Rules are a Safety Tool

 

I have recently been reading Fabula Ultima (more thoughts on that in a future post), and one thing that struck me is how often the rules text emphasises to not deviate from the rules-as-written unless everybody consents. This feels like a departure from the tabletop culture of allowing the GM to override the rules whenever it suits the game, or come up with their own house rules and expect the table to accept them. However, after further deliberation, it appears to me that this can be because the rules are a safety tool.

Many people with more experience and knowledge and me have written about safety tools, so I will not go into deep detail here (see e.g. the TTRPG Safety Toolkit), but one thing that seems generally true is that they only really work when everybody engages with them in good faith. They will not stop a problem player, who can easily ignore them, abuse them, or just generally cause an uncomfortable situation. What they are good for, is preventing those who want to engage in good faith from unwittingly causing an uncomfortable situation. Similarly to the regular rules text, they rely on everybody accepting and following them, in turn, they help ensure that no unexpected uncomfortable situations occur in the game.

They key term here is unexpected. Games can easily have uncomfortable feelings as part of their conceit (see e.g. Bluebeard's Bride or various horror games), but as long as all players consent to feeling uncomfortable in these specific ways, this is fine, and perhaps even desirable. I would argue that the regular rules text does the same thing as the safety tools in this respect.

For many people who play "modern trad" style game, a significant part of the appeal lies in creating a character (an "OC" if you will) and playing through a semi-planned character arc. It becomes self-expression through shared storytelling. People may be very emotionally attached to their character, and so may be affected by whatever happens to them. This makes it crucial that you can have general expectations for how the world will behave, so you have no unfortuntate surprises, or at least none that seem unfair. If the rules text is comprehensive, and are followed as written, it means the outcomes of actions can be predicted within some parameters.

By all agreeing on a set of rules, whether that be the rules-as-written, or with some mutually agreed upon house rules, we consent to their consequences, however the dice may fall, we may still feel uncomfortable if we roll badly, but only in the ways that we have agreed are acceptable for the game. This is not necessarily true if e.g. the GM throws out some new homebrewed trap, which may come with unexpected consequences. It may be feel unfair and be uncomfortable for a player who has based their expectations on the rules text.

This places a higher burden of care on groups that play more rules-light systems, which are more likely to result in situations that require bespoke rulings rather than than pre-written rules text. This is not necessarily bad: for some groups, a quick informal chat might also work just as well as e.g. formalised lines and veils. It just depends on how well expectations are set, and how well the group deals with the unexpected and adapting as necessary.

I don't know that I have any particularly strong conclusion to this, other than the most important thing is to make sure all players (including the GM) are on the same page regarding what to expect from the game. The best way to ensure this is probably a session 0, and as always, open communication.