What are rules for?, Another metagaming quesion. Options

[Serbitar]

I am continuing my recent couple of threads with metagaming content with a new question:

What are rules for?

At first glance this questions appears to be very simple. To make roleplaying possible.
But there are roleplaying systems without any rules, and they work. And there are also roleplaying systems with very simple basic rules.

The simplest rule system I could imagine would be one with only a mental and a physical attribute. every time somebody wants to do something the player rolls a number of dice equal to this attribute and needs to achieve a certain threshold with hits, or the sum (the actual mathematical concept does not matter). This also works very well.

Why then, do we have more or less complicated mechanics?

I think, there are a number of reasons:

- variety
- realism
- fairness
- ease of use
- predictability

Variety:
You want to have a large variety of characters. For this, you need a large number of attributes/skills/traits/edges... For this, you need rules that govern all these numbers.

Realism:
You want to play in an environment, that closely resembles reality. Rules can provide this better than a GM, because they GM generally has much less time to think about things wen calling for a roll.

fairness:
You want to have the same threshold every time for the same task in the same environment.

Ease of use:
As a GM, you do not want to think about threshold and rules. You just want to use given thresholds and rules.

Predictability:
You want to have a rough estimate beforehand how difficult or easy something will be. Rules provide you with this estimate, especially in Fantasy and SF roleplaying games, where things might not be simply extrapolated from real life.

Maybe I forgot an important point. Just give it in your text. What do you think is the most important reasons why we need rules. Please give some comments if possible.

My personal opinion:
In fantasy roleplaying games (more narrative based) I want rules that make a variety of different characters possible (for example axe-fighters that are very different from sword-fighters).
In SF games (player vs environment), especially SR, where players have to plan against a certain set of security measures, the main point of rules are letting the players predict and judge different situations accurately.

[eidolon]

Where's the "yes" option?

[Serbitar]

I imply that everybody in a rules forum is interested in rules . . .

[emo samurai]

I think they're there for unpredictability, personally. For when you kill the villain with a well-placed shot, or botch a demolitions run and kill yourself.

[eidolon]

[Serbitar]

I get it. But that answer does not carry any informational content concerning the question at hand, which is "what is most important" (as would the answer "I dont want rules").

[X-Kalibur]

I'd say rules are for a combination of all the above. They are there to regulate realism and predictability whilst providing variety and if they are good rules they should also prove easy to use.

[James McMurray]

This should definitely be check boxes, not an option list. I'd vote "all of the above".

[Butterblume]

I'd say predictability. Alltough my definition of predictability is very intertwined with Serbitar's definition of fairness.

[Fortune]

All of the above.

It's a hard choice to narrow it down to just one. I think I'd have to go with fairness, but not necessarily limited to Serbitar's definition of the term. And I agree that my definitions of fairness and predictability are inextricably linked.

[Mistwalker]

Like a lot of the others, they are all important, but predictablility would have to top my list, followed by fairness. Often they are the same thing.

[PlatonicPimp]

I'm with predictability. The point of the rules is so that the players will have some Idea as to the outcome of their actions. Using dice or other random number generators makes it less predictable, but statistical analysis gives us some idea what will happen. The point of the rules is so that a player who wants their character to be good at something can both define that in terms that mean something, and understand what they need to do to make that happen.

The usual example is combat. Almost everyone wants to play a badass. If the rules for combat are vague, you wouldn't know what you needed to do to be a badass. You might sink all your points into gun skills and be surprised when the gamemaster asks for a dodge test. You might be upset to find out that you can't just shoot a guy in melee. One GM (or even the same GM) faced with essentially similar situations might rule that you can do something one time and can't the other.

Because combat is the area where characters die if they fail, they usually want predictability there. I've only seen one game without a detailed combat section, and that was Amber Diceless. In other areas games usually fail to provide that level of predictability. In combat, the target numbers to hit are usually well defined. In other situations, the GM is encouraged to make it up.

Encouraging the GM to make it up, to me, is the most aggregious failure of a rules system (not a game, just the rules) because it goes against the very need fo the rule, to provide consistency in determining success. This applies over different sessions with the same GM, or different ones.


All other aspects are good, but not as vital.

I've played several games without variety in them, where you were expected to make a certain type of character and go with it. These games lack staying power, because one campaign will be mostly like the next. But too much variety is a problem too: Generic systems have been failing of late, and the first thing most DnD DMs do is compile a list of what classes and books are not available in their games.

Many, even most games fully admit they sacrifice realism for fun. What might be a better ideal to shoot for is suspension of disbeleif: the rules dont fail if they aren't realistic, only if the results don't make sense to the players.

