Rules Aren't Important

[Committed Hero]

Good rules are reliable, in the sense that players who know them acquire some predictive control over the actions they attempt. If I have discovered through play that my warrior tends to best a skeleton in combat about half the time, I should realize pretty quickly that facing five of them alone is probably a deadly encounter. In contrast, with a GM making up the story in response to the players' statements, I have no idea if my PC's past experience with undead gives me any indication of what will happen (I suspect he'd survive if it made dramatic sense to the GM, or my reactions provide the GM a great deal of enjoyment).

I think a lot of players subconsciously realize, too, that if enough rules are ignored we start to wonder why we've even bothered getting the book and learning the system in the first place.

 

[Malmuria]

@overgeeked

Interestingly, what you say above reminded me of a section from Blades in the Dark (p. 161, quoted below), a rather rules-heavy game. But I think the principle is the same: rules (especially specific mechanics) in an rpg are there to facilitate the 'what happens next' of the fiction but not rigidly determine it.

Anecdotally, I'll say my litmus test for rules not mattering is the fact that, no matter how rules lite a system, I'll inevitably forget some or many rules when running a game. Rarely does forgetting a rule lead to an unsatisfying session. In fact, it's only if I remember that there is a rule for something, and stop the game to look up the details, does it tend to slow things down in an unfun way. But mostly, you can play a system, and forget the rules or get the rules wrong, and still have a great time.

FICTION-FIRST GAMING

Fiction-first is a bit of jargon to describe the process of playing a roleplaying game, as opposed to other sorts of games you might be used to.

In a standard board game, for example, when you take your turn, you choose a move from one of the mechanics of the game, and then use that game system to resolve what happens. You might say, “I’m going to pay two stone to build a second fort on my home tile.” We could call this process “mechanics-first.” What you do on your turn is pick a mechanic to engage, then resolve that mechanic. Your choices are constrained by the mechanics of the game. You might color it in with some fictional trappings, like, “The brave citizens of Baronia heed the call to war and build a stout fort!” but the fiction is secondary; it’s flavor added on. In other words, the fiction is brought in after the mechanics, to describe what happened.

In a roleplaying game, it’s different. When it’s your turn, you say what your character does within the ongoing fictional narrative. You don’t pick a mechanic first, you say something about the fiction first. Your choices in a roleplaying game aren’t immediately constrained by the mechanics, they’re constrained by the established fictional situation. In other words, the mechanics are brought in after the fictional action has determined which mechanics we need to use.

For example, in Blades in the Dark, there are several different mechanics that might be used if a character tries to pick the lock on a safe. It’s essentially meaningless to play mechanics-first. “I pick a lock” isn’t a mechanical choice in the game. To understand which mechanic to use, we have to first establish the fiction.

...
And so on and so forth. There are an infinite number of approaches you might take, constrained by the fictional circumstances.

The important concept here is that you first choose what your character does in the fiction, then the group picks a mechanic that suits the situation to resolve what happens. Once you establish the fictional action, selecting a mechanic from the options at hand is pretty easy. If you try to do it the other way around—picking the mechanic and then trying to “color-in” the fiction after—you’ll find that the game can become confusing and muddled.

When something seems weird, or a situation resolves in a bizarre way, back out to the level of the fictional narrative. What’s going on? What are you trying to do? Which mechanic is suited for this? Don’t try to force a particular mechanic onto the fiction. Take the fiction first (ah, see that? “fiction-first”) and then use the mechanics to support it.

Think of the mechanics of the game as tools in a toolbox. There’s no point saying, “I hammer it” until you know what you’re building. Also, there’s no constraint that says you must always use a hammer and nail every time you need to attach two pieces of wood. You use the tools that suit what you’re trying to do. The same goes for mechanics in a roleplaying game. First establish the fiction, then select a mechanical tool from the toolbox that suits the situation you need to resolve. Which tools you pick will often be pragmatic, but can also be a stylistic choice. There’s no one right way to choose a tool, after all. The tools are there for you to use as you see fit; developing a style of use and set of precedents as you go along.

The text of the game gives you both the set of tools and a guide to their usage, which is essentially the best practices the playtesters and I developed. These best practices will start you on your way toward successful game play—but ultimately they are just a guide. It’s up to you and your group to put them into practice and learn the use and feel of the tools in play.

