I've run quick improv games without any established rules at all and we've had a good time. I wouldn't do it for a long-term game, but it works in a pinch.
@@mgb360 Agree. I’ve been DMing the same crew for a few years, currently running something loosely based on Shadowdark. Can’t remember the last time we had to reference a rule book.
The last point reminded me of a video I just watched from DaddyRolleda1 where he’s running a game for his teenage daughter and her friends. Apparently for a long time he had more of a DnD or LotR vision of goblins but they were all imagining Harry Potter goblins. Eventually they realized that they were imagining things very, very differently. It hadn’t occurred to any of them to clarify because it just seemed obvious what a goblin was to each of them. The kids also didn’t realize just how big and bulky a crossbow was until later on when he showed them a picture. He may think it’s obvious the crossbow will need two hands and reload time but maybe they were picturing more of a pistol and would be disappointed to find out it works very differently. Having the mechanics laid down beforehand would help with expectations (and perhaps lead to discovering different understandings of the terms). Obviously he’s also dealing with a generation gap, but that really made me realize the importance of being clear about those things and now I’m ruminating how that relates to the rules as well. Thanks for the insights!
Reminded me of a time where we played in a homebrew campaign setting. The DM told us that the world was destroyed in a cataclysm, all that remained were mostly "levitating islands". We started at such a place too. It took us about 10+ game sessions to realize what he meant was: 1) there still is a planet with intact crust 2) there are surface waters 3) there are islands on the water (just not continents) and 4) some islands float in the air.
Lots of great stuff here: the caution on meta-currency like inspiration and "the rule of cool", how rulings differ from rules, and telling players up front whether something is possible (or how possible) before they try. All of it points to the role of the referee/judge/GM in establishing that relationship between the players' activities in relation to the world they are inter-acting with. You're always looking for a balance between "this is realistic" and "this is a game."
We didn't argue with our DM's very often when they made a ruling. We might discuss it a bit for the given situation and the DM might adjust the rules for it but their ruling was final. We had a player that liked swashbuckler style play. So when his character decided to swing from the chandelier and leap upon the enemy... well, there isn't exactly a rule for that now is there. So if I remember right the DM had him make a dexterity check and then an adjusted attack roll based on the success or failure of the dexterity check. The DM also did similar things with strength checks when the player threw chairs and did other things not covered by the rules. But the DM kept it pretty consistent so nobody had a reason to argue with them.
Knowing the basic workings of the game is important, because just as IRL you can guess how big a chasm you can jump over safely, your character has to be able to guess too. Mind you, it's a guess, not a certainty, but still. There are things you instinctively "feel" or know IRL that you also have to be able to know in-game for the game to work.
I've long liked inspiration but hated that it was at the DMs whim. For my own game that I've been developing over the last year and a half we've tried a few different versions of it, but last week we introduced a new solution called Drive, you earn it when you give in to your character flaw, lean on your strength, overcome your fear, and pursue your desire. Stacking to a maximum of 4. The testing group really loved it and it made a huge impact on the session.
Happy New Year. The Rules are a framework to build the game upon. I think it is more important for the rulings to be consistent than for them to perfectly match the rules as written (especially when the rules are vague).
The points you make about the "rule of cool" and making the DM laugh, etc. are, I think very applicable to many of the social aspects of player/NPC interactions. I see too many DMs take what I consider a metagaming approach to diplomacy, charisma, and other such "social" checks. They expect the player to roleplay the interaction, and use the player's real-world abilities to judge success or failure. As dull as it may seem to some, dry rules, die rolls and difficulty checks are especially necessary in these situations to measure the character's abilities and not the player's.
@@BanditsKeep It can be a difficult aspect of RPGs that I don't often seen discussed in depth. How can a person effectively roleplay a character whose abilities exceed their own? And should a person of modest intelligence even be allowed to play a super-genius level character? Physically, it is very easy to imagine being stronger, or more agile or durable. But is it possible to imagine being more intelligent or charismatic? I would say it isn't, at least not in the same way. We can imagine the physical process involved in lifting incredible weights and can even visualize ourselves doing it. But we cannot imagine the thought process needed to solve a problem that exceeds our own intelligence. As a practical example, when presented with a big rock, I can simply say that my character picks it up and I roll for success. However, when given a puzzle to solve, I myself am expected to use my own intelligence to solve it, instead of just saying my character solves it and rolling for success in this case as well. This is all part of a huge topic in RPGs that is barely discussed. How can someone effectively roleplay a character whose experience of life differs vastly from their own? What systems need to be put in place and rigidly enforced to facilitate this, and to make it a fair and satisfying experience for everyone?
You got me with the Inspiration for making the DM laugh.. in a four year campaign that ended recently, i twice made the DM laugh such that he said it was Inspiration-worthy, but he lamented that it wasn't during gameplay?? During gameplay, my character was the straight man in the party, i didn't make jokes. I'm leading the table now. I give Inspiration at the start of every session to whoever gives a recap, plus more throughout the session for cool Roleplay decisions. Rules, rulings, and mechanics should encourage the gameplay you want to see more of.
This is excellent advice -- especially about how one-time "rulings" are not necessarily "new rules" but if it happens multiple times, consistency and common sense should prevail. In looking at my old DMG (1st Ed), there are lots and lots and lots and lots of penciled in notes about how certain questions not covered by the rules were decided. Trust between players and DM is a key component. Great video!
So much depends on your relationship to your players, their level of experience with you, with RPG's, etc. I've been GMing D&D and more recently a "rulings, minimal rules" homebrew for veterans of decades. For us, consistency and common sense are really the master rules. Great video, brother!
