MadProfessor, why would someone want to play a space alien in a game of D&D ? :confused:

If the group wants to play in sci-fi or space opera genre, why not just pick a proper game for that, like, say, Gurps or Traveller or Eclipse Phase or Bulldogs ?

Quote from: Itachi;889039MadProfessor, why would someone want to play a space alien in a game of D&D ? :confused:

If the group wants to play in sci-fi or space opera genre, why not just pick a proper game for that, like, say, Gurps or Traveller or Eclipse Phase or Bulldogs ?

This is a good point that I forgot to hit but was building to...

Strictly speaking, the rules do not prevent you from choosing, say, an elf with all of the elf stats, and just saying you're playing a space alien. What says you can't do that is the game world itself, and whether or not that's something that's kosher to the game world.

When it comes to the game world, it's sharply negative to have an everything-goes or more-options-is-better attitudes. I forgot who it was that said the generic is the enemy of art. But I can quote Orson Welles, "The enemy of art is the absence of limitations."

What Lunamancer said.

About the issue of the GM being the sole "guardian" of the rules, there may be a problem with that: in my group there is no fixed GM. We are 5 players that rotate wildly on the GM sit, even within the same campaign/story-arc. So the rules, for us, work as a mutual contract that we try to abide as much as possible, so to reduce disparities in rulings and playstyles as much as possible.

So, for example, when we play Shadowrun, everybody knows the GM (whoever it is at the moment) will bring a couple pre-made missions or plots for us to pick and follow through. On the other hand, when we play Sagas of the Icelanders, everybody expects the GM to come "empty-handed" so we can construct the plots and situations together as we go. If some GM wishes to deviate from the each game default playstyle, it's totally possible, but then he must explicitly communicate that beforehand so all players calibrate their expectations.

QuoteOriginally Posted by Dragoner
RAW is easier, so that you don't have as many meta-discussions, or interruptions about the rules, rather than to the how's and why's of a more freeform approach's results.

This argument could be valid for certain groups, I think.  If the group is more focused on the rules than the campaign, for example if they are concerned about game balance and fairness, then Yes, playing RaW could reduce arguments and interruptions.  But a group that finds itself in this position is off to a bad start in the first place and is using Raw play as a method to address the problem.  If the group trusts the GM, and the GM knows what he is doing, then there should be no rule-based arguments, meta-discussions, or interuptions whether he is running the game RaW or not.

QuoteOriginally Posted by Itachi
MadProfessor, why would someone want to play a space alien in a game of D&D ?

Well, who said it was D&D, and even so, why not?  It's your game.

Quote from: Madprofessor;889016So far, this is the most reasonable argument for playing RAW that I have seen on this thread.  But I have a question, how do you handle stuff that your ultra-simple rules don't cover?

By the way have seen Dark Sagas?  It's basically the game you just described.

The rules do cover more than just the simple task resolution system I quoted. But when I run into something not covered by the rules I will do what I have always done, make something up to cover it. If all else fails dice for it!

I haven't seen Dark Sagas, I'll have to check it out.

Quote from: Madprofessor;889046If the group trusts the GM, and the GM knows what he is doing, then there should be no rule-based arguments, meta-discussions, or interuptions whether he is running the game RaW or not.

If things were perfect? Doesn't happen very often. It is also like respect, it's not automatic, it's earned; hard to come by and easy to get rid of. It's like the rule zero fantasy some people have, try to enforce it and they are then sitting at an empty table. Rules in their own way act as a social contract between the GM, and the players, as well as player to player.

Quote from: estar;888105That true of any social activity that includes games. I didn't put that in because I feel it is an obvious point. The next step is to say what make Tabletop RPGs different then other types of games involving a group of people sitting around a table.

In other games which are only about rules and tactical challenge, like say chess, you can actually play pretty well with people you don't like much. This is much less true of rpgs since so much is not rules, but rulings, and a lot of back-and-forth - conscious or not - where people adjust their GM/play style to accommodate others. As well, you're playing a character, so more of your personality comes through than in something like Risk.

