The Function/Purpose of the Rules

[hamlet]

This is something that's been rumbling around my head for a long while now and it's only just this moment that I've been able to find a way to put it in words without turning it into flame bait. I hope.

It's my belief that, ove the years and through the years and over the course of various iterations, some of the fundamental underpinning assumptions of what makes D&D (in the broadest sense) what it is have changed. I'm not talking about the concept of the fantasy genre, going into the dungeon, killing monsters and looting bodies: I'm talking even more basic than that.

I think that, over time, the perceived purpose and core function of the rules has changed at its most fundamental level. To illustrate, I present two, completely out of context quotes from two gamers coming at the game from opposite ends I think.

So, here's another thing I think rules should do: provide a basis for players to rationally determine a course of action for their character.

Right, but bear in mind that the core idea of AD&D is that you will be playing an essentially homebrew system built on some basic principles established by the "core game". You aren't wasting money buying the core system, you're trawling for ideas.

To me, the idea put forward by Oracle Hunter (no offense intended to that laudable poster) is truly horrifying. The rules determine the course of action? That's just completely wrong IMO. At the point where the actions you can take are pre-defined according to the rules, it seems to me that you end up playing a board game instead of a role playing game.

This is not a denigration of the WOTC editions. I think they're fine for what they are and, honestly, I don't think that they specifically foster this mindset, but they certainly cater to it.

My point is that there are, at least, two different ways of approaching these rules and they are, for all intents and purposes, at war with each other.

On the one hand, you have the point of view that the rules govern what actions are possible and determine how rational courses of action are taken. A great many, if not most common possible courses of actions are already accounted for in a rule somewhere written out in black and white that you need only reference and follow.

On the other hand, there are those who look at the rules as, at the very most, a baseline that does nothing other than provide a mechanic for the resolution of actions that are not automatically successful of failures. The rules are guidlines of very general principles which were very rarely codified.

Of course, these two thought patterns existed side-by-side since the inception of D&D, but it's pretty much with the advent of the internet that they've become so prominently and vehemently in conflict.

I don't know, I'm babbling here. Maybe somebody here understands what I'm trying feebly to get at . . .?

[Gribsdawg]

To me, the idea put forward by Oracle Hunter (no offense intended to that laudable poster) is truly horrifying. The rules determine the course of action? That's just completely wrong IMO. At the point where the actions you can take are pre-defined according to the rules, it seems to me that you end up playing a board game instead of a role playing game.

I think there is a definite difference between what Oracle Hunter said and what you interpreted.

If you use the rules as a Basis, rather than saying that hte possibilities are predefined, it still agrees with the opinion of Matthew. That is, you have a purely homebrewed system, that you get basic principles from.

In D&D the idea of rationality is quite different than in our world. In our world it would be ludicrous to try and fight a 50 ft tall dragon with just 3 friends, but in D&D this is a rational endeavor. Thus, making any action is rational, when used in the context of the basis created by rules, such as you can jump a certain distance, a sword can do so much damage etc.

[hamlet]

I think there is a definite difference between what Oracle Hunter said and what you interpreted.

If you use the rules as a Basis, rather than saying that hte possibilities are predefined, it still agrees with the opinion of Matthew. That is, you have a purely homebrewed system, that you get basic principles from.

In D&D the idea of rationality is quite different than in our world. In our world it would be ludicrous to try and fight a 50 ft tall dragon with just 3 friends, but in D&D this is a rational endeavor. Thus, making any action is rational, when used in the context of the basis created by rules, such as you can jump a certain distance, a sword can do so much damage etc.

But again, I'm not sure you're seeing the difference I'm trying to point at, and again, maybe I'm seeing a distinction without a difference.

The issue is that, in one instance, the reality of the game is governed by the rules, but on the other that the reality of the game is governed despite the rules.

[Gribsdawg]

I don't think the point was made about the reality. The reality exists entirely in the imagination of players/dm. The rules regulate how actions play out, just like the rules of physics do in our world.

Thus reality will continue with our without rules, the world will just be a world of chaos since the way events play out will essentially be random (or arbitrary).

