Quote from: Lunamancer;889202Which language can communicate.

If you see it that way, use your language to talk in mathematical precise numbers and formulas and we have found a compromise :cool:.

Quote from: CRKrueger;889144Amount of rules or types of rules are only a barrier to entry if it is assumed you have to know them before you sit down and play, which, to be honest, no one I've ever played with in 35 years, does.  Hell, even the local Pathfinder crew that is 8 months into a campaign they run at the FLGS has pre-gens to hand out to newbies if they want to sit down and play.

If you don't know how to play...don't worry about it, you'll learn as you go.
If you know how to play, ok, there's changes to the standard rules, you'll learn as you go.

The problem only really materializes when you have complex systems where the byzantine clockwork inter-relation of cards...err powers I mean, leads to emergent complexity like..."My god man!  You can't let a Yithian Dragonchild take the prestige class of Dimensional Conqueror if they have the base class of Crystal Reaver!  What if they take the powers Root of the World Tree and Asp of Heaven?! DON'T YOU SEE WHAT YOU'VE DONE!...and even then, that problem only materializes online...and only really at The Gaming Den.

Hell, a friend of mine had a bunch of players sit down at a FLGS to play his game, which was a highly customized variant you could only loosely call D&D.  People said "Ok, how do we make up characters..." and off they went.

This whole "Sorry dude, changing Poleaxe so you can use it as a slashing, piercing or blunt weapon...we just don't know you that well.  We have to trust when it comes to polearms, man." attitude...Jesus Wept.

Exactly. When I started my new campaign I brought a number of pregen characters as examples of how character builds could look.

I expect players to need to be told what dice to roll to do things the first few times, at least, that they play a game. Expecting them to know all the rules before we start to play a new game seems unrealistic.

It may be that I started gaming in teh 70s that I expect the rules to be short and concise, and the GM to be expected to interpret them in play. RAW as much as fits the campaign, but able to be changed when needed.

I don't like games like 3.5 where the rules have become so intricate that changing one small bit can throw the whole thing out of whack in unanticipated ways and players are rewarded for combing through rules tomes looking for exploits and loopholes.

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

Well, there is nothing wrong with a "rules-based understanding" from my perspective.  However, rules are limiting and are therefore often inadequate in service of the campaign.  For example, a player may have a good idea for a character that is not allowed or mentioned by he rules, the rules of a chosen system may not treat a specific aspect of the setting that is important to your campaign (perhaps you want rules for thieves guilds and the game doesn't cover it), or perhaps the rules inadequately handle certain types of resolution such as combat moving too slow in one situation and not in enough detail in another.

My response to these types of situations has always been to make the rules fit the needs of the campaign.  It is hard for me to imagine forcing the campaign to fit into the constraints of the rules when the rules are working against you rather than with you.

I suppose if the GM and players all completely buy into the campaign as envisioned by the author of the game rules, then there might not be a need to change or adapt the rules at all, and everything will work out.  

I generally develop a campaign idea from scratch and then pick a rules set with features that will help me bring that campaign to life.  I then tweek the rules to the best of my ability before the campaign starts.  I will make further adjustments to the rules as play progresses. Though I try not to rock the boat for rules focused players mid-game any more than I have to, I have no reservations about changing a rule on the fly to facilitate the game.  I of course include the players in any rules decisions that concern them because the objective is to bring the game to life and for everyone to enjoy it.  None of this is so different from how RPGs have been played from their inception.  It works, and my players appreciate and approve of the methodology.

QuoteAnd 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).

I make it clear that my table is a dictatorship, but it is a pretty benevolent one.  There is nothing lazy or a cop-out about my GM style.  It is a lot of f'n work and that is clear to anyone who plays with me.  

Also, I don't "leave players in the blind." I am happy if they bother to read the rules and am happy to discuss all aspects and changes with them.  With some groups, we often have great after-sessions drinking beer and discussing rules, but most players feel that rules intricacies are a boring and just a bother.  They'd rather I handle it. They trust me to be fair and fun and leave it at that.

