I do agree with you, the rules of the game are what gives it structure. It keeps things fair. And if you come across a situation for which there is no rules, then adapt and improvise. And if you know the rules, you can do the improvisation in away that fits the game rules.
what if your decision wasn't fair or was not perceived as fair? Do you backpaddle and make a different decision? What if different players have different understandings of fair? I don't think "Just make a fair decision" is a solution for bad rules. But tbh, I don't know exactly how RPG rules should be designed to make them fair and, even more important, reproducible.
I have always chafed at the whole "rulings, not rules" thing. It undermines the amount of work that goes into game design with the assumption that anyone can make this stuff up on the fly, while running a game no less, and have it be as good as someone who has done nothing but pondered over the matter for hours on end trying to make it fit within the context of the game. With that said, I do think that the GM should be able to change or omit things that simply aren't working - such as 1st edition Psionics - game designers make mistakes too and I can't see any reason not to think that that was a big one. The problem is most people don't really want to learn new rules (especially these days) they just want to play the same old game they've always played but with new content, oblivious to what they might be missing. Good vid!
Thanks for the comment. I do point out that the "correct" is sometimes technically suboptimal with some games. But by definition, it is "correct.". Psionics are something I have to ponder in 1e still. I've kind of avoided them haha.
Another way to convey this is as an understanding of the underlying doctrine of how to conduct the game. The prussian military essentially created and refined a war fighting doctrine that their men at all levels could understand and adhere to. Being able to understand the underlying doctrine of the game (the rules) enables gms to make decisions in their sessions in a manner that keeps things grounded in the spirit of the game
I originally started playing d20 games through Microlite20, which was this super stripped down version of third edition D&D. It was bare bones enough to easily get into and play and it was a great starting point that I wanted to homebrew things on top of it, since there wasn't much to it. While it was really fun back then, I crave just enough rules, with the understanding that I can make a ruling that follows in their spirit if need be.
Awesome video. I started with 5e and pathfinder, and when I did GM I fell exactly into that same pit, homebrewing wothout having experience. Aside from the fact I started to pivot to old school RPGs as a player (and I am very happy about it, the feeling they give compared to 5e and pathfinder 2e is completely different, and better imo :P), I am reading several rulebooks and want to start GMing again. Only I will follow the book to the letter this time around, until I acquire enough experience to tinker with it. Anyways, here is a recommendation for you. I suggest you the channel Grumpy Old Grognard if you want to hear opinions and old wisdom on old school RPGs.
@@TheBasicExpert The only book I found in good shape at a decent price was the RC and I'm pretty much stopping there. That secondary market has me priced out.
@@ravenwulfgar I got all three core books for 1 at no more than 60 for one. the PHB was damaged a bit in the spine, but I glued it. All in all, I got lucky, and I didn't spend much more on 1e books than I did on buying the 3 core 5e ones.
Im on the same page. I understand being a young teen, in the 80s and hand waving a rule…but as an adult playing the game, I think there’s really no excuse not to learn the rules to the best of a persons ability as you’ve said.
Thoughtful and well articulated (mostly)! I definitely do agree with the idea that everyone needs to understand the rules BEFORE breaking/changing them. And people need to look for unintended consequences (1994 Carribean Cup in soccer is a great example). I LOVE the historical context btw. So, is "rule zero" the one that says to ignore anything you don't like?
I actually prefer playing rules as written because it helps me attain a more complete understanding of how the developers intended the game to be played, it also helps players know how to play prior to a session just by reading the book. I do however happily omit rules that I disagree with. I do let players know of the changes and am receptive to opposition to my choices. For example after two games and a dozen sessions of the Alien RPG, I play the game rules as written with one exception, I change the wording of the last 4 panic table entries to eliminate panic spiral. I do like adhering to rules as written but if a change can make game play more fun for everyone, it is the right way to play. Also, I very much enjoyed your dive into the WEG star wars rog and would love to hear your input on the Alien RPG if you ever get into it.
Completely agree. Honestly, this is just Chesterton's Fence applied to TTRPG: Understand why the rules as written exist as they do before attempting to rip them out and replace them. As you said, that shouldn't be a controversial opinion, but for some reason, it is.
