The game police, they live inside of my head

I've been told: if I don't like how something is written in the rules, play differently. The Game Police won't come to my door and make sure I play by the rules as written. The rules are all guidelines anyways, right? I think so.

But this makes me wonder. Why would anyone be so determined to ensure certain rules remain in the game? Heck, even strictly setting elements like specific monsters, classes, and races are called for to be cut out or kept in the initial rulebooks.

Is this because folks don't want to bothered with creating the rules themselves?

Or can they simply not stand rules that they already ignore or change for their games?

I don't think so.

I think the real consequence of what happens with a new edition is past editions are forgotten. The ways previous games were played under other rulesets, with corresponding player expectations, are forgotten by most gamers.

But what's the harm in this? The books are readily available secondhand.

And in the new Edition rules, you and I can both keep creating our own personally loved rules like playing that core class Assassin.

Personally, I believe the real harm comes with the buy-in to the new ruleset by the community-at-large. Your and my house rules, that were once core rules, become forgotten ways of playing.

For example, if the Bard class were removed and never officially added, (I doubt this will happen), then finding a game with a DM who will let you play your homebrewed version of the class is a challenge.

It's not that DMs are too restrictive. It's that the class no longer is universally accepted. Professionally designed rules, and moreover, communally understood rules are widely accepted currency. Your and my niche rules we had to recreate ourselves have to work to be accepted.

This applies to any rule, not just what I've called setting options (i.e. monsters, races, classes, etc.).

Rules are designed following certain theories. 3rd edition was and the 4th edition designers have stated they have their own as well. Theories that, if you believe in them, really mean "better".

The difficulty with non-setting rules elements arises with personal styles of play. IMO, I felt too many 3rd edition games followed a more uniform style of play. And for myself, it was nearly impossible to play the game as I enjoy it. Now I'm a bit apprehensive about being able to play 4E, in my own style, at all.

All of which points out how important the new rules and books will be. Finding new players who will play the way you enjoy the game has always been a big challenge. The most current version of D&D has always suffered from this challenge least. You and I can remain in our successful, personal groups and play our own way with our own rules, but sooner or later it becomes alien to everyone else out there. There is no where to go, if you leave the island.


[/]Okay, that's my rant.

My hope is RPGs will be designed with multiple options for putting together rulesets rather than a strongly embedded one. Many optional combat and magic systems, level disparity, monster CRs, spell lists, feats, etc. etc. I don't think it will happen this go around.

Future versions of D&D with rules as a 'toolset' instead of a integrated ruleset is unlikely.

The principal reason is to meets the expectations of consumers and have a centralize 'conformity' of rules, structure and assumptions.

If you speak about playing core D&D 3.5 (no houserules), 99% of everyone out there using 3.5 knows what the rules are that you are using and therefore, the startpoint of playing any campaign is pre-established.

The more you deviate from core (using houserules, etc), the less likely a complete stranger with knowledge of 3.5 can come to your table and immediately understand how to play the game with your rules.

Releasing 4E as a pick and choose toolset runs counter to trying to build a Digitial Initative, which demands a integrated and codified ruleset.

Not to mention trying to convince newcomers to the game at to what D&D is about. Have a ruleset instead of toolbox approach ensures that newcomers to the game are not confused if one group using rules A, B C rules states they are playing 4E and group B is using rules X, Y, Z and state they are playing 4E and both groups are using different 'rules'.

Maybe someday. But don't expect it for 4E.

Ahh yes. But uniformity of rules means a uniformity of play styles. Who needs this limitation on creativity?

In my games the players are not supposed to know the rules. Or presume to know them even if they may know some.

howandwhy99 said:

Ahh yes. But uniformity of rules means a uniformity of play styles. Who needs this limitation on creativity?

Click to expand...

There is absolutely no reason that should be the case.

howandwhy99 said:

In my games the players are not supposed to know the rules.

Click to expand...

You play for money, do you?

How can they play when they don't know what they're playing?

In my games the players are not supposed to know the rules.

Click to expand...

I don't get this so I must be missing something.

Rules in games exist so that from a certain perspective (how to play the game by knowing the rules), the playing field is level. Everyone must 'know' the rules to compete equally. It is a handicap to try to play a game (strategy, tactics, etc) while at the same time trying to get a handle of the rules (the mechanism by which you actualize your strategy/tactics).

