My assumptions regarding this theme:

1) For having a game at all, there must be rules, even if it is big man decides all or highest roller decides. Somehow ideas have to be made accepted content of the game.

2) For a role playing game the shared imaginary space is the core of the game and thus a lot of information has to be transferred/exchanged to make it working. If you don´t know what is going on, you can´t really act meaningful or you ill have to do a lot of asking - every damn time and woe when you didn´t ask because you assumed wrongly you knew already what is going on.

3) Having these rules codified really helps to get those information to everyone at the table, preferably with much of it done before the start of the precious game time and probably even before joining this game (and finding out your ideas regarding "fun" are inkompatible.)

4) Certain versions of rules can be unfitting or even outright incompatible with a certain intended style of game (or otherwise be broken). But even here there is the benefit, that you can get a lot of hints in advance by written rules and thus have an informed discussion regarding changes or better suggestions.

5) Rules are surely pointing the easy way to solve a task, so that it is seductive to solve everything strictly by the book, but it original function was building a framework for reference and base line for discussion regarding any other element that could happen in the game world.

Quote from: Saurondor;888696Yes, they learn "the puzzle" and immediately try to solve it. Question here is, will they arrive at the same thing over time as they play with you? I mean, do they infer the rules and their options become acquired habits through "inferred game mastery"?

Some do, some don't. Some simply are interested enough in the rules to try to "solve the puzzle" as you put it. I give players a copy of the rules we use and I tell them the rules apply to average situations -- probably 80% of what you might try to do. The 10% at each end are resolved as I determine as needed as adding rules for even a majority of all the possible edge cases to the booklet would increase the length of the rules by hundreds of pages. (And that would be a complete waste of time -- both on my part trying to design them and on the player's part trying to use them at the table).  A few players run all the rules in the booklet. Most use them to help create a character or to find out what a new spell they find does, but otherwise don't bother with them. A few never open the book (some don't even take it with them as they just aren't interested at all.

QuoteMore so, is it because they had a "communication with the designer" (not conversation) that taught them the inner workings of the game or because they already expect a "design pattern" and are just waiting for the specific details?

I honestly don't know (and I design the rules we use, so they are talking to the designer). Everyone certainly learns over time what works good for their character and what seldom/never works. However, whether this is because they are learning the rules as rules or because they are learning what they as their character can do in the same way they learn what they can do in real life.

Quote...it was me stating that player reliance on rules and mechanics to survive was a sure road to failure.

I tell people in my games that in a section explaining the differences between the old school games my rules are designed for and the "standard modern" way of playing WOTC D&D editions.  These are mainly aimed at players of WOTC editions who have never played much Early TSR D&D. About the same number of players in my games read this boring stuff as read the boring rules.

QuoteSo the issue is that keeping the rules away from the player does not eliminate this "subconscious" belief that there is an underlying "puzzle" to be solved.

I'm sure this is true of some players, but in my experience, at least, it's not true of all players. It's also less true of the type of causal players I play with than it is the "hardcore" players who tend to be active on RPG foruims, haunt FLGS, etc.

QuoteLets do an exercise. Break your rules into two groups: one is composed of those rules that explain the effect of an action (sword hit, magic, bullet, etc.) and the other group is composed of those rules that explain how to resolve an action (initiative, attacks per round, rounds themselves, to hit rolls, skill checks). Erase the later and give the former to the players. What happens?

I suspect the same thing that happens now when they get all the rules handed to them. Those interested in rules read them, those less interested in rules occasionally look something up, and those not interested in rules thank me for the copy and file them away (possibly in File 13).

Only in the RPG world do you get players who think the rules which tell you how to play are some ideological offensive by the designer

Rules are a set of techniques which when implemented lead to a specific set of results, and as a GM you're applying techniques whether you realize it or not. The only thing a book does is quite literally get everyone on the same page, and if you can do that without a book, more power to you.

Rules are also a communication medium in the same way written language is and affect both how and what can be expressed. And just making something easier or more interesting to express in a game will affect the kind of campaign you get.

And if players don't have access to the rules, then they must rely on playing to the assumptions and priorities of the GM, which means the game will favor players who understand what those are. This usually supersedes the written set of rules anyway, and I've always been more successful playing to the GM's expectations than the RaW, but figuring out how to work those rules was still fundamental to the campaign.

A campaign may be what the story is about, but the rules are how it's told. And if you've ever seen the same premise through different mediums and storytellers you should have some idea of how much that affects the end result. It's the difference between Nolan Batman and LEGO Batman (also Italian Batman).

Quote from: Lunamancer;888100The rules aren't there for rules sake. They serve a purpose. And it's that purpose, whatever it may be, whoever it may appeal to, that comes first. If something unusual comes up that calls for choosing between being faithful to the rules or faithful to the purpose, it's time to either break the rules or find a way to reconcile the rules with the purpose. It is never acceptable to compromise the purpose for the convenience of the rules.