I can see a problem with some games that have "feated" and thus disassociated the rules to an amount where you can´t piss if you didn´t take the right feat.

Thus it is really hard to just give someone a fresh, mundane character and let him play, because characters are even more not behaving like "people" but like abstract playing pieces and thus even the assumed "common knowledge" actions can´t be estimated by him.

But is this really what is usually meant when someone proposes a conflict between rules and campaign?

Quote from: Madprofessor;889215Well, there is nothing wrong with a "rules-based understanding" from my perspective.  However, rules are limiting and are therefore often inadequate in service of the campaign.  For example, a player may have a good idea for a character that is not allowed or mentioned by he rules, the rules of a chosen system may not treat a specific aspect of the setting that is important to your campaign (perhaps you want rules for thieves guilds and the game doesn't cover it), or perhaps the rules inadequately handle certain types of resolution such as combat moving too slow in one situation and not in enough detail in another.

My response to these types of situations has always been to make the rules fit the needs of the campaign.  It is hard for me to imagine forcing the campaign to fit into the constraints of the rules when the rules are working against you rather than with you.

I suppose if the GM and players all completely buy into the campaign as envisioned by the author of the game rules, then there might not be a need to change or adapt the rules at all, and everything will work out.  

I generally develop a campaign idea from scratch and then pick a rules set with features that will help me bring that campaign to life.  I then tweek the rules to the best of my ability before the campaign starts.  I will make further adjustments to the rules as play progresses. Though I try not to rock the boat for rules focused players mid-game any more than I have to, I have no reservations about changing a rule on the fly to facilitate the game.  I of course include the players in any rules decisions that concern them because the objective is to bring the game to life and for everyone to enjoy it.  None of this is so different from how RPGs have been played from their inception.  It works, and my players appreciate and approve of the methodology.



I make it clear that my table is a dictatorship, but it is a pretty benevolent one.  There is nothing lazy or a cop-out about my GM style.  It is a lot of f'n work and that is clear to anyone who plays with me.  

Also, I don't "leave players in the blind." I am happy if they bother to read the rules and am happy to discuss all aspects and changes with them.  With some groups, we often have great after-sessions drinking beer and discussing rules, but most players feel that rules intricacies are a boring and just a bother.  They'd rather I handle it. They trust me to be fair and fun and leave it at that.

Ok, then we have a misunderstanding here and we are not that far apart.
In my view the RAW crept in later in the discussion and I see the discussed rules as the rules as edited by the GM for this campaign (and any modifications he can include from his players wishlist) and published to his players.

Thus the conflict I visualized was when some time into the game someone wants to deviate from this base. (Or probably someone rebelling after the GM didn´t see a possible compromise and include his wish in the current setting)

But I have a problem with rule changes during the game and try to stay as true to them as a GM as I can. If I see some unsolveable problem I try to negotiate here (preferably between sessions), understanding that I am the one to deviate here.

Quote from: Maarzan;889207If you see it that way, use your language to talk in mathematical precise numbers and formulas and we have found a compromise :cool:.

Except as I pointed out earlier, the mathematical numbers aren't precise, and naturalistic language is a superior form of communication.

QuoteOriginally Posted by AsenRG
Point me to a post of mine in this thread where I insulted anyone.

Believe it or not, Asen, I wasn't talking about you. You are argumentative, but you're not insulting

QuoteHave you noticed who's saying that "running a game by RAW" doesn't require lots of rulings and trusting the GM?
It's only, or mostly, the people that don't like the idea of running a game by the RAW, that's who. Why would you take their opinion over the opinion of those that actually have experience with that mode of play?
I can tell you, from experience, that no matter how expansive the RAW is, the GM always needs to make rulings.

