IF YOU’RE LOOKING for a place where misadventure could begin, you can’t go past Mbargo. The nightclub’s streetfront is painted a purple so bright you’ll see it in your dreams. Strings of giant sequins shimmer in the breeze. Its phonically inventive name is spelt in silver letters that climb its three-storey terrace facade. Inside are strips of burning neon, a few booths, floorboards so marinated in drink that they have an ingredients list. Bristol is a student city on England’s south coast crowded with music and nightlife and street art. This is Banksy’s home town, and the tourism board suggests in rather strong terms that ‘you would be a fool not to see his amazing work firsthand’. The same organisation describes Mbargo as ‘intimate’, which is fair for a place where you can catch an STI standing up. Students cram into its modest dimensions while people with names like DJ Klaud battle for billing with £1.50 drink deals over seven sloppy nights a week. To get a sense of the story about to come, consider that it’s the kind of place open until two o’clock on a Monday morning, and that at two o’clock on a Monday morning, Ben Stokes still thought it had closed too early.
The Ashes of 2017–18 had disciplinary bookends. It was after that series that Australia’s two leaders went off the rails in South Africa. It was a few weeks before that Ashes tour that England’s biggest star windmilled his way into his own disaster.
In the early hours of 25 September 2017, Stokes and teammate Alex Hales were barred from re-entering Mbargo after a night out on the piss. A Sunday thrashing of an abject West Indies in an ignored series at the fag-end of the season apparently required ample celebration. After arguing with the bouncer and hanging about at the door for a while, they wandered off to find a casino in the hope of more drinking. They’d barely made it around the corner before getting in the middle of a conflict between four locals. As is said on the internet, it escalated quickly.
The 26 September reporting was bloodless. Withholding names, police stated that a man ‘was arrested on suspicion of causing actual bodily harm’ while another went to hospital with facial injuries. England’s director of cricket Andrew Strauss separately confirmed that Stokes was the arrestee, adding that he had been released without charge and that Hales had gamely offered to ‘help police with their enquiries’. Administrators had a good chance of hiding behind that investigation, and the next day Stokes was named in the upcoming Ashes squad as expected. But that night the video emerged.
Bristol student Max Wilson had shot it on his phone, then offered it to The Sun. What he thought was playing hardball was actually lowball: his opening price of £3000 was snapped up by a tabloid that would have paid ten times that. The Sun went on to make a mint by syndicating the rights worldwide. From a window above the fray, the vision showed six men on the street below performing the muddled choreography of a melee. One was right at the centre of it. One was waving a bottle, one dipped in and out, one tried to calm it. Two others floated around the edges. The central figure was unmistakable: red hair burning even in the streetlight as he launched into a series of blows against two of the men, falling to grapple with them on the ground, then following both across the street, swinging punches the whole way. Hales trailed behind, repeatedly and impotently shouting ‘Stokes! Stop! Stokes! Enough!’ The ECB could fudge issues that existed only in thickets of legalese, but not those captured in moving colour. Stokes was stood down from the next West Indies match, then suspended indefinitely. It emerged that he had broken his hand during the fight, something he’d done twice before while punching objects in dressing rooms.
The response in Australia was fierce: Stokes was a thug, a lowlife, a selection that would disgrace England. It was not entirely coincidental that a ban for England’s best player would be handy for the Aussie team, but there was also a cultural split. In England, plenty of people still minimise pub fights as lads letting off steam. In Australia, heavy media coverage as a succession of young men were killed had inverted that tolerance. The discourse now saw any punch as potentially deadly and accordingly reckless. This was more poignant in a cricket context given that David Hookes, the dashing Test batsman and state coach, was killed in 2004 by a pub bouncer’s fist.
The PR situation was bad for Stokes as details emerged of the injuries to the men he’d hit, and that one was a young war veteran and father. Stokes wasn’t officially removed from the Ashes squad through October but stayed behind when his teammates left, hoping for police to dismiss the matter in time for a late dash to Australia. His annual contract was renewed on the due date in case that came to pass. Then 29 October brought a twist in the tale.
‘Ben Stokes praised by gay couple after defending them from homophobic thugs,’ ran the headline. Kai Barry and Billy O’Connell had emerged. Not entirely out of nowhere: while Stokes had made no public comment, this story in his defence had initially been leaked to TV host Piers Morgan after the fight, as soon as the video appeared. Police body-camera footage played in court would later show that Stokes had given the same story to the arresting officer on the night. But no-one knew the identities of the fifth and sixth men in the video, and police appeals had turned up nothing.
It was The Sun again with the breakthrough. Kai and Billy were perfect for a readership not keen on nuance. ‘We couldn’t believe it when we found out they were famous cricketers. I just thought Ben and Alex were quite hot, fit guys,’ said Kai, who was memorably described as a ‘former House of Fraser sales assistant’. The paper had the pair do a full photo shoot: layering the fake tan, showing off chest waxes, mixing Ralph Lauren and Louis Vuitton into a range of outfits. Their best shot had them standing back to back, heads turned to the camera, in a mirror-image Zoolander moment.
Suddenly The Sun was the England team’s best friend. ‘Their claims could lead to the all-rounder being cleared over the punch-up and freed to play in the First Test in Australia next month,’ it gushed, then gave a tasting platter of quotes: ‘We were so grateful to Ben for stepping in to help. He was a real hero.’ ‘If Ben hadn’t intervened it could have been a lot worse for us.’ ‘We could’ve been in real trouble. Ben was a real gentleman.’ Would it be known forever as Kai and Billy’s Ashes? No. While the Bristol boys provided spin for Stokes’ reputation they didn’t influence the police. With charges still pending there was little choice – not given Strauss had previously sacked Kevin Pietersen for being annoying. Stokes remained suspended through the Ashes and a one-day series in Australia, and lost the vice-captaincy. It was January 2018 before the Crown Prosecution Service laid a charge.
That charge surprisingly came in as affray, a crime that can carry prison time but is classified as ‘a breach of the peace as a result of disorderly conduct’. The men he had punched, Ryan Ali and Ryan Hale, faced the same count, charged as equal participants in a fight rather than Stokes being charged with assaulting them. Alex Hales was not charged, despite being seen in the video to aim several kicks when Ryan Ali was lying on the ground. Given the underwhelming standing of the offence, Stokes was cleared by the ECB to tour New Zealand, and kept playing until his trial in August 2018, which he missed a Test to attend. None of the three defendants would be convicted.
The reasoning behind the charges was never released and was attributed vaguely to ‘CPS lawyers’. The service gave the case to Alison Morgan, a prosecutor of a class known as Treasury Counsel who usually handle serious criminal matters. Morgan had a scheduling clash and never ended up court for the case, but in 2018 and 2019 she would go on to win damages and admissions of libel from The Daily Mail, The Times and The Daily Telegraph variously for incorrectly reporting that she had been responsible for the inadequate and inconsistent charging decisions.
Morgan’s successor on the case was Nicholas Corsellis QC, who on the first day of trial was permitted by the CPS to request two assault charges be added against Stokes. ‘Upon further review,’ claimed a CPS statement, ‘we considered that additional assault charges would also be appropriate.’ This was patent nonsense from the service that eight months earlier had chosen the lesser charge. Any lawyer knows that no judge will allow new charges once a trial has begun, because the defence hasn’t had time to prepare. But such a request could deflect criticism of the prosecution service by technically making the judge the one who disallows the charge.
Working through the story from the trial and the tape is complicated. You had a Ryan and a Ryan, a Hale and a Hales, a Billy and a Barry and a Ben. You had several versions of events as to who knew whom, who was drinking with whom, who had insulted whom and who had merely engaged in ‘banter’, a word that in modern Britain has to do an unconscionable amount of lifting. The reporting had constantly mixed up the Ryans as to who had which injury, who was in hospital, who had played which part in the fight, and whose mum had which stern words to say about it.
Let’s agree that from now Ryan Ali is Ryan One, the firefighter who ended up with a fractured eye socket and a cracked tooth. Ryan Two can be Ryan Hale, the soldier who scored concussion and facial lacerations. Mr Barry and Mr O’Connell are best known per The Sun as Kai and Billy. In scorecard parlance we’ll leave the cricketers as Stokes and Hales.
Amid the confusion, Stokes and his lawyers built his case in a straightforward way. The UK legal definition of affray is ‘if a person threatens or uses unlawful violence or force towards another person, which causes another person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for their safety’. That means it doesn’t account for violence that harms a target, but violence that might frighten a theoretical bystander. The wiggle room for Stokes was with ‘unlawful’, because the charge excuses violence in defending oneself or others.
This interpretation hinged on the beginning of the video, where Ryan One waves a beer bottle about and takes a swing at Kai. The version from Stokes was that he was minding his own business walking down the street when he heard homophobic abuse. He intervened verbally and was threatened verbally by Ryan One – something that Ryan One denied but that couldn’t be proved or disproved. In fear for his safety Stokes had to nullify that threat by bashing Ryan One before it went the other way. He registered Ryan Two in his peripheral vision as another possible threat, and again had only one recourse.
Stokes also had to convince the jury to disregard testimony from Mbargo’s bouncer that he had been looking for a fight. A solid lump of a man, Andrew Cunningham had not enjoyed his patron’s attempts to get back into the club after the bouncer declined an offer of a bribe. ‘He got a bit verbally abusive towards myself. He mentioned my gold teeth and he said I looked like a cunt and I replied, “Thank you very much.” He just looked at me and told me my tattoos were shit and to look at my job.’ Cunningham described these words as coming in ‘a spiteful tone, quite an angry tone’, and said that Stokes still seemed angry as he walked away.
These were details the doorman had nothing to gain by inventing, but each of them Stokes denied. By his own accounting he had drunk a beer at the game and three pints at his hotel, then ‘potentially had some Jägerbombs’ along with half a dozen vodkas at the club. He insisted that after all of this he was not drunk.
If I may take a moment here to call upon the wisdom of experience – a person who cannot definitively say whether they have had any Jägerbombs has definitely had some Jägerbombs. A Jägerbomb is an experience that does not pass one by. Further to that, a person who says they have ‘potentially’ done something has definitely done that thing and doesn’t want to admit it. A person who has had between 15 and 24 standard drinks in one evening is shitfaced. A person who tries to bribe a bouncer £300 – three hundred quid! – to get into Mbargo – Mbargo! – is beyond shitfaced.
If Stokes admitted that he was drunk then the prosecution could say he was out of control. He claimed clear recall of assessing a threat, feeling fear and deciding to protect himself with force. He confidently denied details from the bouncer’s testimony, like using the word ‘cunt’ or mentioning gold teeth. Yet on other details he claimed a ‘significant memory blackout’. He didn’t remember the punch that saw Ryan One taken away by ambulance. He didn’t remember what the Ryans had said to Kai and Billy, only that those words were homophobic. With no head injury, as one of the few people who hadn’t been hit, he had supposedly suffered this memory loss despite being sober.
The version from Kai and Billy was compatible but vague: they had been walking along, they ‘heard … shouts’ of abuse from an unspecified source, then Stokes ‘stepped in’ and thus they avoided possible harm. They claimed to have been bought a drink by Stokes at Mbargo, although CCTV showed them meeting outside. The overall implication from both accounts was that the cricketers had been pals with Kai and Billy, while the Ryans as per The Sun’s headline were a roving band of thugs.
The reality though is that the Ryans were the ones hanging out with Kai and Billy at Mbargo. Police discussed CCTV from inside the club in questioning and at trial. On that footage the four Bristolians bought drinks for one another, danced together, and Kai was noted to have variously touched Ryan Two’s crotch and Ryan One’s buttock. Ryan One told police that all of this was taken lightheartedly and wasn’t a problem. Indeed, when the Ryans called it a night the other two left with them.
This much is clear from footage out the front of Mbargo, which shows Kai and Billy exit the club and start talking with a subdued Hales and a demonstrative Stokes, who are stuck outside. The vision was played in court to determine whether Stokes was antagonistic towards Kai and Billy, as he appears to impersonate them and to throw a lit cigarette their way. More interesting is that after a few minutes the Ryans emerge, and all six actors in the fight video briefly form a prequel in the one frame.
Ryan Two pats Billy on the chest in friendly fashion with his right hand before clapping him on the back with his left. He moves past and does the same to Kai before leaving the shot. Ryan One stops to speak to Kai. They lean in for a moment, talking, then Kai turns and they walk out of frame together. Billy hangs around for a few seconds at the door and then looks after them and races to catch up. Stokes and Hales remain outside the club to remonstrate further with the bouncers. Whatever discord develops around the corner is between four men who left amicably together minutes earlier.
