|
Its a matter of trust. The era of rules over rulings came about because of bad GM play and lack of trust in their rulings (Also, organized play had a huge influence in rules over rulings shift). However, providing a heavily ruled system allows some players to run rough shod over a GM. Each can be a fun killer, and also subjective to the player/group.
In my experience, folks like rulings over rules because it cuts down on rules lawyering which can stall a game. Also, folks feel that their creativity can be grounded in an un-fun way by a crunchy system.
The perfect fit is really going to be up to the individuals. There are cases to be made for each perspective.
In my experience, even with good friends I've RP'd with for years, when egos get bruised and then the people who feel wronged get in control of the game running, their "rulings" get less than impartial. That then spreads to other hurt feelings, causes challenges in the relationship of the people at the table and can potentially end the campaign. Worst case scenario, it drives friends apart.
More rules are, yes, a mechanical burden. They are however a healthy guideline or context within which to minimize some of those ego-induced challenges. Too many rules can gum up the works; too few adds that subjectivity back in. I'm not saying more rules than less is mechanically superior.
All I'm saying is... I'm having trouble seeing the benefit of putting a lot of power over these games in the hands of a single individual.
My biggest issue with highly-codified RPGs is the cognitive overload. e.g. In Pathfinder 1e, keeping track of all of those situational bonuses/penalties, when they apply, the value, how it interacts with other effects, etc. It was a LOT to keep track of, and I found the complexity of the rules to take away from my enjoyment of the game. I also found them to be a constraint on creativity and spontaneity.
I was chatting with a friend who'd taken my seat at the Pathfinder 2e I resigned from last month. He was having some issues with the PF2 rules, in that he also felt them to be constraining... in a different way than PF1. My observation is that the PF2 rules seemed to be written defensively: To be so clear-cut as to what they mean and when they apply that there is little-to-no need for GM interpretation. In other words, the rules are specifically designed to constrain player actions: If they don't say you can, then you can't.
My opinion is that if the ruleset is going to be that rigid, why are we playing a TTRPG rather than a video game?
"Rulings over rules" defines OSR-style play. This does indeed put a great deal of power into the hands of the GM, but it also puts a great deal of responsibility on them as well. In the hands of a good GM, it's fine... but when the GM decides that they are pushing for a specific outcome and their rulings force the PCs into a particular direction, that can be a big problem. As Pan said, the advent of more-and-more complex RPG rulesets was intended to be a constraint on the GM's power, putting more into player hands... which almost creates an arms race.
While "rules lawyering" has always been an issue at the RPG table, it got more and more intense in the 3.x era. 5e was a reaction-to-the-reaction, putting a bit more subjective power back into the GM's hands, although it still is far less power than in an OSR game.
And I think the problem is more fundamental than that.
I think the root of the problem lies in how the GM and players are set up to be adversaries: The GM presents a challenge and the PCs overcome it. The PCs seek an objective and the GM tries to thwart it. You see many little adversarial bits in games: like the GM rolling dice for no reason and chuckling; or deliberately leaving a high-level monster book out where the players can see it; or even something as basic as using a GM screen to keep information from the players. Whether conscious or not, when the GM and players are in adversarial positions, egos are going to get in the way, and they are going to get bruised.
And this is why I now play story-games.
The RPGs I play now are rules-light, and while the GM still has the final word, they are designed to be collaborative rather than adversarial. The goal of these games is to explore the world together as players and GM, and to have fun telling the characters' stories. As I like to put it, "This game is a conversation."
These games have robust mechanics, but there is a a much lower cognitive load needed to engage with them. And much of the time, the rules will dictate a general outcome, but it's up to the GM and players to decide exactly how that outcome plays out. And the mechanics generally put much of the power of narration into the players' hands.