I've been struggling with this lately and have started a conversation with my group as to how to how to address it. Sometimes I feel that our sessions are so loose, as to become gonzo-make-believe all the time. And although I don't have a problem with "Roleplaying" sometimes it just feels like we're doing an Improv session and not really playing a game. I'm trying to figure out a way to reemphasize the granular boardgame aspect of BX, by highlighting the turn sequence formula for dungeons and exploration, and maybe even drafting out a sequence for how to interact in settlements. It's tough!
I've run several campaigns "Willy Nilly". I use several different dice mechanics and frequently change them session to session. The beautiful part is that my players are totally cool with it because our relationship remains "You tell me what you want to do and I'll tell you that to roll". This also leaves room for short player negotiations. So long as everyone is happy with every ruling and we all had fun i consider my job as DM successful.
Great discussion on rules vs rulings. Back in 1980, our DM's trick to end arguments about his rulings was to drop a stone on the offending player causing 1 hp damage, or roll a wandering monster check with a few dice due to the noise. One could also roll perception, "you catch a whiff of purple worm breath"
Happy New Year. Great video as always. Thank you for your time and input. I don't see a Rules Lawyer as someone who "twists" the rules, rather they are someone who supports the rules as written as something consistent and stable the players can depend on, like you got into in the second half of the video. I think a rules laywer is more of someone who wants to prevent the arbitrary twisting of rules. Of course this has multiple sides as well but just wanted to point out a different definition, one I think is more commonly intended when using the term at least in my experience. As you say sometimes rulings can be unfair if they only apply to one player etc, and changes to the raw rules should be made clear to prevent confusion. All in all the most important thing is communication and it does wonders in preventing conflict and misunderstandings.
I’ve never heard of it used in a positive way, that would be just being knowledgeable. The lawyer part is the arguing the little details to death. My first reference to this was in the 1e DM guide and it is Definitely meant to be negative. The other thing - as I stated is very positive
@@BanditsKeep To clarify the definition I put forward isn't necessarily a positive one, only one that is stricter with the rules rather than twisting them. A member of your discord filled me on the twisting definition I hadn't heard of yet, which does seem to be the dominant one online. I agree that the other thing as you stated is very positive. While surely not as common of a definition as I thought, some people online do see that as a sort of rules lawyer for better or worse (like the pathfinder channel who goes by that name). I really like how you put forward that sometimes it's nice to decide things as a table and give players input which is something I like to do as a ref. Ah I see, the "Room Lawyer" quote you are referring to in the DM guide, though I do think that particular afterward is a bit harsh for reasons you mentioned in this video. I feel like the "DM's word is god" mentality can go a bit too far sometimes, but as always there is a healthy balance. Thank you for your reply, I hope you and yours are well.
Good topic for a video! I think there is one additional reason for the rules. A rule set that is as clear and comprehensive as possible can underpin a semi-objective scoring system. While not right for every player, or even for every game, I believe the virtual elimination of competitive, scored tournament play that leads to a declared winning player and/or party has had a deleterious impact on the overall state of the hobby. Nowadays, it seems _de rigueur_ to regard the implementation of the rules as "breaking the flow" of the game, whereas I consider it part and parcel of the game's flow. Cheers!
Happy new year! To me rules are to facilitate the play, dice are a way to arbitrate outcomes against a random or numeric scale, rulings should push things forward, if it can it should give the players the outcome they seek even maybe not the result! So you are right, rules are the guide posts and glue!
When running a game I'll tend to favor what my players want to do if it's not codified. In Joe's case I sometimes have to put restrictions. But if a player comes up with an interesting idea that is not within the rules I like to see how it plays out. It gives the players the incentive to use creativity to solve problems and know that their ideas are being heard and used. And yes you can say 'lots' as many times as you want. Great video. Thoughtful and thought provoking. Take care Daniel.
I think another important function of rules is to reduce the unconscious bias of me, the DM. I think that in a rules-lite game where rulings are the order of the day, we can never be sure how much unconscious bias for or against certain players is playing into our rulings. And then once you as the DM have a free conscience that you are indeed an impartial arbiter, through the structure that the rules provide, then you are more free to celebrate the players' victories with them as well as mourn their losses. When I run everything on rulings, I feel like it's my decisions as the DM that have brought about calamity to the players, rather than the decisions of those players vs the rules, and constantly worry that my decisions are not truly unbiased (because none of our decisions are ever truly unbiased). The rules that I set for myself, as DM, vis-a-vis rules vs rulings are: 1. UNDERSTAND the rules as written first, and play them that way. Sometimes things that look on paper like they won't work do, and vice versa. 2. If neither I nor one of the players know a rule in the thick of play, then I will make a temporary ruling just to move the game along, but will look up and learn the rule as written after the game and abide by it from then on. 3. I will change or add rules if I think it is needed, but ONLY after being sure that I UNDERSTAND the rules as written. Changing one little thing can have consequences across all the rest of the rules, if you don't understand what you are doing when you change it. 4. When there is no rule for something, then I'll make a ruling. This ruling then becomes a RULE, and is applied consistently if a similar situation comes up in the future. I guess my TL;DR is.... I think rulings have a place, but too many people abuse rule zero and rulings just because they don't want to actually learn the rules for whatever reason. Doing so turns everything into a meaningless grey goo where anything goes (ie story-first gaming), and robs the players of both the elation of their victories and the pain of their defeats. And it prevents me as the DM from being able to experience those highs and lows with them. Sorry for the wall o' text. But this is something I feel very strongly about, lol. Learn to play a game RAW first, before you go mucking around with house rules and rulings, guys!!! :P
With the help of good people like you and professor DM at Dungeon Craft, I've stripped down our campaign, and I can honestly say it is so much more fun to play. We play a medium low magic game that has a bit more of a focus on character development/RP, instead of being tactics/fighting. Though we do plenty of both. We've done away with feats, proficiency points, skill selection, and a good many of the complex abilities/spell/magic items. I boil down the characters to basic form, though i allow for a lot of customization in character creation. Basically, I ask the person what they want to do, then we find a way to make that happen. When it comes to skills/feats, I just look at the toon...if it makes sense that the rogue should be able to sneak, then he can sneak and his DC is lower. There is a lot of thinking on my part about what makes sense, but it becomes easier the longer you do it. And the players love it. They get to be the cool toon they want to be, the game runs more quickly and smoothly, and it allows my players more freedom to do amazing things without having to check to see if the rules would allow it.
