Stephen Tannhauser
Pubber
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2020
- Messages
- 13
- Reaction score
- 11
The only rule I've ever seen end an argument in role-playing is Rule Zero i.e. the GM's edict supersedes all. Otherwise, I've seen players argue in spite of the rules, stating (sometimes quite reasonably) that the rules are unrealistic. Rules don't stop arguments. That's where all the social stuff comes into play. GM-player trust isn't just, as you put it, "a good thing"; how would you even play without it? Why would you even play without it?
I suggest you're committing the fallacy of the excluded middle here. No, rules don't stop all arguments any more than laws against murder stop all murder -- but if we didn't have them, you'd have a lot more of what they're in place to prevent. (At least, my typical game groups would, as would most I've seen.)
I note that no rules-light, let-the-GM-resolve-it system I've ever read has ever been so light as to suggest that the GM should simply decide who wins a fight and how badly they were hurt in the process. Even if you trust the GM to always be fair and generous on such rulings, that's simply not any fun. Figuring out how to exploit the rules in order to win has always been a big part of the RPG enjoyment factor.
The problem is that you're never going to cover every situation, and unless you're experienced in the type of combat in question, you're just guessing.
Again, fallacy of the excluded middle. No, you can't cover every situation, but covering as many as is practical where it will generally forestall arguments -- and again, note that because some players will always argue doesn't mean good clear rules don't prevent more arguments than they create -- is generally, I think, a good thing. And yes, sometimes those rules will cut against the players, but the key is that it's the rules cutting against the players, not the GM's judgement call.
I actually agree with you that realism in general is a distraction rather than a practical goal -- as you say, no ruleset can be perfect in that regard, much less even near it while still being playable -- and that verisimilitude is a better target than realism. But even the verisimilitude, in my view, should yield to the ultimate target of clear, playable rules that make it consistent and objective as to who gets to go when. Even if players in a particular group can be trusted to accept negative GM rulings without argument, in my experience, being able to point to a clear rule always makes it go down easier -- it's one of those things that it's a lot easier to have and not need than to need and not have.