Quote from: Nerzenjäger;891175Nobody says it is. But the Motorwagen defined what constitutes a car. It's not that hard really. Add wings to a car, is it then still a car? Changes in motorisation, electronics, and additional body work are just building upon a foundation that was already there. You can say that a Buick is no Motorwagen anymore, but you can't say it's not a car in the context of a rational conversation.

The Motowagen had no armour. Some cars today have it. Are they aremoured carriers, or something?
My position on this question: as long as I know what kind of game I'm buying, I don't care whether some people will elect to consider a new game an RPG, or not.

It's interesting, however, that this thread highlights the differences in how different people approach the same situation;).

Some people say, "RPGs are about playing, not rules-wankering, so we're going to play what we want and we're not going to care what the rules are".
Other people, including me, say "RPGs are about playing, not rules wankering, so we're going to pick the rules that support best the kind of game we want to play".

Right? Wrong? Neither, these are just different approaches:). As long as you have fun, what does it matter which one you're using?
Of course, if playing according to the other approach makes it less fun for you, that's a problem. But even then, you just have to know and avoid those games.

The problem comes when one of these camps tries to present their position as ethically superior. Then of course, the other camp presents their position as ethically superior. At the end, we have the proverbial "tornado in a waterglass", or "forum wars"!

The campaign matters more than the rules.

Which doesn't mean the rules don't matter.

Four pages arguing about the rules of definitions do certainly put a dent into theory that RPGs will ever be more about campaigns than rules .

Quote from: RPGPundit;892039The campaign matters more than the rules.

Which doesn't mean the rules don't matter.

Indeed, that is my point:).

Quote from: Rincewind1;892144Four pages arguing about the rules of definitions do certainly put a dent into theory that RPGs will ever be more about campaigns than rules .

Why? You think we couldn't easily have fourty-four pages of arguing about campaigns;)?

Quote from: Rincewind1;892144Four pages arguing about the rules of definitions do certainly put a dent into theory that RPGs will ever be more about campaigns than rules .

Basically all RPG theories break down when applied to the wild.  They mostly only hold in the controlled experimentation of a relatively small group of people.

Quote from: Old One Eye;892161Basically all RPG theories break down when applied to the wild.  They mostly only hold in the controlled experimentation of a relatively small group of people.

There is a lot of real understanding of games out there. It is just that role-players do not seem to want to read those studies but prefer to invent their own stuff by random-dude-in-internet method.

If we talk about real psychology and real studies (i.e. done by real psychologists) we have a pretty good idea how human mind goes to a full immersion in a game. However, we do not know when role-playing your game avatar starts from that immersion.

We also know what kind of fun people want from a game (i.e. why they like in a game). We do not know why some people play more than others (it is probably tied to addiction) but we are studying it a lot.

There is no system of adjudication I know of which doesn't feature a set of rules interpreted by an authority. You can't make rulings without rules, and rules cannot be applied without rulings.

Quote from: Madprofessor;888780However, 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.

Or perhaps they just enjoy the Pathfinder experience, obscenely huge rulebooks and all.

Quote from: Lunamancer;888801Assume 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?

I have NO idea what you're even talking about.

Quote from: Phillip;888822Just like in real life. Knowledge of the Book of Nature is won through experiment.

That's why I always play to the GM's expectations as opposed to the rules or even setting. Thing is not everyone is as good at it as I am, and they're looking for a session where their particular skillsets are effective.

Quote from: CRKrueger;888832The posts were discussing RAW, intent of the designer and the Cult of RAW thereof, specifically with regards to learning a new game.

Intent? Cult?!? Seriously, they're just rules to a game, not a political/religious manifesto.

Quote from: CRKrueger;888832The last thing a new player needs is access to the rules.

Bold not mine.

Only 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.

Quote from: CRKrueger;888832If they are new to roleplaying, you may as well crack them one over the head with the rulebook, it will be about as much incentive for them to come back.

Are you saying that reading the rules keeps new players away?

Quote from: CRKrueger;888832If they are not new to roleplaying, then they already know, generally speaking, how a game kind of works, so the most important thing is how things are going to work in actual play, at your table, and reading a book isn't going to do that whether it's 40 pages or 400 pages.

Unless the way you do things contradicts what they're used to and they want their 400+ page books to play.

Quote from: CRKrueger;888832Reading the rules is like learning how to shoot before you go into the Marine Corps.  They have to spend more time with you to unlearn the incorrect way to shoot.

As if this simile wasn't dumbass enough, you have to know how to shoot before you're even eligible to enter the Marine Corps.

