How serious do you take the rules?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Nah, neither of those are systems. Games like Savage Worlds or Cypher System tend to be actual systems while in games like GURPS 4e, the devs throw a bunch of tools at you and tell you to build it yourself. While in games like FATE/Fudge (I've read Fudge not FATE), the devs talk about how to make a game, work through some examples, and then have you take a go at making the toolkit to make your game.

Meanwhile the midcrunch systems tend to have various setting books that either append to a core system to make it setting specific or present a shared invisible toolkit as something cohesive.

I read Savage Worlds. It makes very specific assumptions about what's wanted--things that work for a tiny fraction of all games. So you end up failing my criteria #2. Which is totally fine. But a long way from being universal. And no, if I had to play SW, I'd end up house-ruling it up the wazoo and leaving out huge chunks (and adding in other chunks), because lots of things about it bug me strongly. But this is not the SW forum, so I'll leave it at that.

To each their own.

The point about either going broad or deep still stands. You can choose a point somewhere in the middle, but there are always tradeoffs in either direction. That's a fact of human nature and what is playable, not about quality of design.

[JoeJ]

So it mainly gives you meta-rules (rules about what the rules should look like), but then leaves the implementation up to the GM. This allows you to be fully rules-compliant and have it still work all the times, but it means that two different "FATE" games will play very very differently from a mechanical perspective.

It's about levels of detail. If you want a broadly capable game, you have to either go modular (GURPS, which still has very strong assumptions about certain things) or you have to go broad-strokes/meta-rule style.

Meta-rules is a good way of putting it. And I would call GURPS meta-rules as well; one of the absolute requirements for any GURPS game is for the GM to decide which rules are in use, and which advantages/disadvantages are allowed.

[Rhedyn]

I read Savage Worlds. It makes very specific assumptions about what's wanted--things that work for a tiny fraction of all games. So you end up failing my criteria #2. Which is totally fine. But a long way from being universal. And no, if I had to play SW, I'd end up house-ruling it up the wazoo and leaving out huge chunks (and adding in other chunks), because lots of things about it bug me strongly. But this is not the SW forum, so I'll leave it at that.

To each their own.

The point about either going broad or deep still stands. You can choose a point somewhere in the middle, but there are always tradeoffs in either direction. That's a fact of human nature and what is playable, not about quality of design.

You admittedly don't like the system that much, so I cannot expect that you have dug very far into supplemental material (or even the current most recent edition). You'll have to just trust me when I say that things like Saga of the Goblin Horde, Nova Praxis, and Savage Rifts all change the game in very different directions than what something like a Corebook only inspired game is going to offer.

Of your "pick 2 or 3" list, I would say Savage Worlds would gives up a bit on each one. It's not mechanically exhaustive like GURPS, but appears to some people as really detailed. It's very focused on stories that "would make for a good movie or TV show" which is really broad, but not universal. The rules are abstract, so they will serve you best when apply rules where they fit the best, a strict D&D 3.5 RAW approach will cause endless frustrations.

I don't agree that a rules-set should ever require in-play adjustments. Rule-gaps are fine. The rules requiring changes in the middle of play to be workable are bad.
I guess an example of that is "Monster Y does X damage, unless that would kill a player then it will do Z damage". If you are doing that all the time and that playstyle is working for your group, then you have the wrong system. (of course for some groups the style only works because the players don't realize that things are being fudge, but that gets into the morality of lying to your players to make an RPG system work for your table)

[PhoenixPhyre]

Meta-rules is a good way of putting it. And I would call GURPS meta-rules as well; one of the absolute requirements for any GURPS game is for the GM to decide which rules are in use, and which advantages/disadvantages are allowed.

GURPS has both meta-rules and "concrete" mechanics. One gives information to GMs about what portions play well together; the other gives specific mechanics for specific outcomes. But yes, you're not supposed to use everything.

That's different than FATE (which is much less of a toolkit than Fudge, from which it sprang), for which the main rules are meta rules. Rules about how to invoke aspects, fate points, abstract, disconnected mechanics that apply to almost any possible interaction (but lack granular details).

So FATE gives you a basic framework but expects you to design and hang your own mechanics on top of it, including hacking at the framework to make things fit. GURPS gives you both a modular framework and a huge supply of modules designed to slot in (with compatibility rules to keep the chaos to a minimum).

They're accomplishing the same basic task (providing a way to build highly-varied worlds and games within the same overall frame) very differently, and it shows. They also have completely different basic world-views (GURPS being notoriously gritty and FATE being notoriously cinematic, among others), but that's separate.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't agree that a rules-set should ever require in-play adjustments. Rule-gaps are fine. The rules requiring changes in the middle of play to be workable are bad.
I guess an example of that is "Monster Y does X damage, unless that would kill a player then it will do Z damage". If you are doing that all the time and that playstyle is working for your group, then you have the wrong system. (of course for some groups the style only works because the players don't realize that things are being fudge, but that gets into the morality of lying to your players to make an RPG system work for your table)

Defining "workable" in the abstract is meaningless. There are rules that work 90% of the time...but not 100%. Cases where the "general case" breaks the fiction in this one particular case. In those cases, I'm totally fine with throwing out the rule for that case. Or rules that work for 90% of parties, but not for this particular one. This doesn't make the rule bad, just not universal. And in my experience, there are no meaningful, universal TTRPG rules. Everything has its place and region of applicability.

[Rhedyn]

Defining "workable" in the abstract is meaningless. There are rules that work 90% of the time...but not 100%. Cases where the "general case" breaks the fiction in this one particular case. In those cases, I'm totally fine with throwing out the rule for that case. Or rules that work for 90% of parties, but not for this particular one. This doesn't make the rule bad, just not universal. And in my experience, there are no meaningful, universal TTRPG rules. Everything has its place and region of applicability.

You can design rules such that they conver the 90% well but not the 10% at all.

I vastly prefer that than the rules covering 90% well but 10% wrong. That's the kind of rule that should be changed.

Aside: Fudge is a 100% universal. No where close to my favorite system though.

[Jay R]

Everything you've written is based on the false claim that following the rule you don't like is going outside the rules.

That false claim isn't even crucial to your point. You prefer a system that will handle everything, rather than a system that trusts the DM's judgment. A good case can be made for that preference, and it doesn't require any falsehoods to back it up.

