Quote from: The Worid;297825My example was meant to be taken as "Ride an SUV to the moon", no qualifiers. Hop in and take off.

In that case I agree with Narf: the PCs should either crash and burn, or wind up driving endlessly towards the moon while staying on whichever highways that might take them. The rules and common sense can take care of the situation. As long as the players know that their SUV can't possibly fly in the setting, I don't really understand why they would bring that up in the first place unless their characters are delusional or drugged or both; but it's never for the GM to make decisions for the PCs, no matter how idiotic their own plans might seem.

Quote from: riprock;297640In fact, many DMs are not charismatic enough to make up an interesting, convincing story and to get their players interested in it.  Rules are an essential limit on DMs.  Without rules, the players are signing on as bit players in the DMs fanfic.  That can work for a while with almost any DM, but most DMs can't keep it going for long.

I disagree. First off, a bad DM is perfectly capable of turning a game into their personal fanfic regardless of how many rules the game operates under. If anything, most rules system make it easier for the DM to dominate the game like this because they explicitly put narrative power for everything except the actions of the PCs into the hands of the GM; simply make sure the actions of the PCs are completely unimportant, and ultimate mastery of the game is yours!

Secondly, most rules have little to nothing to do with concocting an interesting story that engages your players and everything to do with adjudicating the results of in-game decisions - in other words, the rules come into play once the story kicks into action (if you think of your games in terms of story) rather than beforehand.

Rules are tools to lend structure to a game. If you're a great GM with a great group of players you can potentially play indefinitely without any structure, but there's two downsides to this:

- Everyone has to be fairly disciplined, more or less all the time, and be extra-conscious of both the effect their game decisions are having one everyone else's fun and the long-term ramifications of what they are narrating for the gameworld. Otherwise, things get quickly unstable and out of control (in a bad way, not in a good way).

- Some sort of structure is likely to develop anyway, even on an ad hoc basis. If you dig around various fandom communities you can often find Forum-based roleplays that don't involve any rules of the sort we'd recognise from D&D - no dicerolling, no character stats, etc. - but at the same time have quite firm and extensive rules about what you can and can't put in your posts, which are necessary if the game's not going to degenerate into a shouting match about whether Harry Potter could beat Hermoine Granger in a fistfight. And if you're going to end up developing a structure anyway, why not think about it from the beginning?

Quote from: GrimGent;297828In that case I agree with Narf: the PCs should either crash and burn, or wind up driving endlessly towards the moon while staying on whichever highways that might take them. The rules and common sense can take care of the situation. As long as the players know that their SUV can't possibly fly in the setting, I don't really understand why they would bring that up in the first place unless their characters are delusional or drugged or both; but it's never for the GM to make decisions for the PCs, no matter how idiotic their own plans might seem.

Everything you just said is true, but the original point of that example was disproving this:

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;297713Disallowing a plan is railroading. There, solved that problem.

The entire reason behind making that example was to prove what you just said: that won't work, it's stupid, and the GM is under no compulsion to let it work.

That is still not the same as 'disallowing a plan'. 'Disallowing a plan' is saying 'No, I won't let you try'.

If that is not what you meant, then you should not have chosen that syntax.

I'm with Narf on this. Each time the DM gets some input on the PCs decisions, it's railroading. If the PCs ask for it, the DM might feel compelled/welcome to give some pointers, but it might ruin the fun of the game. Giving hints, engaging in a stimulating exchange of wits might be part of the fun of the game, though: it's not always wrong to do so, but beware of railroading at all times while doing so! Even if the players beg for it, it might ruin the whole point of the game for them!

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;297907That is still not the same as 'disallowing a plan'. 'Disallowing a plan' is saying 'No, I won't let you try'.

If that is not what you meant, then you should not have chosen that syntax.

I chose that syntax because it made sense in the original context. The thread started out talking about the application of rules, not GM input on player decision.

I thought that "railroading is bad" was implicit amongst virtually everyone.

EDIT: It occurs to me arguing clarity of syntax will be fruitless. Since I have no desire to create animosity between us, and we never actually disagreed about anything in the first place, I call for peace. Let us lay this misadventure to rest.

Quote from: The Worid;297912EDIT: It occurs to me arguing clarity of syntax will be fruitless. Since I have no desire to create animosity between us, and we never actually disagreed about anything in the first place, I call for peace. Let us lay this misadventure to rest.