[valadil]

This sounds like a debate that will transcend gaming.

In linguistics there is a notion that your thoughts are shaped by the language you have available. You think in terms of what words you have available. If a term doesn't exist in a language, people don't think using that term. I generally agree with the idea, though people certainly do break out of the limitations of their language from time to time.

Despite this, I'd rather play the sort of game where the rules are available for resolving actions rather than enumerating the actions available. I still think that both are valid ways to play, but players should be aware of what their preference is and what sort of game they're playing in.

[Galdor Miriel]

An interesting idea, but like any idea I think it comes down to the facts for the real world that we live in.

If you play a roleplaying game in which the players want the rules to be consistent, and are aware of the rules, then having a set of rules that is clear and flexible is a good thing, because it allows you to create a story, to be heroes, to challenge the world etc, while not having your actions determined by dm fiat.

And by contrast, in some games the players will probably be happy with a dm who uses the rules as a loose structure in which they make things happen to drive the story.

There is no right and wrong. The rules in all the editions of d&d have been something you can use. If you ignore the rules and use your own determination, as a dm, whether or not that is good for the game depends entirely on the players.

In my most humble opinion, I think there is plenty of room for all kinds of games, dms and players, and there is nothing wrong with any of the systems.

I am just about to start dming a new 4th ed adventure, and the story building is the most important thing for me, and I think the group. While many people seem to think the new rules constrain the game, and where it can go, I suspect the opposite will be true, at least for us. Many of the new rules seem to make it easy to rule something on the spot, that makes some crazy idea of the players or baddies meaningful, quickly figured and balanced. You roll a check and then explain what happens in terms of the story.

When I was a dm for AD&D and 2nd edition, I found myself having to make up rules all the time, sometimes they worked sometimes they didn't, and it was fun. Now with 4th you essentially do the same thing, you just now how to set the dc, such that there is a reasonable chance of success, so that you can get back to the heroes being heroes, and the monsters being, well interesting well rounded challenging cannon fodder for the PCs to wade through.

Galdor

[hamlet]

This sounds like a debate that will transcend gaming.

In linguistics there is a notion that your thoughts are shaped by the language you have available. You think in terms of what words you have available. If a term doesn't exist in a language, people don't think using that term. I generally agree with the idea, though people certainly do break out of the limitations of their language from time to time.

Yes, this is exactly why I'm having such a hard time of actually putting it into words, because reducing it to gaming is a little difficult.

[Attilargh]

I think the purpose of rules is to create a model of the game's reality which the players and the GM can apply to resolve actions whose outcome is not immediately obvious. In other words, to provide internal consistency.

I can't personally see the contradiction between Oracle Hunter's and Matthew's words there. I think Oracle Hunter is saying pretty much the same thing as I above, whereas Matthew seems to be talking about how to go about achieving that.

[valadil]

Yes, this is exactly why I'm having such a hard time of actually putting it into words, because reducing it to gaming is a little difficult.

Sweet, I was worried I was just rambling about some crazy stuff I heard way back in my days as a linguistics minor.

Anyway, I'm going to take the easy way out and saying that rules as action resolution vs rules as list of available actions is up to the gamers using the rules. Both ways work. Both are valid. If you think you're playing one way but your GM is playing the other you may have some problems.

I prefer using the rules to resolve whatever actions I like instead of limiting myself to the published rules. What I like about RPGs is that there is a Game Master present who lets you deviate from the story or the published rules. I want to play my character as I see him, not as the game limits him.

[Marshall]

there are, broadly (for the purposes of this discussion), two types of fantasy games.

Ones that present a complete ruleset, such as HeroQuest, Battlemasters, Descent, Heroscape, Talisman, etc.

These games define 100% of the actions players can take. If the action is not in the rules, it is impossible.

the other type are fantasy Roleplaying games led by a game master, such as D&D, Rolemaster, Amber Diceless roleplaying, etc. These games give a framework of showing what is possible within the ruleset, and guidelines on how to adjudicate things outside the rules.

