TheRPGSite

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?:D

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?

Quote from: blakkieWhat 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.

Then you pretty much missed the point I'm afraid, it's very common for people to want the rules to handle stuff other than the bits that are most fun.  One of the key draws of early DnD to many people was precisely a lack of rules for roleplaying as that allowed freedom to roleplay.

You go wrong when you conflate supported and encouraged, what the rules support and what the rules encourage may have little to do with each other.  Some people like the rules to support the things the game is about, others want the rules not to support that but simply not to actively impede it.  Being in the former camp doesn't make the latter wrong (and of course vice versa).

Quote from: hgjsThat'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.)

Pendragon has great rules for this that work well, I have encountered many folk who don't actually like them but almost nobody who thinks they suck.

Dogs in the Vineyard has rules for this that aren't at all to my tastes, but that definitely don't suck.  They're well executed rules, I just don't enjoy them.

This whole thread is a bit odd to be honest.  Tons of games have rules for roleplaying, some do it well, some do it badly, but it's hardly a new concept.  Hell, alignment is basically a rule for roleplaying and you don't get much earlier in the hobby than when that came in.

Quote from: TonyLBSeems 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?

I've no idea what pundit is trying to do, but blakkie did miss the point pretty badly.

These guys are coming from the perspective that says rules should get out of the way of the stuff that can be rewardingly roleplayed out.  That rules for roleplay entirely miss the point as that's where the fun is and not therefore where you want rules.  On this view, rules are to a degree a necessary evil, something we need because we can't just roleplay out everything.

This is a real split in the hobby.  Some folk like rules to support what play is about, some people see that as needless intrusion and a fetter on what play can be about.

For one group, DnD is about hacking and slaying as that is what it has rules for.  For the other, DnD can be about anything because it doesn't have rules for more stuff.  For one the absence of rules is a handicap, for the other a liberation.

Blakkie missed the point that many people who play DnD see the absence of roleplaying rules as liberating, as allowing them to play anything.  Until one can recognise that preference (even if one doesn't remotely share it) then it is effectively impossible to communicate.

I've seen it on rpg.net tons of times.  I talk say about running an ODnD game and someone assumes that therefore I want hack and slay as that is all the rules cover, but that assumption is flawed.  Until I give more information the rules of themselves give you no clue as to what I want to run, because that part of the game is dealt with outside the rules.

I think Balbinus is totally correct.

IAWTC

"What is the sound of nothing, Grasshopper?"

"Freedom, Master?"

"Correct! Fetch me my opium pipe."

Quote from: BalbinusI've no idea what pundit is trying to do, but blakkie did miss the point pretty badly.

I'm cool with that.  But it doesn't look (to me) like he missed the point because he's a Theorist.  It looks like he missed the point through reasonable misapplication of his own hard-won experience.

Quote from: TonyLBI'm cool with that.  But it doesn't look (to me) like he missed the point because he's a Theorist.  It looks like he missed the point through reasonable misapplication of his own hard-won experience.

Yeah, I have no idea to be honest if he's a theorist or not, and either way I don't see it as linked to this issue.

But random sideswipes against theorists are part of the site I figure.  If you'd borrowed money from me and not returned it I would say something like "that TonyLB is such a theorist, he still owes me that $20".

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".  

You seem to be confused about "the rest of us". Napoleon.

QuoteThe essence of your answer is basically what I was talking about above.

So what, you were intentionally misrepresenting the "Theorists"? Because what I said and what you claimed to be the stance of "Theorists" were a damn sight different.

QuoteYou 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.

You certainly are trying to put words in my mouth. Because this is NOT what I said.

Quote from: BalbinusI've no idea what pundit is trying to do, but blakkie did miss the point pretty badly.

I think you missed my point. To put it clearer:  RPGPundit is a swine crying out "Four legs good. Two legs better!" :pundit: :D

Quote from: blakkieI think you missed my point. To put it clearer:  RPGPundit is a swine crying out "Four legs good. Two legs better!" :pundit: :D

I did miss your point, we are both as blind men struggling to describe the elephant while Pundit prods it with a sharp stick hoping it will trample us.

Edit:  But I do honestly think also that you missed the point on how many rpgs are played.

Quote from: blakkieI think you missed my point. To put it clearer:  RPGPundit is a swine crying out "Four legs good. Two legs better!" :pundit: :D

I'm with RPGPundit on this.

