Quote from: David Johansen;571836Nope, we need great players and great DMs.  They should hold tryouts on an annual basis and only the top 1% of gamers should be allowed to play at all.  Because gaming is the privilege of the elite and anyone who can't totally immerse themselves in the story without a framework should surely go back to playing WoW.

Incidentally for the sake of TrueGygaxFan, THAT was sarcasm.

:jaw-dropping:

:rotfl:

Quote from: silva;5717501. I was already playing a "roleplaying game" with my friends when I was a kid, even if we didn't know what da fuck was a "roleplaying-game" by then ?

2. the activity of engaging in roleplaying transcends, and works independently of, any specific kind of game or system created, allowing one to roleplay even during.. say.. a game of chess ? In other words, can we say its more of a state of mind instead of an experience produced by an specific game/system/ruleset ?

I would say that #1 isn't true specifically because of #2: If you want the term "roleplaying game" to mean anything at all, it can't simply be "some activity during which somebody happens to roleplay". And that's specifically because roleplaying is a broad activity which happens all the time.

So, to answer the question posed in the title of thread: If you're talking about a roleplaying game, yes, you need rules. If you're just talking about roleplaying in general then, no, you don't.

Without some rules, you really don't have a roleplaying game. However, the rules need not be long or complex (although they can be). For example, the following could be the rules for a very simple RPG:

Quote1) One player is the GM. The other players each play a character in adventures created by the GM.

2) Players take turns describing what their characters do. The GM plays all the other entities in the world.

3) If the GM feels that what a character (one controls by the player or on controlled by the GM) would not automatically succeed at what the character is trying to do, dice are rolled and interpreted by the GM. The higher the roll the better the character does. Low rolls indicate partial or total failure.

4) Characters have a set (by the GM) number of hit points. Each time a character is wounded in combat (or takes damage from the environment), he loses one hit point. Characters gain one hit point per day of total rest.

With more thought, one might even be able to create a RPG with fewer words of rules.

Quote from: gleichman;571761There is no need of anything but adhoc rules in a role-playing game (even cops & robbers, or 'army men' have rules- but they are informal, unwritten, fleeting and changeable upon whim).

Rules are added for one primary reason:

-To replace subjective resolution with objective resolution.

Beyond this base requirement, there another highly important reason:

-To provide methods and constraints such that skilled play of the game (i.e. decisions made within the limits of the rules) proves advantageous to the player.

I'm not sure that all RPG gamers would agree that the second is a desirable feature.

Formalised rules facilitate enjoyment and perpetuate play. There are no rules for when you know what you're doing. Rules are for when you don't know or cannot agree what should happen next. Without them I'm pretty sure they'd be like my childhood games of make believe - teetered out into unfocused boredom.

//Panjumanju

Quote from: Grymbok;573974I'm not sure that all RPG gamers would agree that the second is a desirable feature.

I'm sure there are.

But IME it's a rare player who doesn't want his IC decisions (that are reflected in the game mechanics) to have any bearing whatever on what happens next to the character.

Very rare, but I've seen people claim it.

Quote from: gleichman;574168I'm sure there are.

But IME it's a rare player who doesn't want his IC decisions (that are reflected in the game mechanics) to have any bearing whatever on what happens next to the character.

Very rare, but I've seen people claim it.

I'm sure, but I think there's a rather large excluded middle between that position and "skilled play of the game (i.e. decisions made within the limits of the rules) proves advantageous to the player."

Personally I'm happy to play an RPG without knowing the rules, and in some cases would prefer to do so. I'm interested in playing as my character, rather than playing utilising my character, and so I'd rather be making my action choices based on what feels right to me than what is mechanically optimal.

Considering the number of people I've gamed with over the years who have made no effort to learn the rules of the game in any detail, I don't think this is an outlier position (it might, of course, be a regional oddity, however).

Quote from: Grymbok;574490Considering the number of people I've gamed with over the years who have made no effort to learn the rules of the game in any detail, I don't think this is an outlier position (it might, of course, be a regional oddity, however).

I'm of the opinion that that type of player wouldn't care if there were any rules or not in use in the first place. Their answer to the question of the thread would be "I don't care", or "I like rolling dice" at best.

