Mearls' "Stop, Thief!" Article

[P1NBACK]

The rules of the game are fairly straight-forward, but is it really that much different than a "railroad" RPG module by a RAW-obsessed DM?

As I said, playing by the rules. For example, I can't "hail a taxi" in Arkham Horror instead of moving by spending my move points along the line. I can't gather clues outside of the normal method, I can't make any decisions about my character other than the prescribed actions dictated by the rules of the game (exactly like Monopoly or if you want to use cooperative games, Castle Ravenloft boardgame).

If you can't make fictional choices that impact the outcome of the game, it's not roleplaying.

I can play any game and plaster a "story" over it to describe what happened. That doesn't mean it's roleplaying.

There's a reason why Castle Ravenloft is a boardgame and not an RPG expansion.

Could I hack Monopoly, Arkham Horror, Chess, etc. with rules of my own to make it a roleplaying game? Yeah, sure.

But, I said, as-written. Roleplaying games have a design that is fundamentally different from boardgames. And, that's why the "rules matter".

Again, I didn't say rules = no roleplaying. In fact, I say the opposite. In order to make Chess a roleplaying game, we need to make rules for that. If I want my White Knight to betray the White King, I have to make (or change) a rule for that.

A lot depends on what you want whatever game you play to be and how obsessed you are going to be over rules. While it does go kaput if a boardgame turns in to Calvinball, there's still a lot of room for story even in some of those. The clear delineation between game types is rather blurred, for many reasons. I don't mind wielding the eraser myself when it makes something more fun.

Would it be my first choice for roleplaying? No way in heck, but when the group is right it can morph in to an RPG-type experience.

Story does not = roleplaying.

It's like me playing Stratego and saying, "Oh, this piece is a soldier and back home he has a wife and children. We'll send his belongings home when he's blown up."

We have a story right? Did we roleplay? No.

 

[Scribble]

Great. How do you do that when you are "roleplaying" the White Knight who decides to turn against the White King and join the Black King's side?

You fundamentally have to break Chess' rules for this to happen. Fundamentally. Hence, Chess is not a roleplaying game.

How this is up for debate is beyond me...

You're adding rules- not really breaking them.

It's the same as if I were to say how does my character do x in an RPG when there aren't currently any rules for X?

The fundamental difference (I would say at least) between a roleplaying game, and not a roleplaying game is that in a roleplaying game we expect to occassionaly or sometimes frequently add/modify rules on the fly to cover actions not already covered or specifically covered by the rules, and not only that, but this is encouraged by the rules themselves.

A not a roleplaying game, on the other hand does not expect you to do this, nor does it encourage you to do this above and beyond a few minor houserules established prior to the game starting (aka free parking in monopoly.)


This I think is also the essence of what Mearls was saying. It's not "bad" or "Good" rules that make RPGs unique among games- it's the expectancy that a human interface allows the game to deal with literally anything you want it to that makes them so special.

 

[P1NBACK]

I think actions stepping outside the box should be uncommon. Wanting to do it too much is a symptom of bad rules, like in Mearls example (or a weak DM, but we won't go there). By being uncommon, going outside the box should feel special and unusual.

I disagree. I think the "box" should encompass what we normally consider "stepping outside".

Or, in other words, we should have rules for being creative, imaginative and that should be the norm. Therefore, there is no "outside" the box. Only inside.

The norm should be creativity, imagination, description and exploration.

 

[P1NBACK]

You're adding rules- not really breaking them.

Adding rules is breaking rules. If I'm playing Chess against Vladimir Akopian and I decide that my Knight is going to take his Bishop prisoner and torture him for information about the King's plans... Well, I think he'd have problems with that.

I said, "As written" Chess is not a roleplaying game and you cannot roleplay with those rules. I think that's pretty self-evident.

In order to "roleplay" chess, like you said, you need to create or change rules.

It's the same as if I were to say how does my character do x in an RPG when there aren't currently any rules for X?

There are rules for X in roleplaying games. In most traditional games, it's a DM who adjudicates those "non-specified" actions.

That's a rule. It's there. It make not be "BAB + 1d20 to attack" but it's still a rule.

