Tabletop RPG GMs Need Good Mechanics
Another tabletop RPG design rant...
No set of RPG rules can be completely comprehensive. Its been tried, and the result is always a bloated, cumbersome set of rules which *still* don't cover every possible thing. So instead, most RPG rule sets only provide detailed resolution mechanics for the most common situations. One of the main reasons to even have a GM at the table, is so that they can provide an impartial ruling on things which fall outside of the published mechanics. However (and here's where I'm about to say something which may be a bit controversial), a common attitude exists in the hobby that even detailed, published mechanics are 'just guidelines' - so the GM is often expected to over-rule even those kinds of mechanics on a pretty regular basis. This, IMO, has become a bit of a self-fulfilling prophesy in the hobby - because designers who expect that even their most carefully designed systems won't be taken all that seriously are not particularly motivated to make sure that those systems perform in a robust manner when played as written - resulting in GM fiat being needed to take up the slack, even when written rules are available.
My personal view is that, while the GM is there to handle things which fall outside of the written mechanics, the written mechanics are there to take pressure off the GM 1) so they don't have to make up absolutely *everything* (particularly not all of the most common things, which can be incredibly draining), and 2) to help the GM be impartial (and not be held personally accountable for every single outcome, especially the most controversial ones, like PC death). The more a published mechanic requires GM fiat to 'fix' it during play, the less well it fulfills either of those two reasons for its existence. If a GM applies the rules as written, and gets results which seem inappropriate, then the fault may lie with those mechanics first, and the GM second. The GM *should* be able to retreat behind 'well that's how the rules are written' to escape blame for an undesirable outcome, but when the rule in question is broken then GM should take on the responsibility for correcting it. And then maybe replace it with a house rule, or even toss the rule altogether and accept that they're going to have to make a personal call in such situations from now on, since the written rule isn't handling it well.
In summary: Tabletop RPG rules are there to assist the GM, and this is best achieved when those rules consistently produce reasonable results when played as written. The oft-repeated meme that "RPG rules are just guidelines" works *against* the goal of providing GMs with the kind of well-designed rules sets that would actually benefit them.
No set of RPG rules can be completely comprehensive. Its been tried, and the result is always a bloated, cumbersome set of rules which *still* don't cover every possible thing. So instead, most RPG rule sets only provide detailed resolution mechanics for the most common situations. One of the main reasons to even have a GM at the table, is so that they can provide an impartial ruling on things which fall outside of the published mechanics. However (and here's where I'm about to say something which may be a bit controversial), a common attitude exists in the hobby that even detailed, published mechanics are 'just guidelines' - so the GM is often expected to over-rule even those kinds of mechanics on a pretty regular basis. This, IMO, has become a bit of a self-fulfilling prophesy in the hobby - because designers who expect that even their most carefully designed systems won't be taken all that seriously are not particularly motivated to make sure that those systems perform in a robust manner when played as written - resulting in GM fiat being needed to take up the slack, even when written rules are available.
My personal view is that, while the GM is there to handle things which fall outside of the written mechanics, the written mechanics are there to take pressure off the GM 1) so they don't have to make up absolutely *everything* (particularly not all of the most common things, which can be incredibly draining), and 2) to help the GM be impartial (and not be held personally accountable for every single outcome, especially the most controversial ones, like PC death). The more a published mechanic requires GM fiat to 'fix' it during play, the less well it fulfills either of those two reasons for its existence. If a GM applies the rules as written, and gets results which seem inappropriate, then the fault may lie with those mechanics first, and the GM second. The GM *should* be able to retreat behind 'well that's how the rules are written' to escape blame for an undesirable outcome, but when the rule in question is broken then GM should take on the responsibility for correcting it. And then maybe replace it with a house rule, or even toss the rule altogether and accept that they're going to have to make a personal call in such situations from now on, since the written rule isn't handling it well.
In summary: Tabletop RPG rules are there to assist the GM, and this is best achieved when those rules consistently produce reasonable results when played as written. The oft-repeated meme that "RPG rules are just guidelines" works *against* the goal of providing GMs with the kind of well-designed rules sets that would actually benefit them.
posted by Jeff Dee @ 8:59 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home