hostage to any individal Player's fun. If the majority are unhappy, I'll switch.

As a player, if I'm consistently not having fun, I walk away.

It's a balancing act. As a GM, most of the time, if I'm having fun, so are the players, but not always. If the players aren't having fun, usually I am not, either

My rules, in order
  1. Rules are consensus and social contract, act accordingly
  2. Play is supposed to be entertaining; entertaining and fun are NOT synonyms! ¹
  3. The PCs are the most important PoV for play.
  4. The PCs need not be the most important characters in the setting nor the game. They're only important for their PoV and actions.
  5. Good play is allowing a maximum number of meaningful choices per session.
  6. When in doubt, set a difficulty
  7. It's good to state a failure condition on setting difficulty
  8. Hidden information of story state, game state and setting state is always by choice, never by need.
Meaningful choices: Choices with game state and story state consequence, and made with sufficient information to be decided with expectation of major and/or most consequences predicted or elucidated.
The corollaries to these

  1. Being a social contract...
    • the choice of ruleset is binding
    • change requires consensus
    • The GM can be wrong.
  2. Grueling and/or heartbreaking sessions are entertaining, but definitely not fun. Understanding the distinction, make certain the players are on board before stepping out of "Fun" into "Grueling" or "Heartbreaking" or "Loss-filled." The heartache of a campaign ending on a down note can be entertaining - memorable, emotional, and worth pursuing. But it's not for everyone.
  3. Players should have stakes for their characters in most scenes, and every scene should involved characters controlled by the players.
  4. Especially in certain established fictional worlds.
    • Not most important to the setting
      • Players need not be members of either Thorin's company nor the Ringbearer's Company to play in Tolkien's world.
      • Players need not play a screen-seen cast character in Star Trek - there's plenty else for them to be BDH's in within the federation. And entire periods with no coverage.
    • Not most important to the emergent story
      • The villain can in fact be the most important character in a game. If done well, it's great. If done poorly, however, it sucks.
    • PCs DO need to be the focus of the way the story emerges. Find out in play.
  5. THe following become bad practices
    • setting tasks with no choice to them -- tho' it being a gateway to choice is marginally acceptable to me.
    • resolving scenes with a single roll -- as it minimizes choice)
    • Illusionism -- it makes the choices meaningless from a game state perspective
    • plot on rails -- unless it's agreed to, as the rail is literally the lack of choice...
    • Taking over PC actions via rules -- there are times its appropriate, but it literally robs agency and is often frustrating. Even morale fails should be choices; run or freeze.
  6. That difficulty can be outside "reasonably attainable".
  7. When practical, I prefer to take the BW approach: "If you fail, X will happen. Going to Continue?" It's not always practical, especially with hidden information situations.
  8. two corollaries
    1. Hide things only when it's going to be more fun overall to hide them.
    2. The opposite to hidden information isn't open information, but undefined information to be defined in play.
 
Last edited:

RareBreed

Adventurer
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."
In some sense, I think this gets to the heart of something missing in today's RPG'ing and gets back to Lewis's Rule #3: RPG's are meant to be "fun". I think something can be rewarding but not fun. Exercise, at least for me, isn't fun, but it's rewarding. Meditation isn't fun, but it gives back more than it takes.

Not all stories are "fun". Horror stories aren't fun and neither are tragedies, and yet, many people are fascinated with them. I think part of the reason that agency is such a hot button topic, is because subconsciously or not, the player at some level identifies with the character. Me personally, my characters rarely stray too far from my own perspectives, because I like to think "what would I do if I were in those shoes?".

I feel like gaming however has mostly become a vehicle to empower players by empowering their characters. Because of this (unconscious or not) identification with the character we want good outcomes for the character because it reflects back in some way to the player. In traditional story telling, there's less likelihood of self-identification with the protagonists because we are passive observers. Gaming however allows for active participation, and in effect we the players become the characters, or at the very least we become attached to them because they are an extension of the player; an avatar of the player. As a result, most players don't want to deal with sacrifice, loss, death, etc. That's too much like real life for some and they don't see the value in...well...role-playing it out.

That's why I think a lot of roleplaying potential is wasted. It can be used as a safe space to explore what-ifs that we can't. Ironically (and perhaps somewhat paradoxically), it's because of the attachment to the character that a sense of sacrifice is earned by the player. If a player has no attachment to the character, then it's fairly meaningless to the player if their character dies or suffers some loss or indignity.

I have noticed a trend in the last 40 years of gaming, that games have become more and more fantastical in nature and the characters more powerful. Back in the 80s, we had games like Twiliight 2000, Gangbusters, Justice Inc, or Top Secret where you were basically just a regular person. Other games had very low magic or (sometimes) rare tech, like Pendragon or Car Wars. I'm trying to think of a game where you're just a regular human nowadays. Even in semi-historical games like Lex Arcana, there's magic.

Maybe the closest somewhat popular games out there in that vein are horror games. The Stranger Things genre spin offs like Tales From the Loop/.Flood or Kids on Bikes make you play regular kids. Horror games have forced characters to be weaker to play up the hopelessness or powerlessness angle. Call of Cthulhu or Never Going Home are basically games where you can't win, because the more you fight, the more lost the character becomes (or as Nietzche would say, the more you gaze into the Abyss, the more the Abyss gazes into you).
 

aramis erak

Legend
Wow. Could not disagree more. Hard nope on this one. If we accept this, then 99% of gaming stops being an RPG because most gaming is not about "emergent storytelling".
That depends upon the meaning of emergent storytelling.