The fundamental difference (I would say at least) between a roleplaying game, and not a roleplaying game is that in a roleplaying game we expect to occassionaly or sometimes frequently add/modify rules on the fly to cover actions not already covered or specifically covered by the rules, and not only that, but this is encouraged by the rules themselves. A not a roleplaying game, on the other hand does not expect you to do this, nor does it encourage you to do this above and beyond a few minor houserules established prior to the game starting (aka free parking in monopoly.)

That's part of it, but not entirely. You could still modify rules in Monopoly and have it be a non-roleplaying game. If I say, "Instead of rolling 2d6, roll 3d6 for moves..."

It doesn't suddenly become a roleplaying game. So, no, I don't think "changing rules" is a definitive aspect of how to define a roleplaying game.

Again: it's the ability to make an impact on the outcome of the game, based on the fictional circumstances you change via your character(s).

Murder Mystery Dinner Parties are a good example of a roleplaying game.

This I think is also the essence of what Mearls was saying. It's not "bad" or "Good" rules that make RPGs unique among games- it's the expectancy that a human interface allows the game to deal with literally anything you want it to that makes them so special.

Yes. This I can get onboard with, and THIS is what I have been saying for pages.

Human interface that allows you to make an impact on the game fictionally via the rules.

 

[Pour]

I disagree. I think the "box" should encompass what we normally consider "stepping outside".

Or, in other words, we should have rules for being creative, imaginative and that should be the norm. Therefore, there is no "outside" the box. Only inside.

The norm should be creativity, imagination, description and exploration.

Well we already have rules to be creative and imaginative with, but I don't want hard rules for being creative or imaginative. That sounds like the most constraining box of all. Don't those aspects come from within, anyway, from the DM and players? Even if they were outlined, they'd be broken the very first sessions, or expanded upon, or both.

And while I mostly agree that my preferred games contain creativity, imagination and description (and a fair helping of exploration, too), I would never presume to tell anyone what components should or must make their fun. No doubt most people have a combination of these things, but it just doesn't seem right to impose that on people who may like the structure and clarity of existing rules in varying degrees.

 

[P1NBACK]

Well we already have rules to be creative and imaginative with, but I don't want hard rules for being creative or imaginative. That sounds like the most constraining box of all. Don't those aspects come from within, anyway, from the DM and players? Even if they were outlined, they'd be broken the very first sessions, or expanded upon, or both.

If I make a rule that's decidedly for fostering creativity and imagination, how is that possibly constraining?

I'm saying, open the box up entirely - so, you don't have a box anymore. There is no "outside" the box because everything is "inside" the box.

 

[Dausuul]

As I see it, the way to foster creativity via the rules is to offer "carrots" for going outside the rules.

Earlier, I mentioned executioner poisons as an example of something I like about recent 4E class design. You can daze an enemy for the entire encounter, if you can get it to eat or drink a dose of poison. How do you do that? There's nothing within the rules that tells you how to make a creature have dinner. You have to interact with the world and the DM and figure it out. But, if you do so, there's a rules-based reward awaiting you.

I would like to see more mechanics along those lines. Preferably as class abilities/powers, so they show up on your character sheet. It's similar to the "Do something cool!" power, except that it offers a defined incentive to do something cool, and some guidance as to what cool thing you might do.

 

[P1NBACK]

As I see it, the way to foster creativity via the rules is to offer "carrots" for going outside the rules.

Earlier, I mentioned executioner poisons as an example of something I like about recent 4E class design. You can daze an enemy for the entire encounter, if you can get it to eat or drink a dose of poison. How do you do that? There's nothing within the rules that tells you how to make a creature have dinner. You have to interact with the world and the DM and figure it out. But, if you do so, there's a rules-based reward awaiting you.

I would like to see more mechanics along those lines. Preferably as class abilities/powers, so they show up on your character sheet. It's similar to the "Do something cool!" power, except that it offers a defined incentive to do something cool, and some guidance as to what cool thing you might do.

Definitely! I dig it.

Just because there's no "rule" for something specific, doesn't mean there aren't rules that encourage those things.

It's what Vincent Baker likes to call the "Fruitful Void".

So, yes. This is what I'm trying to say, but on a larger scale!

 

[IanB]

If I make a rule that's decidedly for fostering creativity and imagination, how is that possibly constraining?

I'm saying, open the box up entirely - so, you don't have a box anymore. There is no "outside" the box because everything is "inside" the box.

Can you give an example of this kind of rule?

 

[P1NBACK]

Can you give an example of this kind of rule?

DMG Page 42 is a kind of example.