Rules as Law vs. Rules as Guidelines

[clearstream]

Thanks for asking this, because I gave sort of a half answer for some games.

Go for it. I don't remember if it's in AW, but I know Masks specifically recommends the GM to come up with custom moves for villains and for unusual situations.

What I really should have said was that there are some games where the GM can clearly cheat because what they can do is prescribed in specific ways, so those you want to treat as law. But there are times working within that prescribed area where it is still permissible to treat the rules as guidelines - within the same game.

That put in mind the following thought-experiment

• I have rule anti-0 (kind of the opposite of rule 0) that says don't break the rules
• And I have rule 1 that says the MC can come up with new rules
• And as MC, I come up with a rule 2 that says ignore rule anti-0
• So I need another rule ante-anti-0 that comes before rule anti-0, that says never ignore rule anti-0
• But then, as MC following rule anti-0 and rule 1, I come up with a rule 3... and so on
• Infinite-regress

I think you rightly point to norms as providing settled meta-rules, including agreement on what play is desired to be constituted in view of which participants choose to grasp and uphold the rules in the conforming ways. And were equally right in acknowledging that "aberrant" play might be enjoyed at some particular tables. To close the loop, I would add that said that when rules are grasped and upheld to constitute said aberrant play, those rules are correctly grasped and upheld, i.e. in conformance to the group's meta-rules even if not in accord with norms.

 

[Blue]

That put in mind the following thought-experiment

• I have rule anti-0 (kind of the opposite of rule 0) that says don't break the rules
• And I have rule 1 that says the MC can come up with new rules
• And as MC, I come up with a rule 2 that says ignore rule anti-0
• So I need another rule ante-anti-0 that comes before rule anti-0, that says never ignore rule anti-0
• But then, as MC following rule anti-0 and rule 1, I come up with a rule 3... and so on
• Infinite-regress

I think you rightly point to norms as providing settled meta-rules, including agreement on what play is desired to be constituted in view of which participants choose to grasp and uphold the rules in the conforming ways. And were equally right in acknowledging that "aberrant" play might be enjoyed at some particular tables. To close the loop, I would add that said that when rules are grasped and upheld to constitute said aberrant play, those rules are correctly grasped and upheld, i.e. in conformance to the group's meta-rules even if not in accord with norms.

I have to agree. First, and most important, is that if a table is having fun - you're doing it right. Regardless of what anyone else thinks.

I wasn't pointing out meta rules simply as a trump card though - rules are more than just mechanics, and when you enshrine in the rules encouragement for the GM to override mechanics for a better result for a specific situation, to hack and tweak the system, and similar changes, then making those changes are part of the expectations of the rules, so can't be "breaking" the rules to do them. Even systems that try to be serious simulations of the genre like Hero System/Champions still acknowledge that there are times outside the mechanics that require GM adjudication. And for systems that are lighter then the GM overriding the limited mechanical results as provided by a game is often expected by the rules. In 5e a DM can grant advantage or Disadvantage when they like - you can be in the "Rules as Laws" camp and still do this -- it's in the rules.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I have to agree. First, and most important, is that if a table is having fun - you're doing it right. Regardless of what anyone else thinks.

I wasn't pointing out meta rules simply as a trump card though - rules are more than just mechanics, and when you enshrine in the rules encouragement for the GM to override mechanics for a better result for a specific situation, to hack and tweak the system, and similar changes, then making those changes are part of the expectations of the rules, so can't be "breaking" the rules to do them. Even systems that try to be serious simulations of the genre like Hero System/Champions still acknowledge that there are times outside the mechanics that require GM adjudication. And for systems that are lighter then the GM overriding the limited mechanical results as provided by a game is often expected by the rules. In 5e a DM can grant advantage or Disadvantage when they like - you can be in the "Rules as Laws" camp and still do this -- it's in the rules.