When I use it, it means only that I create situations, not stories, as adventures, and characters get to react and create the story through play. That can require there be a backstory to discover (especially in mysteries), but the story that matters isn't the backstory, but the process of finding it.

I'm sympathetic to that view, tho', I agree it's not the only valid mode.
 

RareBreed

Adventurer
Grueling and/or heartbreaking sessions are entertaining, but definitely not fun. Understanding the distinction, make certain the players are on board before stepping out of "Fun" into "Grueling" or "Heartbreaking" or "Loss-filled." The heartache of a campaign ending on a down note can be entertaining - memorable, emotional, and worth pursuing. But it's not for everyone.
Yeah I agree there. That's my caveat about limiting player agency. Everyone has to be onboard with this play style. But I also think players should consider at least trying that play style once in awhile. As I have often said, I love pizza, but I wouldn't want to eat it every day.

And definitely agree on the distinction between "fun" vs "entertainment", though I prefer the word rewarding over entertainment. For example, learning about something isn't what I would consider entertaining but it is rewarding.
 

aramis erak

Legend
I think that's where you have to draw a line between "PCs and NPCs can do the same things" and "They look identical in textual record". They're at least slightly different things.
a number of games make very keen differences between PCs and NPCs... because mechanically, they can't be mechanically equivalent.

For example, in DragonLance Fifth Age (DL5A), an NPC can never make an unopposed attack, simply because ALL player-affecting actions in DL5A are resolved as a player task. Likewise, NPC on non-linked-to-PC NPCs attacks are resolved by pure fiat; if the PC has a level of ownership of the NPC target or actor, THEY make the task for the NPC.

Similarly so for Cinematic Unisystem games... BTVS, Angel, Army of Darkness, and Ghosts of Albion... all for the very same reason.

A number of games, most notably the FFG/Edge Star Wars, Genesys, and L5R 5e games, make PCs mechanically distinct from NPCs in order to keep the complexity of play down.

Some games also explicitly have a unique or nearly unique character type. The best example is BTVS. In most play, the only slayers are the ones in the party. Literally. No others have those gifts. (Fortunately, they're not overly powerful.)
 

overgeeked

B/X Known World
That depends upon the meaning of emergent storytelling.

When I use it, it means only that I create situations, not stories, as adventures, and characters get to react and create the story through play. That can require there be a backstory to discover (especially in mysteries), but the story that matters isn't the backstory, but the process of finding it.
When I use it, I mean it as a limit on the referee forcing a story on the players. Play to find out. Do your prep as a referee, but be willing to throw it out and follow the players.
I'm sympathetic to that view, tho', I agree it's not the only valid mode.
I think it is the only valid mode. A group of "players" sitting around listening as the referee tells them a story they have effectively zero input into isn't what I'd call a game much less an RPG.
 

aramis erak

Legend
Yeah I agree there. That's my caveat about limiting player agency. Everyone has to be onboard with this play style. But I also think players should consider at least trying that play style once in awhile. As I have often said, I love pizza, but I wouldn't want to eat it every day.

And definitely agree on the distinction between "fun" vs "entertainment", though I prefer the word rewarding over entertainment. For example, learning about something isn't what I would consider entertaining but it is rewarding.
I was searching for a better word, but aphasia interferes. I agree "rewarding" is a better term.
 

aramis erak

Legend
When I use it, I mean it as a limit on the referee forcing a story on the players. Play to find out. Do your prep as a referee, but be willing to throw it out and follow the players.
We're not using the same meaning, tho' our meanings are related.
I do. A group of "players" sitting around listening as the referee tells them a story they have effectively zero input into isn't what I'd call a game much less an RPG.
I've run solo modules for groups before. It's highly railroaded, and it's only minimally player respondent, but it's a valid style. Especially when you have 2 players and no GM... It winds up with "decision limited to 2 to 5 choices, then 3 to 10 minutes of narration, repeat" and occasionally played out combats.

Likewise, a GM'd adventure can be similarly structured.

For example, Cosmic Patrol tells you at start of scene what the endpoint action is. You pretty much cannot fail unless you go unconscious in the effort. Play is not to find out the story on a gross level - that's fixed. It's only to find out who accomplishes which preordained things and how.
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
For example, Cosmic Patrol tells you at start of scene what the endpoint action is. You pretty much cannot fail unless you go unconscious in the effort. Play is not to find out the story on a gross level - that's fixed. It's only to find out who accomplishes which preordained things and how.

An interesting example here is that I ran a campaign of Scion 1e a number of years back. It was hideously railroaded, virtually out of necessity, because the necessary balance in the system above Hero level virtually requires people to pick the right targets (because otherwise you'll have people up against opponents on either side that will squash them like bugs) and go through the right steps because the mythological force of the setting will not let them succeed otherwise. One of the themes of the system is that Scions are constantly struggling not to let their relationship with mortal expectations not to lock them down and chain their free will with Fatebinding. As such it was always a narrow path between just going along and ending up as effectively divine puppets (its the reason most fullblown gods avoid interacting with mortals directly at all); combined with the severe swings in power (and not just physical but social and intellectual) amongst PCs everything had to be handled with care.

I found it simultaneously interesting and severely uncomfortable. But at the end of the day, the players generally seemed to get a lot out of it, even though they were often fairly constrained. The late Steve Perrin's comment was "Yeah, it was definitely a railroad, but I really enjoyed the ride."
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top