How (un)helpful are rules for you ?

[Umbran]

So why not be a fair referee and simply guess how tough or easy something is instead of slowing the game down with "petty" rules.

Well, for one thing, there's a great many people who play the game mostly as a tactical wargame. They do memorize the rules (compared to Advanced Squad Leader, D&D is a rules-lightweight), and follow them religiously. That doesn't make the rules indespensible to you, but it does mean the rules probably ought to be there, so that folks have a choice in playstyles.

For another thing, one of the bigger requirements of creating those "great moment" is suspention of disbelief. One of the best tools at the DM's disposal to help the players suspend disbelief is consistency. The player's got to have a sense of exactly what the character can and cannot do, and how likely success will be. Not all DMs are particularly good at being consistent, or generating that sense that the world is predictable unless they've got rules backing them up. Not everybody is good at "winging it".

Each DM has strengths and weaknesses, each campaign has it's own style. There may be many things in a particular rulebook that you will find useless. But the rulebook isn't written for you, specifically. It's written for everybody, to cover many different styles.

 

[Maraxle]

We wing it a lot. It allows for a very fluid gaming style, with few interruptions and some very cinematic/heroic scenes. We manage to be fair and reasonably consistent, so nobody in the group cares whether it was "really" supposed to be 4d6 or 3d8.

 

[Shadowlord]

Well, for one thing, there's a great many people who play the game mostly as a tactical wargame. They do memorize the rules (compared to Advanced Squad Leader, D&D is a rules-lightweight), and follow them religiously. That doesn't make the rules indespensible to you, but it does mean the rules probably ought to be there, so that folks have a choice in playstyles.

Then I ask you since when have roleplaying games and wargames been confused?? You can play an RPG with minimum if no action, because you "play a role with an imaginary character in an imaginary world". That is what counts in an RPG. Action can be fun, but it's not necessary in an RPG. And action can come in many forms, not only "combat".

I ask this since it's accepted that D&D is the father of RPGs, but with such attitude it alienates itself from the true motives of an RPG. Other RPGs aren't so combat or rules oriented.
Is then the RPG business, speaking of D&D, gone to a primitive state?

 

[Umbran]

Then I ask you since when have roleplaying games and wargames been confused??

Since when haven't they been confused? The original D&D game is an outgrowth of a wargame. Since those beginnings, there have been folks who prefer to play leaning towards those roots. It would be doing folks a disservice to eliminate support for their style of play.

I ask this since it's accepted that D&D is the father of RPGs, but with such attitude it alienates itself from the true motives of an RPG.

Sorry, there is no one true motive to an RPG other than "entertainment".

Other RPGs aren't so combat or rules oriented.

Some games are lighter on rules than D&D. Some are heavier on rules. So what? There's no particular reason that D&D should follow the mold of other games.

Is then the RPG business, speaking of D&D, gone to a primitive state?

You seem to show a lack of historical perspective. It hasn't "gone to a primitive state". D&D has always supported rules-heavy, wargamish play. It has eventually grown to a point where it also easily supports fairly rules-light play. It now does both reasonably well. Flexibility is a pretty good thing. It would be a step backwards to then refocus onto a single playstyle.

 

[Zappo]

The attitude that states that rules are a hindrance to DM creativity and/or good roleplaying sincerely irks me. I use the rules as correctly as possible, and I like all common situations to be covered. The only limit is that the manual has to keep easy to navigate.

Rules allow for consistancy, consistancy is a major factor for good roleplaying.

I can wing it very well if need be, and that's once again because of the rules - the D20 system has the internal coherency that allows me to guess a DC and get it right more often than not.

Bottom line, the rules are never a problem. They can only help a good DM. If someone believes that less rules automatically make a game better, it's their problem - at the very least, they haven't understood that all rules are optional.

 

[Praeco]

I appreciate the fact that the rules are available, but get really frustrated when the game slows down indefinitely while someone tries to determine whether bonus x stacks with bonus y, or exactly what pattern the grenade splash should be.

If the DM has trouble maintaining consistency without referring to the rules, then they are available and that is a good thing. However, I much prefer a DM that can make an improvisation and remember it later (at least through the rest of the session - I also don't mind changes later on if need be), thus keeping the pace of the game up over one that has to refer to the book continuously in order to make sure the "correct" ruling is made.

 

[Henry]

I can wing it very well if need be, and that's once again because of the rules - the D20 system has the internal coherency that allows me to guess a DC and get it right more often than not.