Agree. Half an hour to explain why rules exist and a are a fundamental basis of any game. Participants need to have a clearly articulated and predictable framework in which to make decisions. Along with this you know what aspects have variability and what inputs affect that variability and when it will come into play. Referee provides setting details and executes the rule set based on conditions and player choices. I should say I enjoy your content and wasn't a criticism of it but rather just an observation in something I perceive as pretty obvious
I don't think it's about right and wrong. You RP or you don't. RP is Playing a Character. That means with his mindset, with his knowledge, perception and abilities. RPG is Analog Virtual Reality. From the character's point of view, this is not a story. Shit is real. Outcome is uncertain. That's why any game with narrative tools allowing the player to bypass the uncertainty and decide the outcome of his action goes beyond the powers of the character, breaks the 4th wall and ceases to be an RPG (then it's a collaborative storytelling games, pbta, bennies in SWADE etc...) There are no filters in-between the player and the diegesis at the decision making step. That's what allows suspension of disbelief and creates immersion. Player is not limited by the rules at this step. Player is limited by the diegesis (the reality the character deals with. The reality of the character itself AND his environment). The Rules intervene at the resolution step. They need to be consistent and fair and the referee needs to be impartial. If he's not, there is no agency for the character whatsoever. Agency and Self-determination are parts of the nature of the Character. Total Character Agency and impactful consequence short, medium and long term are the specificities of the medium. Its exclusive features.
I agree with the base thesis of your video but I think it went a bit extreme. I'm an OSR player (I mean I do watch this channel) but I started playing Pathfinder for 10 years running published adventures and I don't think I developed as a GM that much. Back then, reading the BX rulebooks and trying to just play to play the games with ONLY what's written... Those games sucked; old D&D RAW is trash. It took a long time of playing rules-heavy RPGs, reading blogs and hearing how others play before I learned how these systems are meant to be played, information that's hidden between the lines, and what really makes them tick. Now I think that same trash game is superior for what is NOT written. You can still use all the rules but the GM needs to add to it. Heck, OD&D can hardly be called a complete playable game as-is. It helps to have a lot of experience understanding why/how rules for games are made, but doing stuff that isn't spelled out in the book is what's really gonna get you to a high level as a GM. And those games with "all these rules are optional" ARE the same indy games that are popping off nowadays.
I 100% respectfully disagree with you on multiple points. Having run OD&D, for example (and even making my own clone that uses Chainmail to fill in gaps), I don't think old-school D&D sucked. OD&D is clearly a supplement for Chainmail, IMO, which is why it seems incomplete (but Chainmail is listed as a supply along with dice and pencils). There was a lot there that people just ignored. I'm not saying this about you personally, just that many people back then thought they understood the rules when they really didn't. And they haven't updated their knowledge in 40 years. I came to RPGS later in life as an adult. I have no nostalgia for old D&D, and therefore, my perception of it is not clouded by nostalgia. SO I'm personally willing to ignore the grogs sacred cows and assumptions about games and accept them as I see them. And doing so, I've learned a lot of things I never learned from veteran players because I don't think Veteran players ever understood it to begin with. Thanks for the comment.
@@TheBasicExpert Well that's fine. There is a lot of people that play OD&D nowadays but it's always some unique take on the LBB that exists only at their table. Seems rude to say they're "playing wrong and have been playing wrong for 40 years". This video is definitely a "hot take" in the community, where everyone is only talks about hacking and homebrewing. (there's other RPG communities about fighting about RAW/RAI interpretations). It would have been a good essay on a 5e channel since I agree with all your points in that context.
@@chibinya it's not an intentional hot take. I could be intentionally vitriolic about it for clicks but I don't like that either. For 0e, I've put a lot of thought into it and study. Considering that Chainmail is listed as just as required as dice, paper, players, and pencils, I thought I needed to look at it. And learned quickly it fills in so many gaps present in 0e. That's why I conclude that a lot of those guys have just misunderstood the game for 40 years. It isn't to be mean, just an honest evaluation of the rules.
You kinda flip flop on your viewpoint. You say there's a wrong way to play, yet you advocate for reading the rules before breaking them at the end. Either way, NO ONE has the right to tell anyone's table how to or now not to play, period.