You're with solidly with the Forge theorists on this point, and lack a good conceptual grasp of how traditional RPGs can be played.

Quote from: BalbinusI did miss your point, we are both as blind men struggling to describe the elephant while Pundit prods it with a sharp stick hoping it will trample us.

:win:

QuoteYou're with solidly with the Forge theorists on this point, and lack a good conceptual grasp of how traditional RPGs can be played.

Really?  Are you saying there wasn't actual rules at the gaming table in the old days. Maybe it's just my foggy memory but I remember there being a lot of them. Just most of them weren't written down in the book, or at all.  They were largely in the DM's head and come out is tidbits here and there, and as such tended to suffer from distortion and incompleteness and other problems associated with that medium.  Occationally a DM would have some sort of document on house rules, some much thicker than others, but of the ones I saw they largely ignored character social abilities as well with little more than an occational bone tossed that way.

Quote from: blakkie:win:

Really?  Are you saying there wasn't actual rules at the gaming table in the old days.

I'm saying that your response was almost word-for-word the gribberish that comes out of the Forge, down to the "miss more than hit" backhand.

Quote from: gleichmanI'm saying that your response was almost word-for-word the gribberish that comes out of the Forge,

Well then RPGPundit was certainly misrepresenting what "The Forge" says, because my gribberish doesn't match up with what he said.

Also I take that you DON'T disagree with my assessment that there were a crapload of rules?  So what part of "traditional" RPGs do I not have a good conceptual grasp on then?

Quotedown to the "miss more than hit" backhand.

Calling 'em as I've seen 'em.  And I've seen a lot 'em.

Basically creating usable rules is hard.  Given the struggle in the beginning just to get combat rules that were usable it isn't surprising that social rules were just kinda tossed out there as "you figure it out".  But over time people, and I'm talking collectively, have learned how to make better combat rules (for different applications). So now more attention is being put on how to make social rules that are fun and enjoyable.

So I say bully for people trying to do that, and boo to the swine that piss on people for taking the time to reflect on how games are actually played.

Quote from: blakkieBasically creating usable rules is hard.  Given the struggle in the beginning just to get combat rules that were usable it isn't surprising that social rules were just kinda tossed out there as "you figure it out".  But over time people, and I'm talking collectively, have learned how to make better combat rules (for different applications). So now more attention is being put on how to make social rules that are fun and enjoyable.

You really think that?

Honestly, I've never seen the creation of a mechanic as a difficult thing.  Once you had the basic concept of how the mechanic works solved (pools, roll one die high, roll one die low, roll many dice and add together, roll many dice and pick the highest, spin the wheel, pick a card, etc.) it all falls into place pretty easily.

Even when it comes to social rules, you can simmer most of it down to 5-6 basic concepts (and their reverse) thus giving you a good basis for modification.  

The hard part for me is creating rules to allow someone else to create rules.  The meta-rules are the harder part.

Quote from: blakkieWell then RPGPundit was certainly misrepresenting what "The Forge" says, because my gribberish doesn't match up with what he said.

You and I will not agree on this point, nor any of your other points presented so far. I see no need to continue the exchange.

Quote from: gleichmanYou and I will not agree on this point, nor any of your other points presented so far. I see no need to continue the exchange.

I'm remembering this line.  This is a great line! :)

Does it work in person?  Or do you really need the internet to use it?

Quote from: VellorianYou really think that?

Honestly, I've never seen the creation of a mechanic as a difficult thing.  Once you had the basic concept of how the mechanic works solved (pools, roll one die high, roll one die low, roll many dice and add together, roll many dice and pick the highest, spin the wheel, pick a card, etc.) it all falls into place pretty easily.

Even when it comes to social rules, you can simmer most of it down to 5-6 basic concepts (and their reverse) thus giving you a good basis for modification.  

The hard part for me is creating rules to allow someone else to create rules.  The meta-rules are the harder part.

I think that creating good rules is hard, yes. :) Good from the objective point of ultimately achieving the desired effect.  The meta-rules you mention represent or is linked to, I believe, the flexibility that is largely expected in social rules to allow them to function in a wide variety of game situations.