Games like chess are based on both players understanding the simple rules of how each pieces move. At it core, Chess is a easy game - rules wise; but the strategy is what makes it a challenge enjoyed by millions. But it presupposes that both players know the basic rules of the game to start with.

How can someone play in your RPG game by not knowing the rules without it turning into 'Simon says' or 'Mother, may I'? Example: I want to do 'action X'. Either you allow it or not in your game. If you don't allow it, then I am frustrated because I don't know what I can or cannot do, without your approval.

If you do allow it, then I, in essence, must have your approval and any future action must like wise go through an approval process. And I must remember that the approval for action X under condition Y may not necessary mean that action X will be allowed under condition Z, in fact, soliciting approval of that.

I suspect I am totally missing the point so what do you mean when you say players don't need to know the rules?

Blackmoria- there are games where not knowing the rules is part of the point. Games like Paranoia work well under this system. "Knowledge of the rules is treason." But that game functions well under that system because part of its fun is that its setting is based on the idea that the characters themselves are stuck in a system of arbitrary rules they don't understand, forced to do tasks that don't make sense, and executed (and recloned back to life) every time they mess up.

Plus, knowing what you can and cannot do is pretty simple in Paranoia. If you have a laser, you can shoot somebody with it. If you have a grenade, you can throw it at somebody. Etc. The unintended consequences due to lack of knowledge are part of the fun. Ie, I shoot at my teammate with my laser because (I loudly proclaim that) he's a dirty commie traitor. But his experimental reflective armor makes my laser bounce off. He starts shooting back at me, calling ME a dirty commie traitor! How unfair! But I've also got experimental reflective armor. If only we'd known the rules for how the experimental armor works! The flurry of bouncing lasers ricochet around the room in a hail of light, as we each hope for a lucky hit, and an incredibly valuable McGuffin is destroyed. A heavily armed robo-destroyer-droid arrives to give us happy-making narcotics, counsel us on our unreasonably destructive and violent tendencies, and then once we are reformed, cured, and "sane," to shoot us in the head with HIS laser. But in the meantime I've pulled the pin on my experimental nuclear grenade... Its all good fun.

But I don't think it would work for D&D.

BlackMoria said:

How can someone play in your RPG game by not knowing the rules without it turning into 'Simon says' or 'Mother, may I'? Example: I want to do 'action X'. Either you allow it or not in your game. If you don't allow it, then I am frustrated because I don't know what I can or cannot do, without your approval.

Click to expand...

Cadfan already talked about Paranoia (which is a classic "you don't need to know the rules" setup), so I'll answer this a different way. Back in the day I remember reading articles in Dragon about playing AD&D 1e without letting your players see their character sheets. They'd tell you what kind of character they wanted to be, and you'd create the character for them under those constraints. The goal was to give the game a more narrative feel - to make it more about ROLEplaying and less about fiddling around with game mechanics. And while some people might run it as a "mother may I" sort of thing, it was usually more of a "of course you can try to do that - let me come up with how that would work" on the DM's part - if there was a rule that covered it you used the rule and if there wasn't you winged it (which pretty much describes how 1e AD&D was played even when everyone did know the rules in my experience).

It was a valid style, and it worked for some groups. There may very well be groups out there who play 3e D&D that way - but I certainly wouldn't want to try it myself. Because nowadays there are so many RPGs out there that will let you get at that narrative style of play - where the mechanics of the game actually reward and sometimes enforce a narrative style - that trying to pigeonhole 3e D&D into that style is more work than it's really worth to me. I'd rather grab my copies of "Sorcerer" and "Sorcerer and Sword" off the shelf and run that for that sort of fantasy game than try to make D&D fit into that particular hole.

But that's a playstyle preference, and different groups are going to play the game different ways. That's actually the beauty of roleplaying in my mind - since it isn't competative, each group can come up with their own style of play that best fits their needs.

howandwhy99 said:

It's not that DMs are too restrictive. It's that the class no longer is universally accepted. Professionally designed rules, and moreover, communally understood rules are widely accepted currency. Your and my niche rules we had to recreate ourselves have to work to be accepted.

Click to expand...

Yep, if you somehow find yourself in a pickup game or participating in organized play, that currency may be important. I'm pretty optimistic that the folks at WotC will do right by us all, but I agree that leaving things out will have an impact in some circumstances.

Haven't got much to say on the topic, but I felt I had to say...awesome thread title! I LOLd.