I see many people (especially here on the Den) complaining about rules that rely too much on the GM, saying it's either "Mother may I" (which is considered a bad thing) or relying on Oberoni Fallacy.
On the other hand, it feels to me that if you want your game to work without the need for GM/human adjustment, you've got the problem that you needs tons and tons of watertight rules.
There's also, it seems, the idea that your rules should ensure that nobody will try to be dickish and ruin the game by abusing them. It does sounds like a good idea, but in practice you'll often get to a point where you trade freedom or simplicity for this protection.
Do you think it's a matter of balance (for example having enough rules so that opportunity for rule-abuse/dickish behavior are very limited and rely on players and GM to stay away from them rather than adding a hundred pages of rules just for these) or that there's a way to keep the number of rules low enough while still having both enough freedom and no opportunities for one player/GM to ruin the game for everyone else?
Rule-light, rule-tight and freedom
Moderator: Moderators
-
PhoneLobster
- King
- Posts: 6403
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Good rules aren't there to stop bad GMs. That can't be done.
Good rules are there to help the good GM.
Good rules help a good GM not accidentally be dickish, or even prevent the game itself from being dickish regardless of the intent of the GM.
Good rules help ensure a GM is not appearing to be dickish while actually being fair, and ensure that if the GM is being a dick, it's pretty transparent.
And good rules reduce the work load on a Good GM. A well designed intuitive easy to find rule for something is something the GM doesn't have to put in the significant effort and stress of pulling out of his ass in the middle of a game.
Clearly there is a balance point at the upper limits of complexity where there are too many rules, clearly there is a point at which any RPG should eventually throw its hands up and say "this point, THIS one right here, no more rules, make shit up I don't even care anymore", and it almost certainly is a fuzzy boundary that will vary not just by personal opinion but even the context of what sort of game you might want be playing in any given day.
But it seems to me that people that use language like your opening post, concern trolling about people they see on the den wanting to disempower GMs, pretending that its all about a futile attempt to limit bad GMs, pretending that anyone actually wants to remove "human" adjudication and seemingly even thinking somehow denners or someone somewhere want "tons and tons of watertight rules" as an end in itself, or even a thing we don't actively try to limit or avoid...
...it seems to me that sort of post is usually one that is basically stretching and painting a remarkably warped picture of people who care about quality rules design in a failed attempt to make an argument that rules in general are bad and we should all just be Silva instead.
Good rules are there to help the good GM.
Good rules help a good GM not accidentally be dickish, or even prevent the game itself from being dickish regardless of the intent of the GM.
Good rules help ensure a GM is not appearing to be dickish while actually being fair, and ensure that if the GM is being a dick, it's pretty transparent.
And good rules reduce the work load on a Good GM. A well designed intuitive easy to find rule for something is something the GM doesn't have to put in the significant effort and stress of pulling out of his ass in the middle of a game.
Clearly there is a balance point at the upper limits of complexity where there are too many rules, clearly there is a point at which any RPG should eventually throw its hands up and say "this point, THIS one right here, no more rules, make shit up I don't even care anymore", and it almost certainly is a fuzzy boundary that will vary not just by personal opinion but even the context of what sort of game you might want be playing in any given day.
But it seems to me that people that use language like your opening post, concern trolling about people they see on the den wanting to disempower GMs, pretending that its all about a futile attempt to limit bad GMs, pretending that anyone actually wants to remove "human" adjudication and seemingly even thinking somehow denners or someone somewhere want "tons and tons of watertight rules" as an end in itself, or even a thing we don't actively try to limit or avoid...
...it seems to me that sort of post is usually one that is basically stretching and painting a remarkably warped picture of people who care about quality rules design in a failed attempt to make an argument that rules in general are bad and we should all just be Silva instead.