Bottom line, the rules are never a problem. They can only help a good DM. If someone believes that less rules automatically make a game better, it's their problem - at the very least, they haven't understood that all rules are optional.

I have to disagree with this: There are plenty of game systems that failed due to overly complicated rules systems. Spawn of Fashan is one example, with a rules system so difficult in both organization and complexity that it has become a legend among RPG's.

There is nothing wrong with a rules-intensive system; however, there is equal place for a rules-light system. Frankly, each has its advantages. Try running a combat with 30 creatures on each side in D&D, and then try running the same combat in a system such as Savage Worlds. There is a great difference between the two, and while the basics of d20 are simple, there are many, many rules to digest, and some people don't want to put that much time into their games any more, due to family and home responsibilities.

Hence the "rules-light revolution" - Savage Worlds, Lejendary Adventures, Continuum, and a host of games with rules so light, characters can be created in 15 minutes or less, and played for 1 to 2 hours in a session. I would almost add Mutants and Masterminds to this list, which even though d20 has chucked away many rules that slightly slow down play, to better emulate its genre.

I love my D&D and would never trade it in, but there is also a place for both rules-light and rules-intensive games, because some systems just naturally do certain things better than others.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I would agree there is a place for both. I may enjoy rules, love consistancy, and like tactical combat, but I love to role play too.

D&D, for those who don't know, was chainmail (the original) first, it was a tactical war game with fantasy elements. The only rules in it were which spells the wizard could cast and how much damage they did. The first D&D box set just added the idea that you may want to take a small group of your army's characters and go into a dungeon searching for treasure (as people had already begun to think of the models in their armies as individuals).

2e went away from the wargame roots for a little bit and started being more of a "simulation of everything". Thus, endless books about how much mushrooms cost, or the book of elven land rights (*grin*), and other such things.

3e was an attempt to get back to the dual nature of 1st edition. A combat section that spells out all the actions you can take and what they do exactly. With combat taking up almost half the book, if not more (If you include descriptions of all the weapons and armor, descriptions of class powers that are meant for combat, spells for combat, etc.) then the game IS partially a war game.

I like to consider it half and half. Once initiative is rolled, the game is tactical, I think of the best places to step, the best weapon to use, the best monster to attack. Once it ends, my character wonders what the monsters were guarding and how long it will take us to find the great and powerful artifact we are questing for.

 

[boschdevil]

I don't necessarily think mid-game is a great time to be looking up rules you're unfamiliar with, but that doesn't mean the DMG or other books shouldn't have the rules in the first place. I recommend reading up on likely rules situations ahead of time, and if you need rules mid-game have a player help by looking things up for you when it's not his turn.

Excellent point. However, I would add that it also depends (a) on the situation and (b) the type of people that you game with.

For example, if it is combat with a guard to the cave that starts your adventure and your group is not sticklers for rules, then winging it isn't too bad, as long as you've got a good basis for your decision. However, if you are either (a) fighting the BBEG of the adventure or (b) game with people that are sticklers for every detail, then looking up the rules mid-game might work for you.

My group is more into keeping the game flowing and look up unique things if it is an absolute necessity. Then, between gamingsessions, weoften review the rule and discuss what the rule actually is while we're waiting for other to arrive during our next gaming session.

 

[paulewaug]

I generally prefer to keep the game moving forward. As long as we are having fun that is all that matters.

If a die roll is required I'll normally have the player (or myself as dm) make the roll abd hope the result is either very low or very high, if it is either that gives me what I need to know right there.

If it is mid ranged then I will likely need to look at the rfeference as quickly as possible, but I hate to bog the game down checking a rule.
It will most likely happen durring combat of course, when things really need to be fast paced!

I prefer to fake it and let the game move on.
I have said may times in the game and talking with our other Dm that the best way to learn the rules is to DM the game.
Yopu never know what you don't know until you realize you need to know it! hehe!!

That said, I look the rules up a lot after the game is over if it can waite and try to make sure that next time I am ready. Sometime when one of us is running the Dm for our other capmaign will look up the rule so the acting Dm can focus on the task at hand.


Sometimes the rules complicate the game and slow it down.
Sometimes they make it easier to say "That's the rule, lets move on."

The more organised the book is the more useful it will be to me. It sounds like the new DMG should be pretty well orgainsed (I hope..?)