The problem is twofold, actually (if not morefold).

If you are a perpetual rules-modder..  ok. But if you then run into problems, whose fault is it? I've posted this link several times. "We tried baseball and it didn't work". Once you modify something, you really have to take ownership at that point.

case in point: If at any point in your career you espoused that the rules were not your master but your slave, but you couldn't handle a game because you had an issue with the rules.. well.. you need to start thinking harder about what you really believe in.

Second of all: the rules don't make the game. This is the insidious lie of "system does matter". They did a sneaky thing with this by the way. The original "System Does Matter" meme that still haunts us today was a Ron Edwards thing in reaction to an RPG called the Window (some of you may remember the Window, which was a nice little early free RPG). The Window actually flat out said "System doesn't matter" because the writers (as related in the intro to the game) noticed that no matter what they were playing.. they took any old rpg they played and made changes and such and played it about the same. Because they had a great little group, and they all kinda had their ways of doing things.  Anyhow, the Window said something like "since we recognize this, here is the ultimate 'light' rpg, houserule away"

Well, Ron disagreed (he was trying to sell his game back then after all), and wrote extensive stuff about how systems can save your game, and this floats on today, as "System Does Matter" and of course that means scene framing and dice pools and conflict resolution or some shit.

And then around 2005, along comes Vincent Baker and he says "The Lumpley Principle" is that System Does Matter, and the System is how the player group handles things, not necessarily the rules as written.

WHOA. Wait, that's the same thing that the intro text to the Window said.. more or less.

Ron responds with (wait for it) "Exactly, and that's what I meant all along".

Aha, but there's more.

This way- they have gotten to play both sides of the issue. Because meanwhile, the whole debate about do we houserule, do we use rules as written.. has sort of been propagated as an issue of contention and gaming isn't so much about gaming as it is about division and factioning. At one point, we could really talk about techniques and procedures that are (for the most part) shareable between any and every system. The System Does Matter slogan (which is exactly what it is) is the bludgeon used to increase division, and the Lumpley Principle is the carrot used to promise a sort of empty enlightenment experience.

I think a game system matters only as far as it inspires people around the gaming table. That is, if you have the exact same group of people playing say, AD&D and then, a few days later, TORG, they might either play a very different game, or in essence play the same game. What matters is how the system actually inspired them to shape the game experience they wanted out of either game. Whether they are in essence playing different games, or the exact same game, is completely irrelevant. What matters in that, in either case, the rules book inspired people to run a game a certain way.

That's about it, as far as I'm concerned.

So playing by the RAW, not playing by the RAW, personally I don't care. I will experiment and kitbash with some games, and play more-or-less by the rules with other games, often depending on the people I play with and what they feel comfortable with.

Still, a blind, systematic worship of the RAW is seriously misguided in my mind. The whole notion that "the designer knows best" only goes so far, and in many cases, not very far at all, as a matter of fact. In the end, bottom line, it's about people, and snacks, and make believe, and game systems, in that order.

It's worth reading what Ron Edwards actually said about 'system does matter' here:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/_articles/system_does_matter.html

In particular, note that it's not about using the RAW, but about designing rules to suit particular styles of play.

The Lumpley Principle is simply this:

"System (including but not limited to 'the rules') is defined as the means by which the group agrees to imagined events during play."

Which I take as meaning that the 'system' in 'system does matter' can include house rules.

Abyssal +1

Quote from: stu2000;427932The only thing I assert that may be even slightly controversial, is that I think we're in a hopefully brief period of time in games where the voices of the choads outweigh the voices of reasonable people as the voice of gamers.

Since I don't particularly hope that I'm right, I will gratefully listen to arguments against that assertion.

You're asking me to prove a negative, and I think that's rather unreasonable given that I have no substantial evidence to provide credence to your assertion.  I can't say for certain because I'm only active in one small regional segment of the hobby, but I've met very few "choads" as you describe them.

Re: Clash

I wasn't just talking about RAW at that point, but cultural contexts for play that extend beyond systems used for emulation.  

IMO, and you may disagree, a system primarily designed for emulation doesn't necessarily amount to a "game", and so a lot of times people would have to design their own games (the GMs doing the house-rules and campaign management).  Through local play techniques and such, people were able to create a context for play that was much more "game-like", but that sort of development isn't always intuitive for new GMs, and I think that the inclusion of the social aspects of play into mechanics and procedures for play is a good thing, even if they're not as revolutionary as the indie guys may make them seem, since they've existed, unwritten, for decades.  

Ex, I'd consider AD&D more of a "game" than say, RuneQuest 3rd ed.

Also, the alterations made to something that already exists as a "game" may alter what that game is, and so I refrain from it unless I wish to create my own game, and why I expect that a game should work out of the box -- I'm not paying someone else so that I have to design my own.

Just my opinion, and it may not work for you, but there it is.

Quote from: Abyssal Maw;427939The problem is twofold, actually (if not morefold).

If you are a perpetual rules-modder..  ok. But if you then run into problems, whose fault is it? I've posted this link several times. "We tried baseball and it didn't work". Once you modify something, you really have to take ownership at that point.

case in point: If at any point in your career you espoused that the rules were not your master but your slave, but you couldn't handle a game because you had an issue with the rules.. well.. you need to start thinking harder about what you really believe in.

Depends very much what you mean by "Had an issue with the rules".  If I look at a set of rules, and decide that they're such a piece of shit that I'd have no interest in every playing this game, that's not a violation of the idea that I'm the master of my game, and the rules my slave. That's just me putting an unworthy slave to death.

If you're really trying to argue here that thinking you're in charge and not the rules means you should have to play any game that comes along, you're really suggesting that the "master" be the one out there plowing the fields, which is stupid.  The right set of rules is the set that SERVES US BEST.  That we can modify as we see fit.

RPGPundit