If you stopped claiming that following the rule you don't like is going outside the rules, we could have a great talk about game design.

But as long as you keep maintaining this falsehood, all I can do is keep correcting you on the facts.

I'm serious -- try it. Build the case for the kind of game you like, without claiming that people following the rules of D&D are going outside the rules. They aren't, and that false statement is getting in your way.

Yes. And this is a lazy band-aid solution for a notoriously poorly written game.

This is simply not true. Applying careful judgment is not lazy. It isn't a band-aid slapped onto a game after it was written -- it has been the concept the game was written around, all the way back to Dave Arneson's first game, before there were any written rules.

It may well be true that people who play D&D 3.5 have an actual need to ignore the rules sometimes because the rules of that particular system produce nonsense game breaking results at times.

Nonsense. They isn't ignoring the rules; it's part of the rules. Until you acknowledge that this is part of the rules, everything you say about D&D will be false.

If you had a bad experience with nonsense game breaking results from a DM who didn't fix issues when they came up, then those problems came because the DM refused to play the game as written.

I'm talking about playing the game as written. You are talking about refusing to play the game as written, producing nonsense game breaking results, and then blaming the rules because you refused to use the rule that would have prevented it.

I tend to play games that work, as written, 100% of the time, so this isn't an issue for me. I object to the culture that says the GM having to have the power to go outside the rules of the game is a good thing.

I don't go outside the rules of the game. I apply the rules of the game, including the rule you don't like, which is intended to prevent the results you don't like.

It may be a necessary thing, for some systems, but it's a necessary evil.

It's not an evil. It's a design that works fine. You don't like it? That's fine. But I do like it, because I play with competent DMs who use good judgment as the rules expect them to.

Following the rules is not going outside the rules.
Following the rules is not going outside the rules.
Following the rules is not going outside the rules.

Even if you don't like the rules.

I'm sure you manage to do good things with these systems. This is because you're probably a good GM that manages to cover well for the system's flaws, rather than because the system is well designed.

The system's "flaws" aren't flaws. The flaw comes in because you want to play without a crucial rule. That causes problems, so you blame the system. That's like disabling the brake on a car, and then blaming the manufacturer because the system didn't prevent an accident. The system would have prevented the accident if you had used the system.

The rules do not produce nonsense game breaking results. D&D does work, as written, 100% of the time. You just don't want to play it as it's written. The game as written expects unique situations to be handled by the person in charge of the session who knows the exact situation.

Your entire discussion here is based on the false assumption that "as written" means "without the written rule that Koo doesn't like". It's not true. "As written" means using all the written rules, even the one you want to falsely claim is a band-aid, rather than basic to the game design.

The DM doing exactly what the rules say to do is not "go[ing] outside the rules of the game". It just isn't. And all your sneers won't change the fact that DM judgment is a part of the rules of the game.

You don't like games that have DM judgment built in. OK, that's your preference, and there's nothing wrong with that. You don't have to like it. You don't have to play it. Have fun playing the games you enjoy.

But please stop saying that people playing the game as written (including DM judgment) are going outside the rules. They aren't. They are playing the complete ruleset.

And please stop claiming that it's a band-aid to fix a bad design, when it is in fact the core of the design.

I repeat:

Everything you've written is based on the false claim that following the rule you don't like is going outside the rules.

That false claim isn't even crucial to your point. You prefer a system that will handle everything, rather than a system that trusts the DM's judgment. A good case can be made for that preference, and it doesn't require any falsehoods to back it up.

If you stopped claiming that following the rule you don't like is going outside the rules, we could have a great talk about game design.

But as long as you keep maintaining this falsehood, all I can do is keep correcting you on the facts.

I'm serious -- try it. Build the case for the kind of game you like, without claiming that people following the rules of D&D are going outside the rules. They aren't, and that false statement is getting in your way.

[Rhedyn]

<Long rant>

In a discussion about, "how seriously do you take the rules?", arguing that changing the rules is within the rules is at best facetious and completely misses the point.

You are arguing that there is no distinction between taking the rules seriously or not seriously because at any point a DM can change the rules on spot for any reason. That's a stupid point to be making and no one really cares what pointless internet points you are giving yourself by making it.

[2D8HP]

In a discussion about, "how seriously do you take the rules?", arguing that changing the rules is within the rules is at best facetious and completely misses the point....

Then I fail to see the point as well.

Jay R correctly pointed out that "DM fiat" has been part of the game from the beginning.

To expand on what he already cited:
From Dungeons &Dragons vol. 3: The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures (1974)
page 36, which I'll quote some more from for context:

"AFTERWARD:
There are unquestionably areas which have been glossed over. While we deeply regret the necessity, space requires that we put in the essentials only, and the trimming will oftimes have to be added by the referee and his players. We have attempted to furnish an ample framework, and building should be both easy and fun. In this light, we urge you to refrain from writing for rule interpretations or the like unless you are absolutely at a loss, for everything herein is fantastic, and the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it just that way! On the other hand, we are not loath to answer your questions, but why have us do any more of your imagining for you? Write to us and tell about your additions, ideas, and what have you. We could always do with a bit of improvement in our refereeing."

[Satinavian]

Then I fail to see the point as well.

Jay R correctly pointed out that "DM fiat" has been part of the game from the beginning.

And like alignment it is something most RPGs that are not D&D have long left behind.

We are still in the general Roleplaying game section, so we should not assume that DM fiat is RAW. It rarely is.

[Corsair14]

What games is it not? Been playing various games since 1990 and have never seen one where the DM cant use fiat to move things along or change rules. Admittingly I skipped dnd 4e since it was such trash.

[PhoenixPhyre]

What games is it not? Been playing various games since 1990 and have never seen one where the DM cant use fiat to move things along or change rules. Admittingly I skipped dnd 4e since it was such trash.

I'd love to see an example of a game where the rules cover everything and never need judgement calls about how or when or where to apply the rules.

Actually...there are such games. They're video games and board games. And they get there by locking things down to where every possible option is explicitly codified and nothing that's not explicitly permitted is allowed.

And that's not a style I'm looking for in a TTRPG--video games have way better graphics and more "complex" mechanics. If I want a locked-down, on-rails, everything-not-permitted-is-forbidden gameplay, I'd play them instead. TTRPGs need freedom and openness, which inherently involves judgement calls (aka "GM fiat").

