It occurs to me again that there are styles of playing #ttrpgs that cannot happen if your group does not have trust in their GMs, both to be: A) competent with their rulings, & B) playing in good-faith.
Lacking in both types of trust leads some to want-
/1

a “rules-heavy” system to compensate, & I think this the wrong solution for the problem, & 1 which leads to dissatisfaction.
In each session, GMs may be called on to make dozens of rulings per hour. If groups trust their GMs to be both competent &-
/2

properly motivated (good-faith GMing-- not out to “screw the players”) the players can trust the GMs’ calls when they just shoot from the hip. But when groups lack this trust in either aspect (competence or character) of their GM they may feel that-
/3

they need more & non-negotiable rules for all GM-calls for guidance &/or for their own protection. The first concern does seem useful, especially for brand new GMs. But I think this should be all in the service of *training* GMs in the craft of the job, not creating a-
/4

straight-jacket where, “Page 91 says ‘bla bla bla’, & so you have to do…” GMing is a craft, an art. But no great artist lives by “paint-by-numbers”. As Picasso (may have) said: “Learn the rules like a pro, so you can break them like an artist.” A great GM does exactly this.
/5

But with regards to the latter problem (GMs playing in ‘bad-faith’), & the player reaction of: “Let’s have more & more rules so that we are protected,” this would ever work out, long-term.
If there is (some level of) maliciousness with some GMs,-
/6

there are no game rules to keep them from screwing the players somehow. The entire thing is a losing enterprise. Common sense screams at us: “If you don’t trust someone’s character, don’t hang out with them, & certainly don’t engage in meaningful activities with them!”
/7

All of this is not to say there aren't other motivations for heavy rules which may be more justified. But for the Competence/Character issues, "more rules" is not the answer.
/END