The rules make the game

[Skrum]

This is like a 10,000 ft game theory-ish post that I will do by best to provide a clear explanation.

Some time ago, I was chatting with some FOF's that had a "dnd" group (I use the term loosely, for reasons that will soon be clear). The DM was explaining the world, a kind of bounty hunters in space thing, and then I asked about the ruleset. He said it was kinda based on 3rd, but with extreme homebrew stuck on top. For example, he didn't like the regimented progression of Vancian magic, so he made a kind of system where any caster could attempt to cast any level of spell, but with higher and higher risk of magical blowback that would harm the caster. Paraphrasing, but his described it like "a level one wizard can cast level 2 spells, but it would hurt them. Level 3 spells, and there's a good chance they die. Level 4 or higher, and they just die immediately." He, and the group, found this kind of approach to the rules freeing because you can have your character attempt anything they want, and if it's ridiculous or far beyond their abilities, they'll just fail.

Well. This sounded like hell to me. And IMO, it counterintuitively does NOT create a free world where you can just do whatever - it creates a limited world that is entirely controlled by the whims of the DM.

The rules of a game are the structure. They don't tell you what you can't do, they tell you what you CAN do - and if the rules are written well, how to resolve things that might come up that aren't specifically mentioned. Without rules defining the "space," you're just...playing improv, I guess?

Hypothetical, slightly exaggerated example: what if the stealth or perception skill didn't exist at all. The only mention of about sneaking or hiding were in some flavor text in the descriptions of how rogues like to fight. Some might say, that's great, now all characters are free to (attempt to be) stealthy! But also...now actual rogues (or rangers, monks, bards, etc.), characters that would've perhaps taken the stealth skill, have no evidence (proof, rule) that they're good at that skill. They can't count on being able to do that thing, because it's just...well who knows, what the DM wants to do in the moment or whatever.

The less and less rules or actions that are defined, the less the players are able to express agency within the world. Not to make it sound adversarial, but the more actions that the players have at their disposal that they know they can take without "permission" from the DM, the more they are able to inhabit the world and affect it because it is *predictable*. I do this, the reaction is that. The less actions are defined, the more in the dark the player is on what exactly is going to happen when they do any given thing.

So, closing statement on my weird, perhaps nonsensical TedTalk. I'm bad at closing statements, and rules are good. They *create* the world, they don't limit it.

[False God]

I think you're wrong, in part.

The rules define the game, but they do not, and cannot define only the starting point. Imagine you have a race, how do you determine victors? By the one that crosses the finish-line first. It's not the one that grabs the first soda from the nearest 5-year-old. It's not the one who looks the prettiest while running. It's not the one who does cartwheels instead of running or the one who climbs a tree.

The rules of a race are about the simplest rules you could imagine. "Be the first to cross the finish line."

But to make those rules work, you need some other rules. "You cannot cut across the field." "You cannot attack other players." "You must follow the specified route." "You cannot step out of bounds."

A frenzied free-for all is not a "game". It is the restrictions and limitations that must be managed by the players in order to reach the finish line (defeat the monster, solve the plot, save the princess) that define the "game". You need these restrictions in order to balance the contest. That players can do X, but they can only do it at Y times. A player can, when confronted with a cliff, make an attempt to climb it. A player cannot, when confronted with a strong wind, attempt to climb it(short of having some magical ability that allows them to do so). And even in the case of a magical ability or Special Exception, it would only allow the player to climb a strong wind, and not have any bearing on their ability to climb a water elemental (but maybe an air elemental).

Knowing what you can do only exists within the context of knowing what you can't do. You can walk on the dirt. You can't walk on the water. Rules must do both. They must define all the parameters of the game, the start, the middle the finish. The Can, the Can't and the Special Exceptions.

Further, Player Agency is highly dependent on the players. Some folks don't need rules to express themselves (I don't). Some folks do. Some folks need/want more and some folks need/want less.

[Skrum]

Maybe I'm just describing what I'm getting at badly because I agree with everything you said. The rules ARE the world, or at least how the world operates. Without the rules, there is no world.

And yes, the end part about players is mostly true. Some groups/players will excel in a totally free-from kind of RPG/Improv Theater game. I wouldn't really call that DND though. I can make up narratives and stories just fine, and engage in character banter. But when it comes to combat (or any rules-based resolution of actions), absence of rules is a real turn off. Without having some idea of how something is going to be resolved or the possible outcomes, I loose interest very quickly. I've lost agency of my character, and thus cannot "place" them within a narrative space.

