Philosophy of Rules

Philosophy of Rules

What are rules for?

The rules serve the game - both the players and the DM. They're one of the languages in which we communicate, so it's prudent to have a wide vocabulary and willingness to discuss what we think the rules mean. This will inevitably lead to some miscommunication and friction where people disagree, and that's fine. We should try to settle these conflicts in such a way that everyone is still having fun.
There's really only one rule that cannot be meaningfully discarded: Rule Zero

Your DM's thoughts on Rule Zero

The gist

You’re playing in the DM’s world, and as the creator of that world the DM is (in many ways) the final arbiter. DMs cannot break rules (only bend them) because the world works in the way the DM decides it works. It may be useful to treat every rule (and ruling) as ending with “at DM discretion.”

The details

This is a powerful tool and bears no small amount of responsibility to use well.

• A good DM attempts to be consistent in how the world works to facilitate a good player experience; DMs lean on Rule Zero at the peril of the campaign. DM fiat makes for a poor player experience when use overtly and/or frequently (see Rule -1).
• Generally speaking, fiat rulings will be applied "in the heat of the moment" (during a session) and a more collaborative ruling can be worked out at a later point. This should allow for a more-or-less satisfactory outcome for all concerned.

In the case of something being unclear, players can make a case to the DM that:

• [Explanation] is how something has worked previously
• [Specific rules document(s)] stipulate that something works a particular way (see RAW).
• [Explanation] is how something should work (see RAI)

In my game, I tend to consider the principles above in descending order of strength, but there are other considerations:

• Avoid undue adverse impact to player character abilities. Most rules will apply to player characters far more times than they will any given monster or NPC.
• Relative power should be peer-ish among party members.
• Try to avoid introducing extra complexity.
• Try to avoid making changes that involve a lot of rework. This has costs depending on the player exposure to the element in question:
  • Changing an element the players have seen means their experience accumulates inconsistency, possibly even to the point of something needing to be retconned.
  • Changing an element the players haven't seen may require significant DM effort to accommodate in the story of the world/campaign.

With that in mind...

The usual lifecycle of a ruling:

1. Something unclear comes up.
2. If it's during session, a few moments are spent locating the relevant rule(s). If those are clear, no ruling is necessary.
3. If the existing rules are murky, the players and DM usually put forth something ad hoc to allow play to continue. The DM is the final arbiter here but this shouldn't feel unfair when it's done correctly; the goal is to be able to move past the hangup in the session, not determine the perfect ruling.
4. Once the session is over (or if the unclear thing is outside session), the DM researches the relevant rules. This often involves discussing findings with affected players and/or the more rules-minded players. Rulings are open to discussion by players, particularly around mechanics, but story rulings are not off-limits.
5. Once a fairly clear (and ideally, uncontroversial) ruling is arrived at, it gets denoted in the session notes and the Rulings article as the decision going forward.
6. Rulings made can be revisited later for adjustment or revision.