There’s no way to know what caused that friction. If Ryan One did use homophobic slurs, he might have been drunkenly obnoxious for no reason. He might have had an insecure macho response to some extra flirtation. He might have thought unkindness was funny – ‘banter’ once again. Or he might have said something that was misunderstood, as both Ryans insisted in court that they had not used nor had the impulse to use any abusive language.
What clearly didn’t happen was an attack by bigots on random passers-by. This kind of crime is regular enough that an audience understands the horror of it, and this is what was evoked by the public accounts of Stokes, Billy and Kai. All we know is that there was some verbal dispute among the Bristol locals, and that Stokes came along behind them and put himself in the middle of it. Ryan One responded to the interference aggressively and away they went. There are plenty of reasons to look sideways at the idea that Stokes was a saviour. Foremost, neither Kai nor Billy was called upon as witnesses in court. You’d think it would be ideal to have Stokes’ story backed up by those who benefited from his selflessness. But his defence team had developed the impression that the pair had shown a changeable recall of events amid a hard-partying lifestyle, and would be dismantled by the prosecution on the stand.
That raises the question of whether The Sun coached their quotes for the 2017 interview. Despite missing court, Kai and Billy clearly enjoyed the attention. In 2018 after the trial they did a follow-up spread in the same paper about how poor Ben had been mistreated. They got a television spot on Good Morning Britain and glowed about his heroism. In 2019 The Sun wheeled them out once more to say that Stokes should get a knighthood. In 2017 they had ‘never watched cricket’ but by 2019 were supposedly volunteering sentences like, ‘He saved us, now he’s saved the Ashes.’ Whether they were paid for these appearances is not known, but the chance to be famous for a day can be lure enough.
If you find this cynical, consider that on the night in question, the Bristol boys were so deeply moved and thankful for Ben’s intervention that they left him to be arrested and never attempted to find out who he was. Seconds after the video ended, an off-duty policeman reached the scene. You might think that someone grateful to a saviour would speak on his behalf. Instead, said Kai, ‘it all got a bit scary so we walked off. It was too much for me and we went to Quigley’s takeaway for chicken burgers and cheesy chips.’ They didn’t give their hero a thought for over a month while police issued multiple appeals for witnesses.
As for Stokes, he told his arresting officer that ‘his friends’ had been attacked. After three minutes of chat outside a nightclub, these friends were so dear to him that he has never contacted them again: not after the newspaper piece, not after the verdict. He didn’t want to see how they were or thank them for their support. He didn’t mention them by name in his solicitor’s statement after the trial.
The Stokes defence rested on Ryan One’s bottle, which he had carried out of Mbargo to finish a beer, not to use in a Sharks versus Jets amateur production. But once he turned it over to hold it by the neck it became a weapon. Intent and interpretation can change the material nature of things. Part of Stokes’ justification in court was that the bottle implied that the two Ryans might have ‘other weapons’ hidden away. You can understand how a jury could decide that created doubt.
Not being convicted, though, doesn’t give the contents of the video a big green tick. It does not, as his lawyer claimed, vindicate Stokes. Looking in detail, Ryan One is belligerent but his movements telegraph a bluff. Hales is the person he’s gesturing at, but they’re several metres apart when Ryan One cocks his arm ostentatiously, showing off the bottle rather than bracing to swing. He skips forward but Hales skips back and Ryan One doesn’t follow. Kai stretches out an arm to impede Ryan One, who has a drunken stumble, nearly eats pavement, then staggers towards Kai and hits him in the back. That hand is still holding the bottle, but his strike is a side-arm cuff on a soft part of the body. It’s all pretty tame.
This is where Stokes gets involved. Having moved across to protect Hales, he now takes three large steps to run around Kai and booms his first punch at Ryan One. They fall to the ground and the bottle clinks away. Stokes gets to his feet to punch down at the fallen man, while Hales arrives to kick him ineffectively then runs off across the street for some unknown reason. Ice-cream van? Stokes is soon back in the grapple having his shirt pulled up to show off his Durham tan. Ryan Two steps in for the first time to pull Stokes away, prompting a couple more random punches at this new target, then Stokes trips backwards over Ryan One and sprawls in the street. Hales chooses this moment to return and aim some solid kicks at the head of the man on the ground. Nothing so far is a triumph of moral philosophy or the pugilistic arts. But if it all stopped here, perhaps you could say it was somewhere approaching fair. Ryan One has behaved like a turnip and it’s not an entirely unjust world that would give him a whack across the chops. The antagonists have disentangled, Stokes has some distance, it’s time to dust off and go home. Ryan Two steps forward for this purpose with his palm raised in conciliatory style and says, ‘Settle down, stop.’
So Stokes punches him.
It’s roughly his fifth punch overall, and he really winds up into this one. He misses so hard that he stumbles away into the shadows of the shop awnings along the road.
Hales starts shouting for him to stop. Ryan Two backs into the street, still holding his palm up. Stokes closes on him from about five metres away, six large steps, to where Ryan Two is standing on his own. Stokes pushes him a couple of times, as Ryan Two keeps trying to placate him and saying ‘Stop.’ Stokes throws his sixth punch, largely missing as his target ducks.
Ryan Two keeps pulling away and reversing, into the middle of the street now. Stokes follows him, grabbing his sleeve to drag him back. By this point Ryan One has found his feet and walked around behind his friend. Both of them are in the same line of sight for Stokes, and both are backing away. Stokes aims his seventh and his eighth punches, which Ryan Two tries to deflect, as Hales walks up behind Stokes to grab him.
Stokes yanks away from his friend and switches to Ryan One instead, taking seven paces to grab him before throwing his ninth punch of the night. He grabs again; Ryan One blocks that arm and pushes himself back away from Stokes. Ryan Two again intercedes, putting himself between the two with his palms up and his arm extended.
Stokes throws his tenth punch, a right-hander at the face of Ryan Two, then shoves him backwards. Ryan Two backs away once more, four paces. Stokes follows, steadies, lines up, then launches his strongest punch yet, his eleventh, a proper right hook from a solid base, one that cracks across the man’s head and gives him concussion. Ryan Two ends up flat on his back in the middle of the street, his hands still outstretched for a moment in useless protest until they twitch and drop to the blacktop.
Stokes isn’t done. He once more shoves away the restraining Hales and follows Ryan One, who keeps backing away saying, ‘Alright, alright, alright.’ Five more paces from Stokes before another blow at the man’s head. Kai and Billy are now standing over the poleaxed Ryan Two. The video ends, but seconds later Stokes will punch Ryan One hard enough to knock him out too, before off-duty cop Andrew Spure arrives on the scene to bring down the curtain. When the body-camera footage kicks in some minutes later, Stokes is in handcuffs but Ryan One is still laid out in the street. Ryan Two has regained consciousness, folded his shirt under his friend’s head and is asking police for an ambulance.
‘At this point, I felt vulnerable and frightened. I was concerned for myself and others.’ This was how Stokes described that sequence to the court. An elite athlete with years of gym work and training to snap a bat through the line of a ball with astounding power and precision, swinging fists as hard as he can at men with none of those advantages. Punching so hard that he breaks his hand, and repeatedly shoving away a friend so he can punch some more. Frightened and threatened by two targets shouting ‘Get back!’ and ‘Stop!’
The off-duty officer testified that Stokes ‘seemed to be the main aggressor or was progressing forward trying to get to’ Ryan One, who was ‘trying to back away or get away from the situation’. The student who filmed the video can be heard on the tape at one stage exclaiming ‘Fuck!’ and testified that it was because ‘I felt a little bit sorry about the lad that had been punched and it looked like he had his hands up’. That tallied with the prosecutor’s depiction of ‘a sustained episode of significant violence that left onlookers shocked at what was taking place’.
The defendant stuck to his strategy. ‘No, my sole focus was to protect myself.’ All up, in the 33 seconds of footage after he falls over, Stokes takes 35 steps forward to keep hitting two men who keep trying to get away. Not once is he hit back.
After the verdict, Stokes’ solicitor positioned him as the victim. It had been ‘an eleven-month ordeal for Ben … The jury’s decision fairly reflects the truth of what happened that night … He was minding his own business … It was only when others came under threat that Ben became physically engaged. The steps that he took were solely aimed at ensuring the safety of himself and the others present …’ The statement was impossibly self-righteous and self-absorbed.
If there was anyone to feel sorry for it was Ryan Hale, the second of our two Ryans. He’s the one who emerged from the club with a friendly arm around the shoulder for Kai and Billy. He’s the one who interposed himself to end the fight, then kept putting himself back in the firing line, trying to calm an intimidating stranger while dodging blows. For his show of restraint he got laid out regardless, concussed in the street, then was issued a criminal charge equal to that of the man who hit him, and described in national media as a violent bigot in an untested story to support that man’s defence.
Lawyers for Ryan Two made a more convincing post-trial statement, noting that Kai and Billy, ‘neither of whom were relied upon by the prosecution or the defence team for Mr Stokes, have taken the opportunity to speak with various media outlets about the alleged homophobic abuse that they received in the early hours of September 25. Mr Hale has passionately denied this allegation throughout the course of this case,’ it continued.
‘It is upsetting to Mr Hale that although he was acquitted, the accusation that he was the author of such abuse remains. Both Mr Hale and Mr Ali were knocked unconscious by Mr Stokes, and although Mr Stokes has been acquitted of an affray, Mr Hale struggles with the reasons why the Crown Prosecution Service did not treat him as a victim of an unlawful assault.’Good question. Avon and Somerset police were the investigating force, and they were frustrated by the decision. Ryan Two was filmed clearly not hurting anyone, but police were instructed by the CPS to proceed with a charge. Hales (the cricketer) was filmed fighting but ‘a decision was made at a senior level of the CPS’ not to proceed. Police expected Stokes to be charged with assault but the CPS declined. It doesn’t take a wild cynic to think that placing the same lukewarm charge on three men for vastly divergent behaviour might ensure that none would be convicted, even as the trial would maintain the pretence that a defendant of influential standing had not been given a free pass.
A couple of years down the line, the original interview with Kai and Billy has disappeared. All traces have been scrubbed from The Sun website, its social media history, and even from the Wayback Machine internet archive. Given its headline of ‘homophobic thugs’ and text that names Ryan Two but not Ryan One, the libel liability isn’t hard to spot. Later interviews with Kai and Billy take the passive voice – they ‘suffered homophobic slurs outside a Bristol nightclub’.
The article that was once claimed to exonerate brave Ben Stokes now links only to a missing content page, with a picture of a dropped ice-cream cone and the phrase ‘legal removal’ inserted into the web URL. In terms of consequences, Stokes missed one tour. When he resumed his career in January 2018, the Australians hadn’t yet ruined theirs. Their year-long bans looked much more stringent. But the Stokes case dragged on in other ways. With no criminal liability, the Australians confessed promptly enough for the sporting world to give them the full length of the lash. Their situation was ugly but there was closure. Stokes got stuck in legal stasis, unable to be fully backed or condemned. Instead his issue was always present, a browser full of open tabs that the ECB swore they would read any day now.
Through 2018 Stokes was back but he wasn’t back, in the sunglasses and finger-guns sense. In his return one-day series he nearly cost England a match with 39 from 73 balls in Wellington. His first Test hit was a duck as England got rolled in Auckland for 58. At Trent Bridge while Stokes was injured, England posted a world record 481 against Australia. With Stokes three weeks later at the same ground they made 268. He crawled to 50 from 103, the second-slowest any Englishman had reached that milestone in 20 years. That span covered Alastair Cook’s whole career. It was apologetic batting, acting out responsibility via the scorecard. Stokes was creeping back into the team like he’d been kicked out in a blazing row and was hoping to tip-toe to the sofa.
It was December 2018 before the ECB disciplinary committee ruled on him and Hales. In a ‘remarkable coincidence’, wrote Simon Heffer in The Telegraph, ‘the punishment both players faced in terms of bans from playing at international level was covered by the amount of games they had already missed when dropped by England’s selectors, in the furore that followed the incident’. The verdict compounded the omissions around the case by not addressing the violence at its heart. Nor did Stokes, apologising only ‘to my team-mates, coaches and support staff’, and then ‘to England supporters and to the public for bringing the game into disrepute’.
The implicit next step was to rebuild that reputation. It might have been easier had his court defence not meant that he wasn’t game to admit any fault at all. It might have been easier if he or his advisers had been willing to change tack once the trial was done. Imagine a world where Stokes had stood outside court and apologised for overreacting, for the injuries he’d caused, and for the time and energy he had sucked out of other people’s lives. That would have been a show of responsibility beyond a scorecard. When the time came around to assess forgiveness, it might have meant forgiveness was deserved.