[Unoriginal]

it creates a limited world that is entirely controlled by the whims of the DM.

All RPG games create a limited world that is entirely controlled by the whims of the DM (or DMs, for games where everyone at the table get such control).


Without rules defining the "space," you're just...playing improv, I guess?

All RPG games have "playing improv" as a significant component.



Hypothetical, slightly exaggerated example: what if the stealth or perception skill didn't exist at all. The only mention of about sneaking or hiding were in some flavor text in the descriptions of how rogues like to fight. Some might say, that's great, now all characters are free to (attempt to be) stealthy! But also...now actual rogues (or rangers, monks, bards, etc.), characters that would've perhaps taken the stealth skill, have no evidence (proof, rule) that they're good at that skill. They can't count on being able to do that thing, because it's just...well who knows, what the DM wants to do in the moment or whatever.

Everything in D&D is just what the DM wants to do in the moment.

The DM is the one providing the interpretation of the rules that will be used at the table, ultimately. And no matter what, any rule used at the table will always be an interpretation of what is written in the book.

Even the most exact-word-only, literalist reading of a sentence is still an interpretation of said sentence.



but the more actions that the players have at their disposal that they know they can take without "permission" from the DM

Nothing can be done in a D&D game without the permission of the DM. A player can choose to play, and if the DM is acting like a jerk they can decide to not play, but everything that happens in-game is something the DM must arbitrate, judge and approve of. Directly.

the more they are able to inhabit the world and affect it because it is *predictable*. I do this, the reaction is that. The less actions are defined, the more in the dark the player is on what exactly is going to happen when they do any given thing.


They *create* the world, they don't limit it.

1) the DMs create the world. Rules serve as basis, but they are neither creators nor masters.

2) To create is to limit.

A sculptor creates a statue by taking everything a piece of stone, metal or plastic could be within the matter's specific physical limitations, and imposing a specific, limited design on it. A poet does the same with words, a painter with colors and a musician with sounds.

Or, if you prefer: to make something be X is to not make it be Y or Z or A or B or...

Note: I'm not saying a DM should ignore the rules if the group has agreed to play D&D. But the rules are here to inform, not to impose and let alone to create. A DM can have a world where orcs can fly at will, where everyone has draconic traits, or where everyone has one magic power naturally, which manifests on their 20th birthday.

I'm the first to say that if you change the game too much, you're WAAAAAAY better off with a different game, but that limit is different for all.

[animorte]

All RPG games have "playing improv" as a significant component.
I was going to note this as well. If you're playing a D&D game with little improv, are you really playing D&D?

[Skrum]

I was going to note this as well. If you're playing a D&D game with little improv, are you really playing D&D?

Right, but that's in the RP moments. Generally when initiative gets rolled though, the game switches into "rules mode." RP can and should still exist, but in terms of the direct actions players take in combat, they are defined by rules. My point is that in some sense, the players being able to take actions is predicated on being defined by rules - ergo, the presence of rules *doesn't* mean actions are limited, it means they are possible.

Or in other words, rules and players having more options aren't really in tension. Too many rules, sure, but I think people can take that to mean less rules always means more options. And that's just not true.

[Rynjin]

You seem to have a pretty big misunderstanding about homebrew, namely the idea that "homebrew rules aren't rules".

There are distinct, consistent rules laid out by that GM, for his campaign. Do I necessarily like those rules? Not personally, but I can see the logic behind them and they are clearly laid out up front.
That is what matters when it comes to homebrew.

There's no "improv" involved, any more than usual. The GM is not making calls based on their whims that might change from moment to moment. There is still a recognizable system that you are playing, with rules that can be referred to.

[animorte]

Right, but that's in the RP moments. Generally when initiative gets rolled though, the game switches into "rules mode." RP can and should still exist, but in terms of the direct actions players take in combat, they are defined by rules. My point is that in some sense, the players being able to take actions is predicated on being defined by rules - ergo, the presence of rules *doesn't* mean actions are limited, it means they are possible.

Or in other words, rules and players having more options aren't really in tension. Too many rules, sure, but I think people can take that to mean less rules always means more options. And that's just not true.