Ease of use is an important aspect of rules, but it doesn't make or break them. I know a lot of gamers who will put up with hard rules for a good setting (SR3, anyone?), and I know several games with rules that were too simple to be satisfying.

Fairness is a weird term. On the one hand, it goes hand in hand with predictability. It assures you that your choices for your character will pan out roughly as you intended. On the other hand, as game balance, it goes hand in hand with variety, assuring you that no one specific choice will outshine others too much. That said, some games are easier on the players than others. Some, like call of cthulu, are blantantly Unfair to the players. These games are still popular, though, because they are still fun.

[Chandon]

I was going to post pretty much what PlatonicPimp just said. Luckily for me, he already did it.

[Ryu]

Yeah, what Platonic Pimp said. Predictablity of the kind that allows you to predict what others can do. Its the often-discussed power level. Once that is established, many groups can do away with the rolls most of the time.

[Geekkake]

[Blade]

Intersting question, but I can't really choose an answer. Each aspect is closely related to the others.

Let's start with realism. Rules aren't here to make sure that things are realistic. If they were you wouldn't be able to do absurd things by strictly applying the rules (getting someone to kill himself just because you're very convincing, not being able to kill someone by shooting him in the head at point blank range...). One way to deal with that would be to rule everything and that's impossible. The other way is to have the GM (and players) handle realism. Rules are merely used to have realistic outcome of actions (if you're a good shooter, you'll tend to hit your target). That's not realism, that's predictability.

Variety : If you want to be able to play everything you want, you don't need to bother with rules. Problem is that you won't have equality among players. So, yes, rules are useful for fairness.

Fairness is useful. In the same circumstances, every PC and NPC should be considered the same way by the rules. Rules should give an estimation of how many chances of succeeding they have. But that's not the whole point of rules. If it were, you'd have the same outcome each time a character tries something that another character did in the same situation. Rules are here to give an estimate of the chances the character have, but aren't here to decide if he succeeds or not. So once again, we tend towards predictability.

If you have the same rules for each situation (fairness), you'll have ease of use. If you had to choose modifiers on the fly, you'd tend to have modifiers based on your mood and what you secretly want to happen. So fairness and ease of use are linked. But every situation can't be covered (as seen about realism), so you can't avoid having to choose your own modifiers. But there should be some guidelines or examples to be able to choose wisely... Once again, we lean towards predictability.

So are rules there for predictability ? Not exactly If they were, you wouldn't need dices. You'd have a Rock-Paper-Scissor system where you just have to look up in a table to see the outcome of any action. Rules give more predictability, but are also here to allow interesting twists. We all remember some games that took totally unexpected but interesting directions because of an especially lucky or unlucky roll. That's why I'm not totally comfortable with saying that predictability is the most important aspect of rules.

To conclude, I'd say that your reasons may not be the best way to break up the rules (but I have no idea what would be) and that may be why they end up with your personal choice leading the poll. I'd try to think of other aspects or other way to "explain" rules.

[OneTrikPony]

I don't think any of the options covered my view (read my sig), but I chose predictability because that's allso accurate.

Deep in my soul I am a munchkin. It doesn't matter wether I play a character or GM. Most players I've played with are also munchkins of some sort. Rules provide the framework I need to keep my characters and setting from breaking my own suspension of disbelief.

RPG's are games of immagination. There is no limit to immagination. We need rules to tell us what we CAN'T do. We need limitations or there is no challenge.

[Charon]

Fairness and predictibility amount to basically the same thing according to these definitions.

Fair rules have to be predictible.

[De Badd Ass]

Somebody, please vote for Realism.

[PlatonicPimp]

But the real reason rules are there is to provide munchkins, power gamers and rules lawyers something to do because they can't get a date on saturday night.

No, I'm not insulting any of you. I'm describing myself in high school.

[Cain]

I'm going with OTP. Rules provide fairness, otherwise we're just playing cowboys and indians.

You don't want to know if you missed someone, or the odds of missing someone, as much as you want yo know *why* you missed. And if that reason is arbitrary as "'Cause I said so!" (as happens in most cases of GM fiat, which is one of the problems I have with Sr4), then you're going to feel cheated. You're going to think the game is unfair.

There is no game without rules. The rules might me few and far between, but they still exist, and they *define* the game. As I said in another thread, I could hand you a complete Monopoly set; but without the rules, you couldn't play. But if I handed you the rulebook, you could kludge up everything else, and be able to play.

[eidolon]

[OneTrikPony]

[eidolon]

No, it's still pretty much a bad argument. To get a better background on why I hold that opinion, look for Cain's posts and my responses in the Take Aim and Called Shot thread.

[OneTrikPony]

from the other thread in elodian's post page 7