There are two general minds when it comes to 'how much' the rules should give. One mind is 'as much as is reasonably possible' and the other is 'enough for me to get the idea and then leave me alone'.

The reason D&D 4e is not a board game, such as HeroQuest, is that you, the player, are allowed and encouraged to do things outside of the explicit abilities your character has been given.

Some game masters would prefer the rules to say 'if you swing a longsword at your foe, under standard combat circumstances, this is your to-hit roll, and this is your damage roll' and stop... not because that's all they want allowed, but because that's enough. Anything outside of that basic action (jumping on tables, cutting hamstrings, swinging on chandeliers, pushing into fires, tricking into pits, maneuvering off a cliff, intimidating them to surrender, tricking them into letting you pass freely, bribing them to let you past, feigning death mid-combat and waiting for them to leave, etc) is covered by the game master's decisions on how to handle the specific situation.

Other game masters prefer rules for a variety of actions, basic attacks, special attacks, maneuvers, diplomacy, bluffing, intimidation, trickery... a coherent ruleset with lots of options makes a consistent gaming experience. There will still be areas that aren't covered by the rules, but the more the rules cover, the easier it will be to adjudicate similar rules.

Both areas break down. A ruleset with one basic defined action requires a very good DM to make that ruleset come alive for the players. It also requires imaginative players to constantly come up with 'new' things to do, otherwise you just end up with a homebrew system of powers and abilities.

A more complete ruleset tends to cause players to limit options to the commonly available. if you have 10 discrete things the rules let you do, you are less likely to come up with an 11th option, because chances are one of your options is already 'close' to what you want.

Neither viewpoint is wrong. D&D has always been about tomes and tomes full of rules, with additonal rules/complexity being added every time a new book comes out. Regardless of version, since AD&D 1st edition, D&D has been 'rules heavy'.

You have games like Rolemaster, which is even more rules heavy. You have GURPS, which can be rather rules light, or you can add on 128 companion books and make it the heaviest game yet.

Then you have Amber Diceless roleplaying, or games like HoL or Mind's Eye Theatre, or even Paranoia. These games focus on setting and roleplaying so much that the rules are almost secondary to the game. In the case of Paranoia, the players should even be completely ignorant of the rules for the best game experience.

Both ways work. Both ways have pros and cons. Both are roleplaying, and not board gaming. Disparaging one version for having 'boardgaming play, not roleplaying' is no different from disparaging the other as 'just sitting around telling stories, not roleplaying'.

Finding the balance of tactical play and dramatic play is the key to roleplaying, and every group is going to be different on that ground.

[Kalirren]

hamlet, I think there's a big difference between "the rules determine the courses of action" and "the rules inform and assist the players in determining a viable course of action." The latter is what Oracle Hunter is really trying to say; the first is what you made of it.

I would surmise that one of the reasons why your construction of Oracle Hunter's position is so repugnant is that it violates the social contract; specifically, any game where the potential scope of action can be set out clearly as a choice of alternatives from a list is one which fails to grant us players the full personal agency that we expect from an RPG as opposed to a computer game or a board game. But that's not what OH said; he said that the rules provide a basis for players to rationally determine their course of action. The gauges that are provided by the rules system serve as a measure and predictor of the results of character actions. Courses of action may be better defined, but agency itself is not breached, merely slightly quantified and regulated.

Recall the debate from the Rules as Shared Language thread, where we were talking about the two schools of thought, "the rules inform the imagined world" vs. "the imagined world informs the rules". I'll say here again what I said there before, as I still believe it to be correct; both these patterns emerge out of the social dynamic of the group. The degree to which either informs the other is both indicative of and dependent on the way your group plays RPGs. The reason why the majority of internet debates regard these two as irreconciliable is that they fail to consider the OOC group dynamic that underlies the creation of both patterns.