[Aneurin]

And like alignment it is something most RPGs that are not D&D have long left behind.

We are still in the general Roleplaying game section, so we should not assume that DM fiat is RAW. It rarely is.

Really? I'm struggling to think of an RPG that doesn't say something to the effect of "it is okay to change things that don't work for your group" somewhere. Because no set of rules is perfect. There is always something that isn't fleshed out enough for your individual group's needs, and something that's too fleshed out and needs simplifying because it isn't important and detracts from the game.

And that isn't a flaw in the game's design by any means, it's just that it isn't possible to cater to every group's specific wants and needs. The rules are a framework, and I'll pick the best framework for what I want, but I accept it is not and cannot cater to my every want and need, and will require some alteration.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Really? I'm struggling to think of an RPG that doesn't say something to the effect of "it is okay to change things that don't work for your group" somewhere. Because no set of rules is perfect. There is always something that isn't fleshed out enough for your individual group's needs, and something that's too fleshed out and needs simplifying because it isn't important and detracts from the game.

And that isn't a flaw in the game's design by any means, it's just that it isn't possible to cater to every group's specific wants and needs. The rules are a framework, and I'll pick the best framework for what I want, but I accept it is not and cannot cater to my every want and need, and will require some alteration.

And in my eyes it's total hubris to think otherwise, and is a sign of bad design. Accepting human nature and designing your system with that in mind is good design, not bad design. Demanding that everyone else bend to your style (at the risk of things breaking if they don't) is bad design.

[MoiMagnus]

D&D have 3 main pillars: fight, exploration and social. There are huge difference between campaign depending on how much of each of the 3 pillars are present, and campaigns with huge political scheming are almost "another game" compared to door-monster-loot campaigns.

Similarly, D&D has rule 0 about the DM being responsible for managing the rules (and not just applying them). There are huge difference between campaign depending on how much the DM make use of this rules. Campaign that are RAW are hugely different from campaign that aren't.

(And I agree that the name is not well chosen, because the DM having to change the other rules is a rule by itself, but RAW is used in practice to describe campaign where the DM doesn't, so it is the definition of RAW in practice)

To answer the initial question, in D&D and other RPGs, I tend not to take the rules too seriously. (I have Descent and plenty of other very good boardgames when I'm in the mood of following the rules)

It is probably due to the fact that I learnt to DM with Paranoia (I technically was already DMing before that, but I was crap). And that the base of Paranoia DMing can be resumed in "The players don't have any right of knowledge, including rules, the result of your rolls, the full result of their actions, the real effects of their powers, or anything. Any information given to the players is an information you want them to have for a reason, should this information be true, or false, or not retroactively chosen to be true or false. Your goal as a DM is to manipulate them into having an interesting game, as Pavlov would train his dogs."

Of course, transposing Paranoia DMing to other RPGs is a very bad idea (when you play D&D, you want the result of your actions to be predictable, you want internal consistency to understand the universe, ...). But it certainly influenced my vision of the rules: they are a tool for the DM, nothing more.

[Rhedyn]

Then I fail to see the point as well.

Jay R correctly pointed out that "DM fiat" has been part of the game from the beginning.

To expand on what he already cited:
From Dungeons &Dragons vol. 3: The Underworld & Wilderness Adventures (1974)
page 36, which I'll quote some more from for context:

"AFTERWARD:
There are unquestionably areas which have been glossed over. While we deeply regret the necessity, space requires that we put in the essentials only, and the trimming will oftimes have to be added by the referee and his players. We have attempted to furnish an ample framework, and building should be both easy and fun. In this light, we urge you to refrain from writing for rule interpretations or the like unless you are absolutely at a loss, for everything herein is fantastic, and the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it just that way! On the other hand, we are not loath to answer your questions, but why have us do any more of your imagining for you? Write to us and tell about your additions, ideas, and what have you. We could always do with a bit of improvement in our refereeing."

No one is arguing that. The question of the thread is if you treat existing rules seriously and what value there is in that.

Citing the rule, "you can change the rules" as an excuse to change existing rules while at the same time treating them seriously is side stepping the meat of the original question to make a purely philosophical point that is only exploiting the lack of very careful wording in the question.

[Quertus]

You cannot describe your character having a reasonable discussion with an adversary and have it have a mechanical impact, because the game is not about that.

On the same note, another PbtA game I've played a lot of, Masks. A teen superhero game. Similarly the "get someone to do something with words" basic move is "provoke". Again, it's not about teenagers giving a heartfelt speech about the benefits of listening to their wisdom. You have to "provoke" someone to do something, be it with threats, lies, or some other means. But the neat thing here is as your PCs level up and start to grow up you eventually gain access to the ability to take "adult moves", one of which is "persuade with best interests", which suddenly does give you the ability to try to convince someone by making an actual mature argument at them for why they should.

I was wondering who would ever want to play in such a game, then I remembered The Incredibles. So I can imagine the pitch. Sounds really, really niche to me, but I suppose "everyone's an idiot" must have its appeal, since people play the game.

I agree that if you're making huge changes to the central mechanics, or using it for a genre (either setting or style) that doesn't fit the fundamental assumptions of the system, you're better off starting with a different system.

But "good starting point" is relative to the needs of the person. Everyone's needs are different--there is no "one true system." For me, personally, the games I want to play fit 5e D&D's MO quite well. No round holes/square pegs. If it weren't so, I'd have changed systems.

But none of this says that rule compliance is an inherent good. It's a collateral good, conditional on the rules being a good starting point for your particular needs. Taking the rules "seriously" isn't something to care about one way or the other.

How did you get there? Reading that, I hear "lots of support for A, therefore not A".

If the rules are a good for what type trying to do (which you are arguing that they should be, right?), doesn't that mean that the GM should take very seriously any deviation from said good rules?

Maybe I'm just coming at this from a different PoV, but, IME, most GMs are idiots, who don't think through the ramifications of their changes, and just break the system with knee-jerk changes which break things, necessitating more knee-jerk changes, until they're left with a worse and more complicated kludge than if they had just understood and stuck with the original system in the first place.

And the RAW-worship that happens on these forums is, in my very firm opinion, a toxic thing.

What do you mean?

RAW is the new common. Discussions should, by default, be discussing RAW; otherwise, we're talking past each other.