Hello folks,
For my research analysis and writing class my professor let me pick any topic I want. (her mistake) So for my final term paper I chose to come up with a method of determining a guide to the use of the "rule of cool." I got a A on the paper so I figured I'd share it with you fine folks as well. It is rather lengthy so I've included the abstract first. The 8 tips for dungeon masters is near the end (third session), the first and second parts deal more with the philosophical and ethics of games. So, if situational ethics and a discussion on the Mechanics, Dynamics, and Aesthetics of Play are of use for you, be my guess.
I am a relatively new DM so I spent a long time researching and trying to absorb what would make me a "good DM". With that cavate please keep in mind I know next to nothing compared to a vast majority of the DMs here. I can think of no place better to have this paper peer-reviewed, picked apart and "rebutalled" to death than here. If you feel offended, challenged, or angry reading this... Please understand I am a moron borrowing the works and words of far smarter people. If you feel that "this is the WAY" again... I am a moron... so ... with out further ado.

Abstract:

The choice to be a stringent rule-follower without leniency using fanatical legalism in a game can be a source of contention between someone acting as a referee and/or “Game Master” and players of a game. Likewise, to approach games with a sense of fanatical antinomianism, or to completely ignore the rules and simply let players do whatever they want, tends to offer no challenge, and or reason to play that specific game. Using ethical theory frameworks such as situational ethics, natural law, and utilitarianism this paper seeks find the philosophical principles of what moments are acceptable and actually beneficial to bend the rules of a game. As such, it is important to define games, briefly discuss why games are played, and roles rules have on games. The game Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition will be used as the principal example. With “rule for rules” established, seven tips on how to implement it this rule using advice and guidance from some of the most well known “Dungeon Masters” in the modern era will be provided.
Much of this paper relies on the works of Joseph Fletcher, Sheila Murphy; Benard Suits, Robin Hunicke, Marc LeBlanc, and Robert Zubek for the ethical and philosophical discussions around games. For the practical advice, it relies primarily on the works of Matthew Mercer, Brennan Lee Mulligan, Benjamin Scott, Patrick Tracy, Kelly Mclaughlin and Monty Martin.
Players are your friends, or at the very least your fellow human beings. As such, seek out what is best for them. Games are about many things but principally about enjoyment. It’s okay if the player does not get exactly what they want, so long as they still had enjoyment. How it happens is up to the players, the one running the game, and whether the rules were used to enhance the experience or not. It’s possible to find that balance by asking these questions in order: “How will this decision affect: the final enjoyment of all at the table? the narrative? the rules in the future?”

**“Once upon a time, around a table…”

A man behind a cardboard screen sits across from a woman wearing a funny hat. He is frantically reading through the pages of the various books at his disposal. He finds the reference he is looking for, but it is not clear. “It is technically against the rules, it is barely within the realm of possibility, but the idea is so creative…” the man murmurs to himself. Exasperated, the man smiles a crooked grin and explains, “Well you can certainly try… give me an acrobatics check.” The woman throws a piece of plastic resin on to the table. The dice reads, “18.” The man sighs and then laments, “fine… how do you want to do this?” The table erupts in cheers, as high-fives are given from the others around the table. The woman adjusts her hat, as she gleefully explains how her character will use the momentum of several falling barrels to move across the map in a single turn without having to use all her character’s movement.
As a “Dungeon Master” (DM) for the tabletop role playing game, Dungeons and Dragons (D&D), I can say without a doubt that many DMs have encountered extremely similar events as the one described above. The choice to be a stringent rule-follower without leniency can be a source of much resentment between the DM and the players around the table. Likewise, to completely ignore the rules and simply let players do whatever they want offers no challenge, no reason to play. In terms of D&D rule enforcement, as is with many events in life, the choice of always being either a “Harsh Disciplinarian” or the lenient, “Laissez Faire Guide” is a false dichotomy. Instead, seeking balance between the two choices based first on the overall needs of the players, second on the needs of the story, and third on requirements and rules of the game should be the norm.

Session 1: What is the Relationship between, Players, Games and Rules?

The 19th century philosopher and founder of modern cultural history, John Hughes once wrote, “Play is older than culture, for culture, however inadvertently defined, always presupposes human society and animals have not waited for man to teach them their playing.” ¹ Why do humans play? Is it instinctual? Bernard Suits was a Distinguished Emeritus Professor of Philosophy for the University of Waterloo and his essays are in part responsible for the field of philosophy of games in the late 20th century. In his book, “The Grasshopper: Games, Life and Utopia,” Suits’ book uses Aesop’s fable about the grasshopper to argue that play is what we would do in a perfect civilization. He believed that in a world devoid of work, humans would still seek out challenges through play, suggesting that it is human nature to challenge ourselves.² But is that the only reason someone plays a game?
One YouTuber opined that “In a practical sense, games facilitate systemic thinking by getting us to view abstractions, but also engender creativity by getting us to play.”³ If true, these are essential tools for humanity to function as an intelligent race. This makes sense from an evolutionary level as to why humanity would develop play, but is there more to it than “games encourage outside the box thinking?”
The landmark paper titled, “MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research” is one of the earliest attempts to formalize the field of video game design theory and it is fundamental to how modern game designers look at these systems. It serves to define the importance of mechanic, dynamics, and aesthetics of play and is instrumental to helping understand what players will expect out of a game. We will discuss more about dynamics and mechanics later, but first let us focus on aesthetics.
Aesthetics of Play Defined

Term	Definition	Examples
Sense Pleasure	Enjoyment derived from how it stimulates the senses	The visuals of a game, sound, and music, feel of the dice, etc.
Fantasy	Enjoyment derived from the ability to step into a role that cannot be experienced in real life	Playing a game as a magic wielding sorcerer or rocks in the far flung reaches of outer space
Narrative	Enjoyment derived from game as drama, it is about the stories and experience gained	Heavily story driven games such as Last of Us, Dungeons and Dragons, Final Fantasy
Challenge	Enjoyment derived from overcoming an arbitrary obstacle	Platformers like Mario, or even drinking games like beer pong, or corn hole; social games like charades, etc.
Fellowship	Enjoyment from working cooperatively as a group to accomplish a goal	Team based or social games such as Among Us, the card game Spades; save the world mode on Fortnite
Competition	Enjoyment from showing dominance	Chess or Go, Battle royal games such as Fortnite or PubG or Call of Duty; Fallguys; darts Poker; Uno, Killer bunnies or Magic the Gathering;
Discovery	Enjoyment from uncovering the new or discovering news ways to play a game.	These can range from searching to find things to choose your own adventure Minecraft; Zelda Breath of the Wild; simple matching games; the board game Betrayal at the House on the Hill; or games like Fable; Dragon Age Inquisition; or Mass effect
Expression	Enjoyment from showing an aspect of one’s self; or games that allow full customization of characters	Creation games like Minecraft; role play games like fallout 4; world of warcraft or Fortnite
Submission (aka Abnegation)	Enjoyment from being able to “turn of the brain; and tune out the world” or what is also known as zone out factor.	Bejeweled; candy crush; the lever-pull games at casinos, solitaire, etc.
	(Source: Portnow & Floyd, October 2012)5

Aesthetics are things like sense pleasure, fantasy, the narrative of the story, challenge, fellowship, discovery, expression, and something called submission.⁴ There is an additional aesthetic that most game designers also consider when designing games termed as “competition”.⁵ These are all reasons people play games and it is important to keep all these in mind when acting as a DM.
The table above works to define these terms more appropriately and makes it easier to reference later. The reasons a player may want to play a game vary and change over time. If a DM can understand their players’ goals (i.e., what the player hopes to get out of the game) the DM will be able to understand why someone might want to perform a certain action, play a game, or want to ignore a certain rule in the first place.
On that note, what are rules in games? Think about it… Games are weird… well I should say the act of playing a game… is weird. Suits once wrote in his article, for the “Philosophy of Science Association Journal,” "To play a game is to engage in activity directed towards bringing about a specific state of affairs, using only means permitted by rules, where the rules prohibit more efficient [means] in favor of less efficient means, and where such rules are accepted just because they make possible such activity."⁶ In other words, to play a game we create rules that prevent us from achieving a goal through the easiest means available. Instead, we make something more difficult and we play a game. For instance, in basketball, it would be far easier to simply carry the ball all the way to the basket instead of dribbling it.
In D&D, there is a similar activity to dribbling. It is called a “dice roll.” It is something that players must make to see if they succeed or fail at a task. The player rolls a 20-sided die and tries to get above a certain score to succeed. Players can roll normal, with advantage, or with disadvantage. Rolling with advantage allows the player to roll the D-20 (the 20-sided die) twice and use the higher number. Rolling with disadvantage also has the player roll the D-20 twice, but they must take the lower number rolled instead. It introduces a chance of randomness, and players will find any excuse they can to avoid having to make a roll with "disadvantage." In his book, The Grasshopper, Suits argues that we do this because it is the act of overcoming that limitation that we find enjoyment. By taking on these restrictions and accepting these limitations, we take on what he coins as a "lusory attitude" which allows us to play the game as it is meant to be played.
Suits would argue that by not playing the game according to the rules as written, the player would have only achieved a “quasi-victory” not really worthy of achievement. He also goes on to say that even the act of “failing to win the game by virtue of losing it implies an achievement, in the sense that the activity in question -- playing the game -- has been successfully, even though not victoriously, complete.”⁷ So, according to Suits, it’s better to follow the rules of the game and loose than to not follow the rules and win. It’s important to point out that the aesthetics of play had not yet been defined and Suits’ work mainly focused on the “challenge” aspect of play. This is where many sports and game philosophers begin to find fault with Suits. In the “Journal of Philosophy of Sport,” a rebuttal of Suits’ work by David Myers asks, “What if the goal of the player isn't to follow the rules or even play the game?”⁸ For instance, what happens if the player is motivated by competition and doesn’t care about rules so long as “they win?” While an extreme example, this paradox isn’t out of the realm of possibility. Therefore, focusing on just the challenge aesthetic of game play and simply playing the game “rules as written” can lead to a disconnect between what the player desires and the game itself.
Jesper Juul, an Associate Professor in the School of Design at the Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, wrote in his textbook on video game design, “Rules specify limitations and affordances. They prohibit players from performing actions such as making jewelry out of dice, but they also add meaning to the allowed actions, and this affords players meaningful actions that were not otherwise available; rules give games structure”⁹ Basically, without rules we cannot even have play. However, if the player ignores the rules that player won’t be able to enjoy the full experience of the game, because the rules both afford the opportunity to enjoy the game and provide the obstacles in the first place.
How the rules affect actual game play is where Mechanics and Dynamics come into play. (See, I told you we would get back to it eventually.) Mechanics are the rules and systems that govern chance to create the game we experience. Dynamics are how those rules come together to govern the strategies of that game. In D&D, an example of mechanics is how a player would have to roll a 20-sided dice to see if an action would succeed. Dynamics are the actions the player takes to manipulate the situation and give themselves advantage in the roll. Some examples of this are using a spell caster’s familiar, flanking an enemy in combat, using the bend luck trait, or lucky feat. This is akin to how the rules of poker dictate that bluffing is allowed (mechanics); but how the bluffing player conceals their tells and bets is entirely up to that player (dynamics).
What happens when the player’s desired aesthetics and the mechanics don’t allow for the dynamics the player wants to use? This is where it falls on the DM to determine if the game can handle a little rule bending. In the Dungeon Master Guide’s introduction, it states “The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren’t in charge. You’re the DM, and you are in charge of the game…” However! It goes on to say, “The success of a D&D game hinges on your ability to entertain the other players at the game table.” What is a good way to approach this? Is it THE DM IS ALWAYS RIGHT, able to enforce their will on the players whenever it suits their need? Should the DM strictly enforce the rules and narrative of their planned story without the need to appease the players’ wants and desires?... well… The DM COULD do it, but it won’t be long before their players stop showing to game sessions. Just like the rules, without players, there is no game. Or as one notable professional DM and YouTuber once put it:

“The game you weave belongs to the players as much as yourself… so make sure to humor them every once in awhile by giving them a chance to be extraordinary" - Patrick "the Goddam DM" Tracy ¹⁰

