There are several games on the market with a design intent of preventing bad game mastering.

These games have a rule or mechanism that can be applied to almost any situation.

The system can be rules heavy and provide a rule for nearly all the situations one can imagine. It can be rules-light with a simple unified mechanic that the game masters is expected to apply to any situation.

This is supposed to help the game master. The game master has a rule or mechanism to fall back on so they don’t have to invent a solution in the moment.

This is supposed to give players complete control over their characters. The players are able to know how their choices will turn out before they tell the game master what they want to do.

This is approach is supposed to reduce or eliminate the possibility of bad game mastering.

There’s a whole bunch of assumptions packed into that.

• Players will take the time to learn the rules
• The game designer has written the rules in a way that is unambigious
• The players will interpret the rules the same way the game master does
• The game will be played exactly how the designers intend
• The designers tested all the edge cases and the mechanics always work
• The game master’s setting will fit the game exactly as designed

Games built on those assumptions produce a kind of game I don’t like playing.

Apparently, for the fans of these sorts of games, it works just fine. If that’s you, that’s great. Game on.

There is a fundamental problem which a comprehensive rule set does not fix.

If your game master is a jerk, the experience at the table is going to be bad.

Game rules can’t fix jerks.

The best game designer could construct the best ever rule set and a jerk can ruin it.

A lot of these rule systems assume that it doesn’t matter how terrible your game master is, the rule set will fix or prevent a bad game master from ruining the experience.

That’s not true. It’s never been true. It will never be true.

It is like the rules your boss posts because someone is a jerk. The rule is supposed to prevent the jerk from taking advantage but the jerk always finds a thing to exploit.

Like the rules at your job, a rule in a game that is supposed to prevent a jerk from being a jerk limits choices of game masters who are not jerks. They must do what the designers have decided is correct and proper.

Rules intended to prevent jerks from ruining the game, ruin the game

The biggest problem I have with rule systems intended to prevent jerk game masters from ruining the game is that they limit the players to the solutions the game designers offer.

Any creative solution they come up with on their own is discouraged.

The game designer intends for you to use their generic solutions to your particular situation. The longer you play the game, the more the player is trained to use those solutions.

When the situation is an edge case or a grey area (there are always edge cases and grey areas in RPGs); what does the player to do?

They panic. They freeze.

They look for a rule, a mechanic, a die roll and there isn’t one that fits.

Instead of imagining what is happening to their characters in a fictional situation and coming up with a creative solution; they scour the details of their character sheet or dig through the book for an obscure rule.

The game screeches to a halt. Immersion is crushed.

When the game is made up of bumpers to keep the game master in the lane, the designers are saying they don’t trust the game master to make a fair ruling and neither should the players.

I’d rather play a looser game with a game master I trust to make a good call.