So to return to your question at heart, "what is the reason why rules exist?" I believe the answer is that they exist to provide a basis for the assignment/regulation of and arbitration over narrative powers, prerogatives, rights, and privileges. Without (the enforcement of) rules, you're ultimately stuck in 6-year-old-cowboys-and-indians-I-hit-you!-Nuh-uh! mode. Under an overly canonical interpetational framework, such as is commonly seen on the internet, you get a system where what rules there are become arbitrary inflexibilities that eventually constrain character agency and determine courses of action. But with an interpretational framework that puts the social contract of the game first and the rules system second, the rules minimally infrige upon agency, since agency is guaranteed by the social contract and thus must be respected by the rules system.

[TheThan]

I think the purpose of rules is to create a model of the game's reality which the players and the GM can apply to resolve actions whose outcome is not immediately obvious. In other words, to provide internal consistency.

That’s exactly it, the rules do not define what the players can do, they define how the players go about doing things.
That’s why there is rule zero and a page dedicated to handling things that aren’t covered in the rules.

[Yakk]

You can also look at this from the perspective of player empowerment.

If the DM determines what happens with no guildlines in every situation in an ad-hoc manner, the players have no power over the consequences of their actions, and no way to determine which action is a better choice.

On the other hand, if the player knows "I have a really high acrobatics modifier, and the wall is only 10' tall -- that will be easy", the player doubly empowered.

First, the player is empowered by being able to mechanically have a really high acrobatics modifier. In an ad-hoc system, the best the player could say was "my character was a circus acrobat", but the character has -no idea- what the DM's view of that bit of character history is like.

Second, the player can judge what his character can do before asking the DM's permission. He knows his character can, say, jump 20' into the air and grab ahold of a sheer wall with a reasonably high chance of success.

Because it is right there in the rules.

So now the player can narrate an action and expect that it will happen. The player knows what the character is capable of, and has limited narrative control over the character's actions, but (in this case) only because the player knows the rules of the game.

Without those rules, the player can say "would my character be able to do X", and poll the DM for options that the player is allowed to make the character do. If the DM doesn't like that kind of polling (ie, gets annoyed, and starts saying "no" to every request, if you ask too often), then the player is forced to either commit to an action (and hope that the DM considers the action reasonable) or ... do something the player knows the DM will find acceptable.

It can suck if your view of your character is "he's a wall-climbing, sneaky ninja" -- and your DM thinks "he's a novice, fumble-footed, comic relief". Both of those are interesting characters to play -- but sometimes, the player wants to play the competent ninja.

With a mechanical system there, you can communicate what the player thinks the character is to the DM, and the DM can communicate back in an unambiguous way.

Now, this does not mean that a character's actions are restrained to those that the game system allows. It just provides a set of action that can be efficiently communicated as being "within the competence of the character" using a few simple character statistics.

[valadil]

It can suck if your view of your character is "he's a wall-climbing, sneaky ninja" -- and your DM thinks "he's a novice, fumble-footed, comic relief". Both of those are interesting characters to play -- but sometimes, the player wants to play the competent ninja.

Speaking from experience, playing a character your DM doesn't understand leads to a crappy game for all involved. I don't play under one of my former DMs anymore because he didn't get my characters. He'd read one sentence from the backstory and then go off on the direction he'd play the character, completely ignoring my interpretation of it. He was an imaginative GM who ran a great sandbox ... for characters I wasn't playing.

While it is possible a GM will get frustrated with answering "can my character do this," I think the sort of GM that would run a rules light game would be the type who is okay with players answering these questions.

Regarding the ninja acrobat character example, I actually like the amount of rules D&D provides. A player can use his PHB to look up how high he can likely jump, but he needs to ask the GM how to attack the Beholder 15 feet up once he jumps. I would _not_ want to play in a game that had rules defined for attacking from a jump, from a climb, from a rope, from under water, etc. That's just too much.

[Zeta Kai]

In linguistics there is a notion that your thoughts are shaped by the language you have available. You think in terms of what words you have available. If a term doesn't exist in a language, people don't think using that term. I generally agree with the idea, though people certainly do break out of the limitations of their language from time to time.

This is known as the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis of linguistic determinism, & it has been challenged & partially discredited as invalid. Nice theory, but it is not really representative of how humans actually think.

[hamlet]

This is known as the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis of linguistic determinism, & it has been challenged & partially discredited as invalid. Nice theory, but it is not really representative of how humans actually think.

