Table Culture: High Trust, Low Trust

 

I owe thanks to S. John Ross—his mentoring sharpened my understanding of a truth I’d been circling for years: the difference between high trust and low trust games, and how that difference shapes not just design, but table culture. I'm sure he'd disagree with me on my own conclusions, but I consider him the Godfather on this subject.

A high trust game gives power to the players and assumes they won’t abuse it. Think of Fiasco—no GM, no safety net, just a framework that trusts everyone to build and burn down a story together. The rules are light because the group is expected to carry them.

A low trust game is the opposite. It assumes players will stretch, exploit, or argue every angle, so it builds guardrails. Dungeons & Dragons is a good example—pages of feats, modifiers, and exceptions designed to preempt every possible loophole. The culture that grows there often becomes one of precision, optimization, and rules arbitration.

Neither mode is “better.” High trust favors creativity, improvisation, and fast play—but it requires a group comfortable with shared authority. Low trust favors structure, fairness, and consistency—but it can slow play and shift focus to the letter of the rules.

High Trust Table Culture

At the table, high trust feels like collaboration first and rules second. Players build on each other’s ideas, accept rulings without fuss, and lean into “yes, and” rather than waiting for permission. The benefits are obvious: fast pacing, wild creativity, stories that feel co-owned instead of GM-delivered. The downside is that it only works when everyone is pulling in the same direction. A single bad-faith player—or even just someone with a very different playstyle—can derail the whole experience, because the guardrails aren’t there. High trust thrives on generosity and consistency; without them, it crumbles.

Low Trust Table Culture

Low trust tables run on structure. Everyone knows the rules, everyone follows them, and disputes get solved by the book instead of by negotiation. The benefits: fairness, consistency, and a level playing field—no one gets shortchanged by another player’s improvisation or the GM’s whim. The downside is rigidity. Pacing slows when every edge case requires a lookup, and creativity can feel hemmed in by mechanics. Still, for groups that value stability, or who don’t know each other well enough to lean on goodwill, low trust can be the safest, smoothest way to play. 

How Adventures Differ

A high trust adventure might be nothing more than a premise and a few prompts: “You’re pilgrims crossing a haunted desert. What do you bring, who do you meet, and how do you survive?” The players (and GM, if present) will build the path together.

A low trust adventure is mapped, balanced, and specified: clear encounters, detailed stat blocks, fixed treasure. The choices are structured, not invented.

Both kinds of adventures work. Both can be brilliant. And adventure creation both deserve a deeper dive than I’ll give here—for now, consider this a starting map. We’ll return to the terrain later.

Quick Contrast: High vs. Low Trust

• Rules

  • High Trust: Fewer rules, more responsibility (abuse is a danger)

  • Low Trust: More rules, in theory fewer disputes (rules lawyers are a danger)

• Play Style

  • High Trust: Improvised, collaborative, fast-moving.

  • Low Trust: Structured, balanced, rules-driven.

• Culture

  • High Trust: Shared authority, high creativity.

  • Low Trust: Clear authority, consistent outcomes.