Ok, I know the titles may seem odd, but it is 100% true and accurate. There really are NO such things as "role playing rules".

The rules in a RPG mostly deal with task resolution, combat, character creation and advancement. Those are not role playing elements so much as they are system mechanics.

In the end, that's all every rpg system is: Combat, task resolution, character creation and advancement. The differences in systems is how well they handle the above, and hw they balance complexity, realism and playability, the holy trinity of the RPG world.

Role playing is what people do that isn't in the rules. It's when PCs act in character with other PCs and NPCs. That's roleplaying, and it's something that you really can't write rules for, because it covers so many circumstances that it's impossible to write rules for.

What if they tried to make rules for roleplaying? Can you imagine a game that told you how your character had to act in every situation? It would suck totally. It'd be a worse game than Wraethu, for god's sake. (I thru the wraethu reff in just to choke pundy, BTW.:teehee: )

If you think on what I've written here you may see I'm right, there is no such thing as rules for roleplaying, rules are for task resolution and combat, mainly. Roleplaying is something that comes down to judgement and the people involved.

So when people claim that a game isn't a rpg because it's "all about combat" or "It's all about experience points" I say "Come on, the rules are just about resolving combat or amassing xp, the roleplaying is what the players do and there really can't be rules for it."

So I hope people will quit bashing games because the rules seem to make it all about combat. The bottom line is there really are no rules for roleplaying, so by and large every 'role playing rules system" deals with combat, resolving tasks, making characters and character development. That's all the rules can really cover, because no rules can cover actual roleplaying.

Hmm. Out of curiosity, have you ever read Puppetland by John Tynes? That game has precisely three rules, all of which deal with controlling the behaviour of the players rather than the actions of the characters.

Most notably, there's the second one in the set:

Quote from: PuppetlandWhat you say is what you say.

During a game of PUPPETLAND, it is very important that as long as the actors are sitting in their chairs, they say only what their puppet says. Every word a player says while seated comes out of his or her puppet's mouth, exactly as the actor said it. No actor should say anything while seated that he or she does not mean for their puppet to say, at all, even if it's "Pass the chips," or "I'm going to the bathroom." If an actor wants to say something that their puppet does not say, he or she must stand up and say it. If an actor wants his or her puppet to do something besides speak, this must be stated as something the puppet says: for example, if an actor wants her puppet to climb a ladder to a window, she would say "I think I shall climb the ladder, and go in the window." If an actor wants his puppet to take a hammer and smash a window, he would say "With this hammer I now hold, I shall smash the window in!" All forms of action that an actor wishes his or her puppet to take must be expressed as dialogue spoken by the puppet, though the dialogue can be kept simple: the puppet master is expected to infer appropriate action based on the dialogue and need not have every step spelled out.

...

If the actor or the puppet master simply must converse out of character, the actor must get up and come over to the game master, and the two must hold their discussion in whispers so that no others may hear. If the actor must then communicate information he or she has just learned to the other actors, he or she should if at all possible sit back down and communicate the information in the voice of his or her puppet. Out-of-character conversation should be avoided at all costs and at any inconvenience.

Yes. The fundamental difference between the Theorists and the rest of us is that the rest of us saw a set of RPG rules like D&D and said: "It doesn't have rules for social interaction, or making up plot, just combat and character resources.  That must mean that the social interaction and making up plot is what we have to do without rules";
Whereas the theorists saw the same rules and said: "It doesn't have rules for social interaction or making up plot, just combat and character resources.  Therefore combat and resource acquisition must be the only thing you can do in this game, and the only thing people use it for."

Which is why you get these assburgers making up the "gamist" category as their idea of what the rest of us must do roleplaying ("they don't want to have rules for inventing story? Then that must mean that all they care about is killing monsters"), or why they often literally cannot seem to believe in any way that many if not the vast majority of D&D games actually have all kinds of non-hacknslash elements.  They'll paternalistically nod and agree with you when you tell them that you've actually fucking played in countless D&D games that were chock-full of plot and intense character development and often had little or no combat or resource acquisition, and the whole time they'll either think you're boldfacedly lying to them or that what you played was actually some kind of miserable failed proto-attempt at "narrativism" and feel pity for you because your game must have been so miserable, trying to roleplay "without rules".  They simply can't imagine such a world...

RPGPundit

Quote from: Dominus NoxThat's all the rules can really cover, because no rules can cover actual roleplaying.

Why not?

Combat's complex too.  And yet, nobody seems to question that you can make a system that abstracts that complexity and provides you with a meaningful structure for playing out the combats.