Even after initiative is rolled, you often have to figure out how to approach the opponent with the tools you possess. The rules govern the actions you take, but they don't govern your decision making before those actions. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. I'm just trying to phrase it differently.

[Skrum]

You seem to have a pretty big misunderstanding about homebrew, namely the idea that "homebrew rules aren't rules".

There are distinct, consistent rules laid out by that GM, for his campaign. Do I necessarily like those rules? Not personally, but I can see the logic behind them and they are clearly laid out up front.
That is what matters when it comes to homebrew.

There's no "improv" involved, any more than usual. The GM is not making calls based on their whims that might change from moment to moment. There is still a recognizable system that you are playing, with rules that can be referred to.

Oh yeah didn't mean to imply that - I'm not picking on homebrew en masse, I'm disagreeing with the idea that more rules always means less options for the players. I think it's generally the opposite. More rules means more options.

[NaughtyTiger]

You describe that the DM homebrewed a magic system.
This magic system seemed more flexible, but still appeared to have rules.

Then you go on a tangent about how a game without rules is terrible, ...

I am confused, because I can't see how you jumped from a system with [different] rules to complaining about a game with no rules.



what if the stealth or perception skill didn't exist at all. The only mention of about sneaking or hiding were in some flavor text in the descriptions of how rogues like to fight. Some might say, that's great, now all characters are free to (attempt to be) stealthy! But also...now actual rogues (or rangers, monks, bards, etc.), characters that would've perhaps taken the stealth skill, have no evidence (proof, rule) that they're good at that skill. They can't count on being able to do that thing, because it's just...well who knows, what the DM wants to do in the moment or whatever.

1) Currently in 5e, per the rules, all characters ARE free to attempt to be stealthy.
2) if stealth skill doesn't exist, then actual rogues mechanically AREN'T good at that skill. Not having a mechanic for stealth is not automatically worse than roleplaying stealth.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If I understand correctly, I disagree 100%.

D&D 5e rules[1] are
* a shared language and thematic environment for the players and DM
* a toolkit of resolution mechanics for the DM to use when and if he chooses, to the degree he chooses
* a library of content that the DM can, at his sole discretion, employ
* a slightly different library of content that players, at the DM's discretion, can employ
* a default set of other UI conventions, to be used where and to the degree that the table as a whole finds them useful.

D&D 5e rules do not actually impose any restrictions on the DM. They're just a UI to ease some of the load on players and DM alike. You could "play D&D" entirely free-form. I know, I've done it back in 4e! We used the trappings of the powers and rules, but really didn't pay much attention to them. And 5e puts even less presumption of rules-bindingness on the table.

D&D 5e rules don't even tell you what you can do (with the presumption that anything else is forbidden). And I'm very glad for that. Because if I wanted to play a game where everything is defined by the rules, where all interactions must involve pressing some mechanical button and getting a deterministic-within-bounds result back, I'd play a board game or a video game. D&D, like all TTRPGs, is an open system. There are
* things anyone can attempt to do (which may or may not have any kind of fixed mechanical implementation). CF Improvise an Action.
* things that some people can do with fixed resolution mechanics. Note that this does not mean that people without those rules can't do them, they just can't presume to do them without DM buy-in. There's no rule that says you need the Spellcasting trait (or something similar) to produce a spell effect. It's just presumed to be out of reach. But you could have a rules-conforming D&D world/game where anyone can cast a spell, they just need to succeed on a DC <X> Intelligence (Arcana) check, where <X> is pretty darn high. In that (hypothetical) world, having the Spellcasting trait would simply make it easier (you don't need to roll for spells on your list/known/prepared/etc).
* things that no one can do. This set is entirely up to the DM. And always has been.

And you can have agency as long as
* there are actual choices
* those choices actually have different consequences
* you have enough information to recognize that they have different consequences, even if you don't know for sure what those consequences are.

More rules =/= more choice. Less rules =/= less choice. More rules =/= less choice. Less rules =/= less choice. Choice is mostly a function of DM, table, and conditions. Rules don't really enter into it much except at the very extremes. For example, you can have near-total choice in a game with only a single rule: no player can entirely negate another player's action[2]. That's just about as freeform as it gets, and there's tons of choices. But you can also have tons of rules and not have many choices. And all other values along either axis--rule-density and choice are basically orthogonal.