Idiots changing things without understanding what they're changing is toxic - not just in gaming, but in software, too. Anyone who derides "sacred cows" is a huge red flag for me - I read that as "I am ignorant as to what value this has, and I don't care to educate myself. Further, I feel free to make changes in ignorance of the ramifications of those changes".

So, do you believe that you can explain to someone as opinionated as myself, who holds the opinions i just described, why (and in what context) you believe caring about RAW to be toxic?

How important is inter-table consistency? How important is intra-table (but inter-temporal) consistency?

All of these can have multiple answers for different people in different circumstances.

For me, "inter-table & intra-table (but inter-temporal) consistency" is always (generally) important. Even if I'm never going to play the game. I have the expectation of being handed the rules, plus a (very short) primer on "this world", and be able to read and understand your campaign notes / story of your adventures / what have you, and not experience "but that's impossible!" moments (barring PCs being intentionally misled, etc).

it frees me to make up instead of look up

Because I initially misread you, I have a new ad:

Alarm - it frees you to make out instead of look out.

I consider the bolded part different than the rest of your post. I think this is where we run into "do you take the rules seriously?"

For example, a hero attempting to shove a nigh invulnerable werewolf over the edge of a boat so that the party can escape from it is "cool". In 3.5 D&D, if he doesn't have the right feat-chain or build, he can't do that. In 5e, if he rolls low it fails. In another system he might make an opposed attribute check and spend meta-luck currency to increase the chance of success.
If the 3.5 DM just let's the tactic work regardless of rules, or the 5e DM hands out advantage merely because the shoving tactic seems cool to them (rather than the ad-hoc tactical reason), or any other system where the out come of the rules/dice is altered to make the "cool" idea work, then you aren't taking the rules seriously.

I am of the philosophy that the rules should be taken seriously, wherever their source. If rules aren't working for your group, change them so that they will. But I disagree with ignoring the rules whenever the fiction "demands" something else.Your rules can take into account the fiction and I believe it is better for table if you evolving table-specific rules-set remains consistent.

I suppose I'd say that the rules and the fiction matching is a requirement for me for "good" rules.

Well, fallacy fallacy or not, it does help display that each DM/GM is going to run their games according to their whims and desires at no serious detriment to the game, in most cases.

You've clearly had different GMs than I have. Ignoring rules at a whim has a large correlation with bad tables / bad GMs IME, and is, I'd expect, a huge red flag on a great many gamers' lists.

I would agree that the rules placed forth by the books are necessary when beginning to play a game. However, in many of the TTRPGs that I have had shown to me, I have watched them take those rules and bend them, sometimes to extremes. I have watched the GMs omit rules due to their misunderstanding, dislike, or lack of knowledge, and it has not caused a game to fail or fall apart. I have watched GMs adhere to the rules like gospel and the games were amazing. Conversely I have watched both approaches fail due to various reasons. Rules adherence does not seem to be a primary factor in these games. It seems to be a consensus by the table as to how close they want to keep to the core rules.

This seems a keen observation.

Of course, since every table I've played at by definition had me as a player (or GM), it gets rather difficult for me to have experience with a table with "**** the rules" as a consensus.

[MoiMagnus]

Idiots changing things without understanding what they're changing is toxic - not just in gaming, but in software, too. Anyone who derides "sacred cows" is a huge red flag for me - I read that as "I am ignorant as to what value this has, and I don't care to educate myself. Further, I feel free to make changes in ignorance of the ramifications of those changes".

My music teachers used to say "First master the rules, then transcend them".
And talk about how the greatest artist were breaking most of the rules we were forced to follow, but it was ok because they knew what they were doing.
+If you break a rule without understanding it, you will most likely just do crap.
+If you follow a rule without understanding it, you will at least not do complete crap.
+If you truly understand a rule, you will understand when to break it and when not to.

[Theoboldi]

My music teachers used to say "First master the rules, then transcend them".
And talk about how the greatest artist were breaking most of the rules we were forced to follow, but it was ok because they knew what they were doing.
+If you break a rule without understanding it, you will most likely just do crap.
+If you follow a rule without understanding it, you will at least not do complete crap.
+If you truly understand a rule, you will understand when to break it and when not to.

I find the idea that I need to be a master of game design comparable with what the likes of Mozart and Bach are to music just so I can switch around the rules of a fantasy elf game to my liking to be patently ridiculous. I am not trying to reinvent roleplaying as we know it. What I'm doing is customizing a game to the tastes of myself and those who play with me, which non-masters have done since the concept of a game first existed.

The idea that doing so is toxic is ridiculous, and claiming that people like me are stupid and ignorant is insulting. (That is directed at Quertus' comment, by the way, not at yours MoiMagnus.)

[PhoenixPhyre]

How did you get there? Reading that, I hear "lots of support for A, therefore not A".

If the rules are a good for what type trying to do (which you are arguing that they should be, right?), doesn't that mean that the GM should take very seriously any deviation from said good rules?

Maybe I'm just coming at this from a different PoV, but, IME, most GMs are idiots, who don't think through the ramifications of their changes, and just break the system with knee-jerk changes which break things, necessitating more knee-jerk changes, until they're left with a worse and more complicated kludge than if they had just understood and stuck with the original system in the first place.

Yes, we know you think most GMs are idiots. But that's an outlier position (or should be). And here's the thing (for me at least)--I trust my GMs to have a better sense of what is fun (for my table) than the designers do. That's natural--they're much closer to the scenario and they're my friends. They're also doing things for this specific table. Hand-crafting a solution for 1 table allows things that won't work for a general solution.

The "good" rules are good in that they're an acceptable answer most of the time. Enough so that it's not worth changing things, because the effort/reward ratio is wrong. That does not invest them with any special authority. It just means that they're a useful set of defaults that don't need changing. Right now, anyway.

What do you mean?

RAW is the new common. Discussions should, by default, be discussing RAW; otherwise, we're talking past each other.

Idiots changing things without understanding what they're changing is toxic - not just in gaming, but in software, too. Anyone who derides "sacred cows" is a huge red flag for me - I read that as "I am ignorant as to what value this has, and I don't care to educate myself. Further, I feel free to make changes in ignorance of the ramifications of those changes".

So, do you believe that you can explain to someone as opinionated as myself, who holds the opinions i just described, why (and in what context) you believe caring about RAW to be toxic?