Last edited by PhoneLobster on Fri Jun 19, 2015 11:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
Phonelobster's Self Proclaimed Greatest Hits Collection : (no really, they are awesome)
Phonelobster's Latest RPG Rule Set
The world's most definitive Star Wars Saga Edition Review
That Time I reviewed D20Modern Classes
Stories from Phonelobster's ridiculous life about local gaming stores, board game clubs and brothels
Australia is a horror setting thread
Phonelobster's totally legit history of the island of Malta
The utterly infamous Our Favourite Edition Is 2nd Edition thread
The world's most definitive Star Wars Saga Edition Review
That Time I reviewed D20Modern Classes
Stories from Phonelobster's ridiculous life about local gaming stores, board game clubs and brothels
Australia is a horror setting thread
Phonelobster's totally legit history of the island of Malta
The utterly infamous Our Favourite Edition Is 2nd Edition thread
-
RadiantPhoenix
- Prince
- Posts: 2668
- Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 10:33 pm
- Location: Trudging up the Hill
Speaking for myself (and I definitely don't share the Den preferences so take this with a grain of salt) I would prefer Freedom and Simplicity any day.
I don't believe rules make people play better/less abusively. I believe people on the same boat make people play better/less abusively. And for this, a good talk with beer is better than any rule.
That said, I do believe system matters. But I tend to be more affected by this motto on a macro-level than on a micro-one. Aka: I tend to look more to what behaviors and elements a game promotes and if its genre- or thematic- appropriated to its goals and premises, than if its task resolution is more or less prone to mother may I or something.
I don't believe rules make people play better/less abusively. I believe people on the same boat make people play better/less abusively. And for this, a good talk with beer is better than any rule.
That said, I do believe system matters. But I tend to be more affected by this motto on a macro-level than on a micro-one. Aka: I tend to look more to what behaviors and elements a game promotes and if its genre- or thematic- appropriated to its goals and premises, than if its task resolution is more or less prone to mother may I or something.
The traditional playstyle is, above all else, the style of playing all games the same way, supported by the ambiguity and lack of procedure in the traditional game text. - Eero Tuovinen
For me, it's about rules clarity. A good rule tells you exactly what should happen when it is used. It should be obvious why the rule is there and what it means for both the game and the setting. There shouldn't be any ambiguity in what's supposed to happen, or differences in how a rule is applied from session to session or table to table. If the rules are clear, players know what to expect and what to do. They can plan and contribute to the story.
"Mother May I" is bad because the GM's mind is opaque. You don't know what the GM thinks, and at any point you can be stopped by an invisible wall of "The GM Says You May Not." Every story you try to tell has to be a tentative one, constantly looking to the GM for a nod of approval. That's depressing.
The Oberoni Fallacy is worse. If the rules are built on the principle that they are subject to change at any time for any reason, you don't really have rules. You have suggestions for rules, but you still need to look to the GM and check whether that suggestion is in effect or not every time you try to do anything.
The ideal rule set would cover a wide variety of situations and be quick to resolve while still making it completely obvious to the players what they should roll when and what each possible roll means.
"Mother May I" is bad because the GM's mind is opaque. You don't know what the GM thinks, and at any point you can be stopped by an invisible wall of "The GM Says You May Not." Every story you try to tell has to be a tentative one, constantly looking to the GM for a nod of approval. That's depressing.
The Oberoni Fallacy is worse. If the rules are built on the principle that they are subject to change at any time for any reason, you don't really have rules. You have suggestions for rules, but you still need to look to the GM and check whether that suggestion is in effect or not every time you try to do anything.
The ideal rule set would cover a wide variety of situations and be quick to resolve while still making it completely obvious to the players what they should roll when and what each possible roll means.
FrankTrollman wrote:I think Grek already won the thread and we should pack it in.
Chamomile wrote:Grek is a national treasure.
-
Josh_Kablack
- King
- Posts: 5318
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: Online. duh
Lemme give you a proper Den-type answer:
Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative.
Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset.
Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
And Frankly, them's fightin' words. Why don't you set down that internet and step outside where we can properly settle this in the back ally?
