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.
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...
Quote from: Benoist;297642I 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.
I got into TRPGs but I've always stretched towards non-TRPG simulations, and I think my intense interest in simulation makes me long for the days of GM as referee. Referees are very important in other endeavors such as (e.g.) fencing matches ... for good or ill, I try to stretch TRPGs into that realm and possibly I'm yanking too hard on an aspect of TRPGs that shouldn't be yanked.
You wrote:
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.
That's very true. Somehow I find it difficult to get and keep the common ground. Somehow I am always desperate for more common ground.
Also I need to sleep soon.
Quote from: Nicephorus;297649I think you're confusing rules and adventure content. ... 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.
True.
Also I have a bad habit of trying to throw mechanics at a creative gap when what I need to do is get a feel for the kinds of inspiring thoughts that made all participants want to do a TRPG to start with.
It might have been a movie, like that time when my buddies and I went to see The Matrix together and when we came out, George said that he wanted to do The Matrix as a TRPG.
It might have been a TV show or a novel or a series of novels. It might have been military history or martial arts or music.
It might have been something else, or a large combination of things. But much of the time, there is some shared basis of experiences that tends to bring my groups together with the notion that we want a TRPG. That inspiration is so nebulous, and perhaps it differs so much from person to person, that it's hard to nail down.
Thus I try to nail it with rules.
While we're tossing around EGG quotes:
Quote"The new D&D is too rule intensive. It's relegated the Dungeon Master to being an entertainer rather than master of the game. It's done away with the archetypes, focused on nothing but combat and character power, lost the group cooperative aspect, bastardized the class-based system, and resembles a comic-book superheroes game more than a fantasy RPG where a player can play any alignment desired, not just lawful good."
and not related via Varney and attributed to him, but straight from an interview (http://pc.gamespy.com/articles/538/538820p2.html). i think it's as relevant today as it was regarding Third edition.
Quote from: kregmosier;298467straight from an interview (http://pc.gamespy.com/articles/538/538820p2.html). i think it's as relevant today as it was regarding Third edition.
I think it's even more applicable to D&D4 than to 3.x.
I would agree; and posted this quote on my Blog.
RPGPundit
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.
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.
Originally, RPGs were not about creating stories. Look at the GMing advice in early Dragon magazines. It's all about creating the settings where the adventures take place (creating dungeons, creating wilderness areas, creating city encounters). Nothing about creating stories. Stories were what happened organically when the PCs interacted with the settings the GM created.
By the mid-80s, a lot of the people who flocked to RPGs
did want epic stories, and they wanted to buy those stories pre-made. Or they wanted to create their own epic stories to show to their friends. But that was a later development. Gygax's comments pre-date the "RPG campaign as epic story' meme.
It's too bad that a lot of RPGers played in plot-driven games run by GMs who were frustrated writers. But lot of people enjoyed games like D&D for a long time before that style of game and that sort of GM became common.
Quote from: riprock;298762In fact, many DMs are not charismatic enough to make up an interesting, convincing story and to get their players interested in it. .
It's not so much being charismatic, but having the knack of coming up with creative stuff from the top of your head that fits within the context of the gaming session. One reason why there's so few good GM's is they don't know how to tap into their creative side and if I have to put any blame on someone , I would place it on the steps of most game designers because I never read any rulesbook or article that has ever trully detailed or explained what it takes to become a good GM. In fact, I really don't think most of them have a clue themselves.
That said, I think if you want to become a better GM I would look at the foundations of roleplaying and read up on subjects such as improvisational theatre, storytelling, creative writing and maybe even psychology as all these elements come into play.
Agreed. RPGs were never made, and are not now for, making "stories".
That's NOT what they're about, and games that are "about" that are not RPGs.
RPGPundit
I don't know if that's entirely true. Even the most basic game session will still have a "plot" of some sort contained within a three act structure of a beginning , a middle and an end. All forms of dramatic activity from a TV sitcom to a boxing match fit within this paradigm. RPG's are no different...
Also, as to how a RPG should be palyed is like saying what's the right way of painting a picture or playing a guitar. I've played in games (both good and bad) that have been everything from entirely free flowing and random to strictly linear going from point A to B. In the end, what really mattered was not if we "properly" played, but if we had a good time of it.
Quote from: RPGPundit;299011Agreed. RPGs were never made, and are not now for, making "stories".
That's NOT what they're about, and games that are "about" that are not RPGs.
RPGPundit
To revise, not all DMs are charming and talented enough to keep thinking up details and shocks and exciting stimuli that will keep the players engaged in the play.
Is that sufficiently non-story-oriented?
Quote from: riprock;299093To revise, not all DMs are charming and talented enough to keep thinking up details and shocks and exciting stimuli that will keep the players engaged in the play.
Is that sufficiently non-story-oriented?
In all honesty, it's not about being shocking or exciting but simply being inventive. To pre-visualize and think ahead of what the players will be encountering. It can be months in planning to right there at the gaming table, but the GM needs to do it and know how.
Here's my method...
Even before the PC's enter the city, I will start thinking about the city itself with all its different sights, smells and voices, how the streets look, the storefronts and apartments, the Kings Palace, the people walking by, the drunken brawl between two fighters in the alleyway next to the alehouse, the beggar who's always follows strangers new to the city, the city guard escorting a prisoner bounded hands to barefeet in chains, the mob of kids running down the street laughing with a stolen duck in their hands, the insane priest who shouts of random prophecies that only the gods know if they will come true...
All of that was made up from the top of my head in less then a minute, most of which I may or may not use. That's not even counting what I may already have written in my GM notes or anything else that I may use at my disposal( i.e. encounter charts, NPC's,ect).
Pre-visualization, that's the key to becoming a better GM :)