What makes an RPG an RPG is not the rules but the campaign. In development of the RPG it was campaign that came first namely Dave Arneson's Blackmoor. He develop a set of rules to help him adjudicate what the players were doing. From various account we know that the exact rules were always in flux that over the active life of the Blackmoor campaign, Dave was modifying, adding, and dropping various mechanics. Yet from those same account people consider it all to be the Blackmoor Campaign.

Greyhawk developed in a similar way the main difference that Gygax was keeping careful track of the rules he used with the objective publishing them at a certain point. The result was release of Dungeons & Dragon in 1974. But the changes in the rules didn't stop there and Gygax continued to tinker and modify as seen in the release of the Greyhawk supplement and the later D&D editions.

What was revolutionary wasn't the actual rules themselves but rather they were used as a tool to aid a campaign where the players interact with a setting as their characters while their actions are adjudicated by a human referee. This allowed the players to experience a pen & paper virtual reality created by the referee of the campaign.

The rules were important because they helped with consistency. Consistency in what the characters can and cannot do. Consistency in how things are in the setting. Without that consistency the players and referee the campaign will devolve into a never ending game of twenty questions or bang your dead, not I'm not!

The design of the rules is important because different players and groups want different level of detail when adjudicating the things the characters do. For some it is enough to know that one characters has a gun, and another has a knife. For others it important whether the gun fires .22 ammo, or .357 ammo. Whether the knife is a bowie or a switch blade.

In the rules are just a detail of the larger campaign. An important detail but just as important as to whether the campaign is fantasy or science fiction. Or the setting of the campaign. The point of a RPG is not to play the rules but to play the campaign. To enter a pen & paper virtual reality with a character to experience the setting, have interesting adventures and/or to interact with compelling NPCs.

What makes an RPG is the players.

Some people prefer a rules-heavy approach, going into things in minute detail, others prefer a rules-light approach. Some people love really long campaigns, some people prefer short campaigns, some people prefer snappy one-off scenarios.

Who am I to say that the way someone else enjoys their RPGs is good or bad, right or wrong?

Quote from: soltakss;888092What makes an RPG is the players.

Goes without saying. But if you're going to take the time to say it, shouldn't you really mean it by actually exploring what the individual preference is rather than take arbitrary categories at face value. For example....

QuoteSome people prefer a rules-heavy approach,

Not really. Some people prefer the perceived benefits of a rules-heavy approach, and are willing to tolerate the perceived drawbacks of a rules-heavy approach. Nobody actually sets out to be burdened by rules.

And that's exactly what seems to be a key theme of Estar's post. The rules aren't there for rules sake. They serve a purpose. And it's that purpose, whatever it may be, whoever it may appeal to, that comes first. If something unusual comes up that calls for choosing between being faithful to the rules or faithful to the purpose, it's time to either break the rules or find a way to reconcile the rules with the purpose. It is never acceptable to compromise the purpose for the convenience of the rules.

Quote from: Lunamancer;888100And that's exactly what seems to be a key theme of Estar's post. The rules aren't there for rules sake. They serve a purpose. And it's that purpose, whatever it may be, whoever it may appeal to, that comes first. If something unusual comes up that calls for choosing between being faithful to the rules or faithful to the purpose, it's time to either break the rules or find a way to reconcile the rules with the purpose. It is never acceptable to compromise the purpose for the convenience of the rules.

This is very good.  A good way of stating some of the points I am trying to make.

Quote from: soltakss;888092What makes an RPG is the players.

That true of any social activity that includes games. I didn't put that in because I feel it is an obvious point. The next step is to say what make Tabletop RPGs different then other types of games involving a group of people sitting around a table.

Quote from: soltakss;888092Who am I to say that the way someone else enjoys their RPGs is good or bad, right or wrong?

It not that they playing it wrong is that I feel by focusing on running a good campaign first rather than obsessing about the rules first, they will get more out of the time they spend playing tabletop RPGs.

Rules can't fix a referee that sucks, rules can't fix a campaign that is boring or a bad railroad. Rules can't fix players that display poor sportsmanship. The first and third points have to be handled out of game by people acting like responsible adults. And if they can't do that well maybe that group shouldn't play together.

In this thread I am addressing the middle point by talking about the campaign versus the rules of the game.