Caring about what is written isn't toxic. But the RAW-primacy mentality on these forums takes that to new levels where what's written is the only thing that matters. And even moreso--it's not just what's written, but it's all the layers upon layers of "commentary" and interpretations. "RAW" pretends to be something objective, but it's a secondary layer of interpretation that involves heavy proof-texting (taking phrases out of context), ignoring polysemy (the same word can mean different things in different contexts), "magic-word" thinking ("they didn't say the one magic phrase that means X, so X isn't required!") and other casuistry that would make even the most hardened, jaded jailhouse lawyer think you've gone too far. It requires the sort of analysis that would get an attorney sanctioned under Rule 11 (or just flat out disbarred). It also ignores all the non-mechanical rules (yes, Virginia, they exist) such as the setting-based restrictions on PrCs, etc. That is, it's RAW in name only. In practice it's "what can I get away with as a munchkin" or "how can I weaponize these rules to prove someone else wrong and force them to allow my (table-fun-harming) actions without them blaming me."

And it's designed to promote a sense of player entitlement--that DM restrictions in the name of setting, game balance, or anything else are wrong and that making rulings or houserules are somehow dirty. It encourages people to dig into rules and get into arguments, instead of keeping the game moving. It focuses attention on the rules layer instead of on "how do we have a fun time at this table." It's all about proving people wrong. And it doesn't even do its job of allowing discussion, because everyone has their own standards of evidence. There are more knock-down, drag-out fights on the 3e forums than anywhere else, despite this obsession with so-called RAW.

Knowing the rules is important, because lots of times what people want to do is already there (and not buried that far). But being obsessed with the minutia of the wording is reading way more into that wording than was there to begin with. And it has long since lost any connection with what the game system was designed to do and become its own set of rules (meta and otherwise).

For me, "inter-table & intra-table (but inter-temporal) consistency" is always (generally) important. Even if I'm never going to play the game. I have the expectation of being handed the rules, plus a (very short) primer on "this world", and be able to read and understand your campaign notes / story of your adventures / what have you, and not experience "but that's impossible!" moments (barring PCs being intentionally misled, etc).

Yeah, there we disagree. I prize inconsistency. I want to be surprised by something working other than how I expect it to. I don't expect the rules to be anything more than an interface layer for one particular table. When I sit down at a new table, I expect to have to change my style and my expectations to match the new table. I certainly don't expect anything other than the basic resolution mechanics to remain significantly unchanged. I find the idea of bringing characters fundamentally unchanged between tables (if not set in an explicitly shared world) to be wrong at a visceral level--those characters don't fit into the new setting unless built from the ground up. And if I'm rebuilding them, then rule changes are just worked into the flow.

For me, the rules don't really map the setting more than casually. I could play a session in my setting in almost any rule-set (including free-form) and have it work similarly. Because the fiction takes priority over everything else. Binding the setting to the rules is how we get the (somehow fun) trainwreck of the Forgotten Realms--you have creatures created under many different rulesets all interacting and being half-ported, so none of your lore makes sense. I'd prefer to disconnect the two--the rules only exist for the game. If I'm writing fiction, I'm not paying attention to the mechanical rules.

I recently ran 2 free-form, purely-narrative, one-on-one sessions in my ongoing D&D 5e campaign. We explored backstories and ended up finding a bunch of new things out about the underpinnings of the campaign (including that two of the characters knew each other peripherally from childhood, but didn't recognize the other when they met up due to intervening events).

My default rule-set is free-form. Mechanical rules are there only to take some of the load off me, to help me resolve uncertainty in a way that's fun for everyone and less work than making it up myself. If they help, they help. If they don't help, I don't feel obligated to use them. And I'm a rules-jackdaw--I find bits and bobs from many systems and work them into my own games as I feel appropriate. Rules purity is not something I value. Every table I DM for is different, because they want different things.

[Quertus]

What games is it not? Been playing various games since 1990 and have never seen one where the DM cant use fiat to move things along or change rules. Admittingly I skipped dnd 4e since it was such trash.

That's a good question. Any takers?

Also, personally, I believe (perhaps incorrectly) that the oft-cited 3.5 "rule 0" is intended to allow the GM to fill in the gaps in the rules, not explicitly to change them.

Not that there might not also be rules allowing the GM to change the rules, mind, just that that wasn't how I read rule 0 ages ago.

And that's not a style I'm looking for in a TTRPG--video games have way better graphics and more "complex" mechanics. If I want a locked-down, on-rails, everything-not-permitted-is-forbidden gameplay, I'd play them instead. TTRPGs need freedom and openness, which inherently involves judgement calls (aka "GM fiat").

Although I agree with this, I personally strongly prefer to limit "GM Fiat" to things not covered by the rules.

Also, I prefer to use "table fiat", and leave the GM out of rules decisions whenever possible. Nothing produces bad rules like an entitled authoritarian.

The tables I've been at that worked best were the ones where the GM did not make the rules. (Including and perhaps especially when I was GM)

To answer the initial question, in D&D and other RPGs, I tend not to take the rules too seriously. (I have Descent and plenty of other very good boardgames when I'm in the mood of following the rules)

To turn that around, when I don't want to take the rules seriously, I've got freeform. Why would I claim to be playing "D&D" when i was ignoring the rules?

That said, I'm all about custom content, and even good world-building that includes explicit decisions from the default rules. And certainly about adding to the rules for situations that they don't cover - that's what makes tabletop RPGs better than computer "RPGs" or board games.

It is probably due to the fact that I learnt to DM with Paranoia (I technically was already DMing before that, but I was crap). And that the base of Paranoia DMing can be resumed in "The players don't have any right of knowledge, including rules, the result of your rolls, the full result of their actions, the real effects of their powers, or anything. Any information given to the players is an information you want them to have for a reason, should this information be true, or false, or not retroactively chosen to be true or false. Your goal as a DM is to manipulate them into having an interesting game, as Pavlov would train his dogs."

Of course, transposing Paranoia DMing to other RPGs is a very bad idea (when you play D&D, you want the result of your actions to be predictable, you want internal consistency to understand the universe, ...). But it certainly influenced my vision of the rules: they are a tool for the DM, nothing more.

While I'm glad that you don't attempt to apply Paranoia to D&D, I am uncertain what you mean by "the rules are a tool for the GM".