So one of the things that makes rpgs different to other games where people sit around a table is that the social aspect is more important to the success of the game session, where "success" is everyone saying afterwards, "that was fun!"

And of course, part of social fun is sharing food. Most religious festivals involve sharing food, really the fasting is just there to make you appreciate the feast more (hunger is the best condiment). And there's a reason we have the weekly family dinner, not the weekly, "just sit around an empty table and talk."

So this supports your point that setting is more important than system. Because setting is more social than system. The buildings of the game world, the NPCs, the religions and rituals and background events - all that setting stuff - this engages people more than do charts and tables and rule 4.11.2(a), generally speaking.

As well, setting is usually better able to engage the less-than-dedicated players that systems. People don't want to read 100 pages of rules before they play, and most settings are made deliberately familiar with things people already recognise from commonly-read books and movies. Nobody needs to read the rulebook to know what an elf or a cyborg commando are. This, incidentally, is the reason games like Tekumel are not as widely-played as games like D&D. They're the setting equivalent of Advanced Squad Leader. Interesting for some of us geeks, but not very accessible and will put off casual players.

Thus, in order of importance to the success of the game session it is,

1. people
2. snacks
3. setting
4. system

Has anybody here played or read DragonQuest?  I think its story is relevant and perhaps a little illuminating for this thread.

DragonQuest was an RPG published by SPI, the wargame company, in 1980 to compete with D&D.  (SPI along with Avalon Hill were TSR's primary competitors for gaming dollars in the late 70s and early 80s).  The guys at SPI hated the do-it-yourself rules-flexible upstart style of D&D and argued that what players really wanted were solid, clear, immutable rules that were set in stone.  The game does not suck, in fact it won best RPG at Origins in 1980.  However, there are no provisions for "the first rule." It was to be played as written, period. Reading the game is obnoxious, written as it is in hex and counter wargame style cross referenced in decimal format. It had other problems.  For example, it had to played on a hex map, and combat could take hours. In any case, the arguments of the game's authors proved false for the times.  The game failed to compete against D&D.  SPI went bankrupt and was purchased by TSR.

I'm not saying that this proves that rules-flexibility is better than RaW for everyone, but this is not a new argument, and in the past the "this is your game" argument won out over the "even RPGs must follow the rules" argument.

MadProfessor, I don't think that case proves much, as D&D 3e was a huge success and was pretty much on the RAW playing side.

I think playing RAW is more common when there is a perception of delicate fine-tune regarding systems behavior, and modifying things could mess with the intended experience. D&D 3e and 4e with their obsession for balance are an example of this, I think. PbtA games are too, on a lesser degree.

Quote from: Madprofessor;889065I'm not saying that this proves that rules-flexibility is better than RaW for everyone, but this is not a new argument, and in the past the "this is your game" argument won out over the "even RPGs must follow the rules" argument.

I think part of the problem is that people create artificially narrow definitions of terms. Like "rules" for example. Rules in a computer game really can't be broken. The programming can neither handle nor allow it.

On the other hand, sports have rules. But they are broken all the time. The rules actually have proscribed penalties for breaking the rules--the rulesets literally accounted for the fact that the very rules will be broken. In fact, breaking the rules often form part of the strategy to playing the game.

And then there are rules in the sense of "rules of thumb" which are really just effective heuristics. They're true about 90% of the time. Pareto's law is an example of a rule of thumb. There's no reason why the world has to work in such a way that just 20% of your efforts will produce 80% of your results. But things happen to work out that way pretty well. I wouldn't be surprised if RPG rules work this way as well, with the core mechanic covering 80% of what might happen in the game. The other 80% of the rules handle that final 20% of minutia.


As I mentioned earlier on in the thread, when it comes to people who like rules, it's not really about the rules. Rules are a feature, not a benefit. No matter what the haters may say, nobody actually likes rules. They like what they perceive rules to produce. You know what I like about rules? They provide a certain level of consistency. So if I'm playing a thinking and strategy-intensive campaign, I can think ahead because I can form reasonable expectations no how things work.