This is one of the most fun aspects of roleplaying games. Because there’s no single right way to use the tools, the act of play is constantly creative—at the level of the fictional narrative, of course, but also at the level of the application of the game systems. I’ll explain the tools and teach you some good ways to apply them, but when it’s all said and done, your experience with Blades in the Dark will be one that you and your group make for yourselves.

 

[overgeeked]

@overgeeked

Interestingly, what you say above reminded me of a section from Blades in the Dark (p. 161, quoted below), a rather rules-heavy game. But I think the principle is the same: rules (especially specific mechanics) in an rpg are there to facilitate the 'what happens next' of the fiction but not rigidly determine it.

Anecdotally, I'll say my litmus test for rules not mattering is the fact that, no matter how rules lite a system, I'll inevitably forget some or many rules when running a game. Rarely does forgetting a rule lead to an unsatisfying session. In fact, it's only if I remember that there is a rule for something, and stop the game to look up the details, does it tend to slow things down in an unfun way. But mostly, you can play a system, and forget the rules or get the rules wrong, and still have a great time.

Exactly. It’s like people forget their first few games where anything goes and everyone has a blast regardless of the rules. Instead what we get is people acting like their fond memories are of flipping through the book making sure all the Ts are crossed and Is dotted.

 

[pointofyou]

Exactly. It’s like people forget their first few games where anything goes and everyone has a blast regardless of the rules. Instead what we get is fond memories of flipping through the book making sure all the Ts are crossed and Is dotted.

There is a difference between playing a game where someone else knows the rules and is teaching you the rules and playing a game where someone else is ignoring the rules intentionally. The experiences are not the same.

 

[overgeeked]

There is a difference between playing a game where someone else knows the rules and is teaching you the rules and playing a game where someone else is ignoring the rules intentionally. The experiences are not the same.

What about when no one knows the rules and you’re all learning and still having a blast despite the rules flubs? It suggests that the activity is the fun part. What makes it fun play is being open-minded and playful. Not adherence to the rules.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Anecdotally, I'll say my litmus test for rules not mattering is the fact that, no matter how rules lite a system, I'll inevitably forget some or many rules when running a game. Rarely does forgetting a rule lead to an unsatisfying session. In fact, it's only if I remember that there is a rule for something, and stop the game to look up the details, does it tend to slow things down in an unfun way. But mostly, you can play a system, and forget the rules or get the rules wrong, and still have a great time.

Rarely have I played a game that needed a resolution mechanic more complex than "make up something with the d6."

 

[pointofyou]

What about when no one knows the rules and you’re all learning and still having a blast despite the rules flubs? It suggests that the activity is the fun part. What makes it fun play is being open-minded and playful. Not adherence to the rules.

What about the idea this is a thing one can get better at? I do not have such a gauzy nostalgia for the badly played and run games of my youth.

 

[overgeeked]

Rarely have I played a game that needed a resolution mechanic more complex than "make up something with the d6."

Exactly. The important bit is the imaginative play. Cut the stuff that’s getting between you and it.

 

[Manbearcat]

@overgeeked

Interestingly, what you say above reminded me of a section from Blades in the Dark (p. 161, quoted below), a rather rules-heavy game. But I think the principle is the same: rules (especially specific mechanics) in an rpg are there to facilitate the 'what happens next' of the fiction but not rigidly determine it.

Anecdotally, I'll say my litmus test for rules not mattering is the fact that, no matter how rules lite a system, I'll inevitably forget some or many rules when running a game. Rarely does forgetting a rule lead to an unsatisfying session. In fact, it's only if I remember that there is a rule for something, and stop the game to look up the details, does it tend to slow things down in an unfun way. But mostly, you can play a system, and forget the rules or get the rules wrong, and still have a great time.

The only thing I'll say about this to clarify is there is a difference between principally and procedurally constrained fiction-first gaming with encoded mechanics and fiction-first gaming without one or the other or without either.

Blades in the Dark has both. It derives the gamestate that undergirds the fiction from its integrated text and the gamestate moves one state to the next according to that (with the attendant fiction moving with it).