The rules are, IMO, an interface for communicating about and interacting with the world.

[Rhedyn]

There is no inherent value to rules written in a book. I advocate treating your game's rules seriously, but the source of the rules can come from anywhere. I am not against changing a game. I am against ignoring established rules because they lead to a result you don't like and then going back to those rules as soon as the 'blip' is over. If rules are going to be changed/ignored in X cases, then you should change the rules and keep a consistent game going forward.

Now, following the written rules is important when deciding if a game works for your table or when the GM is leaning on the inherent aspects of a game to produce fun. You can't deviate a ton from RAW and then declare that an RPG book plays good or bad because you didn't play that game.

[Quertus]

My music teachers used to say "First master the rules, then transcend them".
And talk about how the greatest artist were breaking most of the rules we were forced to follow, but it was ok because they knew what they were doing.
+If you break a rule without understanding it, you will most likely just do crap.
+If you follow a rule without understanding it, you will at least not do complete crap.
+If you truly understand a rule, you will understand when to break it and when not to.

This - plus the statement "most of my GMs fall into that first category" - pretty well explains my position and experience.

I find the idea that I need to be a master of game design comparable with what the likes of Mozart and Bach are to music just so I can switch around the rules of a fantasy elf game to my liking to be patently ridiculous. I am not trying to reinvent roleplaying as we know it. What I'm doing is customizing a game to the tastes of myself and those who play with me, which non-masters have done since the concept of a game first existed.

The idea that doing so is toxic is ridiculous, and claiming that people like me are stupid and ignorant is insulting. (That is directed at Quertus' comment, by the way, not at yours MoiMagnus.)

Clearly, you haven't seen the toxic detritus my GMs have produced.

Question for me insulting you: Do you consider "no wealth" to be a valid and balanced rules change for 3.5? Do you consider "you can cast all your spells at will" to be a valid and balanced rules change for 3.5? Do you consider both together to be a balanced and valid rules change for 3.5? Do you consider "you actually get spells known as a class feature, can cast your spells instantly on your turn, have a chance to ignore disruptions to your spells" to be valid and balanced rules changes between 2e and 3e? Do you consider "rather than just finding random items, we'll make magic item shops the default" to be a valid and balanced rules change between 2e and 3e?

If you answer "yes, that's all perfectly balanced, there are no possible rules interactions that will change the balance of the game, let alone in a way anyone could consider 'bad', by making all of those changes", then, yes, you may consider me to be willing to point out your ignorance regarding rules interactions and the effects of changes.

If you have such ignorance, and feel insulted when it is pointed out, I'mma claim that's on you.

[Theoboldi]

If you answer "yes, that's all perfectly balanced, there are no possible rules interactions that will change the balance of the game, let alone in a way anyone could consider 'bad', by making all of those changes", then, yes, you may consider me to be willing to point out your ignorance regarding rules interactions and the effects of changes.

If you have such ignorance, and feel insulted when it is pointed out, I'mma claim that's on you.

What in the world does any of this have to do with what I just said? I said that you don't have to be an experienced scholar of game design who perfectly understands the purpose of every rule to make your own changes so the game plays more like you want it to.

Heck, I've not played 3.5 in over 5 years at this point! I've never played 2nd edition! I've moved almost completely away from D&D! I have no idea how to answer any of these! Do they make the game more fun for the people using them? Did you play in those games and dislike the changes? I have literally no context for what you are throwing at me.

[PhoenixPhyre]

What in the world does any of this have to do with what I just said? I said that you don't have to be an experienced scholar of game design who perfectly understands the purpose of every rule to make your own changes so the game plays more like you want it to.

Heck, I've not played 3.5 in over 5 years at this point! I've never played 2nd edition! I've moved almost completely away from D&D! I have no idea how to answer any of these! Do they make the game more fun for the people using them? Did you play in those games and dislike the changes? I have literally no context for what you are throwing at me.

That was a combined expression of bad experiences Quertus has had with DMs. So now he assumes that all DMs are bad and that all changes are bad unless proved otherwise. In my mind, that's a personal flaw.

I've had good changes and bad changes, but I prize the flexibility to say "yes, that's the rule, but it doesn't fit right here," so I'm willing to take the bad with the good.

[Quertus]

Yes, we know you think most GMs are idiots.

That's not quite accurate. Hmmm... perhaps, "there are plenty of GM horror stories on the internet, that the majority of gamers would agree with the assessment, 'that GM is an idiot'. My experience with GMs may be atypical or anomalous, but, IME, most (but not all) of my GMs have demonstrated similar levels of idiocy even if they were otherwise good GMs".

So, the short, oversimplified version is not, "I think most GMs are idiots", but "IME, most GMs are idiots".

Caring about what is written isn't toxic. But the RAW-primacy mentality on these forums takes that to new levels where what's written is the only thing that matters. And even moreso--it's not just what's written, but it's all the layers upon layers of "commentary" and interpretations. "RAW" pretends to be something objective, but it's a secondary layer of interpretation that involves heavy proof-texting (taking phrases out of context), ignoring polysemy (the same word can mean different things in different contexts), "magic-word" thinking ("they didn't say the one magic phrase that means X, so X isn't required!") and other casuistry that would make even the most hardened, jaded jailhouse lawyer think you've gone too far. It requires the sort of analysis that would get an attorney sanctioned under Rule 11 (or just flat out disbarred). It also ignores all the non-mechanical rules (yes, Virginia, they exist) such as the setting-based restrictions on PrCs, etc. That is, it's RAW in name only. In practice it's "what can I get away with as a munchkin" or "how can I weaponize these rules to prove someone else wrong and force them to allow my (table-fun-harming) actions without them blaming me."

Ah. Hmmm... Although I would word it differently, yes, I think I agree that... hmmm... "extreme RAW that clearly violates RAI and breaks the system should not be mandated at the table". Of course, that said, I believe in "balance to the table", so... if that interpretation is balanced for the table, use it; if it isn't, great, even if it's the rules, if it produces something unbalanced, you're not going to get to play it.

So... "RAW as Mandate" fails at producing munchkinry when "balance to the table" is one of two required house-rules (the other being, "don't be a ****").

