Quote from: Matt;902965It doesn't mean you should split lanes, either. False analogy.

It's a perfectly fine analogy.  

Rules are sort of a 'barrier' to keep things where they need to be, to a degree.  You need them.  However, just like a helmet- I don't need to put on a very specific type of helmet.  I have a lot to choose from, some more 'safe' than others- some more comfortable, stylish, etc.  But in the end, that helmet's pretty crucial.  As long as it's protecting my brain, it's what I need.

And splitting lanes is legal in a few states, cities, and on certain roads.

Quote from: CRKrueger;903077That's a campaign adventure, not the core system.

So what? Many rules systems have a lot to say about how to run a campaign, and some contain a meaty campaign in the rules book. So let's say Artesia instead then.

Quote from: dragoner;903078A single example doesn't prove the general rule false, it could just be an outlier. If you are playing Pendragon, that means you agree to play that in the first place, however, if you hate the setting, the rules mean nothing, because you wouldn't be playing it anyways.

So because people have free will, the game designer has nothing to say about how you run your campaigns? In reality, many GMs are self taught, and wouldn't even have a clue what an RPG is, much less how to run a campaign, without some rules book explaining it in the first place.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;902749As if this simile wasn't dumbass enough, you have to know how to shoot before you're even eligible to enter the Marine Corps.

LOL no it isn't.  You're trained in basic training.  Guys that have never touched a rifle often perform better than good ol' boys that grew up hunting.   The M16 is a weird weapon like that.

Quote from: Trond;903082So what? Many rules systems have a lot to say about how to run a campaign, and some contain a meaty campaign in the rules book. So let's say Artesia instead then.

People
Setting
System

Notice System is there, but it's not first.

I'm running Artesia.  I have a player who loves the comics but has never played Artesia before.  I can give them a pre-gen, go over a couple minutes of the basics and then simply have them say what their character wants to do, I tell them what dice to roll, and they have fun in the world of Artesia while learning how to roleplay without having read a rulebook.

I can do that with Artesia, RQ6, or whatever other system I use with the Artesia setting.  If I am using the Fuzion version, the player doesn't need to know Fuzion.  They don't need to know what alterations I made to the spellcasting modifiers on page XX, or the spirit magic stuff I bolted on hacked from Game Whatever.

Now if you're into a Narrative Roleplaying Game, (like Cortex, 2d20, etc) then obviously those OOC rules specifically designed to give you player-facing narrative control matter a lot more.

If you're into a Tactical Roleplaying Game (like 4e), then obviously those OOC rules specifically designed to give you player-faced tactical choices matter a lot more.

If you're into a Genre Emulation Roleplaying Game, then obviously the rules meant to specifically invoke that genre (even to the point of being OOC or removing player choice), then those rules matter a lot more.

For an RPG which isn't one of those specific sub-specialties, then the difference between one system and another becomes mainly one of personal preference.  Certain systems may "feel" more legit for a certain setting than others, but that is just my or your opinion and they may differ.

Quote from: Trond;903084So because people have free will, the game designer has nothing to say about how you run your campaigns? In reality, many GMs are self taught, and wouldn't even have a clue what an RPG is, much less how to run a campaign, without some rules book explaining it in the first place.

The rules are just the vehicle by which the people (both GM and players) interact with their environment, the game, and more specifically, the campaign. Whatever the designer had to say in the beginning is gone, lost in the game, as no game survives contact with being played, not rpg's at least. The cart does get put before the horse with D&D somewhat, but even when people are making the choice to play it, they are basically picking a setting/campaign, specifically something including Dungeons, and/or Dragons, fantasy. It makes choosing GURPS sound like an intestinal disorder, and that a lot of people complaining, aren't about any rules, but it's about not finding people playing their games. Most of the time, it's about picking the GM and setting, is where people will stick, not about the rules themselves.

Freewill is an illusion, as far as we can tell, it really is.

Quote from: CRKrueger;903086People
Setting
System

Notice System is there, but it's not first.

I'm running Artesia.  I have a player who loves the comics but has never played Artesia before.  I can give them a pre-gen, go over a couple minutes of the basics and then simply have them say what their character wants to do, I tell them what dice to roll, and they have fun in the world of Artesia while learning how to roleplay without having read a rulebook.

I can do that with Artesia, RQ6, or whatever other system I use with the Artesia setting.  If I am using the Fuzion version, the player doesn't need to know Fuzion.  They don't need to know what alterations I made to the spellcasting modifiers on page XX, or the spirit magic stuff I bolted on hacked from Game Whatever.

Now if you're into a Narrative Roleplaying Game, (like Cortex, 2d20, etc) then obviously those OOC rules specifically designed to give you player-facing narrative control matter a lot more.

If you're into a Tactical Roleplaying Game (like 4e), then obviously those OOC rules specifically designed to give you player-faced tactical choices matter a lot more.

If you're into a Genre Emulation Roleplaying Game, then obviously the rules meant to specifically invoke that genre (even to the point of being OOC or removing player choice), then those rules matter a lot more.

