What are the rules for?

[Thomas Shey]

You're a warhorse lifting subsytem!

The only case I can think it might matter is if for some reason you have a setting where rope lift systems are in extremely common use, in which case if its more than background color, the weights of everything is liable to come up. I've seen weirder things.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Since many games explicitly say the GM-equivalent has every right to change and/or ignore the rules, I don't think that's true except in certain types of games.

I tend to think this kind of thing… rule zero, as it’s commonly called… gets overemphasized and/or overstated. Most of the time, in the games with which I’m familiar, it’s not like a carte blanche for the GM to just do whatever they like. It’s more permission to change things to suit a particular desire or to ignore an absurd result of the rules.

And I think that there’s an implication of approval from the group.

A GM who’s just willy-nilly changing rules will likely find himself without players.

All that said, my previous statement was a bit inaccurate. I don’t think all rules do what I said. Obviously, “the GM gets to say” is a rule. I should have said that I think it is better when the rules prevent any one participant from having too much influence over the way the game goes.

 

[Deset Gled]

The rules, as their core concern, determine how the characters interact with the setting and how the setting functions.

I agree a lot with the first half. The second half, less so.

There are many games where the player characters function under one specific set of rules, and the setting simply doesn't. This includes games where the PCs are explicitly the "heroes" of the setting that play by their own rules, like Draw Steel or most superhero games. It includes narrative focused games where rules are based on the story flow and happily sacrifice setting details to achieve other goals. And on the extreme end it includes gonzo games where the setting has ostensibly no rules, like Troika or Human Occupied Landfill.

Even D&D varies a lot with having rules about how the setting functions. On one side you have 3e, where all the monsters have stat blocks that effectively match the details of a PC build. On the other side you have early Arneson style DMing, where the setting rules are ostensibly a black box. And you have 5e somewhere in the middle, where Legendary Actions are there specifically to throw a wrench in the rules the characters play by.

So, yes, the rules definitely determine how the characters interact with the setting. But what, if any, rules the setting plays by is a very different discussion, driven by very different wants and needs.

 

[soviet]

You haven't seen some of the things that seem to matter to some people in the OS space, have you?

And if again, if its liable to come up, then yes, I think its liable to require specific rules, otherwise the weight of the warhouse would not be liable to come up, would it?

Isn't this circular? It's liable to come up so it's liable to need rules so it's liable to come up?

Also, I reject the idea that 'things that are liable to come up' need specific rules.

 

[500 Toads]

You haven't seen some of the things that seem to matter to some people in the OS space, have you?

And if again, if its liable to come up, then yes, I think its liable to require specific rules, otherwise the weight of the warhouse would not be liable to come up, would it?

Somebody's probably written a TTRPG focused on simulating trade, where you might be operating a vessel visiting different ports and exchanging goods of various sorts. If so, weight seems like one reasonable constraint in terms of determining how much cargo (and other stuff, like food and water etc) you can actually bring along.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Isn't this circular? It's liable to come up so it's liable to need rules so it's liable to come up?

You could theoretically have weight for a warhorse for some reason, perhaps an obscure eventuality, without telling you how to handle it. OD&D did this sort of thing with a number of things.

Also, I reject the idea that 'things that are liable to come up' need specific rules.

Then we disagree. If I'm going to have to resolve something, I expect either the rules for it to be specific, or the general rules to already handle it (RuneQuest did not have specific rules for lifting, but its resistance rules handled it in general).

 

[soviet]

Then we disagree. If I'm going to have to resolve something, I expect either the rules for it to be specific, or the general rules to already handle it (RuneQuest did not have specific rules for lifting, but its resistance rules handled it in general).

This doesn't make any sense. You disagree with my statement that specific rules are unnecessary, by stating that either specific or general rules would work. So... you agree with me that specific rules are not necessary then.

 

[Thomas Shey]

This doesn't make any sense. You disagree with my statement that specific rules are unnecessary, by stating that either specific or general rules would work. So... you agree with me that specific rules are not necessary then.

Its a degree thing. RQs "general" rules were only relevant to a subset of actions, so they were already somewhat specific, and you'd still have needed at least something telling you what the warhorse weighed (fortunately, RQ had a Size attribute, so you already did to the degree you probably cared, but a resistance table wouldn't necessarily have the equivelent of that).

The issue that I'm not convinced really broad mechanics without subcases will get the job done to my satisfaction, because I've seen enough cases they wouldn't. Its a case I'd rather have more specific than needed than not specific enough so that handling it is too ad-hoc.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That caveat is almost never as complete as you make it sound. It's far more about ignoring edge cases that make for bad play than it is about wholesale ignoring of the rules on a regular basis (which no game really advocates for).

I don't think so. That sounds like your interpretation, not what several rulesets actually say in the book on this topic. Again, except for certain types of games.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I tend to think this kind of thing… rule zero, as it’s commonly called… gets overemphasized and/or overstated. Most of the time, in the games with which I’m familiar, it’s not like a carte blanche for the GM to just do whatever they like. It’s more permission to change things to suit a particular desire or to ignore an absurd result of the rules.

And I think that there’s an implication of approval from the group.

A GM who’s just willy-nilly changing rules will likely find himself without players.

All that said, my previous statement was a bit inaccurate. I don’t think all rules do what I said. Obviously, “the GM gets to say” is a rule. I should have said that I think it is better when the rules prevent any one participant from having too much influence over the way the game goes.

That is a reasonable opinion.