That's not flip-flopping. Because it's adjudicating when something is actually outside the realm of the rules. This is what rule zero original was. And I bring forth the background from Prussian wargames as an example to explain that breaking the rules is extremely high level GMing if the Prussian military is using it to realistically train officers for war. You have to pay attention to these trails of logic. Look, if there was no right way to play the game, and at the very least, a designer didn't have a preference, why would a designer write a mechanic or rule down? What people who advocate for no wrong way are doing is telling people just "slam dunk" when the person they are talking too doesn't even know what a basketball looks like. You, yes even you, prove there is a correct way to play a game by the very fact you buy rulebooks. You may profess one thing, but actions show what is really true. The fact that some buy rulebooks while professing there is no right way to play means those people have a performative contradiction to deal with.
Then you didn't get the point of the video. The point is that entering into a game for the first time and already starting to home brew without knowing the rules IS the wrong way to play. Homebrewing comes when you are experienced enough. Case in point. I ran a campaign of Pathfinder 2e a couple years ago. Aside from the fact of what a bloated codex of laws Paizo calls a "rulebook" is, I didn't do due diligence. I didn't even know how the statuses and dying condition actually worked. As a result, I bs'ed my way for months, and heavily relied on homebrewing to compensate for my lack of diligence. The result was a special rules extravaganza where I forgot what I said one session before, and gave my players so many special shinies that even I forgot about. That's not how to play your first game. H*LL, that's not how you play a game. Now I imposed myself to read the rules first, force myself to apply them to the letter, and only when I get enough experience, start tinkering with them. Because that is the correct way to play a ttrpg. If not, as the Basic Expert here said, why buy a RULE-book at all?
TTRPG community needs a lot more content like this.
Thanks man. I'll keep trying.
2 videos in one month thus far? spectacular! Praise the dice gods!
Yeah I'm trying to organize my time better. Honestly, I've been a bit overwhelmed with various projects. I have to regain the momentum again.
Macris' book really opened my eyes to this. By putting the rules first, this makes the game much more fair for players, everyone knows what to expect.
Exactly. The point was never the players vs the referee. It's players vs. the game.
I do agree with you, the rules of the game are what gives it structure. It keeps things fair. And if you come across a situation for which there is no rules, then adapt and improvise. And if you know the rules, you can do the improvisation in away that fits the game rules.
what if your decision wasn't fair or was not perceived as fair? Do you backpaddle and make a different decision? What if different players have different understandings of fair?
I don't think "Just make a fair decision" is a solution for bad rules. But tbh, I don't know exactly how RPG rules should be designed to make them fair and, even more important, reproducible.
I have always chafed at the whole "rulings, not rules" thing. It undermines the amount of work that goes into game design with the assumption that anyone can make this stuff up on the fly, while running a game no less, and have it be as good as someone who has done nothing but pondered over the matter for hours on end trying to make it fit within the context of the game.
With that said, I do think that the GM should be able to change or omit things that simply aren't working - such as 1st edition Psionics - game designers make mistakes too and I can't see any reason not to think that that was a big one. The problem is most people don't really want to learn new rules (especially these days) they just want to play the same old game they've always played but with new content, oblivious to what they might be missing.
Good vid!
Thanks for the comment. I do point out that the "correct" is sometimes technically suboptimal with some games. But by definition, it is "correct.". Psionics are something I have to ponder in 1e still. I've kind of avoided them haha.
Another way to convey this is as an understanding of the underlying doctrine of how to conduct the game. The prussian military essentially created and refined a war fighting doctrine that their men at all levels could understand and adhere to. Being able to understand the underlying doctrine of the game (the rules) enables gms to make decisions in their sessions in a manner that keeps things grounded in the spirit of the game
This video needs the Law and Order scene change percussions to show how you are followings the line of reason.
Oh man I didn't think about that. That would have been funny.
I originally started playing d20 games through Microlite20, which was this super stripped down version of third edition D&D. It was bare bones enough to easily get into and play and it was a great starting point that I wanted to homebrew things on top of it, since there wasn't much to it. While it was really fun back then, I crave just enough rules, with the understanding that I can make a ruling that follows in their spirit if need be.
Completely agree. Maybe we can get together on a stream sometime and kick this idea around a bit more. 🙂
Awesome video. I started with 5e and pathfinder, and when I did GM I fell exactly into that same pit, homebrewing wothout having experience. Aside from the fact I started to pivot to old school RPGs as a player (and I am very happy about it, the feeling they give compared to 5e and pathfinder 2e is completely different, and better imo :P), I am reading several rulebooks and want to start GMing again. Only I will follow the book to the letter this time around, until I acquire enough experience to tinker with it.
