The rules should serve the game, not vice-versa

[Snoweel]

"The rules should serve the game, not vice-versa."

I've always held to this mantra, made famous here in the .sig of one of our more illustrious members.

And it has been the source of my greatest frustration with the 3e/3.5e ruleset, and the lack of options it provided (though recently repaired somewhat with the brilliant Unearthed Arcana).

So of course my homebrew has an immense collection of houserules and modifications to races, classes and the CR system, such that I've become an expert (in my opinion) at 'tweaking'.

So much so that I'm confident in my ability to invent any rule, spell, feat, class or race that my campaign might need. I no longer need to buy new gaming books (though I do, if only for ideas and artwork).

The downside of this is that my homebrew is 'up on blocks' - it is in a transient stage of world design where I am bogged down by sheer weight of options - right down to the level of cosmology/religion/magic (three factors that are intrinsically linked, at least IMO).

But I think I've found a fix.

I've always believed that borders (restrictions) allowed me to be more creative, rather than less, as they cause my effort to be directed, as opposed to going around in circles (which I had caught myself doing).

And this is why I've decided to go back to the core rules and see if I can't use the assumptions implied therein to direct my creative energies in a particular direction - to make 'the game serve the rules', as it were.

And I feel good. For the moment.

Whaddaya reckon?

Anyone else experienced this epiphany?

Am I likely to end up frustrated with my inability to fit my vision with that described by the game's designers?

 

[MerricB]

I think it's a good way to go.

You might want to read this article by Mark Rosewater: Rules of the Game: Structure breeds Creativity. While Mark is mainly discussing Magic design, it also applies to D&D.

Here's an interesting quote:

Suppose I locked a talented writer in a room. Once a week, I force him to write a short story. On the odd weeks, I let him write whatever he wants. On the even weeks, I give him a topic he has to write about. Will he be more creative on the odd or the even weeks? Research shows that the even weeks far outstrip the odd weeks.

Why? Because the even weeks force the writer’s mind to new areas of thought. Perhaps the writer would never think to write a story about a trapeze artist, but tell him he has to write about the circus and the writer heads down pathways he’s never tapped. In fact, experienced writers understand this phenomenon and thus build restrictions for themselves.

Cheers!

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

Great insights. Please let us know how the process goes for you.

I'm in a similar pickle. I love picking up game books for ideas, new rules, new feats, etc. But the amount of options gets overwhelming, and even before I began world-building I knew it was necessary to cut things. I'm lucky though: I've decided to run Arcana Unearthed, which has tons of new flavor and great variant rules but basically is the Core. I'm using the AU book and adding some feats and spells from 3.5, the 3.0 DMG, magic items from Diamond Throne, the MM, and Legacy of Dragons, a homebrew race and homebrew class.

Those books give me a great base for my campaign world with plenty of ideas I can lift. In fact, as I look at the list on screen, I realize how much it is. I've got no problem inventing or tweaking, but I only want to do that as situations arise. If I have a player who's got some unique and interesting ideas about weapon forms, I'll create a feat chain specifically for that character. I think this also helps provide borders, restrictions, and structure, as the PC is giving me an idea and then I can just run with it, rather than let my free-wheeling imagination try and search for something it'd probably never find on its own.

 

[Psion]

Um... I'm not sure that people are quite understanding my sig.

But then, I don't exactly remember the circumstance which forced me to that epiphany about my philosophy, so I am stuck for a good example.

Let's just say that I am in no way saying the structure of D&D is in any way anethema to me. In fact, I agree with the content of Merric's post. I am also not saying that it's antithetical to run with games using the rules as the rules of reality and following them to a logical conclusion. That's often the way I do them.

It's more the situation where the rules force an outcome that is at odds with my design intentions or with what I consider logical. Let me see if I can dig up the example that inspired this. (This may take a bit as I am about to leave and I am certain it was in the content of an email that I no longer have on this computer.)

 

[Numion]

We've played a very enjoyable campaign with core rules only. And we've done the same using every book we have. I don't know about your creative juices, but the rules are there for use as you please.

The saying "rules should serve the game..." isn't really that clear-cut. True in some way, but rules and 'everything else' that makes up the whole game aren't orthogonal. The rules influence the atmosphere and setting, and vice versa. IMO it's impossible to have a vision of a world and then perfectly map that into any RPG system. There is going to be feedback from the rules.