Is that lock an obstacle where something dangerous/threatening is in play to something the PC's care about? Ok, Action Roll procedure w/ Position/Effect etc. Well what if the PC is using an asset where the heavy lifting was done prior and there is nothing to test right now such as a Ritual where an Attunement roll was made to prime it as a Downtime Action and now we're just making a Fortune Roll for its Magnitude and then dealing with a Consequence (go to the Consequence and Resistance procedures for that) for its Volatile Tag. Or same thing with a Leech's bombs/alchemicals where the important thing isn't aiming a throw (Hunt) or jury-rigging it in the moment (Tinker) or whatever. Make a Fortune Roll to determine Effect.

Is there a Clock in play? Ok, maybe the Volatile Consequence ticks that Clock if it applies.

And this all goes back to Goal, Principles, Best Practices, and the integrated procedures that are table-facing to resolve stuff.

 

[overgeeked]

What about the idea this is a thing one can get better at?

Yes, people can get better at imaginative play. They get better at it by letting their imaginations run wild and staying open minded and curious. Daydreaming and keeping a dream journal and all that.

Oh, you mean system mastery. Bleh.

I do not have such a gauzy nostalgia for the badly played and run games of my youth.

I have gauzy nostalgia for all the fun I had playing RPGs. They used to be fun. Lately people seem to be way more focused on winning, optimization, and perfection. I’m over here just trying to pretend to be a dwarf and go on an adventure. You know, the fun part.

 

[pointofyou]

Yes, people can get better at imaginative play. They get better at it by letting their imaginations run wild and staying open minded and curious. Daydreaming and keeping a dream journal and all that.

Oh, you mean system mastery. Bleh.

I have gauzy nostalgia for all the fun I had playing RPGs. They used to be fun. Lately people seem to be way more focused on winning, optimization, and perfection. I’m over here just trying to pretend to be a dwarf and go on an adventure. You know, the fun part.

I mean knowing the rules and how the rules interact with and shape the possibilities of the fiction. I'm not particularly interested in being maximally ruthlessly optimized and when I GM I'm not interested in players who insist on or persist in being so.

I am having more fun with TRPGs now than I ever have and I've been doing this since the early 1980s. I at least have more fun when I know what I'm going. Obviously some people will feel otherwise.

 

[TheAlkaizer]

Rules are not necessary, but rules are important. The systems and mechanics designed for a game create game dynamics that would be hard to recreate without them. Five people can sit down and agree to free roleplay a one-shot where they're cursed and are slowly deprecating and have to complete an objective before the end. But if someone wants to create an experience for others (sell it, distribute it, run it for a group of friends) then it's much harder to have everyone agree to just play that dynamic. Rules are a great way of making these dynamics happen.

I've always found that most designers put way too much emphasis on mechanics and systems by themselves and not enough on the play dynamics that stem from them.

 

[pemerton]

It's very rare that a given imagined situation entails exactly one subsequent situation as what happens next.

I mean, even if a building is falling down on top of the protagonist, maybe they survive because some lengths of timber and/or pieces of masonry fall in just the right way to prevent them being crushed.

Thus, in RPGing, there is always, or almost always, more than one thing that might happen next. The function of rules in a RPG is to help the participants determine, among those possibilities, which one they agree is what actually happens next.

 

[SteveC]

I guess I'll just apply Spock's ultimate assessment about logic to game rules: "Game rules are the beginning of wisdom, but not the end."

There's a lot more to gaming than rules, but they are important, but there's a huge caveat: with a great GM it doesn't matter.

I've been fortunate enough to play with some great GMs and I had a player say they could run a Chutes and Ladders based game and it would be fun. That's true. With a great GM you have a living, breathing, resolution and fiction generation system that makes virtually any session a great one.

But the important part of that statement is: you need a great GM for it to work. If you have an average or below average GM, the rules prop them up and make the game more fun. Or in some cases, fun at all.

GM on the fly adjudication of game events is not a skill that the majority of GMs have. And there aren't a lot of good materials that help a GM to get those skills. And at this point in my life I'm not interested in "mother may I" with a GM that I don't know to be a good one.

I'll take it a step further: a well structured system helps even a great GM make a game better. Sure, the best GMs I've played with made excellent games, but the games I remember decades later are the ones that paired one of them with a system that really suited what they wanted to accomplish.