Session 2: The Ethics of a Dungeon Master

So how does someone seek a balance between the rules and the players? Enter situational ethics. Situational ethics, first proposed by philosopher and first professor of ethics at Harvard Medical School, Joseph Fletcher,** is an attempt to seek a middle ground between two ethical schools of thought: Legalism and Antinomianism. In legalism, morality must come from a strict set of rules that must be obeyed at all times and cannot be deviated from or broken for any reason. Antinomianism, on the other hand, is the idea that there should be no rules, you should be able to do what you want, whenever you want (lawless society). ¹¹
In D&D terms, "Fanatical Legalism" would be similar to what many DMs would characterize as "Lawful Stupid," where a certain player's character enforces harsh judgement without ever showing mercy to those who would break the law regardless of the circumstances… even to the detriment of the party… or that small band of orphans who were stealing food out of desperation…
Likewise, in D&D terms, "Fanatical Antinomianism" would be similar to what DMs would characterize as "Chaotic Stupid," where a player's character completely ignores consequences an action would bring and simply act according to their whims… even when it's an obvious trap… that has a 100 percent chance to damage not only your character, but the other players as well.
Fletcher's work states that the morally right thing to do depends on the situation and can change throughout the situation, but at the same time, there is a universal “moral law” on which to base our actions that he called "Agape" love. Derived from the Greek word of similar pronunciation, Fletcher sought to define Agape as a means to show love for your fellow human. In his book titled “Situational Ethics,” Fletcher states, "All laws, rules, principles, ideals and norms, are only contingent, only valid if they happen to serve love."¹² Or to put it a different way, a desire to see your fellow human be happy is and should be the goal. It is not really a feeling, but an attitude to do what is best for others.
In terms of the D&D alignment chart, this would be easiest to define as whether someone is "Good" or "Evil." Whereas a “good character” is someone who acts for the betterment of others regardless of personal motivations, conversely an “evil character” acts out of their own self-interests regardless of how this action would affect others. Those that follow the concept of Agape would be “good characters.” Those that do not, would be evil.
This is where the so-called “Rule of Cool” comes into play. Mathew Mercer, an extremely acclaimed DM, comedian, and writer of D&D’s “Explorer’s Guide to Wild Mount,” and host of the show “Critical Roll,” defines the Rule of Cool as a trope in the D&D community that is “the willing suspension of disbelief for the sake of a cool moment.”¹³ It’s used in moments where the use of an certain object or action would be nearly impossible according to the mechanics of the game, but because it is a “cool dynamic,” the DM allows it. But what is “cool?” Is it a player that is normally too nervous to speak up being able to do something unique on time despite it being against the rules? Is it a player that has spent considerable time perfecting a skill and being able to perform a truly “epic task” (such as the jumping across barrels to effectively triple their movement distance)? Is it succeeding in persuading the main villain to befriend the party through a series of increasingly complex but successful rolls?
In all these situations listed above, there is a common theme that ties all the principles of what this paper is trying to address together in a simple phrase. As a DM, before making a ruling ask, "How will this decision affect the final enjoyment of all at the table?" Now a DM cannot give the players everything they want. Doing so cheapens the truly extraordinary moments. Finding the right balance can be difficult. That is why the flow chart above is suggested when trying to figure out whether it is a good time to “Remember the Rule of Cool.”
https://i.redd.it/f362ghdjlqf61.png

Session 3: “Well… You can Certainly Try”- Some Famous DM

Finally, we can discuss how the desire to make the most enjoyable experience for everyone at the table plays out using real-world examples and advice from some of the most well-known DMs in the business. Using the concept of Situational Ethics’ Agape, we can see how to work in the rule of cool using eight tips for Dungeon Masters.
Tip 1: It is advised to know your audience.
Not everything is as it seems, so be sure to pay attention to your players and look at them when you are describing the situation. Make note of how they react when tones or themes change. Remember those reasons people play games mentioned earlier? This is where those come into play. Additionally, while not something outright suggested, it is nevertheless important to take team dynamics into account.
The book “Four lenses unfolded” describes how various personality types can interact and work to solve problems. In it, the book describes four primary temperaments: Green (analytical), Blue (empathetic), Orange (adventurous), and Gold (goal oriented). Unlike most other personality tests, four lenses theory suggests that while we have a dominant personality at any given moment, other aspects of these personalities can manifest as well. Being able to draw on these aspects at will is the mark of a “mature” individual.¹⁴ As a DM/referee, coach, or manager, being able to do this and adapt to the needs of the players will take player engagement to the next level.
Tip 2: Establishing and Managing Expectations Early and Often, Works to Prevent Disappointment and Confusions
Mercer once put it this way, “Establish early on in your campaign how much of a level of crazy you're willing to allow. This allows for players to better understand what to try for and what not to try for.”¹⁵ Whether you are a teacher, referee, coach, parent, supervisor, or mentor, establishing expectations with those involved mitigates problems before they arise.
One of the main tools DM’s have for this is that is recommended by Mercer, as well as nearly every DM in existence on the internet, is the “Session Zero.” Session Zero is a term used to describe a session where no play occurs but instead rules that will be used and rules that will be ignored or bent is established. It also serves to establish a theme the players can expect from any campaign. Using the first chapter of the DMs guide will help considerably in establishing this. Additionally, one of the best guides for this is laid out by the DM YouTubers known as “the Dungeon Dudes” in their video titled, “How to Run a Session Zero for Dungeons and Dragons 5e.”¹⁶ But always keep Agape in mind throughout this process. In this step, it means actively listening to the players. The DM may want a gritty, tough, realistic, and challenging campaign. But if the players want a high fantasy power trip, some adjustments are going to need to be made to the campaign. Listening to players and changing the plans accordingly is not easy. It requires A LOT of humility and ego suppression. Especially when the DM has already designed how the game is going to go… which leads us to the next tip.
Tip 3: It is important to develop a healthy relationship with failure.
Celebrated author Orson Wells once wrote; “If you want a happy ending, that of course, is dependent of where you stop your story.”¹⁷ This applies to both the players and DM. There will be times when the DM is tempted to ignore the rules because the consequences seem dire. The player fails an athletics check trying to use a dynamic that had a high-risk, high-reward moment. Now the player’s character is doomed to fall several hundred feet down a ravine to what is likely certain doom in lava. But this isn’t the end. That player’s character is most likely dead, but their death could result in a moment of drama and tension for the players. It’s the very real chance of failure that encourages players to think critically about a situation and experience excitement and tension. Brennon Lee Mulligan, the DM of the D&D streaming show, “Dimension 20,” put it this way… “if you are not allowing for failure, you are essentially just telling a story,” and thus never actually playing a game (make-believe as Suits would put it). ¹⁸
Another thing to consider is that through failure, we can often find comedy as well as ways to encourage players to think critically and find new escapes, ¹⁹ at least according to the mind behind the “Replaying the Curse of Strahd” videos, Benjamin (Puffin Forest) Scott. Lastly, Mercer strongly advises that if a DM allows too many “rule of cool moments” to happen in succession, the weight of the moments and consistency of the game will be lost. ²⁰
Players that are afraid to fail will not try. Mercer explains that “Most role play games are designed to forge a heroic story (showing feats of legend) so let the players try! Let them fail, and occasionally succeed!” This is where his catch phrase “you can certainly try” comes from. ²¹
Tip 4: Whenever Possible, Avoid Taking Things Personally
In his lecture on not talking things personally, soccer referee and public speaker, Frederik Imbo, explained there are two sides of a coin to keep in mind when trying not to take things personally: “It is not about you,” and “it is about you.” ²² Look at the other person’s intentions not just yours. With that in mind, it is okay to give yourself empathy and speak up. When someone seems upset with you, ask what are they hoping to get out of this releasing of emotions? Additionally, ensure that your pride isn’t preventing you from making the correct call. Yes I am talking about Ego again; it is that important! It is the DM’s world, but it is the players’ game. Without both, the world and the game, you do not have D&D.
D&D has a weird paradox of being both a story and a game. It has both a narrative as its core premise, but it is, in fact, also a multi-player game. Without at least two people you cannot really have much fun. DMs should make sure that everyone at the table enjoys themselves.
Tip 5: Mechanics are important precisely because they are a means of delivering impactful story moments.
Remember that rule of cool concept? Extraordinary moments don’t happen often, and this is by design of the mechanics of the game. Humans remember the novel and unique way more often than the mundane. Mundane things tend to blend into the background. It’s the unexpected moments that highlight the more impactful story moments, especially if that moment is tied to strong emotions.²³
With that in mind, Mulligan suggests looking at where the players are putting their resources before deciding how to rule on a situation. Have they invested experience points/levels into a specific skill that is relevant to this situation instead of just something they can use in combat? If so, reward them for wanting to do something that is a part of the world you are creating together. ²⁴
Tip 6: Discourage metagaming but allow it whenever possible.
Look for any and every excuse you can to give advantage on an arcana check by setting the DC low (10 or higher). If the player succeeds, they can use what they know… they are going to anyway, but at least then they can talk about it with the other players.
According to the DM guide Chapter 8, metagame thinking means “thinking about the game as a game,” Examples would be thinking “the DM wouldn’t throw such a powerful monster at us so early in the game, so we will surely be saved and not have to take this fight seriously,” or “the DM spent A LOT of time describing that door… maybe we should search it again!” ²⁵
The problem with metagaming isn’t really about what advantage the players are getting in the game. The problem is that manipulation of the dynamics, when used to extremes, can spoil the plot line of the cumulative story being told. This can lessen the drama and tension elements resulting in decreased enjoyment of those involved. Additionally, it can create a dynamic where the DM is constantly having to escalate encounters to challenge the player, encouraging a potentially toxic “DM vs player” mentality.
For instance, how would a street orphan barbarian with no formal education and a wisdom of …let’s say very low…be able to know that liches phylactery is the source of their power. The solution here depends on why the players are playing this specific game. Is it the narrative of the story? Is it discovery? If these aren’t anywhere close to the reasons these players came to the game table in the first place, the narrative is not going to take as much of a factor into decisions. Metagaming in this instance isn’t going to be much of a problem.
Tip 7: Keep in mind, the ending is “A” destination, but the story is about how you get there.
A DM may hold off the extra cool moments for the final parts of the game, keeping their players in complete darkness and grit the entire way. However, without at least some levity along the way, some “water for the weary travelers,” as Mercer put it, they may not make it to the end.²⁶ So, do not be afraid to relax the rules from time to time to give them those cool moments, but do so sparingly lest the destination lose its luster as well. Always keep in mind it’s about the enjoyment of crafting and playing in the world together that makes this, or really any game, fun.
Tip 8: When all else fails… take a break and have the Tarrasque attack the party.
When all else fails, roll two D-20s out of players’ views… fake a worried expression… role a D-100 (also out of player’s view) look over the score concerned as you pour through your notes… then explain sorrowfully… “I’m sorry… The Tarrasque has risen and has attacked the party. Everyone roll initiative.” This is actual advice from the DM manual. It is right under “faking illness and running away.”²⁷ The point is this: never be afraid to pause or call a game when it’s over or needed.
Maybe something incredibly uncomfortable for a player has happened. Maybe the DM has reached the end of what they were able to prepare for that session. Perhaps everyone is hungry or needs a bathroom break. Maybe the entire table has gotten to a point where no one can agree on anything and team dynamics are breaking down. That game world will always be there… but your friends won’t. Cherish that moment and make as many good moments as possible. Additionally, taking breaks both in-game and in the real world allow for quiet moments. These allow for the greater moments to shine through and the players will enjoy their experience more.
https://i.redd.it/1ncu361zlqf61.png
The graphic above serves to summarize the eight tips above and show their relationship with the narrative, enjoyment, and the rules when put in the context of situational ethics. From this graph, the relationship between the eight tips and how they play into the narrative, enjoyment, and rules of the game can be seen. Each of the tips can influence many parts of the game but they are intended to primarily influence the aspect of the game they are adjacent to. “Knowing the players” should influence the narrative and what kind of enjoyment the players receive. What mechanics are used to enable the game is causally related to how the rules are used and so on. Please note that Agape is at the center as, with every decision a DM makes, considering what is best for the players should be central to the experience of any game.
The Epic Conclusion
Through crafting a game-world together with your players, a DM has the potential to tap into one of the greatest traditions humanity has: camaraderie with friends. At the end of the day, these players are your friends, or at the very least your fellow human beings. As such, you should want what is best for them. Through trials, hardships, and drama, we get to put the punctuation on the moments of excitement, joy, happiness, and bliss. It is okay if the player does not get exactly what they want, so long as they still had enjoyment. This is because getting everything we expect is sometimes boring. However, always keep in mind that at the end of the day, games are about having fun. How that happens is up to the players, the DM, and whether the rules were used to enhance the experience or not. It’s possible to find that balance by asking these questions in order: “How will this decision affect: the final enjoyment of all at the table? the narrative? the rules in the future?”
1 Huizinga, Johan . "Homo Ludens". Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd. (1980), pp. 1., accessed January 19, 2021. http://art.yale.edu/file_columns/0000/1474/ homoludens_johan_huizinga_routledge_1949.pdf
2 Suits, Bernard, “The Grasshopper: Games, Life and Utopia,” Broadview Press. Ed. 3. (November 29, 2005): 54–55. Accessed December 31, 2020. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/803547.The_Grasshopper
3 The Game Overanalyzer, The Aesthetics of Play | Why We Play Games, and the Search for Truth and Beauty in Game Design. The Game Overanalyzer. (January 11, 2020), accessed 6 January 2021. Video 18:44. https://youtu.be/lONsZwjVDzg
4 Hunicke, Robin, Marc LeBlanc, and Robert Zubek. "MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research." Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Challenges in Game AI, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 1722. (2004). Accessed January 11, 2020 https://www.aaai.org/Papers/Workshops/2004/WS-04-04/WS04-04-001.pdf
5 Portnow, James; Floyd, Daniel; Aesthetics of Play- Redefining Genres in Gaming. Extra Credits; (October 17, 2012), Video 9:13. Accessed December 30, 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uepAJ-rqJKA&list=PL3N9QD4_yI-BlnwWUL8hhjpKgqRul3xAa&index=11
6 Suits, Bernard. “Discussion: Games and Paradox.” Chicago University Press. Philosophy of Science Association Journal, Vol 36, no. 3 (September 1, 1969). pg 316–.321. Accessed December 30, 2020. https://www.jstor.org/stable/186226
7 Suits, Bernard. “Discussion: Games and Paradox (1969)
8 Myers, David. “Game as Paradox: A Rebuttal of Suits.” Journal of the philosophy of Sport 39, no. 1 (May 1, 2012). Accessed December 30, 2020. https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy2.apus.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip&db=s3h&AN=87342252&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
9 Juul, Jesper. "Half-Real: Video Games between Real Rules and Fictional Worlds", MIT Press, (Aug 19, 2011) pp.57-59
10 Tracy, Patrick. DM Tips: The Rule of Cool. Fantasy Bango. (October 20, 2017). Accessed December 30, 2020. Video 2:23 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8aAIFalx6s
11 Fletcher, Joseph F. Situation Ethics: The New Morality. Westminster John Knox Press, (1997). Page 17-26 (accessed January 20, 2021) http://bit.ly/Googlescholar_SItuational_Ethics
**Please note that just because Fletcher’s Situational Ethics is used prominently, this is not an endorsement of all his views. Fletcher’s work has been used to justify terrible atrocities, such as eugenics, this should serve to point out that any philosophy taken to extremes can lead to terrible outcomes
12 Fletcher, Joseph F. Situation Ethics: The New Morality. (1997)
13 Mercer, Matthew. The Rule of Cool! (Game Master Tips). Geek & Sundry. (February 16, 2016). Accessed December 30, 2020. Video. 5:52 https://youtu.be/fWZDuFIYkf0
14 Bryce, Nathan K., “Four Lenses Unfolded: A Deeper Understanding of Temperament Values,” Insight; (January 29, 2002,).
15 Mercer, Matthew. The Rule of Cool! (Game Master Tips). (2016).
16 McLaughlin, Kelly; Martin, Monty. "How to Run a Session Zero for Dungeons and Dragons 5e". Dungeon Dudes. (September 3, 2020), Accessed 12 30, 2020. Video. https://youtu.be/2MA-z5Ai-bQ
17 Wells, Orson, "The Big Brass Ring." Santa Teresa Press (1987, January 1) 1-148
18 Mulligan, Brennan; Scott, Benjamin. “Animating Your Table (with Benjamin Scott) | Adventuring Academy Season 2 | Ep. 16 |” Adventuring Academy. Dimension (2020, December 28). Accessed December 30, 2020. Video 1:24:18 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IbVxEKpipo
19 Mulligan, Brennan; Scott, Benjamin. “Animating Your Table (with Benjamin Scott) (2020)
20 Mercer, Matthew. The Rule of Cool! (Game Master Tips). (2016)..
21 Mercer, Matthew. The Rule of Cool! (Game Master Tips). (2016)
22 Imbo, Frederik, "How not to take things personally? | Frederik Imbo | TEDxMechelen" TEDx Talks; (March 4, 2020) accessed 10 Jan 2021, video 17:36 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnJwH_PZXnM&t=381s
23 Kensinger, Elizabeth. Remembering the Details: Effects of Emotion. US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health. (May 4, 2009) Accessed 2021, January 30 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2676782/
24 Mulligan, Brennan; Scott, Benjamin. “Animating Your Table (with Benjamin Scott) (2020)
25 Mearls, Mike, and Jeremy Crawford. "Dungeons Master's guide". Renton, WA: Wizards of the Coast. (2014) accessed 29 January 2021 https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dmg/running-the-game#MetagameThinking
26 Mulligan, Brennan; Mercer, Matthew. Building Your Own Campaign Setting (with Matthew Mercer) | Adventuring Academy. Dimension 20. (2019, April 3) Accessed December 30, 2020. Video 57:01 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sig8X_kojco&t=2867s
27 Mearls, Mike, and Jeremy Crawford. "Dungeons Master's guide". Renton, WA: Wizards of the Coast. (2014)-accessed 20 January 2021. https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dmg