But good luck with your campaign. Using core rules only isn't any more or less imaginative than using all the bells and whistles available. It's just different. Maybe you'll spend more time designing the world itself rather than PrCs and extra rules, and if thats what you like, go ahead.

 

[DragonLancer]

The rules should serve the game, not vice-versa.

I agree with that statement.
I see it as meaning that the rules are just a guideline and not to be taken as 100% gospel truth. There are times that the DM feels that there is a better way in a given circumstance that happens in game. The rules are simply there as advice to determine events.

Sadly I have a player in my group who fully believes that the rules of any RPG are set in stone, and sadly dispite everything my group and I have tried to tell him, fails to get through. :\

 

[Bendris Noulg]

For me, it's all about the game; the rules should only be in a supporting role. To this end, I generally come up with a few basic premises (atmosphere of the world, the origins and influence of magic, etc.) and then apply the rules that fit it, alter the rules that conflict with it, and add rules that promote it.

Granted, the last thing my game could be called is Dungeons & Dragons, but I've come to consider this a good thing during the past 4 years.

 

[D+1]

The rules should serve the game, not vice versa. I also agree. 3.0/3.5 does do this emminently well though. Its structure is such that while presenting a fixed set of rules they are easily changed, providing for alternate rules, additional rules, or even removal of rules.

 

[Psion]

Okay, I think I recall what originally prompted me to cite that guiding philosophy. Since then, I have applied it to a number of different situaitons to my satisfaction.

I was conversing with a noted game designer about the design of feats. I had designed some feats which were similar to existing skill bonus feats as regional feats. To compensate for their existence, I made a house rule than non-regional class enhancers only gave a competence bonus so there was some advantage to going for the regional feat.

During the whole argument, his emphasis and worry was on having two feats that were nearly identical, and was all spun out of shape that I was trying to give a benefit to a feat from a specific region. (I wonder what he thought about players guide to faerun. Not that I would blame him if he didn't like them; I think the benefit they provide are too much themselves.) The whole time I was worried about emphasizing the feel of certain region. His side of the argument seemed to stem from sanctity of the rules.

Anyway, the bring the point home with another vague example, I was posting about ignoring either my outlawing of a specific class that I felt was unbalanced over on NKL that I was considering allowing for a specific character in a situation that I didn't consider unbalanced. As I put it there "I can argue the letter of the rules in forums, but am willing to ignore that at the table if I sense that is going to be a buzzkill." (I forget the specifics of this one and can't seem to muster it by going through the characters in the last game. Ah well.)

So I guess the essence of what I am saying is that when the GM is acting as an amateur game designer/filter, he should have a different set of criteria than a published game designer might. The former should be concerned in making the game fun an interesting for his particular players and characters, even if it causes some oddities in the rules, while the latter might want to be the sort that shoots for consistency, principle, and considers worst case scenarios.

Of course, you also gotta realize when cracking down on the rules is being a buzzkill is the right thing to do. I just nerfed an ability a character had that gave him +25 spot to +10 spot. For what he paid for it, that was way too much. Nerfing it both makes it so he doesn't so much outshine the rest of the party and so it preserves the possibilities of some encounters.

Edit: Here's another example that just came up on another board: the classical "why does diplomacy throw roleplaying out the window" argument, and variants of it (like by the letter of the book, you can convince the villain to be your best friend if your skill and roll are good enough.)

But would you let your characters talk the villain into giving up? It might be dramatically appropriate in some cases, but in many cases, it is not. There's the rub: its a tool but a relatively situation insensitive one. If you need a tool for resolving diplomacy, its a passable one. But if the situation warrants, you should invent your own DCs particular to the situation.

In short, and another way to put it: use the rules, but don't let the rules use you.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

So I guess the essence of what I am saying is that when the GM is acting as an amateur game designer/filter, he should have a different set of criteria than a published game designer might. The former should be concerned in making the game fun an interesting for his particular players and characters, even if it causes some oddities in the rules, while the latter might want to be the sort that shoots for consistency, principle, and considers worst case scenarios.

Beautiful, dude... Simply beautiful.