[1] as opposed to rules for other games. Which may or may not differ.
[2] as in, if player A says "X happens", player B can't say "no, X doesn't happen", they have to start with X happening and might be able to impose a twist, but can't flat say that it doesn't happen. They may say that a character no-sells the attack, for instance, but the attack happens. This is basically a "no retcon of someone else's turn" rule.

[Ionathus]

The rules of a game are the structure. They don't tell you what you can't do, they tell you what you CAN do - and if the rules are written well, how to resolve things that might come up that aren't specifically mentioned. Without rules defining the "space," you're just...playing improv, I guess?

The less and less rules or actions that are defined, the less the players are able to express agency within the world. Not to make it sound adversarial, but the more actions that the players have at their disposal that they know they can take without "permission" from the DM, the more they are able to inhabit the world and affect it because it is *predictable*. I do this, the reaction is that. The less actions are defined, the more in the dark the player is on what exactly is going to happen when they do any given thing.

(Emphasis mine)

I see where you're coming from here, but I fundamentally disagree.

One of the worst things you can do to a new 5e player is to put a character sheet in front of them and say "here are all the things the rules allow you to do." It puts them into a gaming mentality, it gives them tunnel vision, and it starts them down the path of looking at every action, bonus action, or spell as a single-purpose tool rather than a multi-purpose one. This isn't *just* a wargame, it's also a collaborative storytelling experience even in combat, and you simply can't account for every possibility.

Whenever a new player seems lost for something to do in my games, it's always because they're looking at that damned sheet and seeing too many options. I just ask them "what are you trying to accomplish?" and they are always able to give a straightforward answer. And I am almost always able to make that action work within the rules, or alongside them at least :smalltongue:

The main benefit of D&D is that the world is driven by a human person who can react to maintain the immersion when you do something unexpected. Yes, the rules allow for predictability and that is a good thing, on the whole. Consistency is helpful when you're trying to make plans and keep everyone on roughly equal footing. But it will always be a subjective experience, and we need to embrace that. We should absolutely not be looking to the rules for an "approved" list of actions we can take. The rules provide the guidelines and the expectations, but the unpredictability is what makes it exciting.

That being said...


They can't count on being able to do that thing, because it's just...well who knows, what the DM wants to do in the moment or whatever.

This part, I understand and sympathize completely. My first PC was a druid who sometimes forgot what trees were, because the DM would call for nature checks about really basic stuff that I should've inherently known. So I get where you're coming from here: it's no fun to suddenly realize you're actually playing Calvinball and the DM doesn't know how to maintain a consistent tone or experience at the table. You want to feel competent, and you want to feel like you can cast fireball (or roll Persuasion) and make a reasonable guess what's going to happen.

But that's a problem in any TTRPG with a DM-equivalent, no matter what system or ruleset. If a single person is the arbiter of the story, you've gotta be able to trust that person - and if they're capricious or they're just not very skilled at their job, the rules aren't ever gonna be able to stop that.

[Telok]

The rules, as they are in play at the table, function as the fictional physics of the game world for the players.

If the dm calls for attack rolls to send a fireball spell bead through a crowded melee without clipping someone and exploding early, then thats the physics of that spell that your character has to live with. If the dm decides all jumps beyond strength score in feet are going to be 10 + total distance rounded up to 5s, making s str 10 to jump for 12 feet into a dc 25 check, then thats the world's physics for players for that game.

The rules, as they are in play at the table, are the game.

The big exception is when the dm is creating, ignoring, or changing rules. This can be called rulings, interpretation, or just making stuff up. It will happen because no printed rpg rule set can be 100% complete & perfect and people don't typically have absolutely perfect memories. It is not an intrinsically good or bad thing. It is just the result of human limitations. The only real problem is if the dm is not exceptionally consistent in decisions and clearly communicating everything then the players are playing by the whims of the dm instead of the rules of the game. Even this is not an intrinsically good or bad thing. If players & dm like it and are one the same... wavelength?... it can be fine. But it does risk (at the extreme) the players feeling like there are no rules or physics they can rely on, making them play for the dm's pleasure instead of playing a game.

Edit:
But that's a problem in any TTRPG with a DM-equivalent, no matter what system or ruleset. If a single person is the arbiter of the story, you've gotta be able to trust that person - and if they're capricious or they're just not very skilled at their job, the rules aren't ever gonna be able to stop that

True. I do though feel that a rpg rule set can and should either provide sufficient tools and guidance that it can either support & teach a less skilled dm, or warn them of the level of skill required to run an enjoyable game. Although it can be mitigated by making a rule set such that a single person's skills isn't the sole and ultimate point of success or failure for the entire system.