The only problem with this, is that books are, on the whole, really bad about telling people that the necessity in traditional games to occasionally step in is not the same thing as doing it any time you feel like it. That distinction matters a great degree to at least some of us, and it gets remarkably old for people to act like the difference doesn't matter.

 

[clearstream]

I have to agree. First, and most important, is that if a table is having fun - you're doing it right. Regardless of what anyone else thinks.

I wasn't pointing out meta rules simply as a trump card though - rules are more than just mechanics, and when you enshrine in the rules encouragement for the GM to override mechanics for a better result for a specific situation, to hack and tweak the system, and similar changes, then making those changes are part of the expectations of the rules, so can't be "breaking" the rules to do them. Even systems that try to be serious simulations of the genre like Hero System/Champions still acknowledge that there are times outside the mechanics that require GM adjudication. And for systems that are lighter then the GM overriding the limited mechanical results as provided by a game is often expected by the rules. In 5e a DM can grant advantage or Disadvantage when they like - you can be in the "Rules as Laws" camp and still do this -- it's in the rules.

I would add that it is within the power of omnipotence to limit itself. 5e leaves it to the group to supply the principles by which decisions like granting adv/disadv may be constrained.

@Thomas Shey my thought-experiment implies that the power to follow the rules and make rulings is always done according to principles that ultimately cannot be found in the game text. All games lean on our disposition to obey norms. Some games use that more consciously than others. Perhaps that is adjacent to what you are saying.

 

[Blue]

The only problem with this, is that books are, on the whole, really bad about telling people that the necessity in traditional games to occasionally step in is not the same thing as doing it any time you feel like it. That distinction matters a great degree to at least some of us, and it gets remarkably old for people to act like the difference doesn't matter.

Just to do some levelsetting, I think the rules are a shared resource so that everyone is on the same page, especially about what their characters can do. I don't want to ignore it willy-nilly, and when running a game like D&D 5e I have two houserules (inspiration can be a reroll, drinking a potion yourself is a bonus action) and otherwise play by RAW. I'm more towards "Rules as Law" except where the rules tell you to modify themselves.

But how much changes are acceptable from that baseline really depends on the table, the ruleset, and the actual change occuring.

To stay with 5e for some examples I adjust monster CRs and homebrew monster features practically every session. Some see that as rules changes, some don't. I don't, or other like additions like making up a custom magic item. But even if I did, the DMG has rules for customizing monsters so it's part of that.

I will occasionally make rulings like "because you are in leg shackles, you have -15' to your speed" or "in these choppy seas, if your armor gives you a stealth penalty it's also going to give an athletics penalty to swim". These I feel are in the spirit of Rulings not Rules direction of that game where the "physics engine" of 5e does not try to cover all cases and leaves it up to the DM. How much stomach the table has for changes like this can vary, but to me this is one of the benefits of a human DM over a video game.

I don't make fundamental rules changes, or if I did it would be part of the pitch for a new campaign before session 0. "This is Dark Sun, there are no divine classes available, but we have several new races and psionics."

For something like the PbtA game Masks: A New Generation, I consider the Agenda and Principles inviolate. But it has a whole chapter on Custom Moves so adding a new move for a situation or for a villain is something I consider inside the rules.

Again, even with the changes above, I consider myself much closer to Rules as Law on the spectrum - but for me that includes following the rules own guidance on making ad hoc rulings and creations.

I definitly can see where GMs might go overboard, where that can degrade the shared understanding the rules bring to everyone at the table or just wander into less fun. But I would think that would come from either making changes that the rules don't encourage, making enough rulings that the game doesn't feel consistent - the same thing works differently for no good reason, or by making such a slew of changes that it effects the fundamental feel of the game.

 

[robconley]

I'm far from allergic to house rules, though I've reached the point where if I have to do more than a few I start seriously questioning whether I'm using the right system in the first place (that said, sometimes there's no proper tool for the job and you just have to pick what's closest and hammer until it is).