And it's designed to promote a sense of player entitlement--that DM restrictions in the name of setting, game balance, or anything else are wrong and that making rulings or houserules are somehow dirty. It encourages people to dig into rules and get into arguments, instead of keeping the game moving. It focuses attention on the rules layer instead of on "how do we have a fun time at this table." It's all about proving people wrong. And it doesn't even do its job of allowing discussion, because everyone has their own standards of evidence. There are more knock-down, drag-out fights on the 3e forums than anywhere else, despite this obsession with so-called RAW.

Well, GM restrictions in the name of game balance are wrong. And wrong-minded. And toxic. Instilling a "balance to the table" mindset, and players fixing any imbalances is the non-toxic version of this strategy. Because player > build > class. You cannot get balanced contributions out of balanced playing pieces when played by an unbalanced player base.

I'll go so far as to claim that giving the GM the sole authority to make the call on what is balanced is itself toxic. It's the players playing the game who know how the characters feel, how their contribution feels. It's the table that should decide whether the Monk is UP or OP, whether BFC is UP or OP. If they feel that the Monk needs nerfs, and BFC needs to be a free action, so the Wizard can actually contribute, who is the GM to disagree?

For player entitlement... I'm all about player entitlement. Players are entitled to build whatever they want, and do whatever they want in a game, so long as they don't violate the code of the table (the table's balance range, whether PvP is allowed, whatever).

Changing the rules is wrong/dirty. I mean, it's dirty pool to change the rules of pool mid-game; why would you think otherwise for an RPG? How many GM horror stories have the GM changing the rules to railroad their story?

The best answer my senile mind remembers seeing regarding "how to deal with idiot GMs making bad rulings" that I've heard anyone give is to remove the GM from the equation - when a ruling needs to be made, let the table make the ruling. Still has issues, which is why I'd personally rather dig into the rules (and the parallel discussion of "what would be fun for this table") and lose an hour from the session than have to retcon the session, and lose the whole session. Or, per some horror stories, lose the whole group over a truly boneheaded ruling.

Further, the game is not a shark - it doesn't die if it doesn't keep moving, as evidenced by sessions that occur days or weeks or months apart. However, a bad ruling can kill a game. Or a group.

I do agree that "proving people wrong" is a bad / toxic mindset to have. And that people view things differently. IME, this is just further evidence that the table is better able to say what the table will accept than the GM is. Especially given some of the (perhaps atypical) idiots I've had as GMs.

Knowing the rules is important, because lots of times what people want to do is already there (and not buried that far). But being obsessed with the minutia of the wording is reading way more into that wording than was there to begin with. And it has long since lost any connection with what the game system was designed to do and become its own set of rules (meta and otherwise).

Agreed. 3e really needs to be (or at least have been) a live, supported system. WotC was, well, either short-sighted, or fiscally clever, for not having the developers create official RAI errata.

Yeah, there we disagree. I prize inconsistency. I want to be surprised by something working other than how I expect it to. I don't expect the rules to be anything more than an interface layer for one particular table. When I sit down at a new table, I expect to have to change my style and my expectations to match the new table. I certainly don't expect anything other than the basic resolution mechanics to remain significantly unchanged. I find the idea of bringing characters fundamentally unchanged between tables (if not set in an explicitly shared world) to be wrong at a visceral level--those characters don't fit into the new setting unless built from the ground up. And if I'm rebuilding them, then rule changes are just worked into the flow.

Well, first, games like you describe would have 0 value to me. If I cannot use my characters to explore human psychology, letting the same character without rebuilding them experience the diversity of content that can only be had under multiple GMs, then RPGs would lose their primary value to me.

Now, I prize Exploration. I want to think in a game. I don't want my thinking to be, "if I try to swing my sword, will it spontaneously explode in this world?", unless swords spontaneously exploding is actually part of the world-building, and intellectually stimulating to explore. I want my characters to be able to say, "huh, swords didn't explode where I came from, let me investigate the underpinnings of the universe to see why they do that here, and what else that means for the worlds physics, metaphysics, etc".

Most GMs disappoint, intellectually, IME.

Every table I DM for is different, because they want different things.

This is the most promising statement I've seen on this topic. Kudos!

TBH, that is one of my personal weaknesses - my style does not change as significantly as it should based on my table. My GMing range is, in certain dimensions, rather limited.

This is one of the reasons I like 1-shots, for new players to see my range, and display their range, and for us to discuss what combinations of things within everyone's range we think would be most likely to produce a game that we would all enjoy.

Being able to successfully vary your style to match your table - heck, being able to know what style would match your table, even if you cannot necessarily produce that style - is a great (and, IME, rare) GMing asset.

I can at best use a near-Epimethian version, and simply use a series of 1-shots for everyone to display their gaming range, and to facilitate discussion of the topic.

So, if you're cognizant of it, what's your special sauce?

[Quertus]

What in the world does any of this have to do with what I just said? I said that you don't have to be an experienced scholar of game design who perfectly understands the purpose of every rule to make your own changes so the game plays more like you want it to.

Heck, I've not played 3.5 in over 5 years at this point! I've never played 2nd edition! I've moved almost completely away from D&D! I have no idea how to answer any of these! Do they make the game more fun for the people using them? Did you play in those games and dislike the changes? I have literally no context for what you are throwing at me.

So... grrr... let's say I want better gas mileage, so I make my car body out of foam rubber. There's no possible disadvantage, no possible interaction with physics that makes this a bad idea, right? And I want my tires to last longer, so I make them out of aluminum. Oh, and I want to see better, so I remove the whole top of the car, that is obstructing my view.

This is the level of "making changes with ignorance of their consequences" that I am discussing.

That was a combined expression of bad experiences Quertus has had with DMs. So now he assumes that all DMs are bad and that all changes are bad unless proved otherwise. In my mind, that's a personal flaw.

I've had good changes and bad changes, but I prize the flexibility to say "yes, that's the rule, but it doesn't fit right here," so I'm willing to take the bad with the good.

A good guess, but not exactly.

I mean, yes, I've had GMs try those rules changes in 3e. But it is by no means an exhaustive list. And, given that I once edited a 20-page document of rules changes (not for D&D), and several times was given lists nearly as long, well, it's really, really far from being an exhaustive list of inanity.

Also, several of those were "rules changes between 2e and 3e that Playgrounders claim (correctly or not) that are, in part, responsible for the martial/caster divide". Even the 3e designers seemingly failed to think through the ramifications of all of their changes.