But with "reasonable expectations" being the benefit I'm after, it's time to take a step back. If we're playing exactly by a narrowly defined set of rules, if I don't know every last rule, I might not be able to form expectations that are reasonably close to how it works. Especially when we're dealing with that 20% of play that 80% of a voluminous body of rules is needed to handle.

For players who do not also GM the system in question, or who like to play a lot of different games, I really don't think the "rules" approach is practical. Rather, what works better is that the GM is being faithful to the world. You can understand the world heuristically without encyclopedic knowledge of the game system. So you can form reasonable expectations based on that, but only if the GM isn't going to blindly follow rules that produce goofy shit.

So for the sake of my purpose--for the sake of consistency, to enable reasonable expectations, to support a thinking and strategy-intensive campaign--it is actually important that the GM make rulings towards the purpose of being faithful to the campaign world. It's actually not strict adherence to the letter of the rules.

Quote from: Madprofessor;889065Has anybody here played or read DragonQuest?  I think its story is relevant and perhaps a little illuminating for this thread.

We all ready had too much invested in D&D to switch over to what was more crunchy battle mat type game. We did take a look at the RM arms law type stuff because of how nice the ICE MERP stuff was, but we just converted it over to AD&D, ultimately.

What was relevant then, same as today, is if that to play in someone's game, and that there was a bunch of pages of house rules to learn, it represented a barrier to entry. Someone's campaign would have to have, still does, a certain amount of gravity to draw people in past that.

Quote from: Itachi;889039MadProfessor, why would someone want to play a space alien in a game of D&D ? :confused:

If the group wants to play in sci-fi or space opera genre, why not just pick a proper game for that, like, say, Gurps or Traveller or Eclipse Phase or Bulldogs ?

The problem is, that it usually is not "the group" but one person that wants something special and is lamenting about his reduced "freedom".

If the complete group is wanting a change (or at least not bothering), nothing is stopping them to do a fitting house rule or switch systems.

Quote from: Madprofessor;889046This argument could be valid for certain groups, I think.  If the group is more focused on the rules than the campaign, for example if they are concerned about game balance and fairness, then Yes, playing RaW could reduce arguments and interruptions.  But a group that finds itself in this position is off to a bad start in the first place and is using Raw play as a method to address the problem.  If the group trusts the GM, and the GM knows what he is doing, then there should be no rule-based arguments, meta-discussions, or interuptions whether he is running the game RaW or not.

This is a situation that doesn´t fall out of the sky. It is a question of similar styles and expectations and real trust is also something that has to be earned (beyond the goodwill you give for starters).
And much of these expectations are formed by having played this and that official game (bee it raw or decently house ruled )

I had one group where I could do it this way, but this was earned with a long history of common gaming.

I had players I would deem much bnetter roleplayers than any of this mentioned group but there were quite a few misunderstandings and preference differences that led to problems unless handled and better adressed before the game.

And then there were cons and open gaming places where you had always new players coming in and others leaving and could expect to have some freaks in the group.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;889055As well, setting is usually better able to engage the less-than-dedicated players that systems. People don't want to read 100 pages of rules before they play, and most settings are made deliberately familiar with things people already recognise from commonly-read books and movies. Nobody needs to read the rulebook to know what an elf or a cyborg commando are. This, incidentally, is the reason games like Tekumel are not as widely-played as games like D&D. They're the setting equivalent of Advanced Squad Leader. Interesting for some of us geeks, but not very accessible and will put off casual players.

Thus, in order of importance to the success of the game session it is,

1. people
2. snacks
3. setting
4. system

And to just work from medial associations is one common trap with new players thinking being the main star of the game and forgetting that the other players are not his sidekicks like in the movie.
Besides there are enough differences how to interpret the elements of other media once you have to use them in different situations. Discussions regarding Star Wars canon are not less flame bait than rpg discussions.

So I think setting is first with a close follow up by system (ideally they would be interwoven) and people is the result after finding out who has similar enough tastes to find compromises afterwards.
You will not see by the nose that some of the new players have a very different style than the rest.