Since I started going to two conventions in particular (AmberCon NorthWest and Knutepunkt) six or seven years ago, I've been in contact with quite a number of people who reject the whole idea of any *mechanics* - as in anything with dice-rolling or math operations during play.  Some would accept numbers like Amber Diceless, but some would reject any game numbers and prefer rules like "Don't block" and "ease off if it is a tense situation and someone says 'break'".  

It's been interesting to play with these when my prior background was more in games like the HERO System.  

I agree that mechanic-less play feels less like a "game".  There is still challenge, success, failure, and skill involved.  However, much of the skill is social skill rather than math/mechanical skill.  The question is, what does it mean to be a "game"?  I was intrigued by Benoist's quote from a parallel thread on 3e.  

Quote from: Benoist;574888Now the question becomes *why* particular players would feel compelled to have mechanical representations of these aspects of their characters and ties to the world to the point of making 3rd ed their game of choice, and there you have IMO several possibilities, three of the obvious ones being (1) guaranteeing "fairness" and in other words, seeking a solution from bad experiences lived with previous iterations of the game, i.e. "show us where the bad GM touched you," (2) the CharOp, über-build of doom approach, which is basically a way for players to compare sizes, the "my character is more awesomer than thou" shit, and (3) OCD, i.e. you NEED to have these aspects covered by rules and numbers otherwise you just CAN'T play the game and it bothers you to such an extent that it's just a requirement in your RPGs.

I'd say that a big part of being a "game" is some version of #2.  Put in less insulting terms, it means some degree of competition - which can also be cooperative - i.e. you can work together as a team while still trying to be Most Value Player.  

Similarly, I think #3 can be expressed as a preference (though not necessarily a need) to have rules to fall back on because they reduce the pressure of decision-making.  It can be easier to follow the rules than to make a freeform decision - and easier is good in a leisure activity.

For a game to proceed and produce consistent effects acceptable by all players, things have to be agreed upon.

This agreement is de facto rules, even if the result is something light and text based. Even when I did simple text based forum things, we had conventions like "you can't kill anyone's character but your own without the controlling player's permission", "no destroying the world/space station/alliance", etc.

When things get more complicated, an confusion happens, people will get upset at each other. They may quit and go do something else. Of they may decide it's time to codify those agreements.

Written rules.

So yeah, I think for any but the most basic "cops and robbers gameplay" between players that are perfectly cognizant and understanding of each other's needs and expectations, some sort of rules are needed.

In my experience when I asked people exactly why they don't like rules most people, after some prodding tend to say they don't like doing math. That doing math feels like doing work and they don't want gaming to feel like "work" so they'd rather just either roll some dice or just role play and nix the rest. I have talked to one or two people who just stauchly feel like mechanics (at all) ruin role playing.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;574946For a game to proceed and produce consistent effects acceptable by all players, things have to be agreed upon.

Indeed.
From what I recall from being a lurker, Ceasar Slaad prefers some heavy rules.
Still...
I enjoy, indeed prefer, playing with newbs and 'non-gamers'. When I engage these folks with the invitation to play a "game", rules are already an assumption. Were I to say "a game"...followed by "nothing like any game you've played before" (to further define rpgs from the likes of boardgames,etc.) and then also added "no rules" it would be a bridge too far I'd think.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;574946Even when I did simple text based forum things, we had conventions like "you can't kill anyone's character but your own without the controlling player's permission", "no destroying the world/space station/alliance", etc.

Quick aside. Relevant or no... odd... this reminds me of the agreement between the Thieves' World authors.

Quote from: RPGPundit;572580...kinky sex games, etc. ...

Ah, but there are rules here too.

Speaking as someone (I hope I'm not going too far into a place that may make folks uncomfortable.) who has been a part of the BDSM community and such for many years: there are rules.
True, once "Action!" is called.. it's free-form. Long before however, rules and boundaries are well established and expected to be respected 100% by all involved despite the play.
There is a lot of: 'This, but not that in any way.' or 'This, but only such-n-such far.' and 'Never that, no matter what.' and 'A lot of this and no matter what's said, more and more of it.' To say nothing of standard rules (Rule #1 of the community is: "Safe, Sane, Consensual.") and safety concerns which are not taken lightly.

So, yeah. Rules. Lotsa rules. Even when humans turn rather animal. Dig?
(shit, I hope I didn't jump the shark of this discussion...)

Games always have rules.

Freeform roleplay has rules; such as; no 'God Modding' or 'Don't use profanity'

The rules may not be super precise, but there are always rules.