After reading the recent Thief thread I got to wondering when this mentality really became prominent. Its really only been in my consciousness since about 2008 and the launch of D&D4e. It seems to infest a portion of the RPG community and I am curious as to why it is such a vocal statement. Has it always existed and I have only become aware of it in recent times, or is it a newish phenomenon? Or is this just specific to D&D? I'm not trying to start a flamewar here, I am just really curious.

This isn't new in the least. "A Rule for Everything" was the Gygax way. There's nothing wrong with that aspiration, perhaps - it's not the way I want to play, or run games, but I know that many people who are quite pleased with the approach.

//Panjumanju

Quote from: YourSwordisMine;746384After reading the recent Thief thread I got to wondering when this mentality really became prominent. Its really only been in my consciousness since about 2008 and the launch of D&D4e. It seems to infest a portion of the RPG community and I am curious as to why it is such a vocal statement. Has it always existed and I have only become aware of it in recent times, or is it a newish phenomenon? Or is this just specific to D&D? I'm not trying to start a flamewar here, I am just really curious.

I think there have been people who prefer it that way since the very beginning.

It was very much a thing here in Brazil when I started gaming (circa 1992) and the dominant Kulturkampf in the local RPG community was D&D (mostly AD&D 2e and a bit of BECMI/RC) vs. GURPS.

For our group, it began with 3rd edition.  Earlier editions were run "seat of the pants".  Not so with us for 3rd and 4th.

The issue with rules for everything isn't bad, if it's designed for something that actually matters (or can optionally work well) for a game.

It depends on the intent of the design. What is horrible when people mistake rules for the actual game itself. That's the problem with new gamers when they glom onto a rules-heavy game as their first shooting-match that "mentality" as you coin it, becomes how they approach (and subsequently judge) other games.

When you have fewer rules and the GM has come to understand that part of the job of GMing is making the on-the-fly call - and get good at it, players will suddenly understand the rules, no matter how numerous, are only there to help guide a game, not necessarily define how it is to be enjoyed.

I'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.

Even though the earliest such games, like Traveller and Runequest, were designed by people with a wargaming background.

Definitely not new (see the letters section of early Dragon magazine issues), although I think it only came to be dominant some time after D&D 3.0 launched. I think the suggestion that Gygax wanted a rule for everything is disingenuous, and I'm no Gygax-licker.

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.

Even though the earliest such games, like Traveller and Runequest, were designed by people with a wargaming background.

Traveller didn't have "comprehensive, universal mechanics" for close to a decade - the universal task profile rules appeared in a Challenge 29 article by Joe Fugate (of DGP fame) in 1987.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;746392Traveller didn't have "comprehensive, universal mechanics" for close to a decade - the universal task profile rules appeared in a Challenge 29 article by Joe Fugate (of DGP fame) in 1987.

I stand corrected. :hatsoff:

When I grew up, we also played wargames and some of those games had exhaustive rules as part of the neverending quest for better simulation aka so called realism.

Of course, a lot of those games weren't really that good as games. They were interesting though. Anyhow, I think that want has always been there.

Today, I'm quite happy with adaptable rules and judicious DM fiat ... especially mine.  It's good to have mechanics to create the game reality, but I think too many rules just get in the way as they create more work than is needed. I don't need a running broadjump table or running broadjump skill ranks for example. Nor do I need ice skating or skiing rules or parachuting rules. And so on. Just some sort of adaptable maneuver process or mechanic.

Quote from: YourSwordisMine;746384After reading the recent Thief thread I got to wondering when this mentality really became prominent. Its really only been in my consciousness since about 2008 and the launch of D&D4e. It seems to infest a portion of the RPG community and I am curious as to why it is such a vocal statement. Has it always existed and I have only become aware of it in recent times, or is it a newish phenomenon? Or is this just specific to D&D? I'm not trying to start a flamewar here, I am just really curious.

Its been around a long time. It is one of the reasons AD&D was published.

Some 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.

Unfortunately some players and GMs have a "If it is written it MUST be used!" mentality that can go a bit overboard.

On top of all that some players simply cannot imagine roleplaying something without a rule for it, whereas others will try to do ANYTHING the rules do not expressly state they cannot do.

Quote"The rules say you can perform Deathblow when you make an attack that kills the monster in one hit. BUT the rules do NOT say I or friends cannot wack-wack-wack-wack on the monster and then that last hit that kills triggers Deathblow."

And round and round it goes.

Quote from: Omega;746399It is one of the reasons AD&D was published.

The core books for AD&D were published between 1977 and 1979; the first formal attempt at something resembling a skill system and 'universal' roll-under-attribute rules didn't appear until Oriental Adventures in 1985.

It seems to me that a "Rule for Everything" is useful for convention play, where you don't already know the players at your table. Me and my buddies might have an understanding on how we manage on-the-fly rulings, but at the con, to avoid arguments, it's handy to direct the disagreeing player to pg 75 or whatever.

I recall a bunch of paragraphs in the AD&D DMG beginning with "It is of the utmost importance..." A few of these paragraphs are describing rules that I consider optional at home.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;746402The core books for AD&D were published between 1977 and 1979; the first formal attempt at something resembling a skill system and 'universal' roll-under-attribute rules didn't appear until Oriental Adventures in 1985.

Meant the rule for everything part.