Quote from: Madprofessor;889065I'm not saying that this proves that rules-flexibility is better than RaW for everyone, but this is not a new argument, and in the past the "this is your game" argument won out over the "even RPGs must follow the rules" argument.

I think the usual situation is not RAW or be damned but some GM saying: This this is my offer: I want to play x in y with system z and house rules a,b,c - anyone in with me?
And then there are some questions and suggestions and anyone liking the result of the (most times rather short, after all someone has done already most of the work writing the rules book) discussion joins the group.

And discussions like here pop up if someone wants to play, but the proposed game is not like he wants it (or as a GM he wants to do things differently from what he told before) .

Quote from: Lunamancer;889080I think part of the problem is that people create artificially narrow definitions of terms. Like "rules" for example. Rules in a computer game really can't be broken. The programming can neither handle nor allow it.
...
For players who do not also GM the system in question, or who like to play a lot of different games, I really don't think the "rules" approach is practical. Rather, what works better is that the GM is being faithful to the world. You can understand the world heuristically without encyclopedic knowledge of the game system. So you can form reasonable expectations based on that, but only if the GM isn't going to blindly follow rules that produce goofy shit.

So for the sake of my purpose--for the sake of consistency, to enable reasonable expectations, to support a thinking and strategy-intensive campaign--it is actually important that the GM make rulings towards the purpose of being faithful to the campaign world. It's actually not strict adherence to the letter of the rules.

I think you are asking for something like "hive mind" or at least "mind reading". It might be easier to play this way if you think you are the one calling the shots, but your imaginary freedom is coming from all the others getting second seats.
You will have different views on setting and scenes and you will have different preferences of style (either general or regarding a certain scene) and rules is what makes it possible to reduce these access and coordination problems without discussing out every little scene and even then getting problems with assumptions that will lead to problems somewhat later and reopen this discussion again. Rules ill not completely handle this problems, but ... 80/20.

Quote from: Itachi;889007Yep, we also have run rules 100% as written. In fact, this happens most of times for us. Only when we perceive some rules as unnecessarily complex or not producing coherent results we change them (or ignore them). Shadowrun Matrix was such a case, as we concluded it didn't add anything interesting to the game, and just slowed our games down.

Yeah, I've never thought I'm alone in this approach:).
Mind, there are games which I refuse to play by RAW, and there are games where I just say "I'm the GM, my rules".
But that's usually because the native system sucks;).

QuoteIndie/Narrativist games also tend to be used RAW with a big frequency in my opinion, because they tend to be finely-tuned to address certain themes and goals in a way that, even if a small part is changed, can mess with the whole system. (this is specially true to PbtA games, for example, or Pendragon imo).

Pendragon is much easier to mod, and I've run PbtA games by houseruling them on the fly. Example, I mixed AW with Icons in an unholy homebrew, and ran a 1001 nights one-shot. (Reason: I went to run the same with Savage worlds and forgot to take polyhedron dice. I improvised with what dice we were able to scrounge).
The reason I'm running games RAW isn't that I'm afraid I'd upset the oh-so-delicate balance. In fact, I trust myself to improve them when I decide to. The reason is, simply, ease of use.

Quote from: Ravenswing;889002Eeesh.  To quote the famous Viking Hat post, I'm running the game, not several hundred pages of recycled paper and second-rate art.

That's good for you, but it's still true even when you run a game RAW.

QuoteI understand RAW as a preference, and I recognize its attraction to drop-in games such as convention runs and FLGS open sessions, but.

Curiously, I tend to run closed games RAW, and open games with a homebrew. Don't ask me why, it just ends up like this:D!

QuoteIt helped that the first RPG I played was EPT and not D&D, but like many another 70s player, I don't think I'd GMed for as much as a month before deciding RAW just did not work for me.

That's fine, but to me, that depends on the game. Some games can be used RAW just fine. Others, I wouldn't even start to run RAW.

Quote from: Maarzan;888992He doesn´t need the rulebook in his face during the game when he knows his tools.