Mouthbreathing ratfucker.
Go fuck yourself...and freedom
Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative.
Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset.
Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
And Frankly, them's fightin' words. Why don't you set down that internet and step outside where we can properly settle this in the back ally?
Mouthbreathing ratfucker.
"But transportation issues are social-justice issues. The toll of bad transit policies and worse infrastructure—trains and buses that don’t run well and badly serve low-income neighborhoods, vehicular traffic that pollutes the environment and endangers the lives of cyclists and pedestrians—is borne disproportionately by black and brown communities."
A perfect RPG ruleset does three things.
It's complete - It provides outputs for all possible inputs.
It's functional - It resolves all possible disputes between players.
It's inclusive - It accepts all inputs.
There is only one ruleset that we know of that accomplishes this. It's called reality. If your ruleset is not at least as complex as the underlying laws that govern reality, it won't satisfy all conditions.
Obviously, your ruleset will never be this perfect. Even if your ruleset includes all human scientific knowledge up to this point, it will still be absurdly incomplete.
So pick two.
Magical Tea Party is a complete ruleset that accepts all inputs, but it accomplishes this by sacrificing the ability to resolve conflicts. It is, in fact, the empty ruleset. The ruleset that contains no rules.
Other games instead drop inclusiveness. They strictly limit the possible player inputs. You can play chess without a GM, because there is a limited number of possible inputs and rules to cover them all. For every valid input, chess will produce a valid output. And both players can agree on which output is correct. The same is true in most games.
Most combat minigames work like this. You have a limited number of actions that can be taken in combat, so you can al;ways solve it without the help of a GM.
But outside of combat, most RPGs, and inside combat to a lesser degree, choose to sacrifice completeness. That is, they know that they can't create a rule for every one of infinite possible player actions, so they dont' try.
And that's where the GM comes in.
The GM is a bandaid over Magical Tea Party to give dispute resolutions. It isn't an ideal bandaid, but it works better than nothing at all.
It's complete - It provides outputs for all possible inputs.
It's functional - It resolves all possible disputes between players.
It's inclusive - It accepts all inputs.
There is only one ruleset that we know of that accomplishes this. It's called reality. If your ruleset is not at least as complex as the underlying laws that govern reality, it won't satisfy all conditions.
Obviously, your ruleset will never be this perfect. Even if your ruleset includes all human scientific knowledge up to this point, it will still be absurdly incomplete.
So pick two.
Magical Tea Party is a complete ruleset that accepts all inputs, but it accomplishes this by sacrificing the ability to resolve conflicts. It is, in fact, the empty ruleset. The ruleset that contains no rules.
Other games instead drop inclusiveness. They strictly limit the possible player inputs. You can play chess without a GM, because there is a limited number of possible inputs and rules to cover them all. For every valid input, chess will produce a valid output. And both players can agree on which output is correct. The same is true in most games.
Most combat minigames work like this. You have a limited number of actions that can be taken in combat, so you can al;ways solve it without the help of a GM.
But outside of combat, most RPGs, and inside combat to a lesser degree, choose to sacrifice completeness. That is, they know that they can't create a rule for every one of infinite possible player actions, so they dont' try.
And that's where the GM comes in.
The GM is a bandaid over Magical Tea Party to give dispute resolutions. It isn't an ideal bandaid, but it works better than nothing at all.
-
Whipstitch
- Prince
- Posts: 3660
- Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 10:23 pm
Rules are just a social construct but since I already understand that I would still rather have an attempt at comprehensive, helpful rules than some random assholes stoned musings on how to free form roleplay.
Last edited by Whipstitch on Fri Jun 19, 2015 6:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
bears fall, everyone dies
And what if the rules that are there to support / work with freeform role-playing? .Whipstitch wrote:Rules are just a social construct but since I already understand that I would still rather have an attempt at comprehensive, helpful rules than some random assholes stoned musings on how to free form roleplay.