[Goobahfish]

This is broadly true. If there aren't consistent rules, it is difficult to design a character to exploit them (exploit is a good word here).

For example, within standard D&D, there is not clear or consistent rules for monster morale, so an illusionist who wants to 'scare' monsters with illusions will just hit the DM 'whim of doom'. If the rules are codified, it is easier to build characters with abilities and skills which interact with the rules in a consistent manner.

Moreover, rules help to do half the arbitration of the game to avoid adversarial interactions with the DM. If a DM flouts the rules consistently then they aren't playing well (I think this is uncontroversial as interacting with other humans requires a certain level of consistency to be viable). Flouting of rules should be used sparingly with useful intentions in mind rather than arbitrarily.

That said, this setting sounds fine? You can cast high level spells but there are consequences for doing so? However, save or die is a really dumb mechanic (i.e. very ill-suited to non-1-shot RPGs) so... it might fail on those grounds?

[MoiMagnus]

If I look at my main experiences as a player and GM, I see:


Regular D&D, with almost no homebrew, that behave mostly as a boardgame with RP sessions in-between. In some ways, I sometimes find those less interesting that actual boardgames.
Heavily homebrewed D&D, with rules changing from session to sessions, and where helping the GM to design the rules for the next sessions was a major part of my enjoyement of the game.
Paranoia, where it's part of the rules that the players don't have the right to read most of the rulebook. Even their character sheet include abilities that they only have a flimsy understanding of. Very fun for one-shots where the players have to fully trust the GM to make an enjoyable experience. I don't think I would enjoy a campaign in such a system.
Rule-light systems (if you don't know what I mean, imagine D&D, except there is no combat rules, only skill checks. You don't have a spell list, you make Arcana skill checks to see if you're able to do what you want, against an arbitrary DC which might depends on the background of your character, and the GM narrate the result.). IME rule-light systems works great when the GM give back some of their power and the experience becomes much more collaborative. The rules are not determined by the GM unilaterally, as player also shape the narration through their suggestion (which works much better with low numbers of players).


So I think I disagree with "rules make the game". Rules make boardgames. But IMO the core of the difference between a RPG and a boardgame is that the rules are uncertain. Boardgames lose their interest if the rules are not hard rules, since it breaks competition (either between players for competitive games, or between sessions for collaborative games). RPGs don't need to: the rules only need to match player expectations, which is much more flexible and not necessarily self-consistent.

[stoutstien]

The rules are there to facilitate a smoother game experience. That's it. You can add or remove any number of rules and still play with an open ended action resolution system so really the game makes the rules.

[Tanarii]

Is this an thread saying you don't like the 5e design philosophy? Because that's what it reads like.

Otoh D&D has always had a weird relationship with rules, which comes from its wargamer roots. As soon as combat starts, it's heavily governed by rules, and DM and player decisions are mostly made from options within those rules. Outside of combat there are far less rules and far more players describing what they want to do and DM judgement on how to resolve that.

This held for both TSR and WotC (including 5e), with one major difference: WotC codified a generic but flexible resolution system that can be used out of combat.

This is all pretty much the industry standard. Trying to apply too many rules to non-combat draws accusations of "video gamey" and trying to apply too few rules to combat draws accusations ... uh, of not being a war game I guess. Rules light combat systems have been proven to work for some folks, so my point went off the rails at the end there. :smallamused:

[Skrum]

One of the worst things you can do to a new 5e player is to put a character sheet in front of them and say "here are all the things the rules allow you to do." It puts them into a gaming mentality, it gives them tunnel vision, and it starts them down the path of looking at every action, bonus action, or spell as a single-purpose tool rather than a multi-purpose one. This isn't *just* a wargame, it's also a collaborative storytelling experience even in combat, and you simply can't account for every possibility.

Whenever a new player seems lost for something to do in my games, it's always because they're looking at that damned sheet and seeing too many options. I just ask them "what are you trying to accomplish?" and they are always able to give a straightforward answer. And I am almost always able to make that action work within the rules, or alongside them at least :smalltongue:

See I have a different opinion on that situation - new players don't know the rules, so they don't know how to translate what they want to do into the specific mechanic terms of the game. This is a game knowledge problem, not a rules limiting options problem. When they say "I want to do X" and you tell them how that works, you're effectively acting as translator. This is related to, but I don't think quite the same thing, as the topic.

