Rules as Law vs. Rules as Guidelines

[clearstream]

In another thread there's been some recent debate regarding just how closely DMs adhere to the rules as written* for the system they are using. The specific example was 5e D&D, but the question can apply to pretty much any RPG: do you stick to the rules as written and treat them more like laws, or do you treat them more like guidelines and change/add/delete rules you don't like. And in either case, why?

* - including errata, Crawford tweets, updates, revisions, etc. depending on system.

Me, I'm 'guidelines' all the way. If something doesn't make sense to me as DM I'll change it to something that does; and if something just gets in the way of playing the game (e.g. 1e initiative RAW) I'll find a way to rebuild and simplify it.

Note that I'm not referring to changing rules on a whim, or to being inconsistent with rulings in an ongoing campaign - those are different issues. This is more to do with how you approach RPG rule-sets in general.

As by now many posters are aware, game rules are largely constitutive. By this is meant that the distinctive play of the game cannot be performed or engaged in, unless these rules are in force. One implication is that if you change the rules, you change the game.

Thus a "guidelines all the way" approach translates to a statement about the game you intend to play. It isn't that you do not follow rules - after all, consistent rulings are not readily distinguished from written rules - but that in view of what would be constituted by certain written rules, you aim to bring those written rules into accord with the way you aim to play. (Frex by novation.)

Another motive may be one of betterment, perhaps with efficiency in mind: you aim to play the game in the same way as would be constituted by the written rule (or at least, that is not at issue), and you use a modified form of the written rule that achieves that same ends in a better way (here I am talking about the method or process by which the ends is met, not the ends themselves.)

"Better" could well include simply that you don't care to learn the rules. Setting aside that you can scarcely say whether or not you are following rules you do not know; this could still be about learning the written rules well enough to apply them repeatedly and reliably. In this case, you might be aiming to achieve play that is impressionistically similar to play-by-the-written-rules, with no particular concern to achieve that play precisely.

Perhaps all apply. You aim to play in a modified way that you see as better, and you aim to effect that play in a modified way, too. In either case, it suggests taking ownership of play and not yielding to authority. Resisting norms as might be reinforced by "Crawford tweets" etc. In a way therefore, I see your question as one of - to what extent does your group feel compelled to adhere to norms? Seeing as consistency with rulings is still valued - it seems to me that it is not rule-following itself that is at issue - but adherence to external norms.

Contrast an OP with similar concerns as yours, but that expressly embraces inconsistency!? Answers to the questions raised will come out very differently. Chances are, many respondents will not believe or not fully accept that consistency really is being resolutely set aside: they would assume varying levels of consistency, rather than no consistency at all.

If a central job of game rules is to constitute the game, another is to do so on every occasion that the game is played. Certainly groups might not be concerned to play the game exactly the same way on different occasions (if they don't follow written rules, that outcome seems likely) but I believe they do not intend to play that game in utterly different ways on different occasions! We couldn't even in that case say which game they are playing, as each would be a unique instance. However, supposing that was indeed a group's purpose, it would be a rather radical consequence of your opening thought, and one which you seem to rule it out with your closing comments on inconsistency.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

I choose to believe that game developers know what they are doing and if there are rules then those rules are there for a reason and I should not change or remove them until I understand the reason. This means that my games are prettly close to RAW. I only change rules for a specific reason (and I do not consider "because it's stupid" to be either specific or a reason).

Additionally, I consider that people who treat rules as guidelines are not people I want to play games with. It's not for me to tell them how to play games or even for me to make judgement but it is for me to say "I'm not sharing a table with you."

For example, if someone uses the "Put money from fines in the middle of the table and collect it when landing on Free Parking" idea then I won't play Monopoly with them. From experience I know our styles differ too much.

What can I say? I'm strongly Lawful.

 

[Lanefan]

I choose to believe that game developers know what they are doing

Long ago I briefly thought so as well. Then I realized that some friends and acquaintances could be just as good at it as the professionals (and sometimes better!); and if people I knew could do it then why couldn't I, and so down came the professionals off their pedestal and I became a kitbasher.

and if there are rules then those rules are there for a reason and I should not change or remove them until I understand the reason. This means that my games are prettly close to RAW. I only change rules for a specific reason (and I do not consider "because it's stupid" to be either specific or a reason).

"Because it's stupid" can be more than all the reason you need, depending on what leads you to think a given rule is stupid.

Another reason to change a rule can just as well be "Because it's smart"; i.e. it's a rule that has an excellent idea behind it but just doesn't go far enough and-or into enough detail, or (more commonly) is poorly executed or badly written.

Additionally, I consider that people who treat rules as guidelines are not people I want to play games with. It's not for me to tell them how to play games or even for me to make judgement but it is for me to say "I'm not sharing a table with you."

For example, if someone uses the "Put money from fines in the middle of the table and collect it when landing on Free Parking" idea then I won't play Monopoly with them. From experience I know our styles differ too much.

What can I say? I'm strongly Lawful.

I hear Helms of Opposite Alignment are on sale 2-for-1 this week at Phyto's Magic Shoppe - corner of Imperial Walk and Hastor's Row, downtown Praetos. Want me to pick one up for you next time I'm by there?

 

[aramis erak]

In another thread there's been some recent debate regarding just how closely DMs adhere to the rules as written* for the system they are using. The specific example was 5e D&D, but the question can apply to pretty much any RPG: do you stick to the rules as written and treat them more like laws, or do you treat them more like guidelines and change/add/delete rules you don't like. And in either case, why?