Very sober and biopic overview! Wherher you say “Dungeon Master” or “Judge” (like I do), I think the person so titled should be invested with the authority thereof. On the other hand, any person wielding authority must learn that their grasp on that authority will weaken if they flout too many established rules or are too arbitrary in their approach.
Kind of a house rule for certain rulings that I came up with is something I call. "Dice or Device" Basically I have a couple of sand or water timers (hourglass) from 90 seconds up to 30 minutes. And a box of small puzzles like rubik's cube and mechanical tapes and the old get all the bb's in the holes along the maze stuff from the 70's, 80's,and 90's. And the table votes on rolling dice or defeating the device that is chosen. We've got favorites for certain task like thieves skills checks, and pretty much anything else we can think of. Adds more tension if everyone is watching one player trying to get blue on a rubik's cube in 90 seconds to unlock the door to escape from the room sometimes.
A game is a start state and and end state and victory conditions. We tend to set our own victory conditions and end state in a RPG. The rules are how we move the game state from the start in the direction of the victory conditions. So, you are looking for a system of rules that allow interesting choices and exciting outcomes as you change the game state. Rules like reaction rolls or surprise or initiative or combat are meant to provide interesting dramatic twists.
As a game designer, I feel it is my responsibility to put the rules into a game, and it is the GM's job to determine which ones to use at their table. Rules are just a guideline that should be used to ensure the game is consistent.
I have only played 2e maybe 20 times, I enjoyed it, but for me there were more builds and “splat books” than I tend to want so I went away from it quickly. I do like the concept of spelljammer though
Ruleswise, for me, less is more. I like systems with less rules. Especially on the players end of the game. I GM Blades in the Dark, Lady Blackbird, Lasers and feeling, my own system, with is a rip off of Lady Blackbird. Thank you for your videos. Keep up the good work. Happy new year.
Great episode. But take issue with one point: people, although they wouldn't generally be able to calibrate it to an exact percentage, do have a reasonable understanding of broad probabilities. And they are worst where it matters least (telling the difference between a 2% chance and a 0.2% chance, say). So DMs saying 'just roll the dice' for a player action are being both less fun and less realistic. So I agree with you more than you agreed with yourself 🙂
my understanding is that a ruling is basically just an application of a rule in any specific game context. sometimes the referee's ruling is very straightforward: "you're trying to open a door in the dungeon - your strength is 10, so you need a 1-2 on a six-sided die." in other contexts, you draw an analogy with another rule, or generally adjudicate it as it seems reasonable in the situation. i don't think there's really a clear difference. in b/x, often a die roll isn't required - it just costs time. this is still a rule! it's just that the rule is "adjudicate it as seems reasonable" which is quite open-ended
Im really liking the Basic/Expert sets, what are your opinions on the Companion and Master sets? They seem to get away from the simplicity that makes this edition great, though I love the fantasy of domain level play and riding dragons.
@@BanditsKeep Thats cool, Ill keep that in mind once we get to level 2. Session 5 of Basic Fantasy and leveling from 1 to 2 is proving a feat in and of itself!
I feel the general principle for this kind of thing is 1. Say yes to what the player wants, or 2. Say maybe, put it behind a skill check / resource (e.g. action) and set the DC, or 3. The DC would be so high, or it’s so absurd, just say no. This is probably the most “fair” way to let players be creative and try wacky stuff, and they’ll find the line pretty quick when the DC is 20 or 25 or so… depending on what level/ version of the game you run.
@@BanditsKeep in all seriousness, I am so stoked to see this channel grow some more. I remember being a subscriber when you were right below 10k. Keep it up!!!
Gygax didn't use (all of) the official rules as written for AD&D 1E even though he's the one credited to having created them. Also he spoke out against Rules Lawyers . Lately I've been interested in the free Kriegsspiel movement.
İn my opinion, any long-term campaign play of a "rules-lite" system such as OD&D could be considered naturally becomes "rules-heavy". If you are having varied play encompassing many different types of adventure/making gp, rulings over rules naturally forms a more "heavy" ruleset if you are applying consistency to your rulings, which you must in some form over long term play or you remove agency and solid foundations for players to make decisions off of. (Terms are in quotations because İ find them kind of silly in general)
My OD&D campaign is a little over 2 years old (weekly) the adventures are very varied - I have added almost no rules. So at least in my case, your theory is incorrect. How long has your OD&D campaign been running? Maybe 2 years is not long?
I feel like we usually get too many rules in the versions of add-ons. BUT, I guess the good news is, add-ons are optional. However, newer editions always seem be to jam packed with rules-upon-rules. I guess they don't want to depend on the DMs/GMs and players being creative. But again, not all of us can be extra creative, so, perhaps some folks need the extra help of more rules?
Me and all my players are wargamers. Alot of my players can only use their imagination through a set of rules. So if I wanted to do some thing I would have to make rules they look over it if it made sense we did it. Example mass combat they never liked a description or Narrative they prefer to play the mass combat them selfs so I had to make a mass combat rule set like that for them. Now MCDM have their unit system and we moved to that. But like you said I'm the final arbitration as long as I make the judgment make sense. They fun but tough crowd
Straight up, this will never be resolved and it’s good to discuss it, over and over. It’s a really tough line to walk and it’s probably the reason that combat is such an obvious choice for many players because AC doesn’t change. HP doesn’t change when you are getting hit with a d6 spear. We really need to be certain about the options outside combat because we definitely know what attacking orcs means… parlay with a dragon might simply be giving up the surprise attack and that’s rarely satisfying. It’s probably the best part of ICRPG and the worst part of 5e…. A target number should be consistent and making it steady across the encounter gives a great sense of stability - as well as playing to your character strengths.