Asen, you are confusing. So when you list all of the games that you run "100% RaW" what you mean is 100% RaW except for all of the rulings you have to make because "no matter how expansive the RAW is, the GM always needs to make rulings." :huhsign:  It might have been nice if you had qualified this earlier, not that it is a big deal, as I had never claimed that people don't play RaW or at least attempt to.

...and actually, I believe that it is dragoner, Itachi and Maarzan that are primarily discussing rules as a social contract, which brought me to bring up trust.    In my games trust, friendship, a shared hobby, interests, and specifically the shared imaginary space of the campaign is the social contract - not the rules.  I am just trying to follow their meaning and I haven't criticized anyone for this style.  I am sure it works for them.  It's just alien to me.

QuoteProvocative again, aren't you?

Well, if you want to take offense, then I guess so, though it was not my intention.

QuoteFor most of us, however, we just use RAW when and because we believe running the game RAW serves the campaign better (frex, by providing a rather extensive shorthand for what's possible, what's likely, and what isn't either of those things). That's also why we take quite the effort to pick the right game that, if possible, wouldn't require alterations (or, if it's GURPS, picking the right optional rules)!

Sure, I get this.  I pick the right rules too - and then I take it a step further and...

QuoteIt's all about fine-tuning the ruleset to fit the campaign and setting. But there are different ways to do that.

Low and behold! I thought you played all of those games "100% RaW." I guess we're not so different, are we? What were you arguing about?

Let's see, you "adjust," "fine-tune," and "require lots of rulings and trusting the GM." hmm...

Seriously, I am not sure that our approaches are so different that they are worth arguing about.

Quote from: soltakss;889196I really do think that trying to analyze this thread for "sense" is a waste of time. People have expressed opinions about things and have interpreted opinions as facts and facts as opinions.

And that's a fact.

Or an opinion.

I think you won the thread!

Quote from: Madprofessor;889226Believe it or not, Asen, I wasn't talking about you. You are argumentative, but you're not insulting

I think I was among the first to point out that no, running games RAW is well possible. So, when you throw out "the RAW side is insulting people", I can't answer with anything but "huh, am I? Where?"

QuoteAsen, you are confusing. So when you list all of the games that you run "100% RaW" what you mean is 100% RaW except for all of the rulings you have to make because "no matter how expansive the RAW is, the GM always needs to make rulings." :huhsign:

...well, duh, of course! Tell me, how can I run a Pendragon or FWTD game without making a ruling?
A PC had a Saxon mother. Is that enough to trigger the "Hate: Saxons" in the father of the lady you're courting? Who decides? The GM does. What is that if not a ruling?
A FWTD PC decided to run a bakery (true story, I'll see if I have it on my blog or it was from after I'd stopped describing the campaign). How important is each of the parts of running it? Do I just give him a Cooking roll every day, and assume the rest if it doesn't require on-screen attention? Do I make him jump through hoops to get timely deliveries? Do I have him roll Law: Tort when a supplier is late with the supplies he needs, and abstract the rest in case of success, or can he get away with just a Basic Law roll since they have a contract and it's clear who's in the wrong by not delivering? When people roll any skill, fighting included, what does a Critical success mean?
Rulings, again and again. It's a big book, but you still need to make rulings. I simply don't know an RPG where you can run the game without rulings!

OTOH, I was observing all the rules in the book (and the supplements I have), and I'm not letting you off the hook "because you seem to be too sullen". That is "rules as written". But some things are simply not covered by rules...would you expect me to say to the players "you can't do stuff not covered by rules"?
I'd hope you don't expect that;).

QuoteIt might have been nice if you had qualified this earlier, not that it is a big deal, as I had never claimed that people don't play RaW or at least attempt to.

I was replying to a post "not even the game designers are ever going to run that game RAW, nobody does".

Quote...and actually, I believe that it is dragoner, Itachi and Maarzan that are primarily discussing rules as a social contract, which brought me to bring up trust.    In my games trust, friendship, a shared hobby, interests, and specifically the shared imaginary space of the campaign is the social contract - not the rules.