Anyways, here is a recommendation for you. I suggest you the channel Grumpy Old Grognard if you want to hear opinions and old wisdom on old school RPGs.
That clip of that guy giving bogus rpg takes was mega-cringe. Just horrible!
The way you learn to play TTRPGs is a good way & I believe this would work for me as well.
Yes there is...buying anything WoTC currently owns.
Second hand market for old TSR stuff is good though. My 1e books are from ebay.
@@TheBasicExpert The only book I found in good shape at a decent price was the RC and I'm pretty much stopping there. That secondary market has me priced out.
@@ravenwulfgar I got all three core books for 1 at no more than 60 for one. the PHB was damaged a bit in the spine, but I glued it. All in all, I got lucky, and I didn't spend much more on 1e books than I did on buying the 3 core 5e ones.
Im on the same page. I understand being a young teen, in the 80s and hand waving a rule…but as an adult playing the game, I think there’s really no excuse not to learn the rules to the best of a persons ability as you’ve said.
I need the rules as a player to make informed decisions. Without rules mastery, no choice I make will matter if the DM makes it up as he goes along
Thoughtful and well articulated (mostly)! I definitely do agree with the idea that everyone needs to understand the rules BEFORE breaking/changing them. And people need to look for unintended consequences (1994 Carribean Cup in soccer is a great example). I LOVE the historical context btw.
So, is "rule zero" the one that says to ignore anything you don't like?
I actually prefer playing rules as written because it helps me attain a more complete understanding of how the developers intended the game to be played, it also helps players know how to play prior to a session just by reading the book. I do however happily omit rules that I disagree with. I do let players know of the changes and am receptive to opposition to my choices. For example after two games and a dozen sessions of the Alien RPG, I play the game rules as written with one exception, I change the wording of the last 4 panic table entries to eliminate panic spiral. I do like adhering to rules as written but if a change can make game play more fun for everyone, it is the right way to play. Also, I very much enjoyed your dive into the WEG star wars rog and would love to hear your input on the Alien RPG if you ever get into it.
@@arcanetraditions alien rpg interests me but I have no many games on a list to look at haha.
Completely agree. Honestly, this is just Chesterton's Fence applied to TTRPG: Understand why the rules as written exist as they do before attempting to rip them out and replace them. As you said, that shouldn't be a controversial opinion, but for some reason, it is.
Agree. Half an hour to explain why rules exist and a are a fundamental basis of any game. Participants need to have a clearly articulated and predictable framework in which to make decisions. Along with this you know what aspects have variability and what inputs affect that variability and when it will come into play. Referee provides setting details and executes the rule set based on conditions and player choices. I should say I enjoy your content and wasn't a criticism of it but rather just an observation in something I perceive as pretty obvious
Good stuff.
I don't think it's about right and wrong.
You RP or you don't.
RP is Playing a Character. That means with his mindset, with his knowledge, perception and abilities. RPG is Analog Virtual Reality.
From the character's point of view, this is not a story. Shit is real. Outcome is uncertain.
That's why any game with narrative tools allowing the player to bypass the uncertainty and decide the outcome of his action goes beyond the powers of the character, breaks the 4th wall and ceases to be an RPG (then it's a collaborative storytelling games, pbta, bennies in SWADE etc...)
There are no filters in-between the player and the diegesis at the decision making step. That's what allows suspension of disbelief and creates immersion.
Player is not limited by the rules at this step. Player is limited by the diegesis (the reality the character deals with. The reality of the character itself AND his environment).
The Rules intervene at the resolution step. They need to be consistent and fair and the referee needs to be impartial. If he's not, there is no agency for the character whatsoever. Agency and Self-determination are parts of the nature of the Character. Total Character Agency and impactful consequence short, medium and long term are the specificities of the medium. Its exclusive features.
The wrong way to play an RPG is for your character to be yourself.
