Captain Anorak's Guide to Gaming
Risk versus Fudging
Fixed rules or the GM's judgement?
I like combat games. At heart I'm a wargamer, though I enjoy pure roleplaying for its own sake as well. In the fighting part of the RPGs I play, I want a combat simulation with a feeling of defined risk. This means that I decide what to do and then I 'let the dice fall where they may': I could try cautious tactics and take little risk for little gain, or I could try a risky manoeuvre that might win me a big advantage or might go terribly wrong. I might make a big sacrifice for a quick victory now, at the risk of exhausting myself of something I need in the future: for instance, a magic-using character might use a powerful spell early on to destroy an enemy, risking being too drained later to be of use when needed.

This feeling of defined risk is only really possible by sticking to written rules. If the GM simply decides the outcome of actions using his own arbitrary judgement, then the players are at his mercy: if he wants them to succeed then he lets them succeed, and if he wants them to fail then he makes them fail. Taking risks that feel real is no longer part of the game, and this destroys much of the excitement for me.

This feeling of definition goes beyond the battlefield. If I go into the woods, what are the chances of being attacked by wolves or bandits? If the game has set rules for this (eg. random encounter tables) then I know that if I get attacked, that is a risk I've chosen to run. If the GM just decides whether I get attacked, then it's just his whim whether he decides to beast me or not.

Equally, if I want to buy weapons, having the price and the chance of availability fixed by the rulebook makes it feel real. If I want to outfit an expedition to go to some ruins in a distant jungle, then the items I'll need to take, the amount that mules can carry, the food requirments of man and beast, the dangers of exhaustion in heavy armour, and the risk of disease are all risks I may run: I want these to be defined, not just the whim of the GM who might let me succeed or not depending on how he feels.

GOING BEYOND THE RULES

There are many tabletop wargames which have no GM, where units can only do the actions listed in the rules. If the rules say that a unit can only cross a river where there is a bridge or ford, then that is the end of it. They may not attempt to cross the river elsewhere, because there are no rules for it in the game.

Roleplaying games let us go beyond this and try any action we can think of. An RPG might have no rules for swimming, but a player could try to swim the river anyway. The GM would then have to invent rules on the spur of the moment: he might say that a player has to make a successful Agility roll to swim the river, with a -1% penalty per kilogram of equipment carried or worn.

THE BALANCE

Losing either these elements, the feeling of defined risk and the ability to try any action, would take away part of the fun from roleplaying. So a balance must be found between sticking to the rules and the GM's power to improvise.

NON-STANDARD SITUATIONS

Game rules are much simpler than the reality they represent, and will not be able to cover every possible situation. Often the rules for something will not cover every way something can be done. For instance, rules for combat might not cover situations like attacking from behind, surprising an opponent, or fighting multiple opponents.

In a game where the combat rules fail to cover surprise or rear attacks, suppose a player character has sneaked up on an unsuspecting guard from behind and wants to attack him. If the GM is sticking slavishly to the rules, then the player has to make an attack at no bonus. The player might reasonably object that he should get bonuses for rear attack and surprise. To avoid a blatantly unrealistic portrayal of events, the GM must modify the rules to allow for this non-standard situation.

It might equally work the other way: a player might see a loophole he can exploit in the written rules that lets his character gain some unrealistic advantage, and then the GM might rule that this is not allowed.

I want the GM to have the power to make these changes, because blatantly unrealistic rules annoy the fuck out of me. On the other hand, if the GM can set aside the rules as he likes, there is a danger of losing the feeling of defined risk, and the GM just deciding who wins and who loses.

Gaming with a GM who makes sound and fair judgements will reduce the problems, but that can't always be guaranteed.

AVOIDING THESE PROBLEMS: WELL-WRITTEN GAMES

A well-written game will reduce the need for the GM to make arbitrary changes. Basically this means that a game should have rules for likely situation that can be foressen in writing. It may seem obvious that anyone writing a combat-oriented game would predict that one day someone may make a rear attack and include rules for attacking from behind, but I know at least one combat-heavy game (Dragon Warriors) which has no rules for this. The same game leaves many points unclear in the rules, so the GM will just have to make something up: can a Sorceror cast a spell if he's being attacked? Does a durational spell expire if its caster falls unconscious? It's easy to foresee many such situations, and more must come up in playtesting, so writers who fail to cover them are simply incompetent. Putting the rules in an obvious place so that they can be looked up is another thing that's obviously useful but which often doesn't happen.

If the rules system is transparent this will help the GM to make better judgements as well.

Many games allow the same task with diferent difficulty levels: the GM either chooses a target number to roll against, or chooses a modifier to a skill. If the rulebook sets out how to choose difficulty levels, then there is more feeling of defined risk and less feeling of the GM's whim. Each skill description should give example difficulties or define a system for calculating difficulties. The following might set difficulty levels for climbing skill:

45 degree slope: basic difficulty 5
70 degree slope: basic difficulty 7
Sheer face: basic difficulty 9
Inverse 10 degree slope: basic difficulty 11
Inverse 20 degree slope: basic difficulty 13

Completely solid dry rock with plenty of handholds: +0
Few handholds in surface: +2
No handholds in surface (completely smooth): +5
Surface partly loose (packed earth, rock with some loose parts): +2
Surface very loose (small stones, loose earth): +4
Surface fairly wet: +2
Surface soaking: +5

It would be hard work to write this kind of scheme for every skill in a game, but that is part of doing the job properly. With rules fully written like this there is less need for the GM to make things up.

Describing the consequences of failure is important too. Does failing a Climb roll mean that the character falls, or does it mean that he can't climb up but he manages to climb back down safely?