Nothing makes a game more sucking than someone arbitrarilly deciding that he can change existing rules at a whim.

Yes, there's this, too:).

Quote from: Madprofessor;889013Here is a statement and a question for the RAW people.

Playing an RPG RAW is more restrictive than adapting the rules to fit the campaign.

How is that not a statement of fact?

Because it's a statement of opinion. Opinion=/=fact.
Consider for a moment that some games, say GURPS, already assume that you'd need to adapt the rules...because using all the rules at once is outright impossible (some variant rules contradict each other). Consider that some games are custom-made for a specific campaign, say Pendragon, and running it with them yields better results than running it with other games.

Listen, I don't run always RAW. I run RAW when I decide the RAW fits well enough, and homebrew it when I decide I need to. Deciding to run RAW is still a decision for customising the campaign.

QuoteMathematically speaking, any number of given options is still less than infinite options.

Go run a mathematical campaign, then. Or run a good one, instead;).

QuoteMathematically speaking, half-dead is the same as half-alive.
Now expressing that in symbols, 1/2 dead=1/2 alive.
Now multiply both sides by two, and you get either a profound mystic concept, or absurdity.

Or in other words: Mathematics don't give the best option. Less is sometimes more in life and in games. Restriction is the point when you're trying to be faithful to a setting.
Anyone who tells me he wants to play a ninja in a Pendragon game...isn't going to get in the game. Because I'm restrictive like that.

QuoteClearly some people enjoy a style of play where everything is tightly governed by the rules.

Clearly some do.

QuoteThere must be some kind of puzzle-solving gamist thing, a strong concern about fairness, or an enjoyment of system for system's sake going on.

I've seen all three reasons, though seldom in the same person.

QuoteIt might help it the anti-flexability crowed would explain why their way works rather than just painting the inverse negatively by saying that traditional approaches to rules are "insane," "fucked up," or "selfish."

"Anti-flexibility crowd". Classy.
"Why their way works". Do you have any doubts it does?
...you do understand that after this sentence alone I wouldn't bother explaining anything (assuming I was in said crowd). Don't you?

QuoteTo be fair, I'd also like to here from the flexible-approach people if they have any trouble with rules consistency, and if so, how they deal with it.

OK, but which group are you in? I get it you're in the flexible-approach people. Why don't you explain the answer to that question, then;)?

Quote from: Maarzan;889120I think you are asking for something like "hive mind" or at least "mind reading". It might be easier to play this way if you think you are the one calling the shots, but your imaginary freedom is coming from all the others getting second seats.

Except I was specifically writing from the perspective of the player. The GM's always going to know what's what because the GM has the final say on what's what. What I wrote is entirely about the players. There's no hive mind required. You present zero evidence of that. I at least made an argument of why rules-based understanding is problematic. This seems to be a brain-bug of nerdom, that only well-defined mathematical expressions allow for clear communication. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Quote from: Lunamancer;889136Except I was specifically writing from the perspective of the player. The GM's always going to know what's what because the GM has the final say on what's what. What I wrote is entirely about the players. There's no hive mind required. You present zero evidence of that. I at least made an argument of why rules-based understanding is problematic. This seems to be a brain-bug of nerdom, that only well-defined mathematical expressions allow for clear communication. Nothing could be further from the truth.

With this constellation it would also be the duty of the GM to make sure that every participant is getting a complete view of the situation as long as it is necessary to make decisions.
If you don´t give this information we are back to players guessing or having to try to read the GM mind.

Unfortunately I can´t detect any arguments why rules-based understanding is problematic. Could you please point me to it?

And while well defined mathematical expressions are not the only way to describe things, they rare surely the surest and often fastest. Just think how many different ideas people can have if you talk about a huge dog or big reward.

And while a GM will need a certain enpowerment above players for more traditional games, personally I think the attitude to not spell out and fix the chosen basic (yes, it is not possible to cover everything, but ...) rules and setting details is a lazy cop out to leave the players in the blind and thus be able to adjust everything to his own taste at a whim. (Kind of constitutional monarchy vs. absolutism).