Quote from: CRKrueger;888832Designers these days are way too full of themselves, and fill the rulebooks with too many assumptions as if they didn't know that not a single person on earth, ever, is going to run those rules 100%, not even them.

Yes, 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.

Quote from: Vonn;888847Never ever have I demanded of my players to read the rules before they can play. Everybody in my gaming group is already busy enough with other things in their life.

If the rules are this much of a burden to learn, then they're part of the problem.

Quote from: Madprofessor;889013Playing an RPG RAW is more restrictive than adapting the rules to fit the campaign.

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.

Quote from: Madprofessor;889013RAW restricts characters, setting, resolution, and story options more than a flexible approach to the rules does.

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

Quote from: Lunamancer;889080As I mentioned earlier on in the thread, when it comes to people who like rules, it's not really about the rules. Rules are a feature, not a benefit. No matter what the haters may say, nobody actually likes rules. They like what they perceive rules to produce.

No. Some people really do like rules (and specific ones) for their own sake. Some people also like rolling d20s just because, and avoid RPGs where they don't. Some people like the color red.

Quote from: Lunamancer;889197Whatever number you want, the English language has a word for it.

The English language also has words for all the numbers which don't exist too.

Quote from: DavetheLost;889210Expecting them to know all the rules before we start to play a new game seems unrealistic.

Why? Is it because the expectation is that the rules are covered in a 400 page book?

Quote from: Lunamancer;889223Except as I pointed out earlier, the mathematical numbers aren't precise, and naturalistic language is a superior form of communication.

Yep, if you didn't think we were in crazytown already, here ya go.

Quote from: Old One Eye;892161Basically all RPG theories break down when applied to the wild.

So does planning. Doesn't mean planning is a waste of time however.

Quote from: Ravenswing;888829We're a community not merely preoccupied with rules, we're obsessed with them.

Quote from: Rincewind1;892144Four pages arguing about the rules of definitions do certainly put a dent into theory that RPGs will ever be more about campaigns than rules .

And I can't think of a better set of quotes to end with

Great post, Anon.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;902749There is no system of adjudication I know of which doesn't feature a set of rules interpreted by an authority. You can't make rulings without rules, and rules cannot be applied without rulings.

However my point is that whether the action is adjudicate by fiat at one extreme or RAW only at the other. It all in service of a larger goal, to play a RPG campaign. And that is the point of the game not to play the rules.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;902749Or perhaps they just enjoy the Pathfinder experience, obscenely huge rulebooks and all.

Exactly, while I been stressed the point is to play the campaign not the rules. The choice of rules directly impacts how actions are adjudicated. Which impacts how the game feels mainly in how detailed resolution of an action.  A lot of people like the detail and that OK. The only time that is a problem when players (and the referee) lose sight the fact that one is playing character in a setting. That the rules are a way to resolve a character doing X. That if it make sense in terms of the setting, a character can do X regardless of the rules being used. Pathfinder may have specific rules for swinging on a chandelier on page 2XX while Microlite20 just say "Make a dex check".  But in both campaigns swinging on chandelier is something that is plausible for the character to do.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;902749And I can't think of a better set of quotes to end with

People debate rules and riddle with them because they are straightforward to understand. Because we been taught since an early age  to expect to play by the rules when playing a game. Talking about trying to run a great campaign is fuzzy and full of caveat. It is a different kind of thinking than trying to design a system where the fighter, mage, thief, and priest are equally useful over all levels. Or trying to craft a set of rules to adjudicate combat at a certain level of detail while being flexible and playable. It akin to how paint a great painting, or how to make a great movie.

How to run great campaigns is what more important than how to make great rules as it what people remember the most. Look at Blackmoor and Greyhawk, people don't remember all the rules that were used, especially in the case of Blackmoor. But they sure as hell remember what took place within the campaign. There is a pleasure to be had from tinkering with rules, a joy to use a set of rules that is obviously well design, but again it pales to the importance of running a great campaign. If the hobby and industry want to thrive then helping people run great campaigns is the key. Not the endless chase of the next best set of rules.

Quote from: estar;902759How to run great campaigns is what more important than how to make great rules as it what people remember the most. Look at Blackmoor and Greyhawk, people don't remember all the rules that were used, especially in the case of Blackmoor. But they sure as hell remember what took place within the campaign. There is a pleasure to be had from tinkering with rules, a joy to use a set of rules that is obviously well design, but again it pales to the importance of running a great campaign. If the hobby and industry want to thrive then helping people run great campaigns is the key. Not the endless chase of the next best set of rules.