Yes, the combat system isn't likely to have specific rules for when my swashbuckler-elf uses a shield to surf down a wave of flaming oil while pincushioning orcs with arrows.  But it can have an abstracted stunt system that gives everyone at the table a structured way to look at that act.

Likewise, a social system isn't likely to have specific rules for when my gnome casanova licks his lips and quirks an eyebrow just so.  But it can have an abstracted system that gives everyone at the table a structured way to look at that act.

Your point about how silly it would be to expect rules that grapple with every detail of action is well made.  I just don't see that it connects with social mechanics any more than it connects with every other kind of mechanic.  Am I missing something?

Indeed, I've always thought that RPG rules are there first to impartially cover situations where judgement calls by the GM were either difficult or could cause controversy in the group.  Which is why combat always had its own chapter; no one wanted to die in combat due to GM fiat.  Other rules were there to define the gameworld's "physics" and give a baseline for judgement calls by the GM.  The role-playing is just...role-playing.

I think that's not true. There ARE roleplaying rules. See Pendragon.

I find such rules generally interfere with roleplaying more that facilitate it. But they are out there and some like them. :shrug:

Quote from: Caesar SlaadI think that's not true. There ARE roleplaying rules. See Pendragon.

I find such rules generally interfere with roleplaying more that facilitate it. But they are out there and some like them. :shrug:

I've never seen pendragon, but I know it's authurian era, so I'm guessing that the 'roleplaying' rules are meant to reflect the code of chivalry that a knight was supposed to have and told him to to act towards everyone based on class and such.

Sounds like it'd make role playing kind of boring, all in all.

Quote from: TonyLBWhy not?

Combat's complex too.  And yet, nobody seems to question that you can make a system that abstracts that complexity and provides you with a meaningful structure for playing out the combats.

Yes, the combat system isn't likely to have specific rules for when my swashbuckler-elf uses a shield to surf down a wave of flaming oil while pincushioning orcs with arrows.  But it can have an abstracted stunt system that gives everyone at the table a structured way to look at that act.

Likewise, a social system isn't likely to have specific rules for when my gnome casanova licks his lips and quirks an eyebrow just so.  But it can have an abstracted system that gives everyone at the table a structured way to look at that act.

Your point about how silly it would be to expect rules that grapple with every detail of action is well made.  I just don't see that it connects with social mechanics any more than it connects with every other kind of mechanic.  Am I missing something?

Ok, HOW would you write rules for roleplaying? would you have a list of pssible character types and how they are to react to every other character type in every situation? Since roleplaying is about interacting with characters in various situations that would seem to be how you'd have to write rules for it.

It's obviously imposible, and even if it could be done would reduce players to script readers, just actors and not actual characters.

Quote from: Dominus NoxOk, HOW would you write rules for roleplaying? would you have a list of pssible character types and how they are to react to every other character type in every situation? Since roleplaying is about interacting with characters in various situations that would seem to be how you'd have to write rules for it.

It's obviously imposible, and even if it could be done would reduce players to script readers, just actors and not actual characters.

The better "rules for role-playing" try to reward players with extra dice/bonuses/XP/whatever whenever they act in a dramatic/setting appropriate fashion.  The Spiritual Attributes from Riddle of Steel are an example of one way this might be done.  Third edition Ars Magica (the only one version with which I am familiar) uses Passions in a similar fashion.  Of course, what is appropriate depends on the GM's interpretation of setting "fluff" and genre convention.

The worst such rules are like the ones for the Cavalier in the 1e AD&D Unearthed Arcana, where your actions in a given situation are prescribed by the rules.  It might be genre-appropriate, but it takes away some decision-making on the part of the player.

I don't really care for either approach, to be honest, but I can see the appeal they have for some.

Quote from: Dominus NoxOk, HOW would you write rules for roleplaying?

Depends on what you want to do.  Burning Wheel's Duel of Wits is a nice example in the traditional vein:  It doesn't detail every single exchange of words (any more than D&D's combat system says "When the orc successfully hits your character will double over, say 'oof' and bleed.  He will then respond with an overhand strike.  You have no choice in the matter.  Roll your d20 and consult the next table,") but it does track an abstract "strength of argument" that people whittle away at, very much like hit points, and provides tactics (Point, Rebuttal, Obfuscate, Avoid, etc.) that have different effects depending upon the skills of both combatants and the tactics chosen.

That's one way.  There are plenty of others.  Do you really want to do an overview of all of the (many) ways that this problem has been successfully and creatively addressed?

Quote from: Dominus Noxwould you have a list of pssible character types and how they are to react to every other character type in every situation? Since roleplaying is about interacting with characters in various situations that would seem to be how you'd have to write rules for it.