Magic items. Objects imbued with magic in order to make them better, or even gain a completely different function. But apparently the only places they exist are in monster hoards and adventurers' backpacks.
Realistically however, everyone wants things that are better at what they do. And eventually, people get what they want.
Today i will go over some objects that are useful outside of the context of adventuring, as well as how they might change the world around them. I will not mention artifacts, since those are one-of-a-kind objects with pre-established locations, usage, etc.
While the topic has always existed, Tasha's Cauldron has added a few interesting toys to our proverbial tool box, which makes this as good a time as any to take a look and
Much like in the Spells and Society post, the rarer an item the more amazingly powerful it must be to be worthy of mention. Actually i recommend reading that post before this one. Since a lot of magic items just allow you to cast spells for free, knowing which spells alter the world gives a good idea of which items can do the same.

Uncommon

+1 tools.
That's right, +1 tools. Not +1 weapons.
Consider a guard. How much of his time is actually spent fighting? A minute every other day? That's not getting a lot of use out of his sword. Even a soldier spends weeks marching, or months guarding a fort, and then only fights for a few minutes or hours. Even if a guard has a superb weapon that doubles his combat effectiveness, it only makes him 1% or 2% better at being a guard[1]. Given a choice of uncommon item, any guard and most soldiers would rather have a Weapon of Warning to prevent being backstabbed, ambushed or caught off-guard.
Now consider a lumberjack or miner. They spend several hours a day hitting trees and rocks. An enchanted axe, saw or pickaxe would see continuous use in their hands. Not only that, magic items are also described as being "at least as durable as a nonmagical item of its kind. Most magic items, other than potions and scrolls, have resistance to all damage". This means the +1 pickaxe would be far, far more resilient to wear and tear than a mundane one, potentially being passed down for generations. And with your miners and lumberjacks being more efficient, you need less of them. Which in turn means you get to have more guards.
Another noteworthy thing here is adamantine items. They deal automatic critical damage to objects and are much harder to destroy. In other words, they're great at chopping trees and ores, bending hot metal, cutting cloth, plowing a field, etc. All while having a fraction of the wear and tear.
​
Bags of Holding, Handy Haversacks and Portable Holes.
AKA your transporty boyes.
The bag of holding is an old favorite among players, and the reason is obvious: it has a million uses.
Most adventurers use it for carrying all their junk. The bad guys in the original Baldurs Gate game used bags of holding to smuggle whole shipments to and from their iron mine base with just one guy. One of my players once put a huge boulder in it, then flew up and dropped the boulder on an enemy transport ship. And let us not forget the classic Arrowhead of Total Destruction.
All of these are perfectly valid uses. Smuggling a small object is easier than smuggling a large object. Dropping huge objects from a high place turns anything that flies into a siege weapon. And the Arrowhead, while expensive, can deal with very large threats that could level a city.
But honestly, every merchant is a smuggler at heart. After all, as long as brigands roam the roads, there will always be a need to hide your valuables in an extraplanar space small enough to fit any orifice. Not only that, the bag allows you to dump a cart entirely and just ride to your destination much faster (and therefore, more safely).
Of course not every merchant can afford a bag of holding, so this brings about an interesting topic of inequality in your campaign. Some merchants can go from A to B faster and more safely on a horse, while the majority must go with a bull-drawn cart that is slow and vulnerable. And bags of holding don't even require attunement, so once you have one and your income soars you can get another, and another... Its a serious rich-get-richer situation, and you risk running all the mundane merchants out of business.
​
Broom of Flying.
I'm gonna start this one with saying that brooms of flying and carpets of flying are overpowered. They are consistently better than items of similar rarity that provide the same benefit, like boots and wings of flying. The reason here is, in my humble opinion, the same reason why Fireball deals more damage than any 3rd level spell and most 5th level ones: its iconic.
As for the item itself, its pretty much a permanent flying speed of 50 while carrying up to 200lbs, or 30ft. speed while carrying 201-400lbs. Its a deliveryboy's dream... except not.
You see, the broom of flying isn't just a hoverbike, its also a drone. You say the command word, and it flies up to a mile a way. Say it again, it comes back. In other words, the crazy wizard in his tower can just tie some money and a note on the broom and send it to a shop, then call it back once the shopkeeper has tied the groceries to it. Poor delivery boy just lost his job.
But wait, there's more! If the broom can fly on its own, can it plow a field? Can it spin an "animal" traction mill? The answer is: yes. But there's no reason to use magic where a common animal would do, unless its a crazy high magic setting or something.
​
Decanter of Endless Water
I think anyone can see how infinite water is broken as fuck[2]. But that's not all. By speaking the command word and pulling the lid, you can cause 30 gallons (136.4 litres) of water to pour out with enough force to push a 200 pound object 15 feet. This action can be repeated every turn (6 seconds), since a decanter of endless water has no limit on how often it can be used.
So a decanter is not just infinite water, but also infinite energy provided you have enough technology to build a mill. Even more energy if you activate the decanter in a high place and use gravity to give those 30 gallons even more potential.
Do keep in mind however that in 5e there must be someone using their action to activate it every turn. In previous editions however one could leave the decanter open and it would pour water constantly.
​
Hat of Disguise
This wee cap is not game-breaking for its great usefulness, but rather for its ability to fuck the world up. Any charlatan with a Hat of Disguise can walk into a bank, guild, ship, etc. and pretend to be anyone. Sure it doesn't happen often, but when it happens the crime spree is enormous. And while there are ways to work around disguised criminals, the fact people have to work around it is an issue in and of itself.
Societies based on trust pretty much can't function. Does everyone sign everything? Do people start using IDs? Do organizations start using items or employing animals that can see through illusions? Is there an industry for door frames that detect illusions?
Even without the hat, Disguise Self is still a 1st level spell. Yet somehow the sourcebooks have no mention of how the world might adapt to the idea that you can't trust people to be who they seem to be. And if anyone with access to 1st-level spells can walk up to the king without difficulties, you wont have kings for long.
​
Ring of Mind Shielding
A great item, if you're an asshole. Keeps people from sensing your evil alignment, keeps them from reading your evil thoughts, keeps pesky zones of truth from sensing your lies, and it even makes itself invisible so nobody can notice you're wearing the "i am evil" ring. It even keeps your immortal soul from going into eternal damnation!
One thing i always think of soul-trapping items is that they're a good way for evil people to avoid the afterlife. If you're good, you want to go to Celestia, Elysium, Arborea or Ysgard. Yet if you're evil, being stuck in a ring and talking to its wearer might be better than Baator, Carceri or the Abyss.
​
Sending Stones
Another classic, unfortunately the stones were nerfed and now can only Send to each other once a day.
Still, long range communication is nothing to scoff at. And while hiring someone to Send for you is cheaper, the stones provide more privacy and can be sent to far off corners of the world where you can't afford to station a caster full time.
Expect each mayor or baron to have one of these, while someone in the capital answers their "calls". Something of a royal secretary if you will. While magic items are expensive, shaving days off of your disaster response time can be the difference between having a kingdom and having ruins.

Rare

Bag of Beans
An often overlooked item, the BoB is crazy powerful. It has 3d4 beans, each of which can trigger a random effect. Notably they have a 10% chance of creating a random potion that lasts 30 days, a 10% chance of creating 1d4+3 eggs that can permanently raise an attribute by 1[3], a 9% chance of spawning a full on pyramid with a mummy lord and appropriate loot[4], and a 1% chance of leading anywhere.
Why bother with tomes when you can get twice as many stats from a bag of beans?
​
Helm of Teleportation.
1d3 castings of Teleport every day, plain and simple. That means 9 people can travel about 14 times in a week[5].
That's a lot of potential trading to be had for sure, but why stop there?
Say your kingdom spent tons of time and money training and equipping an elite unit. You wouldn't want them to spend 80% of their time on the road and 20% solving issues right? One rare item can make your 9-men unit five times more efficient.
Adventurers are in much the same boat: small group, lots of capital invested into their gear and training, yet they somehow spend most of their time going back and forth between adventures (until level 9 if they have a bard, sorcerer or wizard in the party, past 9 if they don't). It honestly amazes me that the Helm of Teleportation is not listed more often as a must-have party item.
​
Manuals/Tomes
For those unaware: there are 3 manuals and 3 tomes in the game, each increases an attribute by 2 when used and then loses its magic for 100 years.
The #1 item on any adventurer's to-get list, the existence of the tomes raises far more questions than answers. Who makes these? Why are they not mass produced? Can i get a magically accelerated demiplane, throw the books in and recharge them in a fraction of the time? Why do people not abuse the f*** out of them?
And when i mean abuse, i mean make smart use of them. Say a kingdom has, over the course of generations, acquired 5 or so tomes. Then the ruler reads them and becomes super smart/wise/popular. That sounds like the sort of thing that would make the whole realm prosper. Do it on an elven/dwarven kingdom and the ruler can read his tomes multiple times, granting him a godlike mind.
And that's without considering the idea of immortals. Or even high level druids. Any lich or vampire could become insanely powerful, not only from being able to use each tome a dozen times, but also from having eons to look for more or even craft them[6].
One thing i really like about tomes is watching the party decide what to do with them after spending the magic. Do they auction the books? Trade with some elf for favors? Give it to a friendly vampire?