I agree with the base thesis of your video but I think it went a bit extreme. I'm an OSR player (I mean I do watch this channel) but I started playing Pathfinder for 10 years running published adventures and I don't think I developed as a GM that much. Back then, reading the BX rulebooks and trying to just play to play the games with ONLY what's written... Those games sucked; old D&D RAW is trash. It took a long time of playing rules-heavy RPGs, reading blogs and hearing how others play before I learned how these systems are meant to be played, information that's hidden between the lines, and what really makes them tick. Now I think that same trash game is superior for what is NOT written. You can still use all the rules but the GM needs to add to it. Heck, OD&D can hardly be called a complete playable game as-is.
It helps to have a lot of experience understanding why/how rules for games are made, but doing stuff that isn't spelled out in the book is what's really gonna get you to a high level as a GM. And those games with "all these rules are optional" ARE the same indy games that are popping off nowadays.
I 100% respectfully disagree with you on multiple points. Having run OD&D, for example (and even making my own clone that uses Chainmail to fill in gaps), I don't think old-school D&D sucked. OD&D is clearly a supplement for Chainmail, IMO, which is why it seems incomplete (but Chainmail is listed as a supply along with dice and pencils). There was a lot there that people just ignored.
I'm not saying this about you personally, just that many people back then thought they understood the rules when they really didn't. And they haven't updated their knowledge in 40 years.
I came to RPGS later in life as an adult. I have no nostalgia for old D&D, and therefore, my perception of it is not clouded by nostalgia. SO I'm personally willing to ignore the grogs sacred cows and assumptions about games and accept them as I see them. And doing so, I've learned a lot of things I never learned from veteran players because I don't think Veteran players ever understood it to begin with. Thanks for the comment.
@@TheBasicExpert Well that's fine. There is a lot of people that play OD&D nowadays but it's always some unique take on the LBB that exists only at their table. Seems rude to say they're "playing wrong and have been playing wrong for 40 years".
This video is definitely a "hot take" in the community, where everyone is only talks about hacking and homebrewing. (there's other RPG communities about fighting about RAW/RAI interpretations).
It would have been a good essay on a 5e channel since I agree with all your points in that context.
@@chibinya it's not an intentional hot take. I could be intentionally vitriolic about it for clicks but I don't like that either. For 0e, I've put a lot of thought into it and study. Considering that Chainmail is listed as just as required as dice, paper, players, and pencils, I thought I needed to look at it. And learned quickly it fills in so many gaps present in 0e. That's why I conclude that a lot of those guys have just misunderstood the game for 40 years. It isn't to be mean, just an honest evaluation of the rules.
You kinda flip flop on your viewpoint. You say there's a wrong way to play, yet you advocate for reading the rules before breaking them at the end. Either way, NO ONE has the right to tell anyone's table how to or now not to play, period.
🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
That's not flip-flopping. Because it's adjudicating when something is actually outside the realm of the rules. This is what rule zero original was. And I bring forth the background from Prussian wargames as an example to explain that breaking the rules is extremely high level GMing if the Prussian military is using it to realistically train officers for war. You have to pay attention to these trails of logic. Look, if there was no right way to play the game, and at the very least, a designer didn't have a preference, why would a designer write a mechanic or rule down? What people who advocate for no wrong way are doing is telling people just "slam dunk" when the person they are talking too doesn't even know what a basketball looks like. You, yes even you, prove there is a correct way to play a game by the very fact you buy rulebooks. You may profess one thing, but actions show what is really true. The fact that some buy rulebooks while professing there is no right way to play means those people have a performative contradiction to deal with.
@@UltraTtrpger I can, you playing wrong, thanks
Then you didn't get the point of the video.
The point is that entering into a game for the first time and already starting to home brew without knowing the rules IS the wrong way to play. Homebrewing comes when you are experienced enough.
Case in point. I ran a campaign of Pathfinder 2e a couple years ago. Aside from the fact of what a bloated codex of laws Paizo calls a "rulebook" is, I didn't do due diligence. I didn't even know how the statuses and dying condition actually worked. As a result, I bs'ed my way for months, and heavily relied on homebrewing to compensate for my lack of diligence. The result was a special rules extravaganza where I forgot what I said one session before, and gave my players so many special shinies that even I forgot about. That's not how to play your first game. H*LL, that's not how you play a game.
Now I imposed myself to read the rules first, force myself to apply them to the letter, and only when I get enough experience, start tinkering with them. Because that is the correct way to play a ttrpg. If not, as the Basic Expert here said, why buy a RULE-book at all?
@@92edoy I have had such nightmares happen in my games when running without understanding the game first.