Quote from: Simlasa;902774I might care what rules I'm running, but do all the people at the table? I'd say half the Players in our weekly Pathfinder group don't give crap. They care about their characters, the setting, and whatever stuff is going on in-game. The rules don't seem to get in their way and that's good enough.

That my experience as well with a variety of different groups. Rules can be a factor but in most cases it the quality of the campaign and how well the group gets along that are the primary factors.

Quote from: Simlasa;902772Then, if they enjoy themselves and we keep playing, I'll explain whatever they want and we'll just go from there.
It's how I generally introduce people to RPGs, unless they obviously have a real hankering to dive into the rules right from the start.

And the genius of RPG campaigns that it can work perfectly well run that way. There are things that a referee has to watch out for. The most important of which is to educate the player as to his options at a particular moment so he isn't unfairly blindsided because he didn't read the rulebook. And it not always clear the difference between the player that is just ignorant of the rules vs. the player being just plain stupid about what he want to do.

Talking about it is not clear-cut either because any advice will have to be hedged, exception pointed out, etc, etc. In short it is a lot easier to talk about definite rules then the fuzziness of managing a campaign. But the strength of tabletop RPGs comes from that fuzziness.

Riding a motorcycle isn't about your helmet, it's about enjoying the ride.  That doesn't mean you don't need the helmet.

I realize this is a dead horse but:

"I must create a system or be enslaved by another man's. I will not reason and compare: my business is to create." - William Blake.  I think that quote encapsulates the ethos of what makes RPGs different from other games.  It is good GM advice. At least it works for me.

The "campaign" (as Rob has defined it) is the thing.  The rules are just tools to get you there.  

The imagination is a blank canvas.  Anything is possible.  However, it is hard to start creating with nothing but a blank page. Rules, when they are working with you, help to give the imagination structure - which can be both good and bad.  On one hand, they provide seeds and options.  They give you something to work with, not only crayons, pencils and oils, but a subject.  On the other hand, they can be limiting, telling you what you can and cannot do.  Rules can be as structured as paint by number where 90% of the work is done for you and the outcome is mostly visible before the project begins.  "Here's your 400 page rulebook. No coloring outside the lines, kids." Or, they can be as free form as jars of finger paints, where anything goes.  "Why does my dragon look like a poop smear?"  Regardless, the medium is not the product.  In the end we want to see the painting, not the brush.  In my experience, an RPG game is about the product, what you create, and the hands that made it.  The rules, though endlessly fascinating in the minutia of textures and options they provide, are just tools to achieve that goal.

...at least that is my caffeine inspired pedantic bluster of the day.

Quote from: Crüesader;902847Riding a motorcycle isn't about your helmet, it's about enjoying the ride.  That doesn't mean you don't need the helmet.

It doesn't mean you should split lanes, either. False analogy.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;902749Only in the RPG community will you find this kind of batshit insane sentiment when it comes to games. And it's so established it's become a cultural tradition in some circles.

So I suppose a table full of people you don't mesh with, a GM you can't stand, and a campaign you're not interested in don't matter, what really keeps Anon glued to the table is the system used, right?...somehow I think not.  So, YES, literally the last thing a brand new player needs is the rules of play for an RPG.  They could get a pre-gen, start rolling dice and learn by playing. I've had good feedback from dozens of new players over the years using this method, and even got someone to play RMSS after they swore they'd never play it again, because the first time they tried, the GM let them borrow the book for a week and told them to bring a made up character next Friday.  It's an unfortunate aspect of human thought and memory, but very few people who have internalized something actually remember what it was like to not know how to do something.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;902749Are you saying that reading the rules keeps new players away?

Expecting them to read a techbible before we start throwing dice can certainly keep new players away.  At the local FLGS here, one of the main PF groups keeps all the giant books off the table during play because the GM noticed when they all had phonebooks at their side, the number of new people who asked to play was nil.  Nothing says "Srs bsns, n00b - leave." like giant rulebooks all over the table.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;902749Unless the way you do things contradicts what they're used to and they want their 400+ page books to play.

Then they can play that someplace else, can't they?  I obviously can't stop someone from buying a 400+ page gamebook before we play that game, but if they're a veteran and expect me to go through page by page to show them all the differences between the rules in the book and the rules at the table, before they play, then they'll be waiting a while, for infinite values of "a while".  If players aren't willing to invest a little bit of trust in a new GM, they can go fuck off.  I don't care what teenage asswipe of a GM offed their character in some faintly remembered D&D Summer and they've taken refuge in tables and numbers and 400 page books to protect themselves - I'm not their fucking shrink.  Chill the fuck out and kick it back a notch, and you'll have fun like everyone else.  You can't get past your gaming scars, go live on RPG.net.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;902749As if this simile wasn't dumbass enough, you have to know how to shoot before you're even eligible to enter the Marine Corps.

Yeah, no. I'm not using the definition of "entering the Marines" as "after all preliminary training is completed, you actually now are a Marine", I'm obviously talking about Boot Camp where to show up you most definitely do not need to know how to shoot (like my friend's brother who is at Parris Island right now, having never picked up a gun before he got off the bus) and if you do, most of the time, they have to retrain you.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;902749Yes, how arrogant of them to presume to tell you how to play the game they designed.
Again, this kind of crazy seems completely unique to tabletop roleplayers.