As others have pointed out, a bad DM is can trample over your character sheet as easily as they can capriciously decide the outcomes of actions, regardless of how rules-lite or rules-specific the game is. This is completely true. But IMO, having rules reduces the likelihood of that happening. Having rules creates a shared language of a sorts - a framework of expectations. The less rules there are, the more likely it is that the players have one idea in their head and the DM has another.


Is this an thread saying you don't like the 5e design philosophy? Because that's what it reads like.

No not really. I think 5e is in a pretty good place overall (even if I think they left a few things inexplicably ill-defined). As much as I love the overall design philosophy of 3rd, with exhaustive rules and all creatures in the world sharing the same rules, it is also a mess. A beautiful mess, but a mess. 5e is at a much more practical, pragmatic place and I think it is the superior edition for it.

This thread is essentially "regulations make markets," but for gaming. Rules create the shared space to tell a story.

[MoiMagnus]

This thread is essentially "regulations make markets," but for gaming. Rules create the shared space to tell a story.

IMO, the social context (previous shared experience with this table of players, expectations in term of theme/stereotypes/etc) are all "soft rules" that shaped this shared space as much as actual rules.

Sure, it's easier to read a rulebook than to understand how a human being will GM and what push them toward homebrewing in one way or another. But in my experience after a few sessions it's not that hard to understand what kind of gameplay and atmosphere the GM is seeking and roughly guess the circumstances in which the GM will say "oh, there is an houserule about that because I don't like how it works" or "I really don't like how this rule is playing out so I'm going to change it on-the-fly." But maybe I've been lucky with GM that could easily be understood.

[KorvinStarmast]

The rules make the game.
No, they don't, not in D&D. (Rob Kuntz wrote a reasonable treatment of this as regards to why Arneson's game eventually led to D&D being published ... granted, his prose style is a bit cumbersome).

The rules serve the game. The game began as very wide open, but you can see how it was beginning to look more like a "closed system" as AD&D 1e took shape.

If you get a chance, check out Jon Peterson's recent "The Elusive Shift" for a good treatment of how the early adapters all took the same little game and did different stuff with it.

This is like a 10,000 ft game theory-ish post that I will do by best to provide a clear explanation.

Some time ago, I was chatting with some FOF's that had a "dnd" group (I use the term loosely, for reasons that will soon be clear). The DM was explaining the world, a kind of bounty hunters in space thing, and then I asked about the ruleset. He said it was kinda based on 3rd, but with extreme homebrew stuck on top. For example, he didn't like the regimented progression of Vancian magic, so he made a kind of system where any caster could attempt to cast any level of spell, but with higher and higher risk of magical blowback that would harm the caster. Paraphrasing, but his described it like "a level one wizard can cast level 2 spells, but it would hurt them. Level 3 spells, and there's a good chance they die. Level 4 or higher, and they just die immediately." He, and the group, found this kind of approach to the rules freeing because you can have your character attempt anything they want, and if it's ridiculous or far beyond their abilities, they'll just fail.
Awesome. This is the classic "give 'em enough rope" approach to GMing that springs from the 'wide open game' era of D&D as well as other FPRGs and SFRPGs.

Well. This sounded like hell to me. And IMO, it counterintuitively does NOT create a free world where you can just do whatever - it creates a limited world that is entirely controlled by the whims of the DM.
*face palm*

The rules of a game are the structure. They don't tell you what you can't do, they tell you what you CAN do - and if the rules are written well, how to resolve things that might come up that aren't specifically mentioned. Without rules defining the "space," you're just...playing improv, I guess? Dismissiveness combined with reductionist language is noted, which means there is probably a play style conflict here.

Hypothetical, slightly exaggerated example: what if the stealth or perception skill didn't exist at all. Like in original D&D? Funnily enough, we still managed to have fun. We didn't need extra rules.

The less and less rules or actions that are defined, the less the players are able to express agency within the world. Not actually true. Player agency does not need more rules to be better.

I will assess your 'core problem' as lacking a healthy trust relationship with your GM, or the assumption of that.

FWIW: I finally got my hands on a copy of Worlds Without Number. As I read through it, I was getting that 'wide open' feel again.

