Quote from: Bren;903666I had a friend who owned a lot of RPGs. In part, this was because he liked reading RPGs - both rules and settings. And in part it was because he was not satisfied with any of the systems he had seen. And he had seen a lot. None were just right. All had some source of dissatisfaction.

I had milder case of this through my gaming history. Although it never stopped me from refereeing. I can definitely relate.

Quote from: Bren;903666

There are no perfect rules.

I can agree with this.

Quote from: Bren;903666Every RPG is a compromise of design choices. Skill-based gives greater flexibility over class based, but you get long lists of skills and you have to decide whether swinging an axe is different than swinging a broad sword and how much either is like fighting with a knife. Is driving a motorboat more like driving a car or like sailing a small boat? Is sailing a small boat like conning a cruiser and does the answer change if the cruiser is from the Age of Sail, the Age of Steam, or nuclear powered? Or maybe we should just focus on careers instead of classes or skills.

Like I said earlier, reading Matt Finch section on Ruling vs. Rules was like a "Road to Damascus" moment for me in regards my relationship with rules. I still like and use complex rules system like GURPS. But I much more comfortable with running very lite RPG system. But after reading that I realize, my standard is and will continue to be; does this ruling or rule fit the setting of my campaign, and does it resolve things for the character in a way that makes sense for the campaign. Not quite the point that Matt Finch was aiming for but my own take on it.

Quote from: estar;903678...my standard is and will continue to be; does this ruling or rule fit the setting of my campaign, and does it resolve things for the character in a way that makes sense for the campaign.

Whereas I look at the setting and the rules as being in a dialectic. The setting impacts how one interprets rules and should impact what rules one selects or creates, but the rules that get used impact the setting.

As an example, I provide Honor+Intrigue. It puts characters into different categories or levels. (They aren't like D&D levels though as there is not necessarily any intended progression. And PCs are all the same "level" which is Hero.) The three main categories are Pawns, Retainers, and Heroes & Villains (there is no mechanical difference between a hero and a villain).

A consequence of the rules regarding Pawns, Retainers, and Heroes & Villains is that combat ends up looking like 4 against 40 rather than 4 against 6 (starts at 2:30). H+I gives you the former, while the latter is what you get using rules like Flashing Blades or Basic Roleplaying. And that difference impacts the setting.

Quote from: estar;9036601) RPGs mean something otherwise you wouldn't used it in your sentence.

It means lots of things to lots of different people.

Quote from: estar;903660the focus should be

Should?  Sorry but you lost me again.

Quote from: yosemitemike;903727Should?  Sorry but you lost me again.

He tried, but you keep coming back.

Quote from: Bren;903735He tried, but you keep coming back.

Well, at least you are consistent.

Just in case I hadn't mentioned it, RPGs are about the campaign for me too, but implying that everyone should share those values is a bridge too far. So I'm agreeing with most of what's being said here, just not that these priorities are or should be universal.

Quote from: Simlasa;902772In a lot of cases, yeah.

Fair enough, but should they? Are rulebooks which keep players away not a problem we should be addressing as opposed to accepting?

Quote from: dragoner;902785I agree that the rules are often a hindrance, connecting with the setting is important, and dependent on the GM's story telling ability.

What use are the rules if they don't help you connect with the setting? That's what they're supposed to do.

Quote from: Crüesader;902847Riding a motorcycle isn't about your helmet, it's about enjoying the ride.  That doesn't mean you don't need the helmet.

But you don't need a helmet to enjoy the ride, or ride at all. In fact it often makes the experience less enjoyable.

It's there to protect you from events on the road which would otherwise be far more harmful, so it's more like an X Card.

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

Not a rider, are we

Quote from: Crüesader;903085LOL no it isn't.  You're trained in basic training.

And so you are.

#TheMoreYouKnow

Quote from: Crüesader;903085Guys that have never touched a rifle often perform better than good ol' boys that grew up hunting[/B].   The M16 is a weird weapon like that.

Research or personal experience? And no, I'm not discounting either.

Quote from: Ravenswing;903137[ATTACH=CONFIG]165[/ATTACH]

It's really most sincerely dead ...

Nono it's resting.

Quote from: Simlasa;903280with a group of guys I seem to get along with (despite LARGE differences outside of game stuff).

If only more people could manage this sort of thing.

Quote from: Simlasa;903280And really, they way they play Pathfinder, it usually feels like some OSR sandbox.

Then honest question: Why are they playing Pathfinder?

Quote from: Bren;903440Rules don't fix people problems.

I agree. These are all people problems. Game rules don't fix people problems.

The foundation of western civilization begs to differ.

Quote from: estar;903660The implication of my initial statement is that the focus should be on making a good campaign first and then adopt, adapt, or create the rules to support that campaign second. That the hobby and industry would be healthier if it adopted this focus as well.

I view this approach as more expansive than focusing on the rules. Because it is not possible to write a set of rules that covers everything that a player could do in a setting.

Finally I stress the specific rule system used is an important personal preference. Some people can't stand class based system. Others find AC and HP to be unrealistic enough to lessen their enjoyment of the game. Other still find games like GURPS too complex to enjoy as a pastime. And so on. Nowhere I advocate that you should not care about the rules you use. Only that what rules you use should be chosen in light of how well they support the campaign you are trying to run.

And I will stress, when it comes to tabletop roleplaying there are not that many outright bad choices. Most choices have benefits and consequences. The choices to focus on the campaign over the rules or the rules over the campaign, or even both equally are the latter and certainly not the former.

In my view the benefit of focusing on the rules over the campaign is clarity and certainty. The consequences include limitations on the choices that the player make that otherwise make sense in term of the setting. Or that players do things that are unrealistic, in terms of the setting, to take advantage of the game mechanics. And I will stress that what unrealistic for a campaign using TOON is very different than what unrealistic for a GURPS World War II campaign.

While the advantage of clarity and certainty seems like weak point, it isn't. Managing RPG Campaigns is a demand task for a leisure activity. For some groups this may be the most practical approach given their circumstances. Since the point is to enjoy oneself while playing an tabletop RPG that is a legitimate choice made for good reasons.

Completely agree.

Again, it's the implication that RPGs should be about the same things for everyone where we differ.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;914059Just in case I hadn't mentioned it, RPGs are about the campaign for me too, but implying that everyone should share those values is a bridge too far. So I'm agreeing with most of what's being said here, just not that these priorities are or should be universal.

I distinguish between what you have to do to run tabletop RPGs and what people enjoy about playing RPGs. Rules are a huge factor in how people enjoy RPGs. But what you have to do in order to even get to the point of enjoying the rules is to setup a campaign even if it is only for one session.

It not a question of what is priority or not, it is absolute one thing you have to do in order to start playing tabletop RPG. Hence my assertion that playing tabletop RPG is about the campaign not the rules.

And again I don't distinguish between multiple interrelated sessions and a single session because you do the same steps regardless if it is one session or multiple sessions.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;914059The foundation of western civilization begs to differ.

A cute soundbite, but as so often the case. Wrong. The history of all civilizations, not just western civilization, shows that societal rules don’t fix people problems. Punishment can eliminate some of the people who are causing some of the problems. But it can’t eliminate all of them and despite eliminating some of the people, more problem causing people just keep on showing up. The war on drugs is a good example of this.