@@BanditsKeep it’s part of the reason that 3e and later is a fundamentally different game than the original red box to 2e game. The DM seems to be an adjudicator of DCs and hopefully they are just choosing 10 vs 15. Unfortunately the simplicity of this is completely ruined by the ridiculous layering of feats and various crunch - and XDM, PDM and ICRPG have rightly noted that it’s just a 13/20 roll for the most part. I have tried to run the ICRPG method and it’s really challenging to stretch it out. Seems like question action roll is very very fast because you don’t need to look up any stats. Playing OSR RAW is half the time looking up books LOL 😂
I'm not fully sold on the ICRPG system, but I see the appeal. Personally I like to tell players what their target number is for most rolls for similar reasons. Sometimes players have wildly different understandings of how difficult it would be to do something than the GM does and that can be hard to square narratively. Giving a number helps everyone bring their perceptions into line and gives the player the ability to make a more informed choice.
@@mgb360 I think the hobby has matured in dramatically differently ways over time. I only Know OSR. I played with an uncle who played Chainmail when it was still fresh off the press. Ultimately the fantasy game is now very much pirate / three musketeers theatre… so skill in narrative is valued more than skill in rulings. I am not sure this is better or worse or just different, but I like a Freeform computer game style which is more OSR. And just giving them a target to aim for is ultimately easier for the table if they are feeling super spicy. That all said. I recall giving the group a 1 in 20 chance for a heat metal spell on a lock then battering ram the door down and they made it. This would not happen under a “hit modified 13 for all actions” Ala ICRPG. I wanted to give them a chance despite it being unlikely. And we’ll never forget that roll. Sometimes crunch is better.
Sometimes you need to improv a scenario because you didn't plan for the PCs to do what they did. And sometimes you have to improv an outcome because the rules aren't clear or don't cover the thing the players want to do.
im sure this will be deleted, but rules boil down to trust. until your players trust you, or you trust your players then in the fairness sense they are needed. after that trust has been established i feel most players will be ok with snap decisions on your part that seem fair and drive the narrative without dice rolls, because they feel you aren't against them or are at the very least being impartial and their actions play the proper role in what you deem to be the outcome. but i do feel that in combat anything that is questionable should be rolled out with dice. as at some point a player is either going to get bored of winning, or be mad about feeling cheated. with die rolls at least they have someone or something to blame. this is why dice jails are so much fun lol.
The interpretation of the rules by the table should always trump rules as written. So long as the table is having fun and the DM is maintaining a sense of fairness. The written word of the rule should take a backseat.
No rules, no game. Little kids chasing each other around are playing, but they're not playing a *game.* Add at least one rule ("Tag! You're it!") and they are. Just because trying to write a discrete rule for everything in a game based on limitless imagination is a fool's errand, that doesn't mean we should abandon them entirely. It just means we have to be choosey, use common sense, and be able to trust the referee to render sound judgements.
1. No rules for more realism 2. No rules for more decisions and choices You need only your mind for runs this games, during the campaign, create whatever you need (what to include the mechanics).
@@BanditsKeepIn some specific situations, but it's usually at the DM's discretion (which is me most of the time). It literally takes almost every weight off my shoulders, I just need to prepare the situation and do my best to be impartial and immersive.
I love playing the D&D type of system called D100 Dungeon and now with Shadowdark. I disliked gaining XP via treasure find or monster kills so I use XP leveling up via 2 points for fumbles and 1 for crits.
Absolutely. Rules keep playing the game fair. This is a game, not story time. The rules tell us how to resolve actions. Inconsistent rules are extremely frustrating for players and build animosity between DM and players. Never change the rules on the fly, and always try to be consistent with how things work.
The rule of cool is one of the worst concepts in tabletop roleplaying in my opinion. As you said, it can be inconsistent between different players, but it also breaks the entire game. You can't just do whatever the hell you want just because it's "cool", that's the point of playing the game in the first place, having limitations
All that is required for a rules lite game to work is that the players trust their DM. Consistency, impartiality, fun.
For sure
I've run quick improv games without any established rules at all and we've had a good time. I wouldn't do it for a long-term game, but it works in a pinch.
@@mgb360 Agree. I’ve been DMing the same crew for a few years, currently running something loosely based on Shadowdark. Can’t remember the last time we had to reference a rule book.
The last point reminded me of a video I just watched from DaddyRolleda1 where he’s running a game for his teenage daughter and her friends. Apparently for a long time he had more of a DnD or LotR vision of goblins but they were all imagining Harry Potter goblins. Eventually they realized that they were imagining things very, very differently. It hadn’t occurred to any of them to clarify because it just seemed obvious what a goblin was to each of them.
The kids also didn’t realize just how big and bulky a crossbow was until later on when he showed them a picture. He may think it’s obvious the crossbow will need two hands and reload time but maybe they were picturing more of a pistol and would be disappointed to find out it works very differently. Having the mechanics laid down beforehand would help with expectations (and perhaps lead to discovering different understandings of the terms).
Obviously he’s also dealing with a generation gap, but that really made me realize the importance of being clear about those things and now I’m ruminating how that relates to the rules as well. Thanks for the insights!
It’s definitely interesting how different people can imagine the same thing
Reminded me of a time where we played in a homebrew campaign setting. The DM told us that the world was destroyed in a cataclysm, all that remained were mostly "levitating islands". We started at such a place too.