Lovely sentiments, surely, but so what?

We can debate until we're groggy -- and a couple of months ago, to the tune of a couple hundred posts, DID -- as to what RPGs ideally Should Be About.  Aside from that not a few posters suggested that they preferred their own take on the subject to some monolithic ideal, there is no question (or should be none) as to the degree rules debates, questions and problems dominate discourse.  If RPGs were about campaigns, not rules, no one would care what edition of D&D was being played.  No one would care that the campaign on offer used GURPS, or Pathfinder, or Talislanta, or Clarinda's homebrew.  No one would care about questions of balance, or that it was a LARP, or that it was a storygame.  GNS would never have crossed anyone's mind.  People would just play.

You've spent a great many posts trying to convince us that rules don't matter, campaigns do.

It's not that we don't understand what you're saying.  It's that we disagree with what you're saying.  Can we settle on that much?

There are so many variables about our gaming experiences for me to agree or disagree with this concept.

I've played games with rules or even a campaign setting that I felt were shitty and stupid but the DM interpreted them in a fantastic way, so that it was fun.

The inverse as well: game rules or settings that I loved turned to shit because of an uninspired DM (at best) or just awful one (at worst).

To state the obvious: rules DO matter, but so do a lot of other factors in the equation over whether or not my gaming is enjoyable.

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

In a lot of cases, yeah.
I'm about to start running some games for some friends of mine who have NEVER played RPGs. I'm going to use a fairly lite set of rules but I know it will be a non-starter if I ask them to read anything... anything at all. So we're just gonna go the route of, "Tell me what you want to do." No character sheets in front of them, just something to take notes on if they want to.
Then, 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.

Quote from: Ravenswing;902770If RPGs were about campaigns, not rules, no one would care what edition of D&D was being played.  No one would care that the campaign on offer used GURPS, or Pathfinder, or Talislanta, or Clarinda's homebrew.  No one would care about questions of balance, or that it was a LARP, or that it was a storygame.  GNS would never have crossed anyone's mind.  People would just play.

But all the yammering is going on amongst RPG-fanboys... the equivalent of Trekkies arguing what size underpants Mr. Spock wears (or if he wears any at all). The obsession with rules minutia just scares off any casual Players who might otherwise want to play.
I 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.

I agree that the rules are often a hindrance, connecting with the setting is important, and dependent on the GM's story telling ability.

Quote from: Ravenswing;902770If RPGs were about campaigns, not rules, no one would care what edition of D&D was being played.  No one would care that the campaign on offer used GURPS, or Pathfinder, or Talislanta, or Clarinda's homebrew.

I disagree that the implication of my assertion. I have consistently stated that rules matter greatly in terms of personal preference. A Chevelot will get you to work just as well as a Ford but for a variety of reason people prefer on over the other.

A emphasis on RPG as a mean of running tabletop campaigns benefits everybody regardless of their preferred ruleset. It would emphasize how to run a successful and fun campaign regardless of the set of rules you prefer. Now some campaign advice would be based on the rule system. For example in GURPS 4e and D&D 4e combat take a longer time to resolve.  So part of the advice on running a campaign for those two games would take that into account.And it would be pertinent other RPGs where combat takes a similar amount of time resolve.

Quote from: Ravenswing;902770No one would care about questions of balance, or that it was a LARP, or that it was a storygame.  GNS would never have crossed anyone's mind.  People would just play.

The campaigns of a LARP or storygame are run very differently than that of a tabletop RPG. For above assertion I disagree.

Quote from: Ravenswing;902770
It's not that we don't understand what you're saying.  It's that we disagree with what you're saying.  Can we settle on that much?

I understand. People look at me like I have two heads when I assert this. "Of is about the rules it is a game." One of my best friends is as picky as the rules as it gets. He only plays when we use one of the rule system he likes. Luckily we share similar tastes so it works out more to be a quirk than a problem. However when he gets talking about what somebody that happened it never about what rules we used. How we used a feint in GURPS to take down the boss monster. No it always told like he was there as the character and re-accounting the experience.

And I had a lot of contact with gamers in my region over the decades and that the behavior I see time and time again. It is the memorable campaigns that get remembered not the rules. Yet when ask them it is still "Of course it about the rules."

Rules are very important but most cases they are the wrong thing to focus on when you are trying fix why you are having no fun with tabletop roleplaying. In my experience, if you are having no fun then likely either the campaign sucks, or there are issues with the gaming group.