Rules are a shared contract, yes, in a way. They mean "certain actions have a range of predictable outcomes". Wanting to get a different outcome is breaking said contract.
People might let you get away with it because shared hobby, interests and so on, but you're still asking for special treatment.
Or, cue the "wants to be a ninja in Pendragon" rant, which I'm sure I had delivered.
Or, if you prefer: a Struggle attack with a weapon always kills in UA3. If you take a weapon to subdue someone more easily, and then roll a crit, you've got a body on your hands.
Anyone who asks that this hasn't happened, wants to avoid the consequences. Maybe a GM doesn't want an NPC killed, maybe a PC doesn't want to kill a strong friend who was misbehaving. But the consequences, by the book, are clear, and central to the kind of game UA3 is geared to promote.
Again, maybe other people at the table will give you special treatment...but maybe they'd decide to value consistency higher, and in this case, you have to deal with the consequences.

QuoteI am just trying to follow their meaning and I haven't criticized anyone for this style.  I am sure it works for them.  It's just alien to me.

The "provocative" parts sure sound like critic. Just FYI.

QuoteWell, if you want to take offense, then I guess so, though it was not my intention.

Once you get provocative, you're under higher suspicion. Need I explain why?

QuoteSure, I get this.  I pick the right rules too - and then I take it a step further and...



Low and behold! I thought you played all of those games "100% RaW."

I did, as much as possible. The fine-tuning, in my case, meant just "picking the right system"...out of 20 that just might do the job, but probably aren't quite what I'm looking for.

QuoteI guess we're not so different, are we? What were you arguing about?

RAW and GM whims;).

QuoteLet's see, you "adjust," "fine-tune," and "require lots of rulings and trusting the GM." hmm...

Of course I adjust...when the system needs it.
Of course I fine-tune the rules. I pick the best rules for this campaign. I just don't need to change them after that...sometimes.
Sometimes, picking FWTD over CP2020 is fine-tuning enough, and we can run it RAW.
Sometimes, I might need to pick CP2020 and hack it until it cries for mercy...but after that, I'll have exactly the rules I need to run a specific campaign concept.

QuoteI guess we're not so different, are we? What were you arguing about?

It's not my job to decide how different we are:). I'm just pointing out that no, playing a game by the RAW doesn't mean you don't trust the GM, for example00. For that matter, most of the above are games I've run.

QuoteSeriously, I am not sure that our approaches are so different that they are worth arguing about.

Neither am I;).

My campaign is no longer going to be RAW. Today we discovered that the speeds of airships and ornithropters just don't make sense to us, so we are going to change them to better fit the way we see this Sword&Planet world operating.

Campaign trumps Rules. It is a small thing and would likely have remained unnoticed if one of the characters was not a Han Solo type crack pilot. Flying is a key thing to this character, so those rules got carefully looked at. Today featured an aerial battle that had some unexpected outcomes due to relative speeds of the combatants. So we spent some time taking a close look at the rules and our campaign expectations.

It isn't a case of RAW being "broken". They work fine mechanically, and maybe even flavourfully for most players. But for us in this case they don't fit the campaign we want. Just a little bit off.

Quote from: Bren;888182Rules that do their job while mostly fading into the background are clever.

That's pretty much my opinion.

And why is this discussion even going on?

Quote from: DavetheLost;889261My campaign is no longer going to be RAW. Today we discovered that the speeds of airships and ornithropters just don't make sense to us, so we are going to change them to better fit the way we see this Sword&Planet world operating.

Campaign trumps Rules. It is a small thing and would likely have remained unnoticed if one of the characters was not a Han Solo type crack pilot. Flying is a key thing to this character, so those rules got carefully looked at. Today featured an aerial battle that had some unexpected outcomes due to relative speeds of the combatants. So we spent some time taking a close look at the rules and our campaign expectations.

It isn't a case of RAW being "broken". They work fine mechanically, and maybe even flavourfully for most players. But for us in this case they don't fit the campaign we want. Just a little bit off.