It took us about 10+ game sessions to realize what he meant was: 1) there still is a planet with intact crust 2) there are surface waters 3) there are islands on the water (just not continents) and 4) some islands float in the air.
The rules also help keep the 'simulation' consistent. Helps to hold the verisimilitude
True
It seems to me that the fine art of "DMing" is to know where and when to apply the rules and where and when to apply rulings.
True
Lots of great stuff here: the caution on meta-currency like inspiration and "the rule of cool", how rulings differ from rules, and telling players up front whether something is possible (or how possible) before they try. All of it points to the role of the referee/judge/GM in establishing that relationship between the players' activities in relation to the world they are inter-acting with. You're always looking for a balance between "this is realistic" and "this is a game."
Yes! That’s a great way to put it
We didn't argue with our DM's very often when they made a ruling. We might discuss it a bit for the given situation and the DM might adjust the rules for it but their ruling was final.
We had a player that liked swashbuckler style play. So when his character decided to swing from the chandelier and leap upon the enemy... well, there isn't exactly a rule for that now is there. So if I remember right the DM had him make a dexterity check and then an adjusted attack roll based on the success or failure of the dexterity check.
The DM also did similar things with strength checks when the player threw chairs and did other things not covered by the rules. But the DM kept it pretty consistent so nobody had a reason to argue with them.
Nice
Knowing the basic workings of the game is important, because just as IRL you can guess how big a chasm you can jump over safely, your character has to be able to guess too. Mind you, it's a guess, not a certainty, but still. There are things you instinctively "feel" or know IRL that you also have to be able to know in-game for the game to work.
Indeed
I've long liked inspiration but hated that it was at the DMs whim. For my own game that I've been developing over the last year and a half we've tried a few different versions of it, but last week we introduced a new solution called Drive, you earn it when you give in to your character flaw, lean on your strength, overcome your fear, and pursue your desire. Stacking to a maximum of 4.
The testing group really loved it and it made a huge impact on the session.
Cool.
I actually really like this concept...
So Bennies from Savage Worlds
Happy New Year. The Rules are a framework to build the game upon. I think it is more important for the rulings to be consistent than for them to perfectly match the rules as written (especially when the rules are vague).
For sure
Hear hear
The points you make about the "rule of cool" and making the DM laugh, etc. are, I think very applicable to many of the social aspects of player/NPC interactions. I see too many DMs take what I consider a metagaming approach to diplomacy, charisma, and other such "social" checks. They expect the player to roleplay the interaction, and use the player's real-world abilities to judge success or failure. As dull as it may seem to some, dry rules, die rolls and difficulty checks are especially necessary in these situations to measure the character's abilities and not the player's.
I tend to take a mixed approach, not a straight roll, but rather explain what you are doing (vs act it out)
@@BanditsKeep It can be a difficult aspect of RPGs that I don't often seen discussed in depth. How can a person effectively roleplay a character whose abilities exceed their own? And should a person of modest intelligence even be allowed to play a super-genius level character?
Physically, it is very easy to imagine being stronger, or more agile or durable. But is it possible to imagine being more intelligent or charismatic? I would say it isn't, at least not in the same way. We can imagine the physical process involved in lifting incredible weights and can even visualize ourselves doing it. But we cannot imagine the thought process needed to solve a problem that exceeds our own intelligence.
As a practical example, when presented with a big rock, I can simply say that my character picks it up and I roll for success. However, when given a puzzle to solve, I myself am expected to use my own intelligence to solve it, instead of just saying my character solves it and rolling for success in this case as well.
This is all part of a huge topic in RPGs that is barely discussed. How can someone effectively roleplay a character whose experience of life differs vastly from their own? What systems need to be put in place and rigidly enforced to facilitate this, and to make it a fair and satisfying experience for everyone?
You got me with the Inspiration for making the DM laugh.. in a four year campaign that ended recently, i twice made the DM laugh such that he said it was Inspiration-worthy, but he lamented that it wasn't during gameplay?? During gameplay, my character was the straight man in the party, i didn't make jokes.
I'm leading the table now. I give Inspiration at the start of every session to whoever gives a recap, plus more throughout the session for cool Roleplay decisions. Rules, rulings, and mechanics should encourage the gameplay you want to see more of.
Indeed
This is excellent advice -- especially about how one-time "rulings" are not necessarily "new rules" but if it happens multiple times, consistency and common sense should prevail. In looking at my old DMG (1st Ed), there are lots and lots and lots and lots of penciled in notes about how certain questions not covered by the rules were decided.
Trust between players and DM is a key component.
Great video!
For sure
So much depends on your relationship to your players, their level of experience with you, with RPG's, etc. I've been GMing D&D and more recently a "rulings, minimal rules" homebrew for veterans of decades. For us, consistency and common sense are really the master rules. Great video, brother!
For sure
I've been struggling with this lately and have started a conversation with my group as to how to how to address it.
Sometimes I feel that our sessions are so loose, as to become gonzo-make-believe all the time. And although I don't have a problem with "Roleplaying" sometimes it just feels like we're doing an Improv session and not really playing a game. I'm trying to figure out a way to reemphasize the granular boardgame aspect of BX, by highlighting the turn sequence formula for dungeons and exploration, and maybe even drafting out a sequence for how to interact in settlements. It's tough!
I find it is a good idea to occasionally lean into some of the procedures to ground the game - for me lately it’s been hex crawling
I've run several campaigns "Willy Nilly". I use several different dice mechanics and frequently change them session to session. The beautiful part is that my players are totally cool with it because our relationship remains "You tell me what you want to do and I'll tell you that to roll". This also leaves room for short player negotiations. So long as everyone is happy with every ruling and we all had fun i consider my job as DM successful.
Awesome
Happy New Year Daniel! Happy Gaming!
