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.

Where's the "yes" option?

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

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.

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").

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Fair rules have to be predictible.

Somebody, please vote for Realism.

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.

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.

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.

from the other thread in elodian's post page 7

It's the implicit counterpoint stated in the question. "What are rules for?" You can't ask that question without a foundation that is, "Why you you NEED rules?" You can't really answer the first question without addressing the latter because otherwise it comes down to your first reply, "Yes" and then with clarifications or caveats tossed in.

The rules, at heart, define any game. Whether it's tag, or poker, or Shadowrun, the game is based around what is allowed and what is not in the game. If there are no rules, then there is no game. Hence my point (maybe Cain's) that the rules are there to define the game. Otherwise it's basically that freeform imagination period you get to have before nap time.

Or let me put it another way, since it is within the context of SR4. Say some enterprising gamer/writer decides to do something stupid like submitting something to be considered for publication by Fanpro (context is irrelevant). As hard as some people seem to try, the setting and the mechanics cannot be divided into two sphere which never touch. In fact, given that the setting is based on a game, which as I've already stated is defined by its rules you cannot just start cherry-picking the rules as you see fit. SR4 has all sorts of options for "clarifying, modifying, fixing," or otherwise not using the main rules as they are written. It has been my experience, and has been the experience of people I know who've been published by FASA/Fanpro that you can't usually get to inject your own houserules into even a pure setting (you can create new ones, but that's a wholly separate issue) book. *cough* RA:S *cough*

The problem is that certain people, including possibly that aspiring writer, are rules lawyers. In my opinion, rules lawyers are the best people to write the setting area because their meticulous attention to the mechanics tends to overlap heavily into their fiction (e.g., fewer leaps of logic and nonsequiturs, among many others including less of a chance of making outright assumptions about things that they don't know about). But what happens when you get a rules lawyer who has pointed out over an over again things which are perfectly plausible (or even occur as normal behavior) according to the official rules, not the ones where the GM in the sky jacks up the threshold or invokes a different reading of the Edge refresh rate? Well, aside from the very likely chance that it will lead to a fight with the editor, it is the reflection of the rules - the very boundaries and foundation of the game - upon the setting.

When it comes to official rules, however, it also affects not only those of us who don't see the point in buying a book if you have to houserule half of it (or in the case of some people, just rewrite the whole damn book), but it also affects the canon setting of the game, which is especially important for Shadowrun since it has probably survived as the last real cyberpunk-ish game because it has a continuous, changing setting which ultimately rest within the constraints the the rules place on it (even when the rules being used are Earthdawn's, and so you see things like thread magic and astral movement being used by characters who have been around since the Neolithic).

Or is it not my imagination that almost every review of any Shadowrun novel has involved at least one reference to the fact that somewhere it breaks canon rules? Well, gee, it's a novel. What do rules matter? Well, they matter when the novels are canon (or close enough) and shape (or in some cases, define) the setting. It's not just the imposition of a set of constraints on one aspect of gaming, or one group's experience. It's the imposition of constraints on the publisher itself and on everyone who has the audacity to follow canon.

Some novels do not break the rules. Or it can easily be explained by some obscure rule that lurks somewhere - that normal people will not come across or simply by the writer handwaving "good rolls, wot?". As long as the effect described by the author may be attributed to good rolls, I couldn't care less if at first glance, Mr Potter cannot cast a Force 9999 lightning bolt at Lord Whathisname and not suffer drain, because he might just have used Edge and the dice just exploded.

Well I think that any game needs structure. I tend towards more complex rules systems myself. They just fit my GMing style better. I like more realistic systems. I tend to try and find a metasystem that reflects a way of dealing with something in the world and use that in nearly every system I run if I can.

How the rules work goes a long way towards how the players will react to a game. I learned this long ago when I wanted to tell a different story then the standard hack and slash in 1st ed DnD. The players resisted because the system told them that the only important things were killing monsters and gaining gold. I did the same setting with a different system and they respnded totally differently.

Game mechanics seemed to fill a need for players in giving them a sense of security in that the world in somewhat fair and that there is a way to succeed beyond the whim of the GM. They want to understand the world in ways that they may not actually understand the real world.

