Quote from: Omega;746408Meant the rule for everything part.

Okay, please quote the rules for (1) swimming and (2) bribing a guard from the three core 1e AD&D books.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;746409Okay, please quote the rules for (1) swimming and (2) bribing a guard from the three core 1e AD&D books.

Um... Did you read the OP or what I responded to? "Rules for everything" MENTALITY? Gygax himself had stated that AD&D and UA came about in part from the frequent letters for more rules that surprised them. And gathering stuff from Dragon.

Quote from: Panjumanju;746385This isn't new in the least. "A Rule for Everything" was the Gygax way.

Not until the late 70s with AD&D.

"We have attempted to furnish an ample framework, and building should be both easy and fun. In this light, we urge you to refrain from writing for rule interpretations or the like unless you are absolutely at a loss, for everything herein is fantastic, and the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it just that way! On the other hand, we are not loath to answer your questions, but why have us do any more of your imagining for you? Write to us and tell about your additions, ideas, and what have you."

Dungeons and Dragons, Vol. 3, "The Underworld and Wilderness Adventures," p. 36 (TSR, 1974)

The "Rule For Everything" came from D&D tournament play.  Tournaments had prizes, and quickly got too big for one referee.  The more referees, the more the rules need to be exactly nailed down.

I will also note that I thought the idea of a "D&D Tournament" was stupid the first time I heard it, and I still think it's stupid today.  But the wargames at GenCon had prizes, and when non-wargamers started showing up at GenCon they wanted prizes too.

The dichotomy of 'adjudicate vs rule' is ancient, and it corrolates (or should) with the scope and complexity of the game one wants to play.

You'll note from the various OD&D to AD&D a move towards Rule vs Adjudication.  And the term 'Advanced' added weight to the idea that more rules was more advanced design, when in fact few people realized the resultant reduction in flexibility and assumed setting scope.  Not saying this is bad, just somehting that happened.

But the bigger the scope of the game, no matter the system, and the closer to a reality it attempts to model, the more adjudication has to be assumed.

Quote from: OmegaSome players and DMs want official rules rather than home-brew. Either because they dont have the mindset for it, or because if its official then a belligerant player cannot argue it.

Also some players seemed to want more rules as a method of depowering DM choice and arbitration.

I think this is the essence of it.  Rules-for-everything systems can act to mitigate DM/player tensions - either players who are dissatisfied with what they perceive as bad DM rulings, or DMs who can point to the rules as a source of authority in order to keep what they perceive as unrealistic player expectations in check.  In groups where neither of these things is a problem, rules-for-everything aren't as necessary.

That said, just because they're not necessary doesn't mean they're actively bad.  That depends much more on the substance of the rules in question.  In general I think rules-for-everything systems are a bit better for simulationist, immersionist play-styles that're about fostering a sense of verisimilitude, whereas more ad-hoc systems are a bit better at gonzo, wild adventure and a "cinematic" play style - although I don't think either style is precluded by the opposite system.

Yeah, It's been around a long time. I first learned to play D&D back in 1980. My friends and I were always coming up with "What if..." situations and were hungry for more rules and definitions. I spent plenty of money on rulebooks, Dragon Magazine, modules, etc. often in the quest for more rules and a deeper understanding of the game.

That's partly why I fell in love with Hero System when I learned about and bought it. Suddenly game rules were more streamlined and made logical sense. Not just one genre either but across any and all genres. (Try mixing 1980's AD&D, Gamma World and Star Frontiers sometime and you'll see what I mean.) Maybe it wasn't perfect, but compared to AD&D Hero really did offer "A Rule for Everything" in a neat, simple, consistent package.

Maybe Hero has been surpassed in simplicity and consistency since then. I dunno. But the thirst for "A Rule for Everything" goes on.

My first RPG was Marvel Superheroes, which I consider a rules light system. I only played a few games of AD&D in 1985. Until the 90s, I was playing Marvel, MERP, WEG Star Wars, and Robotech/TMNT. From 90 to the release of D&D3.0, I played GURPS almost exclusively.

Maybe it was because of the people I played with, that I never really noticed the "Rule for Everything" mentality. Even after the switch to D&D3.x I didn't really notice it. Honestly, for a long time I didn't have much contact outside my gaming group until really getting active on gaming forums around 2004. And still, I didn't really notice the change until 2008 with the 4e. Maybe it has a lot to do with how vocal the 4e fan were/are.

Interesting to know that its not a new thing. I'd never understood the whole Tournament play thing. Just curious, if it started (roughly) with tournament play, was it perpetuated by RPGA and then later Delve/Encounters? Has it become a bigger thing now as WoTC seems to be trying to unify the gaming experience? Where it is the same across all games?



I'm probably not explaining myself well... Sorry.

Back in the Wayback I went on a merry chase after 'realism'. Not so much more rules... but detailed rules seemed necessary to 'get it right'. I rebelled against the 'nonsense' of D&D and jumped over to Runequest... and pretty soon Chivalry & Sorcery was looking like the next level closer.
Eventually I ended up at Phoenix Command.

Nowadays I'm much more relaxed and the abstractions of D&D that used to bug the crap out of me are no big dead and I generally prefer 'lite' systems (though I still think GURPS is pretty neat).

Quote from: The Butcher;746390I've seen the reliance on GM rulings attributed to the wargaming culture of referee adjudication, with the appeal of comprehensive, universal mechanics gaining strength as non-wargamers joined the hobby.

I don't think you can assume wargames are rules-light in a world where somebody wrote Advanced Squad Leader.

I think it's more simply that if a GM makes enough rulings on the same situation, then this ruling becomes a house rule. If that GM goes on to write an rpg, that house rule becomes a system rule. And when getting that detailed for stuff that's come up, the GM-turned-writer gets just as detailed with stuff that's never come up. Just to be consistent, you know?

Enough years of ad hoc stuff means when you come to write a game, it's 576 pages and even then people don't feel it's complete and write rules for welding.

I'm not sure 'rule for everything' has to lead to complexity. The Siege Engine in C&C effectively presents a rule for everything, and it is one of the simpler versions of D&D because there is a central mechanic that translates across all sorts of situations - combat, saving throws, jumping, talking in a high squeaky voice, whatever. I'm sure there are other (perhaps better) examples. And the guidelines for using it in practice make it pretty clear how it works for various situations, but only takes a few pages to explain.

Bah. D&D's nothing.

For some reason Kult, a super angsty and atmospheric  horror game about purgatory and the death of God, needs to have special rules for shit like air combat and the effect of carbon monoxide poisoning. Relevant much?

I think from the very beginning. All the questions / clarifications published in the newsletters and magazines over the years from players and GMs probably provided enough evidence that some customers wanted more. I know I did...until Unearthed Arcana came out.

From the '70s there were games written in reaction to D&D's lack of rules, which attempted to have a rule for everything approach. Runequest and Chivalry & Sorcery are two that come to mind.

With D&D there's not a lot of sign of this until the '80s, with stuff like the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide and Wilderness Survival Guide.

Quote from: S'mon;746516From the '70s there were games written in reaction to D&D's lack of rules, which attempted to have a rule for everything approach. Runequest and Chivalry & Sorcery are two that come to mind.

The first edition of Runequest doesn't seem that rules heavy at 112 pages; very granular though with hit locations, armor damage, etc.

C&S (at least the big box set I have) seems just to pile it all on.