* - including errata, Crawford tweets, updates, revisions, etc. depending on system.

Neither - social contract, instead.

As a contract, all parties to it should be consulted before changes are made. Generally by simple majority. I've seldom had players suggest a change; I've often had players endorse a change.

 

[aramis erak]

I choose to believe that game developers know what they are doing and if there are rules then those rules are there for a reason and I should not change or remove them until I understand the reason.

Very few game designers actually have a good knowledge; the best have serious amounts of playtest to ensure that it does something close to what they expect it to do.

Probably the biggest unintended consequences are in The Fantasy Trip and Tunnels and Trolls... in TFT, and in pre-7th ed T&T, wizards power their spells off fatigue, which is a temporary reduction in Strength...
In T&T 5th, it's pointed out that the ST 30 Wizard isn't bulked out like conan... but most players envision it that way anyway.
It's not uncommon for the T&T Wizard to best the fighter in strength scores... T&T 5.5 adds an option for a magic point attribute; 7, 7.5, and Deluxe, it's no longer optional. Oh, and Fighters tend to have a pretty high luck score ... cheapest way in 5.5 and earlier to raise one's combat adds...

John Wick -- noted for Legend of the Five RIngs, 7th Sea, Houses of the Blooded, Cat and Orkworld -- had some very serious issues with putting down what he did in sessions into rules to enable others to do so. L5R sea had a lot of editorial oversight in 1E... 2e is much better a ruleset as a ruleset. 7th Sea uses the same core mechanics as cleaned up by AEG in L5R. It's good; 2e is an almost unrelated engine, is hard to grasp, harder to teach, and thanks to John's wife quitting him, and thus also quit editing his work, a poor choice of font renders it almost unreadable on top of the other issues. Cat's missing a few key bits; if one makes the logical leap, it's playable. Orkworld? Orks are, essentially, incapable of surviving the winters RAW. It needs a rewrite of the mechanics.... simply because some of them are self-contradictory and/or improperly explained for using the associated result table.

Many small press games' writers truly have no bleeding clue. The low barrier to electronic publishing, plus the ease of using one of the open systems... it's set the bar very low.

Meanwhile, the bar to successful monetization is also much higher than it once was, because Sturgeon's Law (90% of everything is crap) really tends to drive people to bigger, better edited systems, where at least the major chunks work well.

And then, there's the issue of "Problem exists between table and chair" (PEBTAC, the analogue equivalent to PEBCAC)... basically, what the user is doing isn't within the scope of what the designer intended.

As an example, I once complained on the Deep7 forum about Arrowflight 1E and the rapid gain of power by PCs... I got a response, don't recall if it was Gavin or Todd, asking, "how long have you been running your campaign?" They didn't expect people to play a single campaign more than 10-12 sessions of 3-4 hours. I was 6 months in on 6 hour sessions... my PCs were 4× the spent XP intended to be "retirement time"...

 

[Lanefan]

Neither - social contract, instead.

As a contract, all parties to it should be consulted before changes are made. Generally by simple majority. I've seldom had players suggest a change; I've often had players endorse a change.

I've had players suggest changes (and even, occasionally, changes that don't benefit their characters!) and as a player I've suggested many a change myself (and, for my own game, gone ahead and made them).

But in the end the DM still has the final say. That said, unless something shows up as broken I try not to make major rule changes in mid-campaign unless the original rule has not yet affected play*; I save them all up and do them between campaigns.

I'll add things in mid-flight, though. New spells, new items, even a whole new class once (discovered in-game and literally brought to my world by a PC adventuring party).

* - an example: as no character in my game can yet cast 7th-level spells or higher, I'm more or less free to mess with any such spells that haven't been encountered in play either through use from a scroll or through being cast by the opposition.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Ve

Many small press games' writers truly have no bleeding clue. The low barrier to electronic publishing, plus the ease of using one of the open systems... it's set the bar very low.

Even more common is "This worked pretty well for the designer's home group and immediately related groups that strongly shared the same game culture, but starts crashing into walls the moment you get outside of those". And since small press games rarely get a lot of blindtesting...

This can even be true in one area when the GM has tried to test the game at conventions and the like: character generation. Usually in those circumstances the GM will bring/send pre-gens for the convention play, and as such will never see some of the degenerate cases that will happen as soon as the game and its character gen are released into the wild.

 

[Darth Solo]

Fun Fact: D&D's key designer, Gary Gygax, didn't play the game by the rules he created.

Once I have the ruleset in my hands I change it to fit what I like and/or what the group likes.

• I have a complete rework of Shadowrun 4e using it as a d20 system similar to d20 Future
• I dropped Defense and Advantages from Mutants and Masterminds to make it flow the way I wanted
• I drop the Vancian Magic from D&D whenever I can usually opting for a Spell Points system
• SAN penalties with CoC/DG are usually double the normal amount
• Never met a set of Grappling rules that I didn't trash and rehash

Rule are just guidelines at ALL times and if it's more fun to break/change them why wouldn't you?

 

[pemerton]

Rule are just guidelines at ALL times and if it's more fun to break/change them why wouldn't you?

Does "you" here refer to GMs, players, or both?

 

[Thomas Shey]

Rule are just guidelines at ALL times and if it's more fun to break/change them why wouldn't you?

Depends. Who is "you" in this sentence? The group as a whole?