On the other hand the game mechanics act as a limiter on what kinds of stories you can easily tell. A system that works well with it's setting will always make sense and the game will flow. If it doesn't then the players will be constantly jarred out of the game.

In reply to some earlier comments I think that a lot of games have an overall feel to them. This overall feel is what defines it as one game or another. Portions of the setting maybe different from GM to GM based on what they have read and liked and what they didn't. Just because there are differences doesn't mean that they are not playing that game.

If you think that going by the book exactly as is makes it Shadowrun (or what ever) then you haven't played one Shadowrun but up to 4 Shadowrun settings. If you include the fact that some sourcebooks changed some of the basic rules then you have a huge number of Shadowrun games. Each one a bit different. Obviously Shadowrun is not just one set of rules or one way of viewing the setting.

Changing the rules or having optional rules or house rules doesn't cause all of space time to be unstable. They were obviously adjustible as far as the game designers were concerned because they keep on changing it.

They are not the final authority. We are. Every GM is. They have no say over our games.

So in response to the actual question "What are rules for?" I would have to say they are there to help the GM tell a story. They are not there, as far as I'm concerned, for the player to use against the GM. They are all optional rules as far as I'm concerned. The GM is always right. If you don't like it then don't play under them. It's their game and their story. You can not rules lawyer to the GM unless you have totally dominated them. Then the players are the GMs and they are just abusing this person.

So... are you saying that the rules are fucking up the fiction or that the fiction is fucking up the rules?

And what's wrong with with the archology shutdown stuff there aren't even any immortal elves. OK maybe one but he's just a small one.

Edit] oops. I should have directed the above to James

Garrowolf said;

SL James

Okay, I've seen some of those shared control games and frankly I hate them. I can see a certain kind of gamer liking that but I am certainly not one of them.

I like to run Role Playing Games. Those shared control games never seem to get anywhere near that and are mostly Roll Playing Games. They require a fairly shallow plot so that the player's changes and shared control doesn't make any difference.

It is fine when there is no plot and the characters are running around going from short story arc to short story arc will lots of randomness going on, which alot of games I've played in are. You can only have a light mood because their is very little ability to maintain a more serious tone with everybody able to interject their changes.

I hate that style of play and so do all the people that I game with. It provides no challenge or creativity because you can always alter what is around you to get out of problems easily. You don't really have to think. One of my players was complaining about another game which ran like that and he hated it because it felt like the world was soft and unreal but he likes my game which has nearly as many house rules as book rules because it makes more sense to him then the book.

If you have a single GM in charge then they can tell a story. I am a storyteller. I want the players to feel as if they are in a novel or a movie. I want them to try and figure out how to acheive this goal which can be very hard and they know that there is consequences to their actions and they know that there is alot of the setting that they don't know and understand - but they are learning.

That is why I don't think that the GM can be held to the rules ultimately. They are a bunch of suggestions as far as they are concerned. Now you can definately make judgements on if a person is a good GM or not but if you are trying to force the rules on the GM then he is not a GM in the first place. He is there just to vomit secenery.

Garrowolf: Which games in particular, are you referring to? There's a lot of games which involve quite detailed, role-playing plots and have strong degrees of player control.

In particular, i'm referring to any game with a "Dramatic editing" mechanic, which allows the players to spend points (like the Karma Pool) to cause in-game events to happen. There's probably dozens of games like that, too many to mention them all. But in particular, 7th Sea calls for a lot of courtly intrigue and had a form of dramatic editing; and Faery's Tale not only has very deep roleplay and plots, it has a dramatic editing mechanic that subtracts from players for benefits, and rewards them for increasing their challenge.

At any event, I personally dislike "novelesque" games, because they tend to have no options for the players. There's one path, and one only, and you deviate at your peril. Glass-tunnel, or railroading, games aren't my cup of tea, and I think you'll find a lot of people here consider railroading to be a dirty word.