Authorial Intent is certainly important when it comes to an RPG, I want to know what the designer has in mind.  But there's a difference between understanding what they have in mind, agreeing with what they have in mind, putting it to actual use at the table, and an expectation of RAW.  The book is not a game, it's a set of rules for a game that is not a boardgame, cardgame, console or videogame (no matter how hard FFG and WotC once tried).  The game is what happens at the table, which too many Pro-Players forget.

QuoteOriginally posted by Anon Adderlan
But why do you have to adapt the rules to fit the campaign in the first place? Unless the rules actually do fundamentally define important aspects of the campaign, in which case they already fit the campaign they're designed for.

Because I have never met a set of rules that perfectly match any campaign that I have ever conceived of.  I am not interested in substituting published campaigns for my imagination and swallowing someone else's ideas without processing it or putting my own spin on it.  It don't begrudge anybody their fun, but it seems a sad world for any player who has to borrow a pre-packaged setting/story/imaginative framework without making it their own.  For me, I start with my own campaign idea, then I find a rule set that matches as well as possible, then I adapt those rules to make them fit.  During play, the players and I will continue to change and adapt the rules as our collective imaginary world develops.  I guess we could play someone's packaged campaign RAW - but then if I want a medium for which I have no creative input, I'll just read a book or watch a movie.

QuoteOriginally posted by Anon Adderlan
That's what they're supposed to do. And I highly doubt your 'flexible' approach is any less restrictive, just in different ways.

Well, a flexible approach is more flexible than an inflexible one.  I'm not sure if I can make it any more obvious.  If you have a set of perimeters (rules) that are set in stone then the game is bound by those strictures. If you are willing to change those parameters, then the campaign is not bound by those restrictions.  A flexible approach is "less restrictive" than an inflexible one.  There is nothing for you to "doubt."

Notice, I did not say that a flexible approach is best, or more fun, or whatever.  It just seems silly to argue that flexibility is as restrictive as RAW.

Dice bind and shackle you. They are devil's invention, they bring chaos and unpredictability to the table, they make you think in numbers and make choices according to artificial, often counter-intuitive rules that have little to do with the reality.

Dice USE you.

But there's not too late for the Big Change. Throw away your dice, play dice-less games!

[ATTACH=CONFIG]163[/ATTACH]

The campaign is not about the rules about the rules bit the playing part is undevisible from rules. You may have the wrong rules for the kind of game you intend to play, but lastly you will need some to make it playing.

Even cooperative storygames need rules - granted different rules than a traditional RPG - unless you are not so much interested in the cooperative part ... .

Quote from: Crüesader;902847Riding a motorcycle isn't about your helmet, it's about enjoying the ride.  That doesn't mean you don't need the helmet.

How about: "Cakes are about eating them, not the recipe."

Funny, now that I put it that way, I'm tending to agree with Estar. Hmm.

Quote from: CRKrueger;888455Saurondor and Dave, you guys have been answering those questions yourselves by talking to Estar.

The campaign, by definition, is what happens at the table with the GM and players.  The game designer simply creates rules that describe processes.  These processes can create default assumptions, but the game rules are nothing more than a theoretical model.

You might find a game in which the proposed assumptions the designer provides lines up 100% with the campaign you want, but I've seen that happen...never.

There's always a difference, there's always an alteration, some things get used, some things get changed, some things get axed, sometimes minor, sometimes major.

You always play the campaign the GM and players create.  Even if the table agrees to play 100% by RAW, that's still their choice (remember the Rush song).  The designer has nothing to do with it, nothing to communicate to the player, because even if the GM says "Make up your character according to pages 15-30 in the PHB", without any alterations at all, it's still the GM who is saying that.

It might seem like picking a nit, but it's key to the point being discussed here.  The campaign is the actual specific and unique implementation of a theoretical model, divorced from the designer completely.

The fact that A does not line up 100% with B does not mean that A has NOTHING to do with B. The book called the Great Pendragon Campaign has a lot to do with how many people play......the Great Pendragon Campaign. So what if that's the GM's choice? In many cases the GM wouldn't have a clue what to do without the gaming books.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;888174What makes pizza is crust, not cheese or sauce.

I was about to say something like this, but there it was

Quote from: Trond;903075The fact that A does not line up 100% with B does not mean that A has NOTHING to do with B. The book called the Great Pendragon Campaign has a lot to do with how many people play......the Great Pendragon Campaign. So what if that's the GM's choice? In many cases the GM wouldn't have a clue what to do without the gaming books.

That's a campaign adventure, not the core system.

Quote from: Trond;903075The fact that A does not line up 100% with B does not mean that A has NOTHING to do with B. The book called the Great Pendragon Campaign has a lot to do with how many people play......the Great Pendragon Campaign. So what if that's the GM's choice? In many cases the GM wouldn't have a clue what to do without the gaming books.

A single example doesn't prove the general rule false, it could just be an outlier. If you are playing Pendragon, that means you agree to play that in the first place, however, if you hate the setting, the rules mean nothing, because you wouldn't be playing it anyways.

Quote from: ArrozConLeche;903065How about: "Cakes are about eating them, not the recipe."

Funny, now that I put it that way, I'm tending to agree with Estar. Hmm.

Exactly, but, your Output (eating the cake) will still be affected by Input (the recipe you start with).  It just won't be determined by Input. Along the way, the cook might alter that recipe according to their experience, bake it differently, use more frosting, whatever the hell, then once it's made, you could be eating the cake with your favorite coffee, your favorite supermodel, etc...