It does, however, have some validity when concerning how people express their thoughts. A thought is not much without the communication to go with it since we are not telepathic.

[DM Raven]

I've been DMing for about 17 years now, and in my experience I've learned that there is no right or wrong way to use the rules.

Some DMs will stick to the rules rigidly leaving little room for creativity or personal interpretation. "Your character can do this, this, and this. Your enemies will do this, this, and this." This type of DM usually has battle heavy games where his players use fine-tuned strategies to engage their foes. They know what they can do, they know their enemies, and they know how to use terrian and positioning to maximum effect.

Some DMs will use the rules more as a guideline and build in all sorts of unique situations that let things happen outside the rules. This type of DM is also likely to allow and encourage his players to act outside expected actions as his games play. These games will be more free-form and a lot of unexpected things may happen through the actions and choices the characters make.

There are many ways to use the rules, the important this is that everyone comes into the game knowing what to expect and everyone has fun and is excited for the next game at the end of the night.

[Swordguy]

I'll confess to beig a little confused too.


Hamlet, it sounds like what you're trying to define is the difference between these two thoughts:

1) Player: What should I do?
DM: Here's what the rules say you can do - pick something from them.

2) Player: What should I do?
DM: Do whatever you want, and we'll try to find a rule that fits it, or I'll just make something up if we can't.

In the first case, the rules determine what course of action is allowed, while in the second, the course of action is decided and the rules simply govern how it's resolved (if they cover it at all).

Is that where you're going?

[Jerthanis]

To me, rules are a social contract between the DM and Players. It's a sort of agreement that the players will trust the DM to make the story interesting and the action moving, but without the DM basically making the same 20 foot fall do 2d6 damage when his girlfriend's character falls and 4d8 damage to the guy he thinks smells funny and has an annoying laugh.

[nagora]

You can also look at this from the perspective of player empowerment.

I do.

If the DM determines what happens with no guildlines in every situation in an ad-hoc manner, the players have no power over the consequences of their actions, and no way to determine which action is a better choice.

You seem to be confusing "ad-hoc" and "arbitrary".

On the other hand, if the player knows "I have a really high acrobatics modifier, and the wall is only 10' tall -- that will be easy", the player doubly empowered.

If, that is, the game system actually works to fulfil that interpretation of the rules. In d20-type systems it often does not. You can argue your case with a DM; the rules are etched in stone and are a poor substitute.

First, the player is empowered by being able to mechanically have a really high acrobatics modifier. In an ad-hoc system, the best the player could say was "my character was a circus acrobat", but the character has -no idea- what the DM's view of that bit of character history is like.

(My bolding) It must be terrible having a deaf mute illiterate as a DM.

Second, the player can judge what his character can do before asking the DM's permission. He knows his character can, say, jump 20' into the air and grab ahold of a sheer wall with a reasonably high chance of success.

He may know that; on the other hand he may simply expect that and find that the character actually has only a 75% chance of doing that, which is actually pretty poor in a life or death situation. Of course, he could scrape around and look for reasons to get a bonus, but that would involve persuiding the DM and at that point the rules have achieved nothing except waste time, because the player could have gone straight to the DM in the first place.

I remember the stunned look on one of my players who was used to 3e when I told her that, sure, her character could swim across a river without rolling the dice. She had swimming in the character's background and conditions were pretty well idea so I let her. What would really be the chance of failure? 1%? Less? Yet her learnt helplessness from 3e/d20 was such that she actually had quite a hard time grasping the idea that if her character was supposed to be good at things that meant that she only made mistakes under pressure, and the things she was really good at needed a lot of pressure to cause her trouble.

Empowered my foot.

Because it is right there in the rules.

Yep, right there in the rules it says x, y or z. Whether any of those actually represent your idea of your character is an open issue and not an inherent quality of simply writing things down.

If you make task resolution rules then you have to make them work well or they don't do what you are claiming. D&D has never managed this trick, and I would go so far as to suggest that no RPG system ever has. Because, in the real world, there is no single metric that covers all skills and abilities or even most. So why try simulating such a metric; the important point is to simulate the character, not some idealised and unobtainable TOE.