Happy new year!
Great discussion on rules vs rulings. Back in 1980, our DM's trick to end arguments about his rulings was to drop a stone on the offending player causing 1 hp damage, or roll a wandering monster check with a few dice due to the noise. One could also roll perception, "you catch a whiff of purple worm breath"
😂 purple worm breath
Happy New Year. Great video as always. Thank you for your time and input.
I don't see a Rules Lawyer as someone who "twists" the rules, rather they are someone who supports the rules as written as something consistent and stable the players can depend on, like you got into in the second half of the video. I think a rules laywer is more of someone who wants to prevent the arbitrary twisting of rules. Of course this has multiple sides as well but just wanted to point out a different definition, one I think is more commonly intended when using the term at least in my experience. As you say sometimes rulings can be unfair if they only apply to one player etc, and changes to the raw rules should be made clear to prevent confusion.
All in all the most important thing is communication and it does wonders in preventing conflict and misunderstandings.
I’ve never heard of it used in a positive way, that would be just being knowledgeable. The lawyer part is the arguing the little details to death. My first reference to this was in the 1e DM guide and it is Definitely meant to be negative. The other thing - as I stated is very positive
@@BanditsKeep To clarify the definition I put forward isn't necessarily a positive one, only one that is stricter with the rules rather than twisting them. A member of your discord filled me on the twisting definition I hadn't heard of yet, which does seem to be the dominant one online.
I agree that the other thing as you stated is very positive. While surely not as common of a definition as I thought, some people online do see that as a sort of rules lawyer for better or worse (like the pathfinder channel who goes by that name). I really like how you put forward that sometimes it's nice to decide things as a table and give players input which is something I like to do as a ref.
Ah I see, the "Room Lawyer" quote you are referring to in the DM guide, though I do think that particular afterward is a bit harsh for reasons you mentioned in this video. I feel like the "DM's word is god" mentality can go a bit too far sometimes, but as always there is a healthy balance.
Thank you for your reply, I hope you and yours are well.
Good topic for a video! I think there is one additional reason for the rules. A rule set that is as clear and comprehensive as possible can underpin a semi-objective scoring system. While not right for every player, or even for every game, I believe the virtual elimination of competitive, scored tournament play that leads to a declared winning player and/or party has had a deleterious impact on the overall state of the hobby. Nowadays, it seems _de rigueur_ to regard the implementation of the rules as "breaking the flow" of the game, whereas I consider it part and parcel of the game's flow. Cheers!
Indeed
Happy new year! To me rules are to facilitate the play, dice are a way to arbitrate outcomes against a random or numeric scale, rulings should push things forward, if it can it should give the players the outcome they seek even maybe not the result! So you are right, rules are the guide posts and glue!
For sure
When running a game I'll tend to favor what my players want to do if it's not codified. In Joe's case I sometimes have to put restrictions. But if a player comes up with an interesting idea that is not within the rules I like to see how it plays out. It gives the players the incentive to use creativity to solve problems and know that their ideas are being heard and used. And yes you can say 'lots' as many times as you want. Great video. Thoughtful and thought provoking. Take care Daniel.
Thanks Tim!
I think another important function of rules is to reduce the unconscious bias of me, the DM. I think that in a rules-lite game where rulings are the order of the day, we can never be sure how much unconscious bias for or against certain players is playing into our rulings. And then once you as the DM have a free conscience that you are indeed an impartial arbiter, through the structure that the rules provide, then you are more free to celebrate the players' victories with them as well as mourn their losses. When I run everything on rulings, I feel like it's my decisions as the DM that have brought about calamity to the players, rather than the decisions of those players vs the rules, and constantly worry that my decisions are not truly unbiased (because none of our decisions are ever truly unbiased).
The rules that I set for myself, as DM, vis-a-vis rules vs rulings are:
1. UNDERSTAND the rules as written first, and play them that way. Sometimes things that look on paper like they won't work do, and vice versa.
2. If neither I nor one of the players know a rule in the thick of play, then I will make a temporary ruling just to move the game along, but will look up and learn the rule as written after the game and abide by it from then on.
3. I will change or add rules if I think it is needed, but ONLY after being sure that I UNDERSTAND the rules as written. Changing one little thing can have consequences across all the rest of the rules, if you don't understand what you are doing when you change it.
4. When there is no rule for something, then I'll make a ruling. This ruling then becomes a RULE, and is applied consistently if a similar situation comes up in the future.
I guess my TL;DR is.... I think rulings have a place, but too many people abuse rule zero and rulings just because they don't want to actually learn the rules for whatever reason. Doing so turns everything into a meaningless grey goo where anything goes (ie story-first gaming), and robs the players of both the elation of their victories and the pain of their defeats. And it prevents me as the DM from being able to experience those highs and lows with them.
Sorry for the wall o' text. But this is something I feel very strongly about, lol. Learn to play a game RAW first, before you go mucking around with house rules and rulings, guys!!! :P
I’m not sure I agree with the “meaningless grey goo” - there are many ways to play the game - and all can be fun.
Interesting take on rule of cool, havent heard anyone else put it like that, but its smart.
Thanks
With the help of good people like you and professor DM at Dungeon Craft, I've stripped down our campaign, and I can honestly say it is so much more fun to play. We play a medium low magic game that has a bit more of a focus on character development/RP, instead of being tactics/fighting. Though we do plenty of both. We've done away with feats, proficiency points, skill selection, and a good many of the complex abilities/spell/magic items. I boil down the characters to basic form, though i allow for a lot of customization in character creation. Basically, I ask the person what they want to do, then we find a way to make that happen. When it comes to skills/feats, I just look at the toon...if it makes sense that the rogue should be able to sneak, then he can sneak and his DC is lower. There is a lot of thinking on my part about what makes sense, but it becomes easier the longer you do it. And the players love it. They get to be the cool toon they want to be, the game runs more quickly and smoothly, and it allows my players more freedom to do amazing things without having to check to see if the rules would allow it.