GM's, ultimately, have to he held to the rules *more* than their players. If you're just making up rules for the opfor as you go along, but the players are plaing by the book, I guarantee you that you won't have players for very long. A GM has the ability to abuse the system moreso than anyone else, so they need to strive to always present a fair and objective face.

I'll also add this: ever since I learned how to GM, I have not *once* needed to resort to GM fiat. Rules calls, yes; but only after taking in player input and reaching an agreement. Never once have I said: "This will happen this way, because it makes for a better story/because I think it's right/because I said so."

Shared control games require a strong gamemaster. One of my friends is a big fan of those types of games, but when he runs them, I as a player invariably steamroll him with my actions and he winds up giving up in frustration because he doesn't have the control he wants. He loves those games when he's a palyer but can't run them to save his life.

I think rules are there in part to give the gamemaster a tool to control his players, and in part to assure the players that the gamemaster is being fair. The gamemaster should be able to exercise more control over the story than the players, but the players should be guarenteed that they are treated fairly and not simply subject to the whims of a fickle creator.

The tighter the rules, the more hemmed in by them both parties might feel. The GM may feel like little more than a glorified computer, crunching numbers on the player's actions, and the players may feel they have no room to do anything cool because the only things they are allowed to do are spelled out.

The looser the rules, however, the more likely you are to slip into the scary worlds of players running amok or GMs ruling capriciously.

Oh I have plenty of options for my pcs to go down but the story is still moving and not necessarily waiting on them to decide what to do. I try to make the setting as real a place as I can with several subplots moving at once. They can get involved in any or all of them. They can make a big difference to the setting and make lots of changes through their efforts. I encourage player driven subplots and such as well and I will run with them if they make sense to the game.

I don't mind dice mechanics that say "this roll has a lot of luck involved", but I wont use those that allow you to spend karma or force points or whatever and say "Oh but surprise! I happen to know this NPC over here and he owes me his life" or "I jump out this window I say is here". You can spend points to effect change on metagaming aspects like dice pools but not on environmental changes.

I'm not saying that I use GM fiat instead of rules. I create or use lots of rules that are mostly to make it easier on myself as GM. Now I will bend those rules anytime I want to if I need something to happen. Most of the time the players never know that it has happened.

I think that there is a difference between GM Fiat and the GM's right to change the rules. I may change a rule when I see a problem with it and I will write it down and inform the group of the change and why. Sometimes I will end up having to defend the reasoning but I usually have a good reason for doing it. I'm not saying I am asking for thier vote about it either. Now if a rule doesn't work out and everybody has problems with it or hates it then I might change it back or to something different but I will also do that for rules from the book.

Many games have some sort of rule number one - all of these rules are optional. Change them at will.

Wow. I quit reading when Mr. Lucky got mentioned and skipped to the end. That idea's been hashed back and forth in way too many threads already. All I'll say is:

Cain, I can't figure out what you are having a problem with. I never said that I would abuse the players. I was talking about GM's having the right to create rules for the games that they run. A GM following rules or not following published rules has NOTHING AT ALL to do with if they abuse their players. Just because you might have had a GM that did the both at the same time doesn't mean they are the same thing!

Would you do Catwoman as a normal highly skilled character or the meta version from some of the movies and tv shows? Maybe as a physad?

All I need is a human with the Lucky Quality and maxed-out Edge. She doesn't even need to do anything (Actually, this is more like a first season episode of Tales from the Crypt, but I like using the Catwoman example because it's just more familiar) else. It's just the principle that you can make a PC at chargen who can be "killed" eight times before their life is actually threatened.

The GM has two roles, to be the referee and the be the player of the setting's NPCs.
The story comes from the interaction between the characters. They GM is only a storyteller when the PCs are uninvolved. In fact, the GM can very easily let the PCs play without introducing a single NPC at all.

With the GM's status as referee, houserules and nonstandard interpretations are to be avoided as often as is possible to maintain compatibility with the official rules and setting. This makes it easier to trade players between groups and easier for players to adapt to official tournament play.

The SR Rules are incomplete, and hence flawed. But there are other rules books coming out. Until the entire rules set comes out, I'd reserve judgement on how flawed and incomplete the rules are.