Very rare

Candle of Invocation
For 4 hours clerics and druid of the proper alignment within 30ft can cast 1st level spells without using spell slots. In other words, crazy amounts of healing. Pop one after a battle and in a few minutes your whole army will be ready for more. Or pop it during a battle, and have the Healing Word the crap out of your troops from a safe-ish distance.
​
Carpet of flying, Peregrine Mask
Carpets of flying function much like brooms of flying, except they are faster or carry more weight (depending on size). They would be a strict upgrade, except they lack the drone function the broom has.
A peregrine mask provides a flying speed of 60, but has no carrying capacity. That means if you have a Powerful Build or a similar feature it can actually carry more than the carpets.
​
Cauldron of Rebirth
If there's one thing Tasha's Cauldron has brought us, its this cauldron.
It has some minor uses for scrying making potions, but here's the deal breaker: you put a corpse in the cauldron, fill it with 10gp worth of salt (200lbs.) and it casts Raise Dead on the creature.
Resurrection normally costs 500gp. worth of diamonds. With the cauldron it costs 10gp worth of salt. Sure there's a one week cooldown, but who cares? I see two scenarios here: either a resurrection every week is more than the local demand, or less than the local demand.
If its more than the demand, that means everyone who dies of unnatural causes and has 10gp to spare gets resurrected.
If its less than the demand, that means you're raising one person every 7 days. Depending on how high the demand is you could be making as much as 500gp a week, or 26k a year. Considering that the DMG says a Very Rare magic item costs 10.000-50.000 gold, the cauldron can pay for itself in under two years. Even if the math is way off for some reason, it is still crazy strong.
Honestly, this should be an artifact. Or at least have some heavy downside. The idea that someone over at Wizards of the Coast read this and said "Ah yes, 10gp resurrection, perfectly fine" simply boggles the mind.
​
Crystalline Chronicle
Speaking of items that make things cheap, 1d3 times a day this spellbook allows you to cast a wizard spell without material components of up to 100gp.
That means two spells on average, so let's take a look at a few good options: Continual Flame[7], Magic Circle (exactly 100!), Stoneskin (100!), Teleportation Circle and Astral Projection.
The ones that stand out here are Continual Flame and Teleportation Circle. Both cost 50 and have a huge demand in the world. Where a permanent TP circle would normally consume 18.250gp worth of materials over a year, it will now cost nothing[8].

Legendary

Staff of the Magi
This is, i think, the most powerful item in the game.
Has a bunch of charges, yadda yadda, here's the important part:

1. When someone else casts a spell on you, you can use a reaction to absorb the spell. The staff then gains charges equal to the level of the spell it just ate.
   
2. It can cast Plane Shift for 7 charges.
   

This means on an average day you get 16 charges, or two Plane Shifts, from the natural charge generation. But what if you could have someone cast spells on you without spending spell slots?
There are several monsters who can cast spells at will, too many to list. But there are also a few ways for players to do it. The first that comes to mind is the level 18 Wizard feature Spell Mastery, allowing any 2nd level spell. There's also the level 15 invocation Shroud of Shadow that allows infinite casts of Invisibility. Either case allows a duo to have infinite Plane Shifts a day, which is really powerful.
As usual, trade comes to mind. But with infinite charges you might as well start a tourism agency or a hotel and/or casino that brings in people from all planes. Yet what few people realize is that Plane Shift can be used offensively in order to permanently banish anyone to any plane. Infinite save-or-die effects.
You could also just settle for a fuckton of Shifts instead of infinite, and use a warlock or four-elements monk to convert their short rest resources into charges for the staff.
Now think of the possibilities and plot hooks. Mad king banishing dissidents, Red Queen style. Alternative death sentence. A high level wizard/warlock stranded somewhere because the guy who was attuned to the staff died or got separated from him. Random archdemon bringing an army to the Material Plane a couple demons a minute.

Notable mentions

These are items i left out, but which i will get yelled at in the comments if i "forget" about them.
​
Anything that creates energy
The truth is that a lot of magic items can do that. Fire for heating things, wind or water for pushing things, etc. For an energy source to be noteworthy it has to provide a considerable amount of continuous energy, without charges or daily limitations. Otherwise you might as well just use a regular water mill or a bull.
​
Alchemy Jug (uncommon)
It creates an amount of a liquid (beer, honey, etc) every day. It does nothing that cannot be done by an amount of workers, and for it to be world-altering we'd have to go into a lengthy math argument of how many labor hours of a bee farmer are needed to make a gallon of honey, and how that compares to the initial investment of hiring a wizard to make the item.
As a general rule, if something can be done mundanely it will be done mundanely. Let the casters focus on stuff where they have an infinite comparative advantage, like flying stuff, teleportation, resurrection, etc.
​
Cap of Water Breathing (uncommon)
It allows you to breathe underwater indefinitely. Can be great if you have important stuff to do underwater, and might enable interaction with sentient water folk. But in and of itself, not a world-altering item.
​
Horseshoes of Speed (rare)
Essentially +30 speed for hooved creatures, without requiring attunement. Honestly this item does not really fit this list, but i just thought the idea of pegasi flying real fast with these was worth mentioning. Sure a helm of teleportation outclasses it entirely for travel, but that's not useful in combat.
And i really want to play a centaur monk with these some day. Unfortunately the item description specifically says you have to have four equipped to benefit, so don't even think about it you satyrs and tieflings out there.
​
Lyre of Building (rare)
At a glance this looks like a regular magic items, with nothing too weird about it. Until you look at its spell selection and notice you can cast them as an action.
Mending normally takes a minute to cast, with the lyre its an action, and you can do it at will even without knowing the spell.
Fabricate takes ten minutes to cast, with the lyre its an action. That means once a day you can turn the ground under an enemy into a spiky cage, his sword into sword parts, etc. Until the lyre came about the only way to instantly cast fabricate was with a Wish, and that is a pretty good combat use of the 9th level spell.

Conclusion

To be quite frank, a lot of these item uses are a little niche and wont work in every setting. Then again, that that is never the goal with these posts. I hope i have provided you with at least a few interesting plot hooks and other crazy ideas, whether to amaze your players or ruin your DM's plans.

Notes

[1] There is a notable exception however. If your kingdom has a group dedicated to fighting monsters, some of which are resistant to nonmagic damage, then those guys should be prioritized. Not only does the +1 weapon double their damage output in this scenario, it also prevents your kingdom from losing special soldiers that are very expensive to train and replace.
[2] Stuff like constant abuse of Decanters of Endless Water are why in my setting there is a doomsayer cult that believes the world will be flooded some day. As they say it, every time someone activates a decanter, magically creates water, creates food and water, opens a portal to the Plane of Water, etc; the amount of water in the world rises just a bit. Given enough time, everything will be flooded by it. Unless someone like, puts a Sphere of Annihilation by the shore or something. But nobody said the cult has to be right.
[3] The bag has 3d4 beans. Each bean has a 10% chance of spawning 1d4+3 eggs. That means 7.5*0.1*5.5 = 4.125 raised stats, on average. Sure I'm assuming you'll pass the DC20 save every time, but with proper preparation its quite doable. Be near a paladin, get bardicly inspired, have someone cast Resistance, find ways to reroll a failed save, etc. Since the eggs last forever, you have all the time in the world to stack the saving throw in your favor. Or just use Portents.
[4] The mummy lord could have anything, even another bag of beans!
[5] Someone will say "but what about the chance of going off target? What if nobody has teleportation circles?" To that person i say: associated object. Get a pebble every time you're in a region, and you wont need a circle. Buy a bit of silk and you can teleport to any place along the silk road. Buy a used horseshoe and you can go all over the country. Now I'm just imagining this badass-looking special-ops soldier, clad in the finest plate, wielding a blazing blade, his cloak cackling thunder... and with a rusty-ass horseshoe tied to his helmet.
[6] And thus is born the legend of Swolomon the Buff. He was once a base vampire, who got stuck in a tomb for 4000 years with nothing but a Manual of Bodily Health and a Manual of Gainly Exercise. Now he's... selling supplements or something.
[7] See On Spells and Society linked at the top for why there's a near infinite demand for Continual Flame.
[8] You can even make two circles at a time, but there's some math about it. You have 3 charges, use 2, so you should always be with one to spare. Until you roll a 1 on the d3, and then its gone. After that whenever you roll a 1 without first rolling a 3 you'll have to pay the 50gp or let the circle go to waste. In other words, you'd be paying roughly 1/6 of the regular cost.

Hello folks,
For my research analysis and writing class my professor let me pick any topic I want. (her mistake) So for my final term paper I chose to come up with a method of determining a guide to the use of the "rule of cool." I got a A on the paper so I figured I'd share it with you fine folks as well. It is rather lengthy so I've included the abstract first. The 8 tips for dungeon masters is near the end (third session), the first and second parts deal more with the philosophical and ethics of games. So, if situational ethics and a discussion on the Mechanics, Dynamics, and Aesthetics of Play are of use for you, be my guess.
I am a relatively new DM so I spent a long time researching and trying to absorb what would make me a "good DM". With that cavate please keep in mind I know next to nothing compared to a vast majority of the DMs here. I can think of no place better to have this paper peer-reviewed, picked apart and "rebutalled" to death than here. If you feel offended, challenged, or angry reading this... Please understand I am a moron borrowing the works and words of far smarter people. If you feel that "this is the WAY" again... I am a moron... so ... with out further ado..

Abstract:

The choice to be a stringent rule-follower without leniency using fanatical legalism in a game can be a source of contention between someone acting as a referee and/or “Game Master” and players of a game. Likewise, to approach games with a sense of fanatical antinomianism, or to completely ignore the rules and simply let players do whatever they want, tends to offer no challenge, and or reason to play that specific game. Using ethical theory frameworks such as situational ethics, natural law, and utilitarianism this paper seeks find the philosophical principles of what moments are acceptable and actually beneficial to bend the rules of a game. As such, it is important to define games, briefly discuss why games are played, and roles rules have on games. The game Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition will be used as the principal example. With “rule for rules” established, seven tips on how to implement it this rule using advice and guidance from some of the most well known “Dungeon Masters” in the modern era will be provided.
Much of this paper relies on the works of Joseph Fletcher, Sheila Murphy; Benard Suits, Robin Hunicke, Marc LeBlanc, and Robert Zubek for the ethical and philosophical discussions around games. For the practical advice, it relies primarily on the works of Matthew Mercer, Brennan Lee Mulligan, Benjamin Scott, Patrick Tracy, Kelly Mclaughlin and Monty Martin.
Players are your friends, or at the very least your fellow human beings. As such, seek out what is best for them. Games are about many things but principally about enjoyment. It’s okay if the player does not get exactly what they want, so long as they still had enjoyment. How it happens is up to the players, the one running the game, and whether the rules were used to enhance the experience or not. It’s possible to find that balance by asking these questions in order: “How will this decision affect: the final enjoyment of all at the table? the narrative? the rules in the future?”

**“Once upon a time, around a table…”

A man behind a cardboard screen sits across from a woman wearing a funny hat. He is frantically reading through the pages of the various books at his disposal. He finds the reference he is looking for, but it is not clear. “It is technically against the rules, it is barely within the realm of possibility, but the idea is so creative…” the man murmurs to himself. Exasperated, the man smiles a crooked grin and explains, “Well you can certainly try… give me an acrobatics check.” The woman throws a piece of plastic resin on to the table. The dice reads, “18.” The man sighs and then laments, “fine… how do you want to do this?” The table erupts in cheers, as high-fives are given from the others around the table. The woman adjusts her hat, as she gleefully explains how her character will use the momentum of several falling barrels to move across the map in a single turn without having to use all her character’s movement.
As a “Dungeon Master” (DM) for the tabletop role playing game, Dungeons and Dragons (D&D), I can say without a doubt that many DMs have encountered extremely similar events as the one described above. The choice to be a stringent rule-follower without leniency can be a source of much resentment between the DM and the players around the table. Likewise, to completely ignore the rules and simply let players do whatever they want offers no challenge, no reason to play. In terms of D&D rule enforcement, as is with many events in life, the choice of always being either a “Harsh Disciplinarian” or the lenient, “Laissez Faire Guide” is a false dichotomy. Instead, seeking balance between the two choices based first on the overall needs of the players, second on the needs of the story, and third on requirements and rules of the game should be the norm.

Session 1: What is the Relationship between, Players, Games and Rules?