Quote from: blakkieReally?  Are you saying there wasn't actual rules at the gaming table in the old days. Maybe it's just my foggy memory but I remember there being a lot of them. Just most of them weren't written down in the book, or at all.  They were largely in the DM's head and come out is tidbits here and there, and as such tended to suffer from distortion and incompleteness and other problems associated with that medium.  Occationally a DM would have some sort of document on house rules, some much thicker than others, but of the ones I saw they largely ignored character social abilities as well with little more than an occational bone tossed that way.

I don't think it's fair to conflate an entire school of gaming with personal experience.  Just because DMs in your experience acted this way does not mean this is the way every group was run.

In my experience, for example, I've never had a DM that kept the rules to him/herself (some of them could be asshats in a myriad of other ways, mind you, but hiding the rules wasn't the reason why).  The few I ever encountered who worked out elaborate social rules always either spelled them out in house rule documents or established them verbally at the table before play began.

Quote from: blakkieOccationally a DM would have some sort of document on house rules, some much thicker than others, but of the ones I saw they largely ignored character social abilities as well with little more than an occational bone tossed that way.

The granddaddy of all role-playing games defined a character's social ability as one of it's six primary defining characteristics for characters (i.e., Charisma).  What most groups that I played with did was simply role-play the social interaction of their characters, taking things like that Charisma characteristic into consideration.  If little children can just role-play social interaction when playing imaginative games without rules, why can't adults?

QuoteIn my experience, for example, I've never had a DM that kept the rules to him/herself (some of them could be asshats in a myriad of other ways, mind you, but hiding the rules wasn't the reason why).

I'm not talking about intentional withholding.  I'm talking about a limitation on oral communication and keeping stuff in your heard.  The full set of "the rules" would usually only come out over time and tended to be subject to change, occationally without notification. But lord help you if you were joining a gaming group midstream, or even missed a couple of sessions where important bits of the rules came out.

QuoteThe few I ever encountered who worked out elaborate social rules always either spelled them out in house rule documents or established them verbally at the table before play began.

My highlighting. :)

But how is this so different from someone selling that document for others to use?  Someone putting their work out there and trying to get some renumeration for their effort makes them a swine?  Hell, those poor folks that did that were swine themselves, because it seems safe to assume that they actually took the time to think about what would make good social rules.

Quote from: VellorianI'm remembering this line.  This is a great line! :)

Does it work in person?  Or do you really need the internet to use it?

It works in person with persons of reason.

Or if backed by my series 80 .45 :)

Quote from: blakkieI'm not talking about intentional withholding.  I'm talking about a limitation on oral communication and keeping stuff in your heard.  The full set of "the rules" would usually only come out over time and tended to be subject to change, occationally without notification. But lord help you if you were joining a gaming group midstream, or even missed a couple of sessions where important bits of the rules came out.

Okay, I see where you're coming from here.  I think what you're talking about will happen in any group that sticks together for any length of time; people grow comfortable with one another, adapt to one another, and approach a game in certain ways because "that's the way we do it around here."

As far as incorporating new people into a group or bringing others up to speed, I'd put that down as a failure of the group.  If you bring someone into a game and you play with a ton of house rules, it's your responsibility to tell that person.  Likewise if someone missed a session where new rules were formulated.  To do otherwise is asshat-ery, imo.  Again, it's not fair to characterize a whole section of gamers due to one's limited experience (otherwise I'd be crying about AD&D being a game only for those who want to play lionoid beings with retractable razor claws attaining 300th level in two weeks of play).

Quote from: blakkieMy highlighting. :)

But how is this so different from someone selling that document for others to use?  Someone putting their work out there and trying to get some renumeration for their effort makes them a swine?  Hell, those poor folks that did that were swine themselves, because it seems safe to assume that they actually took the time to think about what would make good social rules.

Ah, well this is something else entirely, and I'm not gonna argue with that.  My response had more to do with characterizing a segment of gamers in accordance with personal experience.  While I've come to love this site in my short time here (people here view RPGs the way I do for the most part), I don't necessarily agree with everything that's said here.  But everything that's said is certainly a part of this site's charm!

Quote from: blakkieBasically creating usable rules is hard.

The vast majority of my group's role-playing experiences, going back two decades to when we were in college, has primarily been using homebrew systems or our homebrew rules grafted onto a base like Fudge.  Heck, even the D&D game I played in college had an entirely custom combat system grafted on to it.  In my experience, not so hard if you know what you are doing.  The secret is to design rules to produce the effect you want in play, not rules that serve other criteria like symmetry, mathematical purity, simplicity, complexity, completeness, and so on.  Work backward from what you want them to do in the game.