So I guess I'd say "nice idea" for not making the rules your god, but in practice? Not so much.

 

[Malmuria]

The only thing I'll say about this to clarify is there is a difference between principally and procedurally constrained fiction-first gaming with encoded mechanics and fiction-first gaming without one or the other or without either.

Blades in the Dark has both. It derives the gamestate that undergirds the fiction from its integrated text and the gamestate moves one state to the next according to that (with the attendant fiction moving with it).

Is that lock an obstacle where something dangerous/threatening is in play to something the PC's care about? Ok, Action Roll procedure w/ Position/Effect etc. Well what if the PC is using an asset where the heavy lifting was done prior and there is nothing to test right now such as a Ritual where an Attunement roll was made to prime it as a Downtime Action and now we're just making a Fortune Roll for its Magnitude and then dealing with a Consequence (go to the Consequence and Resistance procedures for that) for its Volatile Tag. Or same thing with a Leech's bombs/alchemicals where the important thing isn't aiming a throw (Hunt) or jury-rigging it in the moment (Tinker) or whatever. Make a Fortune Roll to determine Effect.

Is there a Clock in play? Ok, maybe the Volatile Consequence ticks that Clock if it applies.

And this all goes back to Goal, Principles, Best Practices, and the integrated procedures that are table-facing to resolve stuff.

Agree...and it's a lot to keep track of! Judging of online discussion, I think one of the possible fail points when you start playing blades is that there are all these clever rules and they work together really well, but trying to manage that all at once is overwhelming and the game can become overly procedural. Like, the fact that it is table facing is less meaningful if the GM is the only one who has put the time into reading the book or if there is too much information for the GM and/or players to keep in mind at any one time. That said, I think you can forget a lot of those rules and still have a good time (when I started playing we often forgot very basic things like resistance rolls and group actions).

 

[Aldarc]

Or it is a game and the rules are discussed beforehand and generally invisible. See the invisible rulebooks link I posted earlier.

Ah yes, the classic fable "The Emperor's New Rules."

 

[MutterBoutASaurus]

I've done both structured rules-based roleplaying at the tabletop, and something more akin to rules-less collaborative storytelling over a good many internet forums. Both have their ups and downs.
I have been at tables where the game suddenly grinds to a halt as the GM and a rules-obsessed player or two have an hour-long argument over some minutia, and it sucks. I've also been privy to angry discussions on old forums where the same hour long argument happened, only it's because someone felt that another's character overstepped their boundaries. Or they're being accused of being a mary sue.

In my mind, a good system of rules is there not only to arbitrate what a player can and can't do, but it provides a little element of uncertainty to every narrative situation. A player may want to stab the ogre in the middle of the road, but they might miss. Or they might stab the ogre harder than expected. That element of chaos adds something exciting. A good GM can use a bad roll as an opportunity to shake up what just happened. The player missed with their sword, getting it stuck in a nearby tree - do they abandon the sword or attempt to pull it out?

Rules can be fun. There is a certain satisfaction with having an idea and finding the rules to make it happen. Or perhaps I don't know what I want to do with my character, following rules is a great starting-off point for me. Rules create a skeleton for the rest of that delicious storytelling flesh to hang onto and manipulate.
But the system in place is only as enjoyable as the people engaging with it.

 

[SakanaSensei]

The fiction.

"There's an ogre standing in the middle of the road up ahead."

The players are now aware of the situation in the game's fiction. Not a rule in sight.

It’s always interesting to me to see the overlap between OSR/Old School DMs (given previous discussion here and your tagline) and PBtA/FitD GMs. Feels like the old and new school should get along well, it’s just the mid-school like modern DnD that feels like it’s own thing.

 

[Windrunner]

Art Waring: Nice quote. I also use the maxim from training by the Swiss Army: When you are in the field and the terrain and map don't match; assume the terrain is correct!.

 

[Reynard]

I never said no rules.

I wanted to circle back to.this: I know you didn't. I don't know why I decided to interpret it that way. Sorry about that.

FWIW I think I largely agree with you with the caveat that I think everyone has a personal definition of what few or lite rules means.

One game I keep meaning to try as aGM is Ironsworn. I watched Me Myself and Die and was really intrigued by the simple narrative dice mechanic (plus it's a great Actual Play of a solo RPG).