The following is attributed to Gary Gygax:
"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules."

I think Gygax was wrong about that.  In 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.

With rules there is a potential for shared world-building.  

It is interesting to note that even professional writers can get into conflicts about shared storytelling if there are no rules.  A case in point is the Thieves' World series of books.  E.g. the authors broke the fourth wall at one point and started criticizing earlier writers, saying, "Characters who were clearly of one sex pretended to be the other," referring to a female character who acted like an adolescent boy.

I fundamentally disagree, though you have a point in that cooperation is essential in a shared fantasy. The question is what does EGG mean by "rules". He means rulebooks, game systems, components provided as gaming products and beyond, something framing your imagination, in this instance.

When you have cooperation at the game table, you don't really need any rules. Rules are just convenient in that they provide a common ground, a support to build the fantasy.

I know we'll be falling back on the "Rules vs. DMs" debate on this thread, sooner or later. Let me just point out that what happened early in the evolution of tabletop RPGs is a fundamental shift from the "referee" role of the DM to the rules as the central arbiter of conflicts around the game table. I think it is fundamentally wrong in that it frames the fantasy itself and smothers the unique nature of RPGs as products of our imaginations.

What you are referring to about "players in a DM's fanfic" and such are instances of bad DMing. That there are many bad DMs out there is something we'll agree on, but that doesn't mean that the game *needs* rules to operate.

I think most people can become great DMs. The relevant question is how to get there.

Quote from: riprock;297640The following is attributed to Gary Gygax:
"The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules."
 
I think Gygax was wrong about that. In fact, many DMs are not charismatic enough to make up an interesting, convincing story and to get their players interested in it.  

I think you're confusing rules and adventure content.  It's true that many GMs aren't very good at story/adventure creation.  Unfortunately, many also lack the metacognition to recognize that and insist on creating their own lame campaigns.  This info isn't strictly needed but it's helpful and can speed up prep.
 
Gygax has a point but I don't think he would have pushed it too far. You can make up rules as you go.  But GM and players tend to better with some knowledge of where they stand.  It helps to know what works in a system at chargen.  It also avoids radically different interpretations of probabilities.  But you don't need a ton of rules to accomplish this and then extrapolate in the spirit of the rules to unusual situations.  But companies are happy to provide unlimited additional books of rules as long as enough people are willing to buy them.

I once ran a completely rules-less forum game.

I burnt out after a year and a half.

I think that that quote is true, but in a theoretical, rather than practical sense. Theoretically, a gamemaster could be perfectly fair, simulating the reality of the game world with consistency and articulating it well enough that the players can be engaged in it. In reality, however, no GM reaches that level, so rules are necessary to let the players, as well as the GM, know that they have common ground to fall back on.

Having no rules, without having the Perfect GM, will always end up with problems (less the better the GM is) of players disagreeing with them in a destructive manner. For example, a player might come up with a plan that he feels is perfectly reasonable, but the GM, having not considered its logic to the same extent as the player because he had on part in its creation, may disallow it out of hand, making the player frustrated, feeling like he can't count on the GM to allow creativity.

Disallowing a plan is railroading. There, solved that problem.

The rules exist for two things:
1. To give the GM a framework, a sense of context.
2. To give the players a sense of boundaries, to know what they can or can't do in a general sense.

I've seen some suggest that the rules are also there to give the players the illusion that they have some control over how the game goes, but I think that's a wrongheaded way of looking at things, in that it gives a bad precedent for both players and GM.

RPGPundit

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

Untrue. Disallowing a plan is fine if the plan makes no sense. I would be hard pressed to call a plan involving the players going to the moon in an SUV perfectly acceptable.

As RPGPundit pointed out, rules give a sense of context and boundaries to those involved, keeping them on the same page, so to speak.

Need is such a slippery little word when applied to RPGs. We don't need to play RPGs.