Cool
Great topic and good advice!!!!
Thank You!
Man, you are so inspirational. Thank you for making these videos.
Thanks!
Thank you so much for your content!
My pleasure!
Very sober and biopic overview!
Wherher you say “Dungeon Master” or “Judge” (like I do), I think the person so titled should be invested with the authority thereof.
On the other hand, any person wielding authority must learn that their grasp on that authority will weaken if they flout too many established rules or are too arbitrary in their approach.
And yes, the word is “flout” (F L O U T) not “flaunt.” Phones are stupid!
True
Kind of a house rule for certain rulings that I came up with is something I call.
"Dice or Device"
Basically I have a couple of sand or water timers (hourglass) from 90 seconds up to 30 minutes. And a box of small puzzles like rubik's cube and mechanical tapes and the old get all the bb's in the holes along the maze stuff from the 70's, 80's,and 90's. And the table votes on rolling dice or defeating the device that is chosen. We've got favorites for certain task like thieves skills checks, and pretty much anything else we can think of.
Adds more tension if everyone is watching one player trying to get blue on a rubik's cube in 90 seconds to unlock the door to escape from the room sometimes.
Sounds fun!
A game is a start state and and end state and victory conditions. We tend to set our own victory conditions and end state in a RPG. The rules are how we move the game state from the start in the direction of the victory conditions. So, you are looking for a system of rules that allow interesting choices and exciting outcomes as you change the game state. Rules like reaction rolls or surprise or initiative or combat are meant to provide interesting dramatic twists.
For sure
Happy new year
Happy new year
Happy New Year
Happy new year
Great content as always man keep it up!
Thank You!
As a game designer, I feel it is my responsibility to put the rules into a game, and it is the GM's job to determine which ones to use at their table. Rules are just a guideline that should be used to ensure the game is consistent.
Indeed
Thank you for this video😊 Happy new year! What are your thoughts about ADnD 2e? it seems like there are rules for everything
I have only played 2e maybe 20 times, I enjoyed it, but for me there were more builds and “splat books” than I tend to want so I went away from it quickly. I do like the concept of spelljammer though
namaste! great video, I do agree
Thank You!
Ruleswise, for me, less is more. I like systems with less rules. Especially on the players end of the game. I GM Blades in the Dark, Lady Blackbird, Lasers and feeling, my own system, with is a rip off of Lady Blackbird. Thank you for your videos. Keep up the good work.
Happy new year.
Awesome
I give inspiration to my players when they make me laugh. Too bad. It's not fair, but too damn bad. I encourage laughter at my table.
If that works for you awesome. 🤷🏻♂️
Great episode. But take issue with one point: people, although they wouldn't generally be able to calibrate it to an exact percentage, do have a reasonable understanding of broad probabilities. And they are worst where it matters least (telling the difference between a 2% chance and a 0.2% chance, say). So DMs saying 'just roll the dice' for a player action are being both less fun and less realistic. So I agree with you more than you agreed with yourself 🙂
That is 💯 accurate 😊
my understanding is that a ruling is basically just an application of a rule in any specific game context. sometimes the referee's ruling is very straightforward: "you're trying to open a door in the dungeon - your strength is 10, so you need a 1-2 on a six-sided die." in other contexts, you draw an analogy with another rule, or generally adjudicate it as it seems reasonable in the situation. i don't think there's really a clear difference. in b/x, often a die roll isn't required - it just costs time. this is still a rule! it's just that the rule is "adjudicate it as seems reasonable" which is quite open-ended
Indeed
Im really liking the Basic/Expert sets, what are your opinions on the Companion and Master sets?
They seem to get away from the simplicity that makes this edition great, though I love the fantasy of domain level play and riding dragons.
I can’t really speak on those as I had. Not used them - typically at higher levels I home brew based on what has got us there
@@BanditsKeep Thats cool, Ill keep that in mind once we get to level 2.
Session 5 of Basic Fantasy and leveling from 1 to 2 is proving a feat in and of itself!
I feel the general principle for this kind of thing is 1. Say yes to what the player wants, or 2. Say maybe, put it behind a skill check / resource (e.g. action) and set the DC, or 3. The DC would be so high, or it’s so absurd, just say no. This is probably the most “fair” way to let players be creative and try wacky stuff, and they’ll find the line pretty quick when the DC is 20 or 25 or so… depending on what level/ version of the game you run.
For sure
HAVEN'T SEEN YA ALL YEAR, BUD!
😊
@@BanditsKeep in all seriousness, I am so stoked to see this channel grow some more. I remember being a subscriber when you were right below 10k. Keep it up!!!
Gygax didn't use (all of) the official rules as written for AD&D 1E even though he's the one credited to having created them. Also he spoke out against Rules Lawyers . Lately I've been interested in the free Kriegsspiel movement.
You played with Gygax?
@@BanditsKeep no, he talked about it in old dragon magazine articles
İn my opinion, any long-term campaign play of a "rules-lite" system such as OD&D could be considered naturally becomes "rules-heavy". If you are having varied play encompassing many different types of adventure/making gp, rulings over rules naturally forms a more "heavy" ruleset if you are applying consistency to your rulings, which you must in some form over long term play or you remove agency and solid foundations for players to make decisions off of. (Terms are in quotations because İ find them kind of silly in general)
My OD&D campaign is a little over 2 years old (weekly) the adventures are very varied - I have added almost no rules. So at least in my case, your theory is incorrect. How long has your OD&D campaign been running? Maybe 2 years is not long?