Quote from: blakkieGiven the struggle in the beginning just to get combat rules that were usable it isn't surprising that social rules were just kinda tossed out there as "you figure it out".  But over time people, and I'm talking collectively, have learned how to make better combat rules (for different applications). So now more attention is being put on how to make social rules that are fun and enjoyable.

I would say that there is no one right criteria for what's "usable".  For example, a lot of the rules-light games and more abstract "conflict resolution" systems being tossed out actually abstract a lot of combat into "you figure it out" or "you just say what your character does".  So there is hardly a single trend that all games are following here.  And of course for plenty of people, the earliest role-playing systems were "usable" and there are a lot of people still using them (I still see plenty of pitches for the D&D Rules Cyclopedia, for example and KenHR's signature talks about playing Classic Traveller).

Quote from: blakkieSo I say bully for people trying to do that, and boo to the swine that piss on people for taking the time to reflect on how games are actually played.

Let me offer another good rule to follow.  "If it isn't broken, don't fix it."  For a lot of people, just role-playing through social interactions isn't broken and they don't need someone to fix it for them.

Quote from: BalbinusI've no idea what pundit is trying to do, but blakkie did miss the point pretty badly.

Actually, what I'm trying to do is to be uncharacteristically compassionate and argue that there really is an honest to god difference in the most basic conception of what they imagine "roleplaying" to be versus what we imagine it to be; except rather than their idea that they are the sophisticates and we "common" gamers are the brutes, I'm arguing that they are the ones who feel like they need rules to actually do anything at all in an RPG, whereas we're the ones who know you can just roleplay it.

I mean shit, Blakkie because case study #1 for my fucking point. He literally cannot seem to conceive of the idea that the majority of gamers will not only not allow a lack of rules about social interaction to stop them from playing out said social interaction, but will actually find that far PREFERABLE than to having that same social interaction hamstringed by a bunch of rules or methods of how you must do it.

In the words of the immortal Sir Laurence Olivier, "Good god man, why don't you just ACT it?!"

RPGPundit

Quote from: John MorrowLet me offer another good rule to follow.  "If it isn't broken, don't fix it."  For a lot of people, just role-playing through social interactions isn't broken and they don't need someone to fix it for them.

Fucking right.  Especially when any and every attempt to "fix" them has been misguided by a concept of "roleplaying" that has nothing to do with what the majority of gamers actually do; its been an unmitigated disaster.

The position of the "social rules theorists" is in violation of the Landmarks: the vast majority of gamers are perfectly happy with the social rules as they are.

RPGPundit

Quote from: blakkieI think that creating good rules is hard, yes. :) Good from the objective point of ultimately achieving the desired effect.  The meta-rules you mention represent or is linked to, I believe, the flexibility that is largely expected in social rules to allow them to function in a wide variety of game situations.

Blakkie,

What you keep repeatedly missing is that for a great many gamers the absence of social rules is intentional, the inclusion of social rules is not a boon.  It's not an issue of whether they are good rules or not but whether one wants rules there at all.

Until you can accept that that is a valid preference this discussion will go nowhere.

An absence of social rules does not imply they were too difficult, generally it is a conscious design decision.  It has no implication for the importance of social conflict in actual play, literally looking at a ruleset with no social rules does not enable you to make any assessment of how much a given group prioritises social conflict.

Honestly Blakkie, I have no issue accepting that some people like rules in this area, why can you not return the compliment by recognising that some people do not?

I've yet to play with an ardent freeformer, whose motivation for freeform wasn't the fact, that he was a sore loser. Every freeformer I played with, was the kind of cry-baby that threw a tantrum, whenever things weren't going the way he wanted them to go.

So if the majority of roleplayers really want no rules for roleplaying, it makes me wonder if that's because they can't handle being told that they screwed up. Is "freeform roleplaying" just a safe haven for people who can't bear to lose in a game? That would be quite pathetic.

Quote from: BalbinusHonestly Blakkie, I have no issue accepting that some people like rules in this area, why can you not return the compliment by recognising that some people do not?