Number-based "coherent" skill systems suck. Always have, always will. Just let the DM do it and things can move along a lot faster with a lot more character action instead of spreadsheet action.

[Drascin]

Well, to answer the OP: to me, rules are an useful backdrop, something that helps give cohesion and fairness to the game, making sure we are all in common ground instead of everyone getting angry at me whenever things don't go their way. Game rules, however, can and will be bent according to a set of higher rules. Namely, Rule of Fun, Rule of Cool, and Rule of Rocks.

[hamlet]

I'll confess to beig a little confused too.


Hamlet, it sounds like what you're trying to define is the difference between these two thoughts:

1) Player: What should I do?
DM: Here's what the rules say you can do - pick something from them.

2) Player: What should I do?
DM: Do whatever you want, and we'll try to find a rule that fits it, or I'll just make something up if we can't.

In the first case, the rules determine what course of action is allowed, while in the second, the course of action is decided and the rules simply govern how it's resolved (if they cover it at all).

Is that where you're going?

That is the very shorthand version of it, I think.

Again, I'm trying not to simplify it to that level because I know it's not that simplistic, but that is the crux of the difference I think: that some people look at the predefined examples in the rules for the inspiration and justification of their actions while others decide what their action will be and then use the rules to make it happen.

Of course, nobody could be entirely one or the other, but some of us, I think, fall further towards one side of the balance or the other.

[Tormsskull]

I think the function/purpose of the rules is to provide the game within the game. The 1st game, the most important one, is that fantasy characters that the players are bringing to life by roleplaying.

The 2nd game, or the game within the game, is the attributes, the skill points and feats, the classes and races, combat, tactics, etc. The 2nd game is what provides the 'game' aspect of roleplaying game. We all like games and we like rolling dice and we like trying to win or beat the other person, etc.

So the function/purpose of the rules is to facilitate that 2nd game, the game within the game that provides the framework which we can place the 1st game over and create a great roleplaying experience.

[AKA_Bait]

that some people look at the predefined examples in the rules for the inspiration and justification of their actions while others decide what their action will be and then use the rules to make it happen.

Of course, nobody could be entirely one or the other, but some of us, I think, fall further towards one side of the balance or the other.

I would agree that some people use the rules as inspiration more than others and some simply use them as a method of task resolution more than others but I'm having trouble seeing how that leads to these two views "for all intents and purposes, at war with each other" as they are not mutually exclusive, or even proportional to one another.

I have had both ideas come from reading the rules and thinking about something cool I could do within them and from outside the rules and working backwards into the game to figure out how it would be feasable mechanically. Sometimes I have both happen with different aspects of the same character or, more frequently, NPC. Sometimes both come into play within same action. If, for example I look at a particular spell which has given me the idea for x action, realize that spell can't by RAW actually do what I thought/wanted and figure how to actually do it using other rules/spells.

[hamlet]

I would agree that some people use the rules as inspiration more than others and some simply use them as a method of task resolution more than others but I'm having trouble seeing how that leads to these two views "for all intents and purposes, at war with each other" as they are not mutually exclusive, or even proportional to one another.

I have had both ideas come from reading the rules and thinking about something cool I could do within them and from outside the rules and working backwards into the game to figure out how it would be feasable mechanically. Sometimes I have both happen with different aspects of the same character or, more frequently, NPC. Sometimes both come into play within same action. If, for example I look at a particular spell which has given me the idea for x action, realize that spell can't by RAW actually do what I thought/wanted and figure how to actually do it using other rules/spells.

In my view, one point of view leads pretty solidly to denser, more abundant rules. This is apparant when one takes into account the myriad "options" in 3.x, many of which were very minor variations on a theme, or were, in fact, duplicates of each other but merely named something different.

The view leads to the desire for more concrete rules in order to realize a character idea. More feats, more spells, more items, more classes, etc.