No you just doing what they did back in the early 70s when folks thought of something fun to play but due to the lack of published systems came up with the rules to make it happen. But they were not operating in a vacuum either. By the early 70s there was a bunch of well-known techniques and mechanics floating around the community that folks can adapt.

We have a leg up decades later due to the wealth of published and shared system, however no RPG authors can account for all of the specifics of the setting you have in mind. Even with systems like GURPS or Savage Worlds. Hence the need to use the process that existed since the beginning of the hobby to realize the setting you have in mind in the form you want.

 

[Thomas Shey]

@Thomas Shey my thought-experiment implies that the power to follow the rules and make rulings is always done according to principles that ultimately cannot be found in the game text. All games lean on our disposition to obey norms. Some games use that more consciously than others. Perhaps that is adjacent to what you are saying.

The problem is that games tell you how to set the norms, and tend to imply in many cases that the GM ultimately is the person who sets those, too. Which means that an excessively interventionist GM is only restrained by, essentially, player revolt and many players have internalized the same set of expectations. Not, mind you, that they necessarily prefer it that way, just that they assume "that's how it is."

I mean, seriously, if anyone thinks that trad and even neotrad groups err on the side being too slow to change rules, they're existing in a different world than I am. And part of it I blame on the fact rules texts often are really slow to discuss the subject.

Do another thought experiment: have two different people post thread starters, one praising "Rulings Not Rules" and another "Stick to the Rules vigorously" and see which one is accepted as a legitimate approach and which one gets more pushback.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I definitly can see where GMs might go overboard, where that can degrade the shared understanding the rules bring to everyone at the table or just wander into less fun. But I would think that would come from either making changes that the rules don't encourage, making enough rulings that the game doesn't feel consistent - the same thing works differently for no good reason, or by making such a slew of changes that it effects the fundamental feel of the game.

As I said above, the thing is I think "might" understates it in some cases; and there's literally decades of social pressure telling people who react negatively to that that they're being "rules lawyers", and see how often someone who sticks to their guns on that isn't presented as the bad guy in the interaction.

 

[Thomas Shey]

No you just doing what they did back in the early 70s when folks thought of something fun to play but due to the lack of published systems came up with the rules to make it happen. But they were not operating in a vacuum either. By the early 70s there was a bunch of well-known techniques and mechanics floating around the community that folks can adapt.

We have a leg up decades later due to the wealth of published and shared system, however no RPG authors can account for all of the specifics of the setting you have in mind. Even with systems like GURPS or Savage Worlds. Hence the need to use the process that existed since the beginning of the hobby to realize the setting you have in mind in the form you want.

Well, that's why I was generally more tolerant of that back in the day; often there was no tool particularly close to the job, so if you weren't going to do something from the ground up, considerable hammering on an extent system is inevitable.

But I see a lot of trying to houserule systems into serving purposes they're not fundamentally well suited for, and I kind of reserve the right to say that's what it looks like when I see it. Its not helped by the fact the more houseruling you do, the more your limitations as a game designer are liable to show themselves.

(Not, mind you, that I don't think there are published rules sets that show the limitations of their designers, too.)

 

[Anon Adderlan]

Regardless of which side you choose, all rules require interpretation, and you can't have rulings without rules.

They are law for players and guidelines for the DM.

Good. Someone said it, now we can move o...

The point of the thread was whether you are in support of rules as law or guidelines.

Well yes but...

I purport that the spell was intended to mend "small breaks" as regarded as small and defined by the dictionary definition of "a break (n.)", just google it up and see, understand the words you use.

Is this the start of a bit?

So you're saying that a slender dagger couldn't be cracked? I'm saying it can have a crack or a fracture, I've seen them in weapons in real life.

Daggers don't get cracked, they either break outright or not, especially slender ones. The only exception are cases of poor annealing.

It's clear from how 3.5 uses "broken" and "breaks" that it includes both cracks and full separation.

This too.

It may also receive damage as means of good storytelling;

Now I know you're doing a bit.