Who the hell said that I didn't?  Let me guess, I just need to read the threads since I last posted and left? :(  Or was it just never there at all?

EDIT:

QuoteWhat you keep repeatedly missing is that for a great many gamers the absence of social rules is intentional, the inclusion of social rules is not a boon.

Why does there need to be "one"? What's wrong with actually developing the rules that are always there anyway? Why does there need to be RPGPundit's Us and Them? He IS the swine from his blog essay.  Close the doors and keep the faithful in, don't expand the types of people that play RPGs, inbred till you can't breed no more.

P.S.  John Morrow  Even with the cops & robbers type situation with D&D, and where the system advancement RAW largely ignores 'social' ways to do that, there are still a crapload of rules.  They just aren't written down.

Whitter:  I'm as fast to point out a sore loser or bad sport as the next guy (and way faster than most) but I've met plenty of free-formers who play free-form with a serious edge, making themselves vulnerable to judgment/loss, and then taking those defeats with equanimity when they occur.

So I think you've had a pretty bad exposure to free-formers, and that's rough, but there's reason to think it may not be a representative sample.  I hope that's a cheering thought for you.

Quote from: blakkieWho the hell said that I didn't?  Let me guess, I just need to read the threads since I last posted and left? :(

Well, I may simply have misread you.

I thought you were suggesting that:

1.  One could estimate that a group using an rpg with rules for combat but no social rules was playing a combat focussed game.

2.  Social rules tend to be absent not from positive design choice but due to a paucity of good social rules.

But, I am mortal and prone to error, so please correct me.  If those are correct, I'm happy to say why I think they're in error.

Quote from: TonyLBWhitter:  I'm as fast to point out a sore loser or bad sport as the next guy (and way faster than most) but I've met plenty of free-formers who play free-form with a serious edge, making themselves vulnerable to judgment/loss, and then taking those defeats with equanimity when they occur.

Sounds cool. Although I'm having trouble imagining a judgement/defeat statement without some kind of rule to base it on.

If people have fun playing freefrom, then more power to them. I don't much care for it, but then again I don't have to, to enjoy RPGs. :)

Quote from: WhitterSounds cool. Although I'm having trouble imagining a judgement/defeat statement without some kind of rule to base it on.

Well, a classic for-instance is alliances in Amber.

Assume that you've got two players, each of whom wants their character to be King of Amber.  It is generally felt that the third player is a "swing vote".  Whoever he decides to ally with gets to be king.  So you both wheedle and convince and politick, and in the end that third player comes down on someone's side or another.  One of you got defeated ... I've seen people be good sports about that, and relish a hard-fought defeat as much as a hard-won victory.

What do you mean by role-playing? In Character actions? Socializing/Talking? Personality?
Your characters actions are as much a part of the character as his words. Most rule sets only bother with rules for un-guaranteed actions. Your character makes an argument, does it convince the agued? Roll for it. You character is firing a gun at someone, does it hit? How much damage does it do? Having a character do things is as much a part of role-playing him as having him say things.
I can recall few games that limit or penalize out of character actions or reward in-character actions. A few DnD classes have alignment restrictions, and if you act out of alignment enough to change it, you lose your special abilities. Exalted has intimacies, where you have to fail a roll if your trying to act against an intimacy or take a point of limit break. OWoD had Nature and Demeanor as stats, receiving willpower and other benefits for role-playing them.
As for socializing: Schmoozing and general friend/enemy-making or political savvy is what I mean by general socializing. This is usually covered at least lightly by a mechanic. DnD has diplomacy and sense motive with circumstance bonus' based on what your character actually says. Exalted has Social fu where speaking in character can be counted as a stunt. WoD has a third of it's character sheet devoted to socialization, where speaking well can give your character a bonus on his roll.
As for personality. I already mentioned DnD has the Alignment System, which can detriment your character if it shifts. In old DnD you lost a level when it shifted. Again, OWoD had the nature and demeanor system. Exalted Social-Fu can play with, deconstruct and build intimacies for people, things and ideas.
I think what you mean is most RPG's have no rules restricting player freedom to choose his characters actions even if they're out of character. Most RPG's try not to do this probably to maximize fun. A lot of games, however, will penalize out of character and/or "bad role-playing" and/or reward in character action and/or "good role-playing". Leaving good and bad Role-Playing up to the discretion of the GM as a experience bonus or stunt die.