I concur. It's obvious to me that our points of view are much closer than what one would think at first glance. It's a classic example of what one writes versus what one means. I suggest we focus on the latter.

Fine with me.

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;297685I once ran a completely rules-less forum game.

I burnt out after a year and a half.

To be fair, that's much longer than most forum games last.

Freeform games seem to be popular on forums more than face-to-face - maybe because the time delay makes it easier to improvise? Although they seem to be referee-less as well, and based on settings like the Harry Potter world. Maybe people's shared ideas about the setting act as rules?

Quote from: Age of Fable;297995To be fair, that's much longer than most forum games last.

Freeform games seem to be popular on forums more than face-to-face - maybe because the time delay makes it easier to improvise? Although they seem to be referee-less as well, and based on settings like the Harry Potter world. Maybe people's shared ideas about the setting act as rules?

That does appear to be the case. What few rules I've seen applied to forum-based fandom roleplays (I hesitate to use the term "game" in relation to them since the participants seem to regard them as more of a creative endeavour, or at the very least a pastime, rather than a game) seem to fall into three categories:

1: The default ideas about the setting that everyone needs to share. Examples: "For the purposes of this roleplay the events of books 1-3 are considered canon, but we're diverging from the timeline there so feel free to contradict anything from Goblet of Fire onwards." "The author isn't entirely clear about how magic works, so here's guidelines on how we're interpreting it in this forum RP".

2: Rules of forum etiquette and storytelling etiquette. "Please do not use profanity in this roleplay." "If you wish to RP a sexually explicit scene please take it to PMs." "Do not directly contradict something another participant has narrated, and do not narrate another PC's actions or feelings for them."

3: Bits where forum etiquette and default setting ideas overlap. "Once someone has narrated something as a fact, rather than an idea or belief possessed by a character, that fact should be considered canon; it's extremely rude to try and narrate out of existence a setting feature someone else has added, unless you have their explicit permission to do so."

Quote from: hgjs;297807A good enough DM doesn't need any rules beyond his own judgment.

However, most DMs are not good enough to make that enjoyable.

I have been thinking about this. IMO, a good GM has the trust of his/her players. He/She knows when the rules make the game fun and when it slows it down. I think rules are important. I think rules are a big part of the "fun" of gaming.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Age of Fable;297995To be fair, that's much longer than most forum games last.

That's longer than most game forums last, at least most RPGsite-clones.

RPGPundit

I love Mr. Gygax, but I think he's wrong here.  Rules aren't needed to attempt roleplaying, to be sure.  That's pretty obvious.  But to make roleplaying a game, to succeed in roleplaying, the roles need to be concretely defined.  And if we don't want those definitions to be arbitrary at the table, to be DM-fiat essentially, or Player-fiat as in Storygames, then we must rely on Game Designers to design the rules.  

Do lots of DMs and groups make their own rules up? Sure, homebrewing is very popular. House Rules are a huge, persistent tradition in the RPG hobby.  Being able to (somewhat) easily redesign the game is one of the best elements of roleplaying games.  And it means we constantly get new adventure modules and campaign settings.  But DMing should not be confused with game designing.

Quote from: David R;298021I have been thinking about this. IMO, a good GM has the trust of his/her players. He/She knows when the rules make the game fun and when it slows it down. I think rules are important. I think rules are a big part of the "fun" of gaming.

Regards,
David R

Definitely.  Rules give you something to lean on and measure your prowess against.

Reminds me of a conversation I had with a GM about how he did away with XP and they level "when it feels right."  Sure maybe he is removing a rigid system that isn't "necessary" but he's also removing a simple system that gives players something to look forward to as well.

Quote from: Warthur;297829... a bad DM is perfectly capable of turning a game into their personal fanfic regardless of how many rules the game operates under.

Good point, that's very true.

Quote from: Warthur;297829If anything, most rules system make it easier for the DM to dominate the game like this because they explicitly put narrative power for everything except the actions of the PCs into the hands of the GM; simply make sure the actions of the PCs are completely unimportant, and ultimate mastery of the game is yours!

If I weren't sleep-deprived and burnt-out I would be arguing against that last paragraph...

Quote from: Warthur;297829Secondly, most rules have little to nothing to do with concocting an interesting story that engages your players

I don't know.  I tend to find good rules to be very inspirational in such concoctions of engaging stories ... but I may be confusing rules and game content...