For an RPG which isn't one of those specific sub-specialties, then the difference between one system and another becomes mainly one of personal preference.  Certain systems may "feel" more legit for a certain setting than others, but that is just my or your opinion and they may differ.

I know many people who decide on the system first (e.g. we want to play Runequest or D&D) and then the setting. Usually, the players and GM decide together which system to use, at least in the groups I know.


And again, the Artesia rules have plenty to say about how to run a campaign. It will definitely affect how your characters develop over time, in ways few people would have thought of without the book.

It is more like a triangle with setting, people and system all interacting. The players may have read all the rules, or none of it, but I find that usually they have read parts of the rules.

Pizza and cake.  Flour and sauce. The rules are an ingredient that make the pie. That's estar's point.  The campaign is not an ingredient. It's the end goal.  Crust, cheese, and sauce make a pizza.  The campaign is the pizza that's made from rules, friends and snacks.  I don't get why some people want to get sauce by squeezing the pizza, just like I don't get people who think purpose of playing an rpg is the rules that are used to play it.

Quote from: Trond;903092I know many people who decide on the system first (e.g. we want to play Runequest or D&D) and then the setting. Usually, the players and GM decide together which system to use, at least in the groups I know.

Different strokes.  Sometimes it goes that way and sometimes it goes "Hey, want to play in Westeros?" "Sure, what system?"

Quote from: Trond;903092And again, the Artesia rules have plenty to say about how to run a campaign. It will definitely affect how your characters develop over time, in ways few people would have thought of without the book.

A Core Rulebook tied to a specific campaign setting is going to have lots of useful information, even if you're flushing the system.  I do that all the time.

Quote from: Trond;903092It is more like a triangle with setting, people and system all interacting. The players may have read all the rules, or none of it, but I find that usually they have read parts of the rules.

Has anyone advocated that the Rules aren't necessary or aren't used?  All that's really being argued is...

1. The campaign the players are roleplaying in is more important than the rules they use to interact with it.
2. New players don't really need the rules to start roleplaying.
Is this really controversial?

No, it gets controversial when you say the designer has nothing to do with the campaigns etc.

Also I disagree when you put players, setting and rules in such a linear relationship. Anyways, if you're saying that this is how YOU do things, then that's fine. But as I mentioned, I would put them in a triangular relationship with gamers, rules, and setting in each corner.

Quote from: Trond;903100No, it gets controversial when you say the designer has nothing to do with the campaigns etc.

They don't, not really.  Robert E. Howard and George R. R. Martin have nothing to do with my campaigns.  Once I choose to run a campaign in The Hyborian Age or in Westeros, that carries with it setting assumptions, and since they are literary worlds, lots for me to fill in and much I might need to change.  Once I decide on the system, say Mongoose D20, RQ6 or SIFRP, then that system comes with certain assumptions that will affect the feel of the campaign, certainly.  But the opinions/interpretations/expectations of Matthew Sprange, Loz & Pete, Gareth Hanrahan, Robert Schwalb, Steve Kenson etc, don't matter one bit.  They suggested when they wrote the book, the GMs take it under advisement from there.

You want to use Howard's "Russian Steppes" Hyperborea, Camp and Carter's "White Hand" version or Dark Horses' version or flush all three or mix all three, it's all you baby.  Even if you decide to pick one and follow it with worshipful devotion - it's still all you.

Quote from: Trond;903100Also I disagree when you put players, setting and rules in such a linear relationship. Anyways, if you're saying that this is how YOU do things, then that's fine. But as I mentioned, I would put them in a triangular relationship with gamers, rules, and setting in each corner.

The triangle slider is a good analogy, granted.  But allow me to retort.
Show me a player who doesn't like the players or GM, doesn't like the campaign, but GODDAMN he's there every week because he's gotta have that system - well nevermind, you can't show me that player because they don't exist.  

On the other hand, the players who show up every week because the people are cool and the campaign is interesting as fuck, even though the system isn't their thing...well isn't that every single player ever, at least once?

I know there are players out there who will only play one single system and that's it.  But 90% of everything is shit, so of course there are shit players.

Quote from: CRKrueger;903086People
Setting
System

Notice System is there, but it's not first.

I don´t think the order matters. At one point of the game someone will say, I don´t think will work out like you think.
And this will come more often and with less common ground to decide this quickly when you don´t have a framework of rules to work with.

If everyone is on the same side on the other hand, you will very seldom find that it is not possible to just vote and change.
Usually the lametation regarding rules comes up if someone doesn´t like the current rules,  but is not able to change them because other players like them better like they are.

The newby example works, because he takes your decission regarding how his actions work out as the standing rule. But quite a lot of them will want to know how it works not that much time later.