And again, you don't seem to believe something can be its own end if it doesn't fit the model of what you believe its purpose to be.

The rules can very well be there for their own sake, and the reason players play, often without realizing it. And huge chunks of gamer culture are built directly on the foundation of rules as artifacts, such as the d20, which has become a defining symbol.

Quote from: Madprofessor;888345my players prefer 400 page rule books, especially if they are in full color and full of character options and widgets to play with in chargen and character advancement.

And this nicely takes out both estar's and lunamancer's premise in one go.

Now if the premise was "RPGs should be about playing the campaign not the rules" things might have been different

Quote from: CRKrueger;888512The last thing I want is for my players to read some Core Rulebook out of context of the campaign I intend to run.  That's just idiotic.

If you're a Game Master, and you're telling me as a player I have to pick up the rules and read them before we play, that's pretty much the absolute textbook definition of Epic GM Fail.

Must be nice to not lose books to players who borrow them to make characters

But seriously, if an RPG is so complicated that it's unfeasible for players to learn the rules, or that exposing them to it will damage the campaign, then it's not a game I'm going to run.

Quote from: CRKrueger;888676Rules are 2d20, d20, RQ6 whatever.

Setting is The Hyborian Age, Glorantha, Middle-Earth, whatever.

Campaign is what's happening at my table with RQ6 Hyborian Age, or MERP 4th Age, or AD&D1 Greyhawk.  It's the unique and specific application of Rules and Setting, as talked about here.

Players usually don't think "Campaign", it's indistinguishable from "Setting" from their perspective.

Yeah, that's how I use it, too. But "campaign" is a tool for the GM, and the same world/setting might be different between campaigns, say by using different rulesets that change the physics of the world.

Quote from: estar;888681A campaign is playing in the setting. It not something different. If you think there is a different then you have the wrong definition of what a campaign means when it comes to gaming.

No, it only means you have a definition that differs from my definition (a.k.a. an erroneous one:p).

Quote from: Lunamancer;888687Notice, I said "magic-user," not "wizard."

That's why I said "wizard"! Although, given that this is the only sort of magic we could have seen, ever, I might as well have said "magic-user". I just decided to avoid possible misunderstandings;).

This is some high-octane nerdery up in this biatch. I'm high as fuck, reading it.

/Passes d20 to the left-hand side.

QuoteOriginally Posted by Madprofessor
my players prefer 400 page rule books, especially if they are in full color and full of character options and widgets to play with in chargen and character advancement.

QuoteOriginally posted by Anon Aderlan

And this nicely takes out both estar's and lunamancer's premise in one go.

I don't think it does, but perhaps that you think it does is my fault for not going into greater detail.

The players that I am referring to (in a particular group) prefer 400 page rule books and lots of splat books because they are more comfortable picking a character idea from given concepts than they are creating  a character concept from whole cloth.  it is not an issue of rules vs campaign so much as a perception and comfort with provided options.

They don't learn the 400 pages of rules beyond "what is cool about my character."  They also know that RaW are only guidelines in my game and they are quite content with that.  Occasionally, a player will read through a rule book and say "hey, this says it's supposed to work like X but we're doing Y" and then we'll have a little discussion about why I made the change.  Sometimes they make further suggestions - but it is all in furtherance of the campaign.

I get a little frustrated with their preference for rules heavy games because it makes my life harder, and they haven't quite come round to understanding that a rules-lite game can provide just as many options and more, with less difficulty.  I am working on them, but this whole group grew up on some pretty munchkiny 3.5 so it is a learning experience.

I don't see how any of that invalidates estar or lunamancers point at all.  Everyone of the group unquestionably agrees that campaign trumps rules as written, and they trust me to govern the rules in fairness and in service of the shared experience we call the campaign.  They all agree that my way of running things is far better than the slavish adherence to RaW and game balance that they came from.  They don't want to control the game, they don't even really want to learn the rules, they don't want to narrate the story, they just want to participate in some shared escapism.  However, at this point they are having a hard time learning the notion that a 50 page lulu title can do that as well as, and sometimes better than, Pathfinder.

I brought up this observation to see if other GMs have had the same experience and struggled to convince a group of players that a self-published, rules-lite, black and white art RPG can be everything that a shelf full of full-color splatbooks can be.

QuoteOriginally Posted by tenbones
This is some high-octane nerdery up in this biatch.

True that

Quote from: Saurondor;888582Right on! And what happens if the barbarian magic user is in the rules and you just don't want to include it in your campaign? Technically speaking it's not in the rules because although it is in the printed copy it is not in your campaign and thus not available "in the rules" as set in the game by the GM.

The campaign and the rules are one and the same for a particular game. That being said, an uncivilized magic user could be a fun character concept.

Isn't a Druid sort of like a barbarian magic user?