[Zuras]

I would say that regarding rules-light narrative games, it’s not just about the GM allowing players control. That’s necessary, but not sufficient. The players also have to have familiarity with the story tropes of the genre you’re playing in.

If you’re doing a monster of the week game, for example, the players need to have watched some X-Files, Fringe, Buffy or Supernatural. That way everyone has a tool kit of ideas they can go to when they’re improvising. If you try to run a FATE Star Trek campaign and one of the four players at the table doesn’t know who William Shatner is, that player is going to have a hard time enjoying themselves.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I would say that regarding rules-light narrative games, it’s not just about the GM allowing players control. That’s necessary, but not sufficient. The players also have to have familiarity with the story tropes of the genre you’re playing in.

If you’re doing a monster of the week game, for example, the players need to have watched some X-Files, Fringe, Buffy or Supernatural. That way everyone has a tool kit of ideas they can go to when they’re improvising. If you try to run a FATE Star Trek campaign and one of the four players at the table doesn’t know who William Shatner is, that player going to have a hard time enjoying themselves.

Agreed. That "shared language" is critical. And may or may not be in the rules--in fact, rules do a bad job of creating a shared thematic language. Especially when people lean into the (phantom, IMO) fluff vs crunch distinction. Because then they're disregarding all of the thematic language present, at least if it doesn't fit their present desires.

[Willie the Duck]

Fundamentally, I understand the point. People can and do use the boundaries put forth by a system to, if nothing else, act as points of reference. There are advantages to that (sometimes just getting a sense of scale, so that you know if your alternate option over- or under-performs the default). I certainly have looked at a new fantasy game system and looked at the example characters just to know if building Johann the Stoneknapper and cordwainer, who can craft flint arrowheads and his own rope and survive off the land for years without resupply is impressive, or whether I'll just be put in a party with a wizard who will make all that unnecessary because he can cast Create Mundane Gear 15 times a day. Likewise, there are entire game systems (the original 90s World of Darkness Mage system, IIRC), where perhaps too much is left to GM-may-I and people felt like they had to play 2050 questions with their storyteller every round to find out what was possible (and not waste their action while Technocracy killer robots were shooting at them with Gatling guns-- it was not a well-balanced game). There are advantages to knowing the system you are playing. However, many of us (especially those who come from and OSR or rules light background) have seen the downside -- ossified sense of what is possible/limits on creativity -- and that, overall, seems to be a greater problem overall.


This part, I understand and sympathize completely. My first PC was a druid who sometimes forgot what trees were, because the DM would call for nature checks about really basic stuff that I should've inherently known. So I get where you're coming from here: it's no fun to suddenly realize you're actually playing Calvinball and the DM doesn't know how to maintain a consistent tone or experience at the table. You want to feel competent, and you want to feel like you can cast fireball (or roll Persuasion) and make a reasonable guess what's going to happen.
But that's a problem in any TTRPG with a DM-equivalent, no matter what system or ruleset. If a single person is the arbiter of the story, you've gotta be able to trust that person - and if they're capricious or they're just not very skilled at their job, the rules aren't ever gonna be able to stop that.

This is broadly true. If there aren't consistent rules, it is difficult to design a character to exploit them (exploit is a good word here).

See I have a different opinion on that situation - new players don't know the rules, so they don't know how to translate what they want to do into the specific mechanic terms of the game.
On some level, there has to be a level of shared understanding, at least to the level of whether a given action is reasonable to take (and a reasonable use of an action if in a every-action-counts situation). In all but the most dire situations, you won't try to jump a ravine if you don't have a relatively high chance of success (or you can survive the fall, another thing you want to know about the game). Thus you want to know if this is a hyperrealistic, cinematic, heroic, or mythic kind of world. That much you do need to know, and the rules could tell you that, or the GM could. And if you are playing in a less rules-constrained system, these are the cues the GM should be responding to (and maybe even saying, 'um, are you thinking that will succeed?'). A 100% prescribed rule game system (something I don't think can happen, but in a very narrow field like jump distance or the like is possible) will eliminate this, but it's not clear that it will eliminate uncertainty in a game in total, but will risk limiting your framing of your options to the ones presented.