Quote from: CRKrueger;903102They don't, not really.  Robert E. Howard and George R. R. Martin have nothing to do with my campaigns.  Once I choose to run a campaign in The Hyborian Age or in Westeros, that carries with it setting assumptions, and since they are literary worlds, lots for me to fill in and much I might need to change.  Once I decide on the system, say Mongoose D20, RQ6 or SIFRP, then that system comes with certain assumptions that will affect the feel of the campaign, certainly.  But the opinions/interpretations/expectations of Matthew Sprange, Loz & Pete, Gareth Hanrahan, Robert Schwalb, Steve Kenson etc, don't matter one bit.  They suggested when they wrote the book, the GMs take it under advisement from there.

If you play in Westeros, then Geroge R. R. Martin clearly has a lot to do with your campaign. Game designers also matter a lot. You couldn't possibly come up with all that yourself. See below.

Quote from: CRKrueger;903102You want to use Howard's "Russian Steppes" Hyperborea, Camp and Carter's "White Hand" version or Dark Horses' version or flush all three or mix all three, it's all you baby.  Even if you decide to pick one and follow it with worshipful devotion - it's still all you.

The triangle slider is a good analogy, granted.  But allow me to retort.
Show me a player who doesn't like the players or GM, doesn't like the campaign, but GODDAMN he's there every week because he's gotta have that system - well nevermind, you can't show me that player because they don't exist.  

On the other hand, the players who show up every week because the people are cool and the campaign is interesting as fuck, even though the system isn't their thing...well isn't that every single player ever, at least once?

I know there are players out there who will only play one single system and that's it.  But 90% of everything is shit, so of course there are shit players.

Yes, so the system clearly is important to many people (shit players or not). If someone insisted on using The One Ring to play an Aliens game, then I think I'll pass.
Even D&D and Rolemaster can play out in remarkably different ways, to the degree that some might opt out of one but not the other.

And no, it's not all you. It's you, and the system(s) you have learned to use. This sort of argument typically comes from people who have done a number of RPGs, and then found their own way doing things. Yes, you make the decision to run it this way or that, but it comes with a load of background knowledge from what you have learned from all those different systems. You wouldn't have come up with a fraction of the rules or house-rules if you hadn't already read a good number of RPG books to draw upon. (it reminds me a bit of art teachers who tell complete newbies to let themselves loose on the canvas, the only problem being that they can't draw, can't mix colors etc) And in the end those rules will affect the game and the campaign, and so the game designers affect your campaign too. A very obvious example is that in TOR practically every rule reminds you of a passage in Tolkien's book, which is something many players enjoy.

Quote from: Trond;903106If you play in Westeros, then Geroge R. R. Martin clearly has a lot to do with your campaign. Game designers also matter a lot. You couldn't possibly come up with all that yourself.

They matter as much as Ford, Chevy, Hertz or Budget matter to my vacation when I rent a car.  Martin's work is there, a lot of it I can rely on, but go ahead and run a city campaign in Old Volantis.  Tell me how much of it is Martin, and how much is you.  Your home isn't the architect and the painter, it's the people that live in it.

Quote from: Trond;903106Yes, so the system clearly is important to many people (shit players or not). If someone insisted on using The One Ring to play an Aliens game, then I think I'll pass.

Travel phase obviously is coldsleep, but there would be Planning Phase, Action Phase, Downtime Phase.  You might have to rejigger some of the stats, but things like Courage, Dread etc could work.  If someone was enough of a crazyass to try that, I might try it just for the hell of it.

Quote from: Trond;903106Even D&D and Rolemaster can play out in remarkably different ways, to the degree that some might opt out of one but not the other.

It's my experience that with a good group of players and a trusted GM, people will try just about anything, especially if it's a test drive.

Quote from: Trond;903106And no, it's not all you. It's you, and the system(s) you have learned to use. This sort of argument typically comes from people who have done a number of RPGs, and then found their own way doing things. Yes, you make the decision to run it this way or that, but it comes with a load of background knowledge from what you have learned from all those different systems. You wouldn't have come up with a fraction of the rules or house-rules if you hadn't already read a good number of RPG books to draw upon. (it reminds me a bit of art teachers who tell complete newbies to let themselves loose on the canvas, the only problem being that they can't draw, can't mix colors etc) And in the end those rules will affect the game and the campaign, and so the game designers affect your campaign too. A very obvious example is that in TOR practically every rule reminds you of a passage in Tolkien's book, which is something many players enjoy.

We're also influenced as people by every book we've ever read, every movie we've seen, every person we've talked to, etc.   If I'm playing Artesia, how Spinachcat once handled spirits in a CoC convention scenario may be influencing how I deal with spirits more than Mark Smylie's comics.

Any given aspect of an author's world, any given rule by a designer, the GM is going to say "That's perfect" and use it, or "That's idiotic" and flush it down the toilet or everything in between.

Quote from: Madprofessor;903093Pizza and cake.  Flour and sauce. The rules are an ingredient that make the pie. That's estar's point.  The campaign is not an ingredient. It's the end goal.  Crust, cheese, and sauce make a pizza.  The campaign is the pizza that's made from rules, friends and snacks.  I don't get why some people want to get sauce by squeezing the pizza, just like I don't get people who think purpose of playing an rpg is the rules that are used to play it.

Spot on!