By the way, I don't see this being much of a thing outside the Den. I would say this "dilemma" is pretty much insular to these parts. Go to RPGnet or ENWorld or Storygames or TheRpgSite and this matter is practically inexistent.
Last edited by silva on Fri Jun 19, 2015 6:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The traditional playstyle is, above all else, the style of playing all games the same way, supported by the ambiguity and lack of procedure in the traditional game text. - Eero Tuovinen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populumsilva wrote:And what if the rules that are there to support / work with freeform role-playing? .Whipstitch wrote:Rules are just a social construct but since I already understand that I would still rather have an attempt at comprehensive, helpful rules than some random assholes stoned musings on how to free form roleplay.
By the way, I don't see this being much of a thing outside the Den. I would say this "dilemma" is pretty much insular to these parts. Go to RPGnet or ENWorld or Storygames or TheRpgSite and this matter is practically inexistent.
Maxus wrote:Being wrong is something that rightly should be celebrated, because now you have a chance to correct and then you'll be better than you were five minutes ago. Perfection is a hollow shell, but perfectibility is something that is to be treasured.
Convent, I'm not arguing if the matter is valid or not. I'm just saying it is insular to this board. If you want to prove me wrong, the correct way to do it is showing some threads on other boards where the matter comes up. Linking a Wikipedia article has nothing to do with my argument.
The traditional playstyle is, above all else, the style of playing all games the same way, supported by the ambiguity and lack of procedure in the traditional game text. - Eero Tuovinen
-
Whipstitch
- Prince
- Posts: 3660
- Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 10:23 pm
I've found the GMing and setting advice sections from games like GURPS or Feng Shui to consistently outperform the mouth diarrhea you get from your average rules lite. Rules lites tend to be big on instructing people how to tell "your" story or how to stick it to various flavors of "problem player" and other sundry forms of MC fellating bullshit whereas crunchier games give information and setting material that you can hand out before the game so everyone has a clearer idea of what you intend to communicate before you even get to the table. That's a huge plus--everything that happens at the table is imaginary and so it's really, really easy to have players operating under wildly different assumptions if you're not careful. Even overstuffed player hatin' games like fucking Vampire can be useful just by virtue of having a shit ton of setting material to flop on the table.
I'm not even going to touch that second paragraph because honestly I think it's disingenuous.
I'm not even going to touch that second paragraph because honestly I think it's disingenuous.
Last edited by Whipstitch on Fri Jun 19, 2015 7:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
bears fall, everyone dies
Well just because they don't have that problem doesn't mean that the problem doesn't exist. Also do those site even ask the question, and if so what was the answer.silva wrote: And what if the rules that are there to support / work with freeform role-playing? .
By the way, I don't see this being much of a thing outside the Den. I would say this "dilemma" is pretty much insular to these parts. Go to RPGnet or ENWorld or Storygames or TheRpgSite and this matter is practically inexistent.
Koumei wrote:I'm just glad that Jill Stein stayed true to her homeopathic principles by trying to win with .2% of the vote. She just hasn't diluted it enough!
Koumei wrote:I am disappointed in Santorum: he should carry his dead election campaign to term!
Just a heads up... Your post is pregnant... When you miss that many periods it's just a given.
]I want him to tongue-punch my box.
The divine in me says the divine in you should go fuck itself.
Hmm. Whip you gave specific examples on one side but none on the other. What rules light game specifically has "mouth diarrhea" as advice/playing instructions ?
Last edited by silva on Fri Jun 19, 2015 7:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The traditional playstyle is, above all else, the style of playing all games the same way, supported by the ambiguity and lack of procedure in the traditional game text. - Eero Tuovinen
-
Username17
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
People who try to complain about rules interfering with their freedom are almost invariably just power tripping assholes. Rules Lites are no guaranty of brevity, for fuck's sake the Your Story book of the Rules Lite Dresden Files book is four hundred and two pages long ("only" 260,000 words though because the book is so cavalier about wasting your time). Rule books getting too long is totally a real problem, but the "Rules Heavy" games aren't even on the leading edge of that problem. A rule that is tight and clear is almost invariably short. If it wasn't short, it wouldn't be well designed almost by definition.