This thread is essentially "regulations make markets," but for gaming. Rules create the shared space to tell a story.
Ah, here we are. I think it is accurate to say that 'framing makes a shared space to tell a story' would be a better way to look at it. You need to have a sense of the genre, scale, seriousness, and maybe a (subject to change) vague sense of what success looks like ('are we saving a princess, a kingdom, the world at large, or just our own butts at the other end of the dungeon with some extra coinage?'). You have to know if you are in a world where water will ever flow up the waterfall by itself and whether your character can make a 50' leap while carrying their anvil collection. You don't need a rule for all occasion and to fear GM adjudication (unless you know they are bad at GMing, in which case you need to decide if you're in the mood for helping someone improve their skills).

[Easy e]

I can see the appeal to a rules based world as a certain type of player, as a shield against poor DMs.

However, to me the only thing that makes an RPG interesting and different as a gaming experience is that the GM shapes the world you interact with. The GM fiat and the table interactions created from GM fiat is the point of the RPG.

More rules just hide the fact that you ARE playing Improv. Some Improv is simply more structured than other Improv games. Some people need and want more of that and some want less.

[Telok]

However, many of us (especially those who come from and OSR or rules light background) have seen the downside -- ossified sense of what is possible/limits on creativity -- and that, overall, seems to be a greater problem overall.

Interestingly that's mostly just something I see in people who only play d&d and mostly see in d&d. Paranoia, Traveller, Champions, Shadowrun, etc., its always the ones who only played d&d (and for a fair bit of time, does not apply to complete rpg novices) that don't try anything wacky or off character sheet. Just my experiences.


I can see the appeal to a rules based world as a certain type of player, as a shield against poor DMs.

Most DMs start off pretty terrible. I know I was. And d&d is where most people start dming. Pity there aren't any real "amount of rules & complexity" dials in d&d to start off easy and ramp up.

[False God]

Maybe I'm just describing what I'm getting at badly because I agree with everything you said. The rules ARE the world, or at least how the world operates. Without the rules, there is no world.

And yes, the end part about players is mostly true. Some groups/players will excel in a totally free-from kind of RPG/Improv Theater game. I wouldn't really call that DND though. I can make up narratives and stories just fine, and engage in character banter. But when it comes to combat (or any rules-based resolution of actions), absence of rules is a real turn off. Without having some idea of how something is going to be resolved or the possible outcomes, I loose interest very quickly. I've lost agency of my character, and thus cannot "place" them within a narrative space.

This is certainly more opinion than fact, and that's fine. Many games certainly suffer from ill-defined rules, a sort of poor-mans middle ground between really crunching the numbers and suggesting the players play Calvinball. Many tables suffer from poor expression of the rules, which can stem from a lack of clarity from the designers or lack of understanding from the DM/Players.

5E has certainly stumbled into this middle ground many times IMO.

But I can be equally satisfied with simple rules that have no intention of covering every corner case. Be it up to DM discretion(in order to jump this fence Jimmy, you'll need to roll a 15 Athletics), Player creativity(I would like to use my Intelligence and Engineering to create a springboard to propel me over the fence) or some combination of both.

There is, IMO, a point where there are too many rules and it stifles creativity, expression and agency. If you can only do things one way do you really have agency?

[Easy e]

The only rule that matters in an RPG is the rules that let a player know if a character succeeded or failed at whatever they are trying to do. Everything else is just fluff.

[Zuras]

The only rule that matters in an RPG is the rules that let a player know if a character succeeded or failed at whatever they are trying to do. Everything else is just fluff.

That's the minimum amount of rules required to make storytelling around a table an RPG, but you need significantly more than that for most stories. Practically speaking, for any long-term campaign game you need some sort of rules governing how characters learn and grow in capabilities, otherwise you don't have a satisfying answer to questions like "why couldn't we overcome challenge X at the beginning of the story but *can* overcome it now?"

For a satisfying narrative arc, you need a good answer to that question. Common ones are:

We retrieved the macguffin.
We know the enemy's weaknesses now.
We have a better plan/better teamwork than last time.
We found some friends.
We levelled up/took a level in awesome


Some of those can be handled pretty well by a rules-light, narrative-focused system, but some of them require a pretty substantial and crunchy rules set. One of the things that makes 5e fun to play is that teamwork is often almost unreasonably effective, and parties figuring out the tactics that work for them against different enemies often happens quite naturally in the course of play, and does a great job of making victories feel earned.

In a good RPG conflict, the players have to know why they won, and the answer has to be something more satisfying than "The DM decided it was time to wrap things up".