A Rule for Everything?

[Graybeard]

I view the rules as guidelines. Some I use as written, some I modify depending on the situation, some I ignore. In the games I play in, the GMs are different. One uses the rules all the time unless there is no rule for a situation, then he uses group consensus based on common sense. The other GM plays loose with the rules and is more concered with how the game flows than wether or not a certain PC or NPC can or cannot do something because there is a rule that says so. An example is the character I play in his Eberron game has a drinking problem. The character isn't drunk all the time but if he starts, he has to make a will save after a few to see if he can stop. I find that to be reasonable and it is not something you find in the rule book. On numerous occasions, I wanted my character to be able to do a specific task. One such task was to try to topple over a large statue onto a villian. Since there is no specific rule for that, the GM let me do a Use Rope check to lasso the statue, then a strength check to see if I could pull it over.

In summary, I prefer a system that there are some rules but not rules for everything. I feel that it would bog down the game too much if you constantly had to look everything up for even the smallest action. I played for a GM who made up rules for every possible action, no matter how small. That game was not much fun.

 

[Wil]

To reiterate what I said in another thread, in my mind there are rules and there are mechanics. A rule dictates how a mechanic is used. To take Silhouette as an example, rolling x number of dice and taking the highest result is a mechanic. It will very rarely change from one group to the next using the same system. Saying that unskilled characters roll x number of dice and take the lowest is a mechanic as well - the determination to use that mechanic when a character lacks a skill is a rule. Some groups may decide to dispense with that rule entirely and roll normally for unskilled characters.

There is some grey area there, but in general I've found that this dichotomy works. in particular, rules can usually be ported from game to game regardless of system, unless there is a mechanic strongly tied to the rule. Many rules will rely heavily on the social contract - the example above of having to depend on GM fiat to provide an opportunity for a PC to evolve, or a determination if the PC can attempt a task. As such, there can't ever be a rule for everything, but any decently designed game will be able to mechanically handle it once a rule is established for when to apply the mechanic.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Are you referring to something along the lines of, "You are a bastard, so every time you see a woman you have to make a Will Save, DC 23, to avoid saying something sexist"? Rules to actually define character behavior and action?

A player in a game of mine once played a gambling addict, so he would roll Will saves to try to resist gambling when the opportunity presented itself. That's somewhat different, though, I suppose, since it was 1) self inflicted and 2) a mental problem.

 

[Shemeska]

Absolutely not.

In fact, I'm probably from the Thomas Jefferson school of RPG rules: that system is best which delegates rules the least.

Of course, this typically just means I ignore rules that feel slow down the game, are arbitrary, contradictory, or apply too harshly towards a situation. I'm more akin to say 'yes you can do that' if it's a cool idea, without any regard to the person having a certain feat or a specific bonus to X skill to be able to do it by the rules. Skill points, ability scores and the like still matter to the success of something, but you can try it and perhaps even succeed even if somewhere in the world there's a Rules Lawyer screaming in pain.

I generally push for immersion and cool factor at the abject and total expense of the rules as written. But I don't arbitrarily change rules on a whim to hurt the players, though I do prefer to have a HUGE amount of leeway deligated to me as the DM to alter things to suit the situation when the rules don't cover it or cover it poorly.

Rules are a framework to aid the game, but when they get in the way, they're going shoved into the woodchipper faster than corpses at the end of Fargo. The more rules there are, the more likely many of them are going to get shoved in there.

 

[The_Gneech]

A player in a game of mine once played a gambling addict, so he would roll Will saves to try to resist gambling when the opportunity presented itself. That's somewhat different, though, I suppose, since it was 1) self inflicted and 2) a mental problem.

I have a player who does stuff like that all the time; he will also make self-imposed Wisdom checks to see if his character was smart enough to think of a given tactic in combat, that kind of thing. I'm always like, "Dude, you don't have to roll it; just decide!" To which he responds that he just likes rolling it. So I let him!

-The Gneech

 

[Wil]

I have a player who does stuff like that all the time; he will also make self-imposed Wisdom checks to see if his character was smart enough to think of a given tactic in combat, that kind of thing. I'm always like, "Dude, you don't have to roll it; just decide!" To which he responds that he just likes rolling it. So I let him!

-The Gneech

I think that loops back around to my belief that some people like limitations - when given the choice between a game where anything they decide their character can do they can, or one where their character is limited in what they can do, most will choose the latter every time.

 

[Voadam]

I sense a new spell . . .

Bigby's (or whoever's) Force Umbrella was in the Greyhawk Adventures 1e/2e Hardcover book.

 

[Voadam]

The question I feel almost silly asking is, do you feel you need "meta" rules for your character?
Bill

No.

 

[The_Gneech]

I think that loops back around to my belief that some people like limitations - when given the choice between a game where anything they decide their character can do they can, or one where their character is limited in what they can do, most will choose the latter every time.

Well, deciding what tactics to use is not the same as being "unlimited." The tactics could still fail!

-The Gneech

 

[trancejeremy]

Well, it depends on the game system. For instance, if you have a system that rewards flaws, then a lot of times players will take a lot of role-playing based flaws, but won't actually play the flaw.


Or say, you are playing something like Star Wars. Having a mechanic for the Dark Side/Light Side is pretty useful, I think.