People who look at the textual bloat of nWoD and conclude that the big problem is that game masters (by which they mean themselves) simply aren't being given enough power to rule by decree and run roughshod over the inputs of other players are at best horribly confused. That's not even in the three sigma five-day cone of potential things that are wrong with nWoD.
When silva or Blade bring up their tired masturbatory canards about how we need to fellate Mr. Cavern harder, they are wrong. At best. Probably they are also liars and fools. Fuck them.
-Username17
People who look at the textual bloat of nWoD and conclude that the big problem is that game masters (by which they mean themselves) simply aren't being given enough power to rule by decree and run roughshod over the inputs of other players are at best horribly confused. That's not even in the three sigma five-day cone of potential things that are wrong with nWoD.
When silva or Blade bring up their tired masturbatory canards about how we need to fellate Mr. Cavern harder, they are wrong. At best. Probably they are also liars and fools. Fuck them.
-Username17
Well notice that his name drop of sites includes super minor game like 20 regulars forum theRPGsite, but doesn't feature comparable sized or way way way fucking huger sites like minmax or Gitp.Leress wrote:Well just because they don't have that problem doesn't mean that the problem doesn't exist. Also do those site even ask the question, and if so what was the answer.
Because while GITP are definitely passive aggressive as shit and have huge problems with their mods and culture, no part of that is being anti-rules. So they would probably answer the question the same way we do here, but more passive aggressively, and less articulate.
But that would contradict his point so the fucking troll doesn't mention them.
The U.S. isn't a democracy and if you think it is, you are a rube.DSMatticus wrote:Kaelik gonna kaelik. Whatcha gonna do?
That's libertarians for you - anarchists who want police protection from their slaves.
-
Whipstitch
- Prince
- Posts: 3660
- Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 10:23 pm
Don't know if you are answering to me, but I can't see how AW would fall in this category since it makes it crystal clear what its playstyle, themes, tone, etc. are.Whipstitch wrote:A lot of it was Bear World and dice pool homebrew. It's a matter of setting as much as anything else--some DM wants to do less work so they they roll out bare bones and yet are somehow surprised when players get smacked in the face by option paralysis.
Why don't you cite other games ? Does Risus or Over the Edge bothers you ? Barbarians of Lemuria ? Cortex+ ?
The traditional playstyle is, above all else, the style of playing all games the same way, supported by the ambiguity and lack of procedure in the traditional game text. - Eero Tuovinen
Perhaps this is due to the local focus on D&D 3.x and derivatives ?Leress wrote:Well just because they don't have that problem doesn't mean that the problem doesn't exist. Also do those site even ask the question, and if so what was the answer.silva wrote: And what if the rules that are there to support / work with freeform role-playing? .
By the way, I don't see this being much of a thing outside the Den. I would say this "dilemma" is pretty much insular to these parts. Go to RPGnet or ENWorld or Storygames or TheRpgSite and this matter is practically inexistent.
The traditional playstyle is, above all else, the style of playing all games the same way, supported by the ambiguity and lack of procedure in the traditional game text. - Eero Tuovinen
-
Stinktopus
- Master
- Posts: 187
- Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:07 am
Yeah, the narrow focus on D&D and Pathfinder is pretty silly considering that they are just the lion's share of the gaming market. We should be talking about Bear World and other shit that the typical gamer hasn't actually heard of.silva wrote:
Perhaps this is due to the local focus on D&D 3.x and derivatives ?
-
Stinktopus
- Master
- Posts: 187
- Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:07 am
I like rules to be thorough and to set benchmarks. In 3.X, you can research your own new spells. Now, this is clearly heavy "blow the DM" territory, but the argument can be made that the large number of spells printed for 3.X set benchmarks for what a spell should be able to do.