The 19th century philosopher and founder of modern cultural history, John Hughes once wrote, “Play is older than culture, for culture, however inadvertently defined, always presupposes human society and animals have not waited for man to teach them their playing.” ¹ Why do humans play? Is it instinctual? Bernard Suits was a Distinguished Emeritus Professor of Philosophy for the University of Waterloo and his essays are in part responsible for the field of philosophy of games in the late 20th century. In his book, “The Grasshopper: Games, Life and Utopia,” Suits’ book uses Aesop’s fable about the grasshopper to argue that play is what we would do in a perfect civilization. He believed that in a world devoid of work, humans would still seek out challenges through play, suggesting that it is human nature to challenge ourselves.² But is that the only reason someone plays a game?
One YouTuber opined that “In a practical sense, games facilitate systemic thinking by getting us to view abstractions, but also engender creativity by getting us to play.”³ If true, these are essential tools for humanity to function as an intelligent race. This makes sense from an evolutionary level as to why humanity would develop play, but is there more to it than “games encourage outside the box thinking?”
The landmark paper titled, “MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research” is one of the earliest attempts to formalize the field of video game design theory and it is fundamental to how modern game designers look at these systems. It serves to define the importance of mechanic, dynamics, and aesthetics of play and is instrumental to helping understand what players will expect out of a game. We will discuss more about dynamics and mechanics later, but first let us focus on aesthetics.
Aesthetics of Play Defined

Term	Definition	Examples
Sense Pleasure	Enjoyment derived from how it stimulates the senses	The visuals of a game, sound, and music, feel of the dice, etc.
Fantasy	Enjoyment derived from the ability to step into a role that cannot be experienced in real life	Playing a game as a magic wielding sorcerer or rocks in the far flung reaches of outer space
Narrative	Enjoyment derived from game as drama, it is about the stories and experience gained	Heavily story driven games such as Last of Us, Dungeons and Dragons, Final Fantasy
Challenge	Enjoyment derived from overcoming an arbitrary obstacle	Platformers like Mario, or even drinking games like beer pong, or corn hole; social games like charades, etc.
Fellowship	Enjoyment from working cooperatively as a group to accomplish a goal	Team based or social games such as Among Us, the card game Spades; save the world mode on Fortnite
Competition	Enjoyment from showing dominance	Chess or Go, Battle royal games such as Fortnite or PubG or Call of Duty; Fallguys; darts Poker; Uno, Killer bunnies or Magic the Gathering;
Discovery	Enjoyment from uncovering the new or discovering news ways to play a game.	These can range from searching to find things to choose your own adventure Minecraft; Zelda Breath of the Wild; simple matching games; the board game Betrayal at the House on the Hill; or games like Fable; Dragon Age Inquisition; or Mass effect
Expression	Enjoyment from showing an aspect of one’s self; or games that allow full customization of characters	Creation games like Minecraft; role play games like fallout 4; world of warcraft or Fortnite
Submission (aka Abnegation)	Enjoyment from being able to “turn of the brain; and tune out the world” or what is also known as zone out factor.	Bejeweled; candy crush; the lever-pull games at casinos, solitaire, etc.
	(Source: Portnow & Floyd, October 2012)5

Aesthetics are things like sense pleasure, fantasy, the narrative of the story, challenge, fellowship, discovery, expression, and something called submission.⁴ There is an additional aesthetic that most game designers also consider when designing games termed as “competition”.⁵ These are all reasons people play games and it is important to keep all these in mind when acting as a DM.
The table above works to define these terms more appropriately and makes it easier to reference later. The reasons a player may want to play a game vary and change over time. If a DM can understand their players’ goals (i.e., what the player hopes to get out of the game) the DM will be able to understand why someone might want to perform a certain action, play a game, or want to ignore a certain rule in the first place.
On that note, what are rules in games? Think about it… Games are weird… well I should say the act of playing a game… is weird. Suits once wrote in his article, for the “Philosophy of Science Association Journal,” "To play a game is to engage in activity directed towards bringing about a specific state of affairs, using only means permitted by rules, where the rules prohibit more efficient [means] in favor of less efficient means, and where such rules are accepted just because they make possible such activity."⁶ In other words, to play a game we create rules that prevent us from achieving a goal through the easiest means available. Instead, we make something more difficult and we play a game. For instance, in basketball, it would be far easier to simply carry the ball all the way to the basket instead of dribbling it.
In D&D, there is a similar activity to dribbling. It is called a “dice roll.” It is something that players must make to see if they succeed or fail at a task. The player rolls a 20-sided die and tries to get above a certain score to succeed. Players can roll normal, with advantage, or with disadvantage. Rolling with advantage allows the player to roll the D-20 (the 20-sided die) twice and use the higher number. Rolling with disadvantage also has the player roll the D-20 twice, but they must take the lower number rolled instead. It introduces a chance of randomness, and players will find any excuse they can to avoid having to make a roll with "disadvantage." In his book, The Grasshopper, Suits argues that we do this because it is the act of overcoming that limitation that we find enjoyment. By taking on these restrictions and accepting these limitations, we take on what he coins as a "lusory attitude" which allows us to play the game as it is meant to be played.
Suits would argue that by not playing the game according to the rules as written, the player would have only achieved a “quasi-victory” not really worthy of achievement. He also goes on to say that even the act of “failing to win the game by virtue of losing it implies an achievement, in the sense that the activity in question -- playing the game -- has been successfully, even though not victoriously, complete.”⁷ So, according to Suits, it’s better to follow the rules of the game and loose than to not follow the rules and win. It’s important to point out that the aesthetics of play had not yet been defined and Suits’ work mainly focused on the “challenge” aspect of play. This is where many sports and game philosophers begin to find fault with Suits. In the “Journal of Philosophy of Sport,” a rebuttal of Suits’ work by David Myers asks, “What if the goal of the player isn't to follow the rules or even play the game?”⁸ For instance, what happens if the player is motivated by competition and doesn’t care about rules so long as “they win?” While an extreme example, this paradox isn’t out of the realm of possibility. Therefore, focusing on just the challenge aesthetic of game play and simply playing the game “rules as written” can lead to a disconnect between what the player desires and the game itself.
Jesper Juul, an Associate Professor in the School of Design at the Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, wrote in his textbook on video game design, “Rules specify limitations and affordances. They prohibit players from performing actions such as making jewelry out of dice, but they also add meaning to the allowed actions, and this affords players meaningful actions that were not otherwise available; rules give games structure”⁹ Basically, without rules we cannot even have play. However, if the player ignores the rules that player won’t be able to enjoy the full experience of the game, because the rules both afford the opportunity to enjoy the game and provide the obstacles in the first place.
How the rules affect actual game play is where Mechanics and Dynamics come into play. (See, I told you we would get back to it eventually.) Mechanics are the rules and systems that govern chance to create the game we experience. Dynamics are how those rules come together to govern the strategies of that game. In D&D, an example of mechanics is how a player would have to roll a 20-sided dice to see if an action would succeed. Dynamics are the actions the player takes to manipulate the situation and give themselves advantage in the roll. Some examples of this are using a spell caster’s familiar, flanking an enemy in combat, using the bend luck trait, or lucky feat. This is akin to how the rules of poker dictate that bluffing is allowed (mechanics); but how the bluffing player conceals their tells and bets is entirely up to that player (dynamics).
What happens when the player’s desired aesthetics and the mechanics don’t allow for the dynamics the player wants to use? This is where it falls on the DM to determine if the game can handle a little rule bending. In the Dungeon Master Guide’s introduction, it states “The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren’t in charge. You’re the DM, and you are in charge of the game…” However! It goes on to say, “The success of a D&D game hinges on your ability to entertain the other players at the game table.” What is a good way to approach this? Is it THE DM IS ALWAYS RIGHT, able to enforce their will on the players whenever it suits their need? Should the DM strictly enforce the rules and narrative of their planned story without the need to appease the players’ wants and desires?... well… The DM COULD do it, but it won’t be long before their players stop showing to game sessions. Just like the rules, without players, there is no game. Or as one notable professional DM and YouTuber once put it:

“The game you weave belongs to the players as much as yourself… so make sure to humor them every once in awhile by giving them a chance to be extraordinary" - Patrick "the Goddam DM" Tracy ¹⁰

Session 2: The Ethics of a Dungeon Master

So how does someone seek a balance between the rules and the players? Enter situational ethics. Situational ethics, first proposed by philosopher and first professor of ethics at Harvard Medical School, Joseph Fletcher,** is an attempt to seek a middle ground between two ethical schools of thought: Legalism and Antinomianism. In legalism, morality must come from a strict set of rules that must be obeyed at all times and cannot be deviated from or broken for any reason. Antinomianism, on the other hand, is the idea that there should be no rules, you should be able to do what you want, whenever you want (lawless society). ¹¹
In D&D terms, "Fanatical Legalism" would be similar to what many DMs would characterize as "Lawful Stupid," where a certain player's character enforces harsh judgement without ever showing mercy to those who would break the law regardless of the circumstances… even to the detriment of the party… or that small band of orphans who were stealing food out of desperation…
Likewise, in D&D terms, "Fanatical Antinomianism" would be similar to what DMs would characterize as "Chaotic Stupid," where a player's character completely ignores consequences an action would bring and simply act according to their whims… even when it's an obvious trap… that has a 100 percent chance to damage not only your character, but the other players as well.
Fletcher's work states that the morally right thing to do depends on the situation and can change throughout the situation, but at the same time, there is a universal “moral law” on which to base our actions that he called "Agape" love. Derived from the Greek word of similar pronunciation, Fletcher sought to define Agape as a means to show love for your fellow human. In his book titled “Situational Ethics,” Fletcher states, "All laws, rules, principles, ideals and norms, are only contingent, only valid if they happen to serve love."¹² Or to put it a different way, a desire to see your fellow human be happy is and should be the goal. It is not really a feeling, but an attitude to do what is best for others.
In terms of the D&D alignment chart, this would be easiest to define as whether someone is "Good" or "Evil." Whereas a “good character” is someone who acts for the betterment of others regardless of personal motivations, conversely an “evil character” acts out of their own self-interests regardless of how this action would affect others. Those that follow the concept of Agape would be “good characters.” Those that do not, would be evil.
This is where the so-called “Rule of Cool” comes into play. Mathew Mercer, an extremely acclaimed DM, comedian, and writer of D&D’s “Explorer’s Guide to Wild Mount,” and host of the show “Critical Roll,” defines the Rule of Cool as a trope in the D&D community that is “the willing suspension of disbelief for the sake of a cool moment.”¹³ It’s used in moments where the use of an certain object or action would be nearly impossible according to the mechanics of the game, but because it is a “cool dynamic,” the DM allows it. But what is “cool?” Is it a player that is normally too nervous to speak up being able to do something unique on time despite it being against the rules? Is it a player that has spent considerable time perfecting a skill and being able to perform a truly “epic task” (such as the jumping across barrels to effectively triple their movement distance)? Is it succeeding in persuading the main villain to befriend the party through a series of increasingly complex but successful rolls?
In all these situations listed above, there is a common theme that ties all the principles of what this paper is trying to address together in a simple phrase. As a DM, before making a ruling ask, "How will this decision affect the final enjoyment of all at the table?" Now a DM cannot give the players everything they want. Doing so cheapens the truly extraordinary moments. Finding the right balance can be difficult. That is why the flow chart above is suggested when trying to figure out whether it is a good time to “Remember the Rule of Cool.”
https://i.redd.it/f362ghdjlqf61.png