Another aspect of most of the rules-light games I play are that each game tends to include a set of GM Agenda and Principles. These tell the GM what the game is truly about, and how to apply the rules to the play session. For example, in Dungeon World:
GM Agenda
* Portray a fantastic world
* Fill the characters' lives with adventure
* Play to find out what happensEverything you say and do [while you're playing the game] exists to accomplish these three goals, and no others. Things that aren't on the list aren't your goals. You're not trying to beat the players or test their abilities to solve complex traps. You're not here to give the players a chance to explore your finely-crafted setting. You're not trying to kill the characters (although the monsters might be). You're most certainly not here to tell everyone a planned-out story...
Dungeon World adventures NEVER presume player actions. A DW adventure portrays a setting in motion—someplace significant with creatures big and small pursuing their own goals. As the characters come into conflict with that setting and its denizens, action is inevitable. You'll honestly protray the repercussions of those actions.
This is how you play to find out what happens...
GM Principles
* Begin and end with the fiction
* Be a fan of the characters
* Draw maps, leave blanks
* Embrace the fantastic
* Name every person
* Give every monster life
* Ask questions and use the answers
* Think dangerous
* Make a move that follows
* Never speak the name of your move
* Think offscreen, too!BEGIN AND END WITH THE FICTION
Everything you and the players do in Dungeon World comes from and leads to fictional events. When players make a Move, they take a fictional action to trigger it, apply the rules, and get a fictional effect. When you make a Move, it always comes from the fiction.BE A FAN OF THE CHARACTERS
Think of the player characters as protagonists in a story you might see on TV. Cheer for their victories and lament their defeats. You are not here to push them in any direction, merely to participate in the fiction that features them and their actions.
Hmm, ive never heard rulings over rules invoked in anything but the AD&D/3E-4E context. I always assumed it was just a D&D specific argument.
Rulings over rules shouldnt mean the GM just does what they want. There should still be a combined consensus when filling in the gaps. The GM might be the final arbiter over rulings, but they will find themselves short of players soon if they are not fair and consistent in their rulings.
More-or-less!
"Rulings not rules" was a phrase from the early aughts in the Old School Renaissance (OSR) movement, which itself was a reaction against the highly-codified OGL/3.x ruleset.
The first time I encountered the phrase was sometime in the mid-aughts, in an article called "A Quick Primer For Old-School Gaming" by Matt Finch, later published by Frog God Games (publisher of the OSR RPG Swords & Wizardry, which is a retro-clone of the original 1974 edition of Dungeons & Dragons.)
Here's a link to the article. (It's free!)
Keep in mind that rulings over rules doesnt simply imply rules lite vs rules heavy. Its a focus on rules intent. A rules lite system may only have 5 rules, but the intent is that every situation is resolved by one of them. That is not rulings over rules. If a GM/player wants to be adversarial/problematic, it doesnt matter which system they use.
|
|
What really is the advantage of Rulings vs Rules?
It's a method preference, not necessarily an advantage. For some, reading, memorizing, and understanding numerous systems and rules can be a bit of a chore. At the table, its time consuming to flip through books and bogs down game time. For others, they only need to apply those systems once or twice at the table, and now they have a consistent way to arbitrate those situations. Not everyone grasps that quickly, and some don't even desire that amount of detail in their games. Rulings over rules can help cut the fat and speed things up for folks that dont value a detailed and rules heavy system. For other folks, rulings are too inconsistent and arbitrary for their tastes and prefer more detailed guidelines.
YMMV.
From here on in, when folks tout the supposed benefits of Rulings over Rules in threads, I'll know what they're really talking about are their personal perception that collaboration and creativity is based around the system they're using, not the people at the table.Thanks everyone for the help with understanding the differences! As always, I appreciate the folks on these boards.
Folks are not always touting rulings over rules when it is brought up. The 5E designers stated that rulings over rules was part of their design philosophy. So mentioning rulings over rules isnt always in the positive, but is relevant when discussing how the 5E (and some prior editions) of D&D work.
Rules are usually a good thing, but when you run into an exception, you need to put your ruling first. If by the rules there should be a TPK, or a random encounter with a level draining monster, you may have to put the errant rules aside. In a store bought adventure path the description did not match the map, so I had to choose.