Different players have different sensitivities. Some players desire a certain sense of consistency; many GMs aren't up to that task without a rules framework (or simply do better with a framework.) Some players are engaged by the rules, and find them a useful anchor to base character ideas on. Some even (gasp) derive fun out of tinkering with and exploiting those rules.

So some GMs may not "need it", but if some GMs want to best entertain some players, then yes, they "need" rules.

No problem with  getting ideas from your players, but to let them in on things only the GM needs to know or the stuff they must find out on their own? No at all!!

Part of the fun of  GM'ing is playing "God" and knowing all the things the players don't know. Allowing them that sort of knowledge is that's just taking away the  "excitement " and "mystery" of the unknown and how the players are going to react to the things the are presented with in the course of the game.

On a personal level there's noting more satisfying then building your own world/ campaign and having people  venture in an experience your ideas  and creations it not so different then a writer who wants you do the same with their own book or story.

Rules wise, I think the GM is entitled to use whatever rules he wants and if a Player doesn't like them, then maybe he should look for another GM to play with. Simple as that.
.
Honestly, if people don't want  a GM "running" the game, they should just play one of those solo adventure books :emot-jerkbag:

A good enough DM doesn't need any rules beyond his own judgment.

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

Quote from: The Worid;297720Untrue. Disallowing a plan is fine if the plan makes no sense. I would be hard pressed to call a plan involving the players going to the moon in an SUV perfectly acceptable.

As RPGPundit pointed out, rules give a sense of context and boundaries to those involved, keeping them on the same page, so to speak.

Ah, the call to absurdity. However, to address that, telling the players that the SUV they are driving is unable to make the trip is not the same thing as disallowing the plan.

If the players wish to try to fly a SUV to the moon, then the GM should moderate the attempt. Most likely, it'll end in a fiery crash. So? Narrate it in detail. Awesomeness.

And, depending on the setting and ingenuity of the players and characters, they may actually *Fly a SUV to the moon*.
If you don't understand the awesomeness of that idea, then I pity you deeply.

The GM runs the game for the players. The players play within the GM's rulings. The players run their characters. The GM runs everything else.

The GM never decides what the PCs do or don't do.

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

Thanks. That's exactly how I read the Gygax quote too and I was surprised that no one brought it up earlier.

Think of combat tables being in the DMG in 1E. That's step 1: remove a great deal (perhaps: all) of the rules previously accessible to the players. The players only interface with the game world directly, and it's solely the DM's job to translate their choices and actions into game terms (that's how Monte Cook recommends newbies pick up 3E ). Step 2: in doing so, the DM solely needs to rely on his own sane judgement in probability assignments to die rolls, and on accurate recall to ensure consistency across his DM calls.

That brings us to this point:

Quote from: hgjs;297807However, most DMs are not good enough to make that enjoyable.

And that's why rule books exist: player empowerment and DM quality control (these running counter to Steps 1 and 2, respectively).

Quote from: The Worid;297720Disallowing a plan is fine if the plan makes no sense. I would be hard pressed to call a plan involving the players going to the moon in an SUV perfectly acceptable.

That would depend utterly on the setting, however. For example, in Nobilis it's quite possible for someone like the Count of Cars to enchant an SUV so that it'll fly, or for a Familia from some weird science realm to fit their vehicle with the necessary rockets and life support, or for any Noble at all to simply drive up to the edge of the Earth and beyond along the Silver Road that leads through the void to the moon.

Quote from: GrimGent;297824That would depend utterly on the setting, however. For example, in Nobilis it's quite possible for someone like the Count of Cars to enchant an SUV so that it'll fly, or for a Familia from some weird science realm to fit their vehicle with the necessary rockets and life support, or for any Noble at all to simply drive up to the edge of the Earth and beyond along the Silver Road that leads through the void to the moon.

That wasn't my point. My example was meant to be taken as "Ride an SUV to the moon", no qualifiers. Hop in and take off. Yes, there are ways to make it work, but they include extra elements, and I was trying to make a statement about absurd plans.