I don't assume all GMs are bad; I do, however, believe that, for sufficiently functional base rules, all rules changes are likely to be bad unless the GM person making the change understands the ramifications of the rules change. Which, IME, most don't.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Quertus,

I have yet to have a DM that I thought was an idiot. I've had DMs do things I didn't like (variant encumbrance, setting-based rules that I didn't like), but that's just a matter of me not matching the table's consensus.

I also have not had a DM who tried to fiat all by himself, and do not support that. Table consensus is important, but the DM has the final say. Because, at least in D&D, the DM has the final say on everything. Nothing happens in game until the DM accepts it. Should the DM use it capriciously? No. Do they have that power? Yes.

Spoiler: long rambling history

Show

I guess my secret is that I just don't care. I'm not trying to explore anything meta in particular. I don't have a plan in mind. I simply have a setting that I care about and want to see how the players engage with the setting. And more than anything, I want my players to have fun. I DM dominantly for a school club (usually 2 groups per school year), so none of them have any significant system mastery. Most of them have basically 0 exposure to "classic" fantasy. I want them to come away from the club having had a great experience. One of the most meaningful things I've had in my career was a note from a player after she graduated. As a matter of backstory, we were playing a heavily modified version of 4e in short little bursts (~30 minutes during lunch once a week).

It said something like

I came to D&D club because I needed somewhere else to be during lunch instead of sitting with the group of people I had been. I'm really grateful that I did. I finally found a group of friends and a place I belonged. A place where I could be weird and that was normal.

I had another one who told me that club meetings were the only thing that kept her going through her rough senior year of high school. None of the players were friends before, but they quickly became friends. Since then they've kept up the games, becoming DMs and players in their own rights. And they've stayed friends.

I realized with that experience that the important thing was that the players had fun. I personally would have sacrificed goats (or other people!) for a chance like that in high school. Everything I do for the world is motivated by the players. That's when I have the greatest inspirations for my setting--when the players say something or make a guess that's totally different than what I had planned...and their guess fits better. When, while talking to the players, there's that lightning-strike moment where it all unfolds and this little new bit creates a wave of new things that all fit perfectly. That's what I live for. To see something I never expected from my own setting. Or to see the players start caring about the parts I didn't think were important. That's been all the NPC "pets" they've dragged along. The in-universe alliances and institutions that they've built. And none of those depend on the rules. They're all orthogonal to the rules. So the rules are just a toolkit I pull out when I need some help and put away when I can handle it myself.

I break "rules" into a few categories, each with different levels of adherence.

1. Basic resolution mechanics (ie 1d20 + MOD vs TN). These don't change except in the rarest of circumstances. An Attack roll will always be the same, and will always be against AC. Saving throws are saving throws. Ability checks are always the same resolution.
2. Meta rules. These are rules (usually non-mechanical) that constrain or guide how the rules should really look. These tend to be important and versatile enough that they rarely need changes.
3. Setting-override rules. What player options are available, large-scale allow/deny lists, how does magic work, etc. These get set by the setting and then stay that way.
4. Specific rules for specific situations. How does darkvision work. Are we going to track ammo? What's the DC for X? These change all the time, even during a game (for some specific things). These I don't care about and always default to whatever runs the fastest (that the table will accept).

[MoiMagnus]

While I'm glad that you don't attempt to apply Paranoia to D&D, I am uncertain what you mean by "the rules are a tool for the GM".

The rules are, IMO, an interface for communicating about and interacting with the world.

By "the rules are a tool for the GM", I mean that "rules have a purpose".
Some rules exist to improve immersion.
Some rules exist to give a feeling of fairness.
Some rules exist to give a feeling of agency.
Some rules exist to give a technical challenge.
Some rules exist for simplicity and efficiency of the system.
...
They all are tools that exist for one of multiple reasons.

And depending on what atmosphere I want (or more precisely, what kind of atmosphere we've agreed to have during session 0, or what kind of atmosphere I've described in the abstract of my scenario in the RPG-mailing list of the club), I will give priority to some rules over others, sometimes expanding their reach farther than what is suggested inside the rule-book (when I use a rule-book, because if I see that I will need to really alter a RPG, I'd rather use the homebrew systems that I've already tested multiple times).

The standard example being "when is a skill check needed, and how much can you do with a just a skill check without expanding resources?".

Because if I want to DM an "group of incompetent hero, succeeding trough looney-tune like behavior", I will probably ask a lot of skill test for trivial maters (because sure, maybe you didn't see that hundred of ninjas around you that aren't even trying to hide from you), while allowing test for stuffs that are clearly impossible without absurd luck (one-in-a-million chance is a sure thing!).

While if I want to DM a team of "epic hero", a lot of tests will be auto-success. And if I DM to players who actually read and remember the description of skills rather than just the name of them, then I will try to be faithful to the texts of those skills.

[Theoboldi]

So... grrr... let's say I want better gas mileage, so I make my car body out of foam rubber. There's no possible disadvantage, no possible interaction with physics that makes this a bad idea, right? And I want my tires to last longer, so I make them out of aluminum. Oh, and I want to see better, so I remove the whole top of the car, that is obstructing my view.

This is the level of "making changes with ignorance of their consequences" that I am discussing.

To be honest, after rereading that list you gave me earlier, it seems like some of those changes are perfectly reasonable, and you just personally dislike them so you proceed to call them stupid. At the very least, the changes to casters between 2nd edition and 3rd seem to be very popular with a lot of people. Granted, they did break the balance quite heavily but that's another topic entirely. Even games that are unbalanced in a vacuum can have the unintended side effect of being fun for some people. Also, more importantly, that was the actual game designers making those changes, not some GM at his home table, so I don't even know what the relevance is.

Beyond that, the fact that some GMs make bad changes that nobody at the table likes does not matter to me. I've no interest in a GM who pays no attention to everyone having fun at the table. Likewise, why should somebody's harebrained idea to make a car out of rubber prevent me from getting my own sprayed with a new colour, or to convert it into a cabriolet? Which would, indeed, mean removing the top, to go with your metaphor. (The feasibility of this in real life being another matter entirely. I do not mod cars, and this is only a metaphor.)

I certainly don't see why stupidity and ignorance should be an assumption here. That is pointlessly petty, when all people like me want to do is modify rulesets that they enjoy to better serve their own and their table's purposes.