Over the last year, I have run 3.X and Mongoose Traveller. All of my players are comfortable with 3.X. With Traveller, my rookies kept getting vapor locked. I had similar issues with Savage Worlds, and one player completely dropped out to avoid dealing with Wild Talents. She then signed back up for 3.X.
Basically, my rookies need clearly defined buttons they press on their character sheets, or they stare at me and say, "Uh... I guess I shoot someone?"
Over the last year, I have run 3.X and Mongoose Traveller. All of my players are comfortable with 3.X. With Traveller, my rookies kept getting vapor locked. I had similar issues with Savage Worlds, and one player completely dropped out to avoid dealing with Wild Talents. She then signed back up for 3.X.
Basically, my rookies need clearly defined buttons they press on their character sheets, or they stare at me and say, "Uh... I guess I shoot someone?"
This has nothing to do with market, but with tastes and preference. People talk about things they like or appreciate. The fact D&D 3.x is a favourite game around these parts dont say anything about that or other game objective quality (if such thing exists), but about local people preferences. The same is valid for any other board, really.Stinktopus wrote:Yeah, the narrow focus on D&D and Pathfinder is pretty silly considering that they are just the lion's share of the gaming market.
The traditional playstyle is, above all else, the style of playing all games the same way, supported by the ambiguity and lack of procedure in the traditional game text. - Eero Tuovinen
-
RelentlessImp
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 701
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 11:03 am
Talking to bearva is like trying to explain quantum mechanics to a four year old - a lot of energy is expended, a lot of time is wasted and nothing really sticks.
Alternately, talking with bearva is like slamming your dick in a car door - it's painful and idiotic. Actually, slamming your dick in a car door would be more pleasant than trying to have a conversation with bearva. At least the car door doesn't lie to your fucking face. When it slams on your dick, it doesn't then try to tell you to enjoy it. It doesn't tell you that you're wrong for not having fun with it. Most of all, it doesn't construct ad hominem attacks and argumentum ad populum tactics to somehow convince you into enjoying it.
Next time you want to respond directly to bearva, just go slam your dick in a car door. It'll be a more pleasant experience all around.
Alternately, talking with bearva is like slamming your dick in a car door - it's painful and idiotic. Actually, slamming your dick in a car door would be more pleasant than trying to have a conversation with bearva. At least the car door doesn't lie to your fucking face. When it slams on your dick, it doesn't then try to tell you to enjoy it. It doesn't tell you that you're wrong for not having fun with it. Most of all, it doesn't construct ad hominem attacks and argumentum ad populum tactics to somehow convince you into enjoying it.
Next time you want to respond directly to bearva, just go slam your dick in a car door. It'll be a more pleasant experience all around.
Except that's not true at all. There have been analysis on many systems and of homebrewed ones.silva wrote: Perhaps this is due to the local focus on D&D 3.x and derivatives ?
Koumei wrote:I'm just glad that Jill Stein stayed true to her homeopathic principles by trying to win with .2% of the vote. She just hasn't diluted it enough!
Koumei wrote:I am disappointed in Santorum: he should carry his dead election campaign to term!
Just a heads up... Your post is pregnant... When you miss that many periods it's just a given.
]I want him to tongue-punch my box.
The divine in me says the divine in you should go fuck itself.
Sure, but its undeniable that D&D 3.x and derivatives form the vast majority (80%+) of the local population playing and discussing time, and as such, its only natural that that game specificities end up molding/influencing the local collective mindset.Leress wrote:Except that's not true at all. There have been analysis on many systems and of homebrewed ones.
Im just talking the obvious here, really. Why the resistance in admitting it ?
The traditional playstyle is, above all else, the style of playing all games the same way, supported by the ambiguity and lack of procedure in the traditional game text. - Eero Tuovinen