Well, that's usually how campaigns stop being RAW, IME. Sometimes it just doesn't take long;).

Quote from: Christopher Brady;889285That's pretty much my opinion.

And why is this discussion even going on?

Because we love discussing stuff that doesn't matter anyway, and being able to proudly claim that we reject the opinions we dislike, before going off to run the same game we'd run anyway:D!

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

We could ask Gygax or Arneson who included space aliens in Greyhawk and Blackmoor as well as in the Wilderness Tables in the original rule set, but sadly both of them are dead.

I suspect the answer to your question might have been "Because I thought it would be fun."

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;889055Thus, in order of importance to the success of the game session it is,

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

While nice snacks are nice, I can always eat before or after play or bring my own snacks. I'd rate snacks well below

   5. real world location (comfort of seats, lighting, temperature, freshness of the air, etc.)
6. day and time of play

Quote from: Lunamancer;889197Whatever number you want, the English language has a word for it.

Provably it does not.

Simple version: English, like any language, provides countably infinite utterances to each of which we can assign an integer number, but the real numbers are uncountable in number. Thus there are real numbers for which there can be no words.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;889285And why is this discussion even going on?

Some people don't have enough to do?

Quote from: AsenRG;889253I simply don't know an RPG where you can run the game without rulings!

Because it doesn't exist, and in the beginning there weren't RPG's comprehensive enough to cover everything, nor would it even be thought of, as it was about making stuff up anyways. The whole 'rulings not rules' is modern, I didn't hear it back then.

Quote from: CRKrueger;888300People - if they suck will I stay? No, not really under any circumstances.
Setting - if the setting sucks will I stay?  If the people are totally awesome, and the system doesn't bother me, maybe.
System - If I hate the system will I stay?  If the people are great, and the setting intrigues the hell out of me, then I'll probably live with a system I wouldn't touch under other circumstances.

So yeah, I think People > Setting > System is spot on.  
Snacks don't factor in at all, because I can bring my own.

Agreed. I played in a long campaign using a hybrid of Aria and HarnMaster (!) because of the People and Setting involved.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;888810Whatever the fuck it is you are smoking, you need to share.

I can't even comprehend this shit. It's insane.

You honestly expect the DM - who is already juggling handling NPCs, every aspect of the world that isn't an NPC, all the story shit going on, reigning in side-talk at the table - to also have all the fucking rules memorized and understand exactly how your special snowflake interacts with them, and be able to handle this information at your fucking whim?

That is quite possibly one of the most fucking self-centered things I have ever read. The only time this would be vaguely acceptable behavior would be in the context of a new player, and even then I'd expect them to do at least some fucking reading.

Tell me about.  Talk about fucking entitled.

What, Princess, reading too hard?  Aw.  Sorry, Cupcake, but having to juggle about (and this is D&D 5e's PHB spell list...  OK, I gave up.  I got to Mirror Image, and that was 250) to about another set of about, 500 individual, exclusionary rule blocks that are called Spells on top of everything else?  The NPC's, what the room/location you're in that you want to trash like drugged up rockstars on a bad binge, and whatever else I foolishly decided to add to my ever growing pile of cute descriptions and rules?

Really?  What kind of overly self-entitled, inconsiderate dickholes are you?  I mean, seriously, there's only ONE of me, and (personally, for my mental state) up to 5 of you (and some of you play in even bigger tables???  Holy Jumped Up Jehosaphat...)  Help a brother out, Pumpkin, get some reading comprehension and learn some of the rules.  Not asking you to memorize the entire book, but at least help out with the spells you plan on using, Mr. Wizard/Druid/Cleric.  And Mr. Fighter, the combat system, if you please.

Wow.  What a bunch of...

Or are we, ONCE again, forgetting that by now, you've all played your version of whatever game you're into long enough that you've already memorized the entire book, twice, and maybe thrice on Sundays?  So you don't have to read them anymore?