In the other, your character is, largely, "vaporware." In 3.x, a samurai is a predefined selection of powers and abilities. In OD&D, a samurai was all in how the character was played and, often, amounted to "I am Toshiro, Samurai of Snow Mountain . .. ."

[AKA_Bait]

In my view, one point of view leads pretty solidly to denser, more abundant rules.

I don't think that follows. I can want a large solid ruleset because I come up with ideas as I go through it, sure. I can also want a large solid ruleset so that when I come up with an idea outside the system, I can find a way to represent it in the system without having to homebrew or do so as little as possible. Frankly, I tend to prefer rules-heavy systems for exactly that second reason.

This is apparant when one takes into account the myriad "options" in 3.x, many of which were very minor variations on a theme, or were, in fact, duplicates of each other but merely named something different.

Nah, that was more just wanting to sell books on WotC's part and putting out a bunch of shoddy material later designers wanted to present an alternative for.

The view leads to the desire for more concrete rules in order to realize a character idea. More feats, more spells, more items, more classes, etc.

As above, that doesn't bear on the directionality of thought in the game. I can create ideas outside thinking about the ruleset and then want a very diverse mechanical system to minimize the 'grunt work' or making it mechanically viable.

In 3.x, a samurai is a predefined selection of powers and abilities. In OD&D, a samurai was all in how the character was played and, often, amounted to "I am Toshiro, Samurai of Snow Mountain . .. ."

See, this doesn't follow either to me. In 3.x the Samurai class was a collection of abilities. It simply provided a set of mechanics grouped under the term 'Samurai' which was there for use by a player if they so desired. Having the class neither made a PC a Samurai nor kept other PC's without the class from being a Samurai whithin the world of the game. How the character is played is still, and always had been, what defined the character in their role in the game.

Having a lot of rules is only problematic in the way you suggest if the rules crunch cannot be divorced from the fluff which fortunatley it can the vast majority of the time.

[Tormsskull]

See, this doesn't follow either to me. In 3.x the Samurai class was a collection of abilities. It simply provided a set of mechanics grouped under the term 'Samurai' which was there for use by a player if they so desired.

If that's how you play the game. Some people read the description of the class, and then view the mechanics under that lense which helps to define what the class is about. Not everyone simply disregards the description and focuses solely on the mechanics.

Having the class neither made a PC a Samurai nor kept other PC's without the class from being a Samurai whithin the world of the game.

Depends on the DM. A player who makes a cleric/fighter doesn't benefit from a Holy Avenger as a paladin does because he is not a paladin, regardless of what he calls himself.

Having a lot of rules is only problematic in the way you suggest if the rules crunch cannot be divorced from the fluff which fortunatley it can the vast majority of the time.

Cannot, or should not? Again, this is just different playstyles, as usual in all of these discussions.

[AKA_Bait]

Again, this is just different playstyles, as usual in all of these discussions.

Well, yeah. My point here is just that it doesn't follow from the fact that a system is rules heavy that the particular approach to the rules (read: playstyle) is going to be one way or the other.

[Tormsskull]

Well, yeah. My point here is just that it doesn't follow from the fact that a system is rules heavy that the particular approach to the rules (read: playstyle) is going to be one way or the other.

Sure it does. Rules heavy systems naturally imply that rules have a high value. If a system has rules for nearly everything, it is more likely that the average person is going to look for a rule when their character is trying to do something. They are likewise going to be less likely to want to accept a rule that is not in the book.

Rules light systems virtually always say "Ask the GM" or "GM is the final decider". This leads to the fact that the rules themselves are not inherently as valuable as they are in rules heavy systems. Likewise players are going to be much more receptive to GM rulings/on the fly rulings/house rules/homebrew, etc.

If you want further proof of that, look at how many people, when discussing 3.x or 4e will use the phrase "By the RAW". Contrast this with OD&D. There is a huge difference in the mentalities of the players.

You seem to be arguing from the angle of how it should be. Hamlet is arguing from the angle of how it is.

[MeklorIlavator]

Isn't the reason people use the phrase "by RAW" because they don't know all the specific house rules that the group in question uses? So I don't see how that interacts with the whole "they don't think the DM is the final arbiter".