RPGs are mostly Mother May I games where one of the players badly presents a story of some kind to the other players who are just there because they are not socially capable of being in any other groups.

Quote from: Lunamancer;888100The rules aren't there for rules sake. They serve a purpose. And it's that purpose, whatever it may be, whoever it may appeal to, that comes first. If something unusual comes up that calls for choosing between being faithful to the rules or faithful to the purpose, it's time to either break the rules or find a way to reconcile the rules with the purpose. It is never acceptable to compromise the purpose for the convenience of the rules.

I really like that.

What makes pizza is crust, not cheese or sauce.

Quote from: estar;888105Rules can't fix a referee that sucks, rules can't fix a campaign that is boring or a bad railroad. Rules can't fix players that display poor sportsmanship. The first and third points have to be handled out of game by people acting like responsible adults. And if they can't do that well maybe that group shouldn't play together.

In this thread I am addressing the middle point by talking about the campaign versus the rules of the game.

I agree with your first and third point, but as regards the second point, "a bad railroad" is one more instance of "a referee that sucks" and a boring campaign is at best, a mismatch of GM and player expectations and at worst yet another example of "a referee that sucks" and/or players that suck.

It's part of why the 'Clever Rules' thread didn't have any traction for me, because I want rules that let me ignore them as much as possible... rather than calling attention to themselves like spastic toddlers.
But a fair number of people DO seem to get hung up on the rules, dice mechanics and whatnot... calling some systems 'boring'.

At the same time, I'm generally against the notion of ignoring the rules for purely narrative reasons... 'Its bad for the story' is something I've heard at the table and generally sent me looking for another group.

Rules that do their job while mostly fading into the background are clever.

Quote from: Lunamancer;888100Not really. Some people prefer the perceived benefits of a rules-heavy approach, and are willing to tolerate the perceived drawbacks of a rules-heavy approach. Nobody actually sets out to be burdened by rules.

For some people "tolerating the percieved drawbacks" is off the mark. They don't percieve drawbacks to rules heavy approach. If rules heavy was merely tolerated we would never have had the booming splatbook industry with more and ever more rules being added to games.

My point can demonstrated by comparing T5 to Classic Traveller. Or D&D5e to 0e. Remember the days when an entire RPG could be found in 32 page booklet?

People aren't setting out to be "burdened" by rules, they are demanding rules.

OD&D, if converted to 8 1/2 x 11 inch pages, would be something like 56 or 58 pages.  I see ads for "428" or however many page rulebooks and I just want to weep.

Quote from: Bren;888182Rules that do their job while mostly fading into the background are clever.

Maybe, but not in a 'Oooh! Look at meeeee!' sort of way. They're clever like a good plumber or bricklayer... vs. a mime pretending to be trapped in a box. They don't care if you notice how clever they are.

QuoteOriginally Posted by Lunamancer
And that's exactly what seems to be a key theme of Estar's post. The rules aren't there for rules sake. They serve a purpose. And it's that purpose, whatever it may be, whoever it may appeal to, that comes first. If something unusual comes up that calls for choosing between being faithful to the rules or faithful to the purpose, it's time to either break the rules or find a way to reconcile the rules with the purpose. It is never acceptable to compromise the purpose for the convenience of the rules.

Yeah, this has been a central theme of my table for almost 40 years though I don't think I ever articulated it this clearly. The game, by which I mean the shared experience, the "purpose" if you will, is the thing.  The rules are only there to facilitate, and when they fail to do that, when they get in the way, I change them or ignore them.  I do this intuitively and out of habit. That is not to say that my games are completely arbitrary GM's fiat affairs. I only change what needs changed and I try not to do it mid-game.  Rules provide structure and means, but when they don't work, I don't allow them to ruin the game.

An interesting consequence of this is that I have become a systems junkie.  I houserule everything and tinker endlessly with any rule set that I want to use, in an effort to get the rules right before I start a campaign.

For the most part, I agree with what Simlasa has been saying. For me, great rules are streamlined and largely invisible until they are wanted or needed.  I appreciate rules refinement more than rules innovation. The exceptions might be chargen or character advancement as I feel these portions of  the game are largely OoC and 3rd person view.  Other than that, I strive to create or modify mechanics so that they will not get in the way of the game's purpose, and to minimize the need for arbitrary mid-game rulings that go contrary to the rules.