I feel like we usually get too many rules in the versions of add-ons. BUT, I guess the good news is, add-ons are optional. However, newer editions always seem be to jam packed with rules-upon-rules. I guess they don't want to depend on the DMs/GMs and players being creative. But again, not all of us can be extra creative, so, perhaps some folks need the extra help of more rules?
Indeed
Me and all my players are wargamers. Alot of my players can only use their imagination through a set of rules. So if I wanted to do some thing I would have to make rules they look over it if it made sense we did it. Example mass combat they never liked a description or Narrative they prefer to play the mass combat them selfs so I had to make a mass combat rule set like that for them. Now MCDM have their unit system and we moved to that. But like you said I'm the final arbitration as long as I make the judgment make sense. They fun but tough crowd
Cool
Straight up, this will never be resolved and it’s good to discuss it, over and over.
It’s a really tough line to walk and it’s probably the reason that combat is such an obvious choice for many players because AC doesn’t change. HP doesn’t change when you are getting hit with a d6 spear. We really need to be certain about the options outside combat because we definitely know what attacking orcs means… parlay with a dragon might simply be giving up the surprise attack and that’s rarely satisfying.
It’s probably the best part of ICRPG and the worst part of 5e…. A target number should be consistent and making it steady across the encounter gives a great sense of stability - as well as playing to your character strengths.
Interesting take - I’m not a fan of the static DC, but that is a good argument for it
@@BanditsKeep it’s part of the reason that 3e and later is a fundamentally different game than the original red box to 2e game. The DM seems to be an adjudicator of DCs and hopefully they are just choosing 10 vs 15. Unfortunately the simplicity of this is completely ruined by the ridiculous layering of feats and various crunch - and XDM, PDM and ICRPG have rightly noted that it’s just a 13/20 roll for the most part.
I have tried to run the ICRPG method and it’s really challenging to stretch it out. Seems like question action roll is very very fast because you don’t need to look up any stats. Playing OSR RAW is half the time looking up books LOL 😂
I'm not fully sold on the ICRPG system, but I see the appeal. Personally I like to tell players what their target number is for most rolls for similar reasons. Sometimes players have wildly different understandings of how difficult it would be to do something than the GM does and that can be hard to square narratively. Giving a number helps everyone bring their perceptions into line and gives the player the ability to make a more informed choice.
@@mgb360 I think the hobby has matured in dramatically differently ways over time. I only Know OSR. I played with an uncle who played Chainmail when it was still fresh off the press. Ultimately the fantasy game is now very much pirate / three musketeers theatre… so skill in narrative is valued more than skill in rulings. I am not sure this is better or worse or just different, but I like a Freeform computer game style which is more OSR. And just giving them a target to aim for is ultimately easier for the table if they are feeling super spicy.
That all said. I recall giving the group a 1 in 20 chance for a heat metal spell on a lock then battering ram the door down and they made it. This would not happen under a “hit modified 13 for all actions” Ala ICRPG. I wanted to give them a chance despite it being unlikely. And we’ll never forget that roll. Sometimes crunch is better.
"We must honorably adhere to the rules we are making up on the spot."......If everyone is good with it.
Yup
Sometimes you need to improv a scenario because you didn't plan for the PCs to do what they did. And sometimes you have to improv an outcome because the rules aren't clear or don't cover the thing the players want to do.
Indeed
For me it was
"I shot you"
"I had my bullet proof shield"
"these are anti shield bullets"
and so on and so on.
😂 yes!
im sure this will be deleted, but rules boil down to trust. until your players trust you, or you trust your players then in the fairness sense they are needed.
after that trust has been established i feel most players will be ok with snap decisions on your part that seem fair and drive the narrative without dice rolls, because they feel you aren't against them or are at the very least being impartial and their actions play the proper role in what you deem to be the outcome.
but i do feel that in combat anything that is questionable should be rolled out with dice. as at some point a player is either going to get bored of winning, or be mad about feeling cheated.
with die rolls at least they have someone or something to blame. this is why dice jails are so much fun lol.
Indeed - why do you feel your comment would be deleted?
The interpretation of the rules by the table should always trump rules as written. So long as the table is having fun and the DM is maintaining a sense of fairness. The written word of the rule should take a backseat.
I agree
Of course you need rules, but mostly for issues that cannot simply be resolved by talking about them around a table.
Yep
No rules, no game. Little kids chasing each other around are playing, but they're not playing a *game.* Add at least one rule ("Tag! You're it!") and they are. Just because trying to write a discrete rule for everything in a game based on limitless imagination is a fool's errand, that doesn't mean we should abandon them entirely. It just means we have to be choosey, use common sense, and be able to trust the referee to render sound judgements.
Indeed
1. No rules for more realism
2. No rules for more decisions and choices
You need only your mind for runs this games, during the campaign, create whatever you need (what to include the mechanics).
Could be fun, would you vote as a group?
@@BanditsKeepIn some specific situations, but it's usually at the DM's discretion (which is me most of the time). It literally takes almost every weight off my shoulders, I just need to prepare the situation and do my best to be impartial and immersive.
I love playing the D&D type of system called D100 Dungeon and now with Shadowdark.
I disliked gaining XP via treasure find or monster kills so I use XP leveling up via
2 points for fumbles and
1 for crits.
Nice!
D&D is just playing 20 questions with some dice added in-
Indeed
Absolutely. Rules keep playing the game fair. This is a game, not story time. The rules tell us how to resolve actions. Inconsistent rules are extremely frustrating for players and build animosity between DM and players. Never change the rules on the fly, and always try to be consistent with how things work.
Indeed
The rule of cool is one of the worst concepts in tabletop roleplaying in my opinion. As you said, it can be inconsistent between different players, but it also breaks the entire game. You can't just do whatever the hell you want just because it's "cool", that's the point of playing the game in the first place, having limitations
Indeed
We need rules to ignore them
and substitute.
Indeed