Session 3: “Well… You can Certainly Try”- Some Famous DM

Finally, we can discuss how the desire to make the most enjoyable experience for everyone at the table plays out using real-world examples and advice from some of the most well-known DMs in the business. Using the concept of Situational Ethics’ Agape, we can see how to work in the rule of cool using eight tips for Dungeon Masters.
Tip 1: It is advised to know your audience.
Not everything is as it seems, so be sure to pay attention to your players and look at them when you are describing the situation. Make note of how they react when tones or themes change. Remember those reasons people play games mentioned earlier? This is where those come into play. Additionally, while not something outright suggested, it is nevertheless important to take team dynamics into account.
The book “Four lenses unfolded” describes how various personality types can interact and work to solve problems. In it, the book describes four primary temperaments: Green (analytical), Blue (empathetic), Orange (adventurous), and Gold (goal oriented). Unlike most other personality tests, four lenses theory suggests that while we have a dominant personality at any given moment, other aspects of these personalities can manifest as well. Being able to draw on these aspects at will is the mark of a “mature” individual.¹⁴ As a DM/referee, coach, or manager, being able to do this and adapt to the needs of the players will take player engagement to the next level.
Tip 2: Establishing and Managing Expectations Early and Often, Works to Prevent Disappointment and Confusions
Mercer once put it this way, “Establish early on in your campaign how much of a level of crazy you're willing to allow. This allows for players to better understand what to try for and what not to try for.”¹⁵ Whether you are a teacher, referee, coach, parent, supervisor, or mentor, establishing expectations with those involved mitigates problems before they arise.
One of the main tools DM’s have for this is that is recommended by Mercer, as well as nearly every DM in existence on the internet, is the “Session Zero.” Session Zero is a term used to describe a session where no play occurs but instead rules that will be used and rules that will be ignored or bent is established. It also serves to establish a theme the players can expect from any campaign. Using the first chapter of the DMs guide will help considerably in establishing this. Additionally, one of the best guides for this is laid out by the DM YouTubers known as “the Dungeon Dudes” in their video titled, “How to Run a Session Zero for Dungeons and Dragons 5e.”¹⁶ But always keep Agape in mind throughout this process. In this step, it means actively listening to the players. The DM may want a gritty, tough, realistic, and challenging campaign. But if the players want a high fantasy power trip, some adjustments are going to need to be made to the campaign. Listening to players and changing the plans accordingly is not easy. It requires A LOT of humility and ego suppression. Especially when the DM has already designed how the game is going to go… which leads us to the next tip.
Tip 3: It is important to develop a healthy relationship with failure.
Celebrated author Orson Wells once wrote; “If you want a happy ending, that of course, is dependent of where you stop your story.”¹⁷ This applies to both the players and DM. There will be times when the DM is tempted to ignore the rules because the consequences seem dire. The player fails an athletics check trying to use a dynamic that had a high-risk, high-reward moment. Now the player’s character is doomed to fall several hundred feet down a ravine to what is likely certain doom in lava. But this isn’t the end. That player’s character is most likely dead, but their death could result in a moment of drama and tension for the players. It’s the very real chance of failure that encourages players to think critically about a situation and experience excitement and tension. Brennon Lee Mulligan, the DM of the D&D streaming show, “Dimension 20,” put it this way… “if you are not allowing for failure, you are essentially just telling a story,” and thus never actually playing a game (make-believe as Suits would put it). ¹⁸
Another thing to consider is that through failure, we can often find comedy as well as ways to encourage players to think critically and find new escapes, ¹⁹ at least according to the mind behind the “Replaying the Curse of Strahd” videos, Benjamin (Puffin Forest) Scott. Lastly, Mercer strongly advises that if a DM allows too many “rule of cool moments” to happen in succession, the weight of the moments and consistency of the game will be lost. ²⁰
Players that are afraid to fail will not try. Mercer explains that “Most role play games are designed to forge a heroic story (showing feats of legend) so let the players try! Let them fail, and occasionally succeed!” This is where his catch phrase “you can certainly try” comes from. ²¹
Tip 4: Whenever Possible, Avoid Taking Things Personally
In his lecture on not talking things personally, soccer referee and public speaker, Frederik Imbo, explained there are two sides of a coin to keep in mind when trying not to take things personally: “It is not about you,” and “it is about you.” ²² Look at the other person’s intentions not just yours. With that in mind, it is okay to give yourself empathy and speak up. When someone seems upset with you, ask what are they hoping to get out of this releasing of emotions? Additionally, ensure that your pride isn’t preventing you from making the correct call. Yes I am talking about Ego again; it is that important! It is the DM’s world, but it is the players’ game. Without both, the world and the game, you do not have D&D.
D&D has a weird paradox of being both a story and a game. It has both a narrative as its core premise, but it is, in fact, also a multi-player game. Without at least two people you cannot really have much fun. DMs should make sure that everyone at the table enjoys themselves. Tip 5: Mechanics are important precisely because they are a means of delivering impactful story moments.
Remember that rule of cool concept? Extraordinary moments don’t happen often, and this is by design of the mechanics of the game. Humans remember the novel and unique way more often than the mundane. Mundane things tend to blend into the background. It’s the unexpected moments that highlight the more impactful story moments, especially if that moment is tied to strong emotions.²³
With that in mind, Mulligan suggests looking at where the players are putting their resources before deciding how to rule on a situation. Have they invested experience points/levels into a specific skill that is relevant to this situation instead of just something they can use in combat? If so, reward them for wanting to do something that is a part of the world you are creating together. ²⁴
Tip 6: Discourage metagaming but allow it whenever possible.
Look for any and every excuse you can to give advantage on an arcana check by setting the DC low (10 or higher). If the player succeeds, they can use what they know… they are going to anyway, but at least then they can talk about it with the other players.
According to the DM guide Chapter 8, metagame thinking means “thinking about the game as a game,” Examples would be thinking “the DM wouldn’t throw such a powerful monster at us so early in the game, so we will surely be saved and not have to take this fight seriously,” or “the DM spent A LOT of time describing that door… maybe we should search it again!” ²⁵
The problem with metagaming isn’t really about what advantage the players are getting in the game. The problem is that manipulation of the dynamics, when used to extremes, can spoil the plot line of the cumulative story being told. This can lessen the drama and tension elements resulting in decreased enjoyment of those involved. Additionally, it can create a dynamic where the DM is constantly having to escalate encounters to challenge the player, encouraging a potentially toxic “DM vs player” mentality.
For instance, how would a street orphan barbarian with no formal education and a wisdom of …let’s say very low…be able to know that liches phylactery is the source of their power. The solution here depends on why the players are playing this specific game. Is it the narrative of the story? Is it discovery? If these aren’t anywhere close to the reasons these players came to the game table in the first place, the narrative is not going to take as much of a factor into decisions. Metagaming in this instance isn’t going to be much of a problem.
Tip 7: Keep in mind, the ending is “A” destination, but the story is about how you get there.
A DM may hold off the extra cool moments for the final parts of the game, keeping their players in complete darkness and grit the entire way. However, without at least some levity along the way, some “water for the weary travelers,” as Mercer put it, they may not make it to the end.²⁶ So, do not be afraid to relax the rules from time to time to give them those cool moments, but do so sparingly lest the destination lose its luster as well. Always keep in mind it’s about the enjoyment of crafting and playing in the world together that makes this, or really any game, fun.
*Tip 8: When all else fails… take a break and have the Tarrasque attack the party. *
When all else fails, roll two D-20s out of players’ views… fake a worried expression… role a D-100 (also out of player’s view) look over the score concerned as you pour through your notes… then explain sorrowfully… “I’m sorry… The Tarrasque has risen and has attacked the party. Everyone roll initiative.” This is actual advice from the DM manual. It is right under “faking illness and running away.”²⁷ The point is this: never be afraid to pause or call a game when it’s over or needed.
Maybe something incredibly uncomfortable for a player has happened. Maybe the DM has reached the end of what they were able to prepare for that session. Perhaps everyone is hungry or needs a bathroom break. Maybe the entire table has gotten to a point where no one can agree on anything and team dynamics are breaking down. That game world will always be there… but your friends won’t. Cherish that moment and make as many good moments as possible. Additionally, taking breaks both in-game and in the real world allow for quiet moments. These allow for the greater moments to shine through and the players will enjoy their experience more.
https://i.redd.it/1ncu361zlqf61.png
The graphic above serves to summarize the eight tips above and show their relationship with the narrative, enjoyment, and the rules when put in the context of situational ethics. From this graph, the relationship between the eight tips and how they play into the narrative, enjoyment, and rules of the game can be seen. Each of the tips can influence many parts of the game but they are intended to primarily influence the aspect of the game they are adjacent to. “Knowing the players” should influence the narrative and what kind of enjoyment the players receive. What mechanics are used to enable the game is causally related to how the rules are used and so on. Please note that Agape is at the center as, with every decision a DM makes, considering what is best for the players should be central to the experience of any game.
The Epic Conclusion
Through crafting a game-world together with your players, a DM has the potential to tap into one of the greatest traditions humanity has: camaraderie with friends. At the end of the day, these players are your friends, or at the very least your fellow human beings. As such, you should want what is best for them. Through trials, hardships, and drama, we get to put the punctuation on the moments of excitement, joy, happiness, and bliss. It is okay if the player does not get exactly what they want, so long as they still had enjoyment. This is because getting everything we expect is sometimes boring. However, always keep in mind that at the end of the day, games are about having fun. How that happens is up to the players, the DM, and whether the rules were used to enhance the experience or not. It’s possible to find that balance by asking these questions in order: “How will this decision affect: the final enjoyment of all at the table? the narrative? the rules in the future?”
1 Huizinga, Johan . "Homo Ludens". Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd. (1980), pp. 1., accessed January 19, 2021. http://art.yale.edu/file_columns/0000/1474/ homoludens_johan_huizinga_routledge_1949.pdf
2 Suits, Bernard, “The Grasshopper: Games, Life and Utopia,” Broadview Press. Ed. 3. (November 29, 2005): 54–55. Accessed December 31, 2020. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/803547.The_Grasshopper
3 The Game Overanalyzer, The Aesthetics of Play | Why We Play Games, and the Search for Truth and Beauty in Game Design. The Game Overanalyzer. (January 11, 2020), accessed 6 January 2021. Video 18:44. https://youtu.be/lONsZwjVDzg
4 Hunicke, Robin, Marc LeBlanc, and Robert Zubek. "MDA: A formal approach to game design and game research." Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Challenges in Game AI, vol. 4, no. 1, p. 1722. (2004). Accessed January 11, 2020 https://www.aaai.org/Papers/Workshops/2004/WS-04-04/WS04-04-001.pdf
5 Portnow, James; Floyd, Daniel; Aesthetics of Play- Redefining Genres in Gaming. Extra Credits; (October 17, 2012), Video 9:13. Accessed December 30, 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uepAJ-rqJKA&list=PL3N9QD4_yI-BlnwWUL8hhjpKgqRul3xAa&index=11
6 Suits, Bernard. “Discussion: Games and Paradox.” Chicago University Press. Philosophy of Science Association Journal, Vol 36, no. 3 (September 1, 1969). pg 316–.321. Accessed December 30, 2020. https://www.jstor.org/stable/186226
7 Suits, Bernard. “Discussion: Games and Paradox (1969)
8 Myers, David. “Game as Paradox: A Rebuttal of Suits.” Journal of the philosophy of Sport 39, no. 1 (May 1, 2012). Accessed December 30, 2020. https://search-ebscohost-com.ezproxy2.apus.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip&db=s3h&AN=87342252&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
9 Juul, Jesper. "Half-Real: Video Games between Real Rules and Fictional Worlds", MIT Press, (Aug 19, 2011) pp.57-59
10 Tracy, Patrick. DM Tips: The Rule of Cool. Fantasy Bango. (October 20, 2017). Accessed December 30, 2020. Video 2:23 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8aAIFalx6s
11 Fletcher, Joseph F. Situation Ethics: The New Morality. Westminster John Knox Press, (1997). Page 17-26 (accessed January 20, 2021) http://bit.ly/Googlescholar_SItuational_Ethics
**Please note that just because Fletcher’s Situational Ethics is used prominently, this is not an endorsement of all his views. Fletcher’s work has been used to justify terrible atrocities, such as eugenics, this should serve to point out that any philosophy taken to extremes can lead to terrible outcomes
12 Fletcher, Joseph F. Situation Ethics: The New Morality. (1997)
13 Mercer, Matthew. The Rule of Cool! (Game Master Tips). Geek & Sundry. (February 16, 2016). Accessed December 30, 2020. Video. 5:52 https://youtu.be/fWZDuFIYkf0
14 Bryce, Nathan K., “Four Lenses Unfolded: A Deeper Understanding of Temperament Values,” Insight; (January 29, 2002,).
15 Mercer, Matthew. The Rule of Cool! (Game Master Tips). (2016).
16 McLaughlin, Kelly; Martin, Monty. "How to Run a Session Zero for Dungeons and Dragons 5e". Dungeon Dudes. (September 3, 2020), Accessed 12 30, 2020. Video. https://youtu.be/2MA-z5Ai-bQ
17 Wells, Orson, "The Big Brass Ring." Santa Teresa Press (1987, January 1) 1-148
18 Mulligan, Brennan; Scott, Benjamin. “Animating Your Table (with Benjamin Scott) | Adventuring Academy Season 2 | Ep. 16 |” Adventuring Academy. Dimension (2020, December 28). Accessed December 30, 2020. Video 1:24:18 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IbVxEKpipo
19 Mulligan, Brennan; Scott, Benjamin. “Animating Your Table (with Benjamin Scott) (2020)
20 Mercer, Matthew. The Rule of Cool! (Game Master Tips). (2016)..
21 Mercer, Matthew. The Rule of Cool! (Game Master Tips). (2016)
22 Imbo, Frederik, "How not to take things personally? | Frederik Imbo | TEDxMechelen" TEDx Talks; (March 4, 2020) accessed 10 Jan 2021, video 17:36 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnJwH_PZXnM&t=381s
23 Kensinger, Elizabeth. Remembering the Details: Effects of Emotion. US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health. (May 4, 2009) Accessed 2021, January 30 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2676782/
24 Mulligan, Brennan; Scott, Benjamin. “Animating Your Table (with Benjamin Scott) (2020)
25 Mearls, Mike, and Jeremy Crawford. "Dungeons Master's guide". Renton, WA: Wizards of the Coast. (2014) accessed 29 January 2021 https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dmg/running-the-game#MetagameThinking
26 Mulligan, Brennan; Mercer, Matthew. Building Your Own Campaign Setting (with Matthew Mercer) | Adventuring Academy. Dimension 20. (2019, April 3) Accessed December 30, 2020. Video 57:01 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sig8X_kojco&t=2867s
27 Mearls, Mike, and Jeremy Crawford. "Dungeons Master's guide". Renton, WA: Wizards of the Coast. (2014)-accessed 20 January 2021. https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dmg