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;888753And again, you don't seem to believe something can be its own end if it doesn't fit the model of what you believe its purpose to be.

The rules can very well be there for their own sake, and the reason players play, often without realizing it. And huge chunks of gamer culture are built directly on the foundation of rules as artifacts, such as the d20, which has become a defining symbol.

Well, before you get too uppity thinking you have made any point at all, let me ask you a very straight-forward question. Assume all the players are 100% in agreement that the rules are for rules sake. So "teh rulez" IS the purpose in their case. Can you give me an example of a situation where this group would have to make the tough choice between being faithful to the rules and being faithful to the purpose?

Because if you can't, your counter example fails and my statement stands remains 100% correct.

Quote from: Madprofessor;888780I don't see how any of that invalidates estar or lunamancers point at all.

You have actually invalidated those who disagree with me when you said, "The players that I am referring to (in a particular group) prefer 400 page rule books and lots of splat books because they are more comfortable picking a character idea from given concepts than they are creating a character concept from whole cloth."

Notice, it's not the 400 page rule books and splat books they like. The benefit to them is "picking a character idea from given concepts." This is the part the haters keep ignoring. Rules are a feature. Not a benefit.

Incidentally, I own a number of splat books. The rules content tends to be sparse. They're filled mainly with ideas more than anything. It's no wonder they like splat books. Because what they really love is being given concepts.

Quote from: CRKrueger;888512If you're a Game Master, and you're telling me as a player I have to pick up the rules and read them before we play, that's pretty much the absolute textbook definition of Epic GM Fail.

Whatever 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.

Please don't come to my neck of the woods then. It is a rare joy when I get a player who is willing to crack the covers of a rulebook at all.

I just assume that I will be the one learning, teaching and administrating the rules (all of the rules) as well as moving the story forward, playing NPCs, etc.

This is one reason I don't play 400 page rule book games anymore. I need games with short settings and especially short rules since I am going to be keeping it all in my head for the duration of the campaign.  The less there is written on the page the easier it is for me to wing it and create a spontaneous living breathing world.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;888810I can't even comprehend this shit. It's insane.

Generation gap, maybe?

In the 1970s and early 1980s, it was SOP in my experience for one person to get a new game, then be GM simply because he/she was the only one who had the book. The rest of us learned what we needed to know about our roles in the Arizona Territory, Starship Warden, or whatever.

Of course, the manuals -- including "stuff" (monsters, gadgets, etc.) as well as rules per se -- typically ranged from 32 to 128 pages.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;888753And if players don't have access to the rules, then they must rely on playing to the assumptions and priorities of the GM, which means the game will favor players who understand what those are. This usually supersedes the written set of rules anyway, and I've always been more successful playing to the GM's expectations than the RaW, but figuring out how to work those rules was still fundamental to the campaign.

No the players don't not have to rely on the assumption and priorities of the referee in absence of knowing the rules that are used for adjudication. That only occurs if the referee is so brain dead he doesn't make handouts and does briefings for his players so they know what the setting of the campaign is and what their characters are capable of.

You are not arguing about what a RPG is about. You are arguing over how the referee handles adjudicating the actions of the players as their characters. A different topic then the one I brought up in the OP.

The beauty of the tabletop RPGs is that a campaign can managed in a variety of ways. The actions of the characters can be adjudicated with a dozen splatbooks arrayed across the table. Or it can be adjudicated with a 32 page pamphlet whose content is only known to the referee.

What doesn't change in either circumstance is the need for the players to know what their characters are capable of, and what their characters would know about the setting of the campaign.

If either is not communicated effectively then the referee have done a poor job of managed the campaign. Whether it because the referee allowed so many splatbooks that most of the group is lost in a sea of rules and options, or the referee is hiding everything and not telling them shit.

Rules are tool for playing RPGs, they are not the point of playing RPGs which is to play a campaign where the players interact with a setting as their character with their actions adjudicated by a human referee.

How you interact with a setting, how you adjudicate actions those are personal preferences. Nothing more and nothing less.

Quote from: CRKrueger;888512If you're a Game Master, and you're telling me as a player I have to pick up the rules and read them before we play, that's pretty much the absolute textbook definition of Epic GM Fail.

No but you have to tell the players what they would know their characters can do, and what their characters know about the setting. That is an absolute or you are not being fair as a referee and forcing your player into a elaborate game of twenty question.

Now a point in your favor, is that you can satisfy the above requirement by other means than handing them a rulebook to read. But the player has to have an initial context at the start of the campaign or they just might as let the dice decide everything their characters can do for all the meaning their decisions will have.

Game mechanics happen to a concise and precise of way of communicating the above. But... doesn't work for all things in the setting in which case we fall back to natural langauge.


And for it worth I know from your other posts in other thread that you tell your players what their character can do, and what their character knows about the setting.