I think there might be some different ways of doing it, if one applies a bit of brain-sweat to the question.

Quote from: Dominus NoxIt's obviously imposible, and even if it could be done would reduce players to script readers, just actors and not actual characters.

Well, hey, as long as you've got an open mind about it. :rolleyes:

1) You CAN write rules for social interaction. See d20.
2) Rules for interaction sometimes actively prevent roleplaying. I'm looking at you, diplomacy!
3) Rules for interaction sometimes actively foster roleplaying. I applaud that DCs for bluff take into account whether a lie is plausible, whether the subject wants to believe you, etc.
4) Rules, in general, shouldn't tell your character what he can and can't decide to do. Only what he fails and succeeds at. Even in combat, you can be the dumb barbarian and attack the scorpion in melee... or you can take to inaccessible ground, pour something flammable on it, and burn it alive knowing it has no ranged attack. Likewise, social interaction rules should not represent what you decide to do... only what you fail and succeed in doing.
5) Rules concerning the world and what "is" and "isn't" in the social capacity of the gameworld are like the pirate's code. Not so much rules as guidelines. A good RPG should allow for an independant DM. Even if it doesn't, who's going to enforce that?

Quote from: RPGPunditYes. The fundamental difference between the Theorists and the rest of us is that the rest of us saw a set of RPG rules like D&D and said: "It doesn't have rules for social interaction, or making up plot, just combat and character resources.  That must mean that the social interaction and making up plot is what we have to do without rules";

As a member of "the rest of us" here at RPGsite I realized something different than that.  That there are the barest of written rules, and then a whole pile of unwritten rules that vary widely from table to table.  Because there is always rules, whether you choose to acknowledge them or not.  There is also a lot of value in acknowledging that they are there, and conciously choosing good ones for it. There is also value in having them in written form so that they can be communicated effectively.

QuoteWhereas the theorists saw the same rules and said: "It doesn't have rules for social interaction or making up plot, just combat and character resources.  Therefore combat and resource acquisition must be the only thing you can do in this game, and the only thing people use it for."

What I, on the other hand,  got out of it was that it was combat and loot/gear was the thing that the rules actively supported and encouraged.  You can do other stuff, but you have to try make up your own rules, often ignoring or rewriting rules to do it.  Which is hit and miss, often more miss than hit.  For quality results it is usually best to craft a tool for the purpose instead of succuming to Hammer-In-Hand Disease and seeing everything as a nail.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadI think that's not true. There ARE roleplaying rules. See Pendragon.

I find such rules generally interfere with roleplaying more that facilitate it. But they are out there and some like them. :shrug:

That's my position as well: you can make rules that regulate the roleplaying part of roleplaying games, and some games do, but they invariable suck.

(Note: I have never read Pendragon, so I have no opinion as to its quality.)

Quote from: blakkieAs a member of "the rest of us" here at RPGsite I realized something different than that.  That there are the barest of written rules, and then a whole pile of unwritten rules that vary widely from table to table.  Because there is always rules, whether you choose to acknowledge them or not.  There is also a lot of value in acknowledging that they are there, and conciously choosing good ones for it. There is also value in having them in written form so that they can be communicated effectively.

What I, on the other hand,  got out of it was that it was combat and loot/gear was the thing that the rules actively supported and encouraged.  You can do other stuff, but you have to try make up your own rules, often ignoring or rewriting rules to do it.  Which is hit and miss, often more miss than hit.  For quality results it is usually best to craft a tool for the purpose instead of succuming to Hammer-In-Hand Disease and seeing everything as a nail.

Sorry, dude but your answers plant you firmly in the camp of the "Theorists", and not over here with "the rest of us".  The essence of your answer is basically what I was talking about above.  You fundamentally feel that a game's rules define what can be done with an RPG, and that everything has to be regulated and codified in order to be significant in an RPG.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditSorry, dude but your answers plant you firmly in the camp of the "Theorists", and not over here with "the rest of us".  The essence of your answer is basically what I was talking about above.  You fundamentally feel that a game's rules define what can be done with an RPG, and that everything has to be regulated and codified in order to be significant in an RPG.

Seems to me that both sides of this are putting forth theories but focussing on craft.  I think of the traditional "theorist/everyone-else" divide as being about whether people focus on theory as a worthy goal in and of itself ... and I just don't see anyone doing that here (including blakkie).  So I guess the way I think of the divide isn't the way you think of the divide.

Is the distinction you're making here that "us" includes people who agree with your theories and build their craft accordingly, and "Theorists" are people who have theories that disagree with yours and who build their craft accordingly?