The Rules: Who cares?

[Korgoth]

I consider this a "3E / OGL" topic because I think it may be a trend which came about as a result of 3rd Edition and D20. When I recall how we used to play AD&D 1E back in the day, or how I run OD&D now, I would say that the style of game with which I am familiar (and enjoy) could be characterized as "fast and loose".

For example, back in the day I was in multiple long-running AD&D games. And yet we never used the nigh-incomprehensible Initiative system presented in the 1E DMG. Initiative was basically just handled by common sense, judgment calls and situational concerns. I still handle it that way today. I don't want to roll for initiative. I just want to go with what works.

For example, one side moves up to a group that has pole weapons. The pole side gets to strike first that round. The next round, the other side gets to go first (if they're still standing) because they're now inside the reach. Or one group is concealed in the bushes... the other group in the clearing knows that they're there, but not exactly where. The group in the bushes can go first if they conduct missile fire, but if they decide to run out into the open (from difficult terrain) then the other side will be ready for them, etc.

Initiative is just one example. For the most part, we never really cared (and I still don't care) what the rules say. The rules, on this model, are treated as guidelines. And I think that works for Old School games because everything is pretty modular and the individual PC doesn't have too many powers that actually require consistent application of the rules beyond the basics of combat, etc.

I would contrast this with the ethos of 3E and later. In those games, PCs have all these feats, skills, powers, class abilities, etc. that require consistent application of the rules to really be useful. Inititiative for example... there are feats, ability bonuses, class powers, all sorts of things that interact with it. If the DM throws out that rules subsystem, all the sudden somebody's PC just got nerfed. The whole thrust of having all these complex powers and chains of bonuses is that you're supposed to use the rules as written, use them all, and use them consistently without much intervention of judgement calls and on-the-fly rulings.

Just an observation. Sometimes I'm a bit surprised, I guess, when people seem to care about what the rules say and what it says on page X, etc. I'm more of a "close the book and listen to the Ref" guy. I'm not arguing for one way being better or worse (I may have an opinion on that, but I'm keeping it to myself)... just that it's an interesting difference.

 

[billd91]

I think increasing rule reliance/decreasing fiat reliance is really just an evolution of the AD&D project that started with 1e. Back when 1e was still pretty new, Gygax wrote, for the Dragon, a column explaining what the goal of AD&D was compared to D&D. Part of that goal was establishing a game that could provide for a greater consistency of experience from table to table and lead to more improvements in the rules. Both require somewhat more expansive rules as well as more unified mechanic rules to make them easier to understand and implement.

Along the way, I think AD&D picked up a few other goals as well, including the attempt to empower players against bad DMs, making the balance of power between DM and player a little more equal by putting more rules out in the open in front of the players.

I think the more expansive rules also help reduce barriers to broader groups of players. While the complexity could become an issue, more comprehensive rules mean that a diversity of player experiences, mindsets, and ability to apply common sense is better supported. Under fiat-heavy, looser games, you could see more of an effect based on differences in these factors. Applying highly contextual initiative rules requires an application of "common" sense with respect to medieval-style or fantasy weapons - a commodity that may be a lot scarcer than people would admit.

 

[MichaelK]

I've run in the past games that had no rules that you'd recognize as typical RPG rules. We had no character sheet, no dice, no GM fiat and players could declare their own victory or failure as they saw fit.

The only rule we had was, "this game is trying to recreate X genre. We all know that genre, let's try to simulate that genre as best we can."

It was a great deal of fun. It was creative, it told a story and it was quick and easy.

But it didn't have tactics or the intervention of random chance, the thrill of playing a game and trying to win. You can argue that roleplaying games have no winning or losing, but when the character you control is facing an adversary and you can determine the results with your choices and a bit of luck... well, it certainly feels like a win when that character triumphs.

When you play a game like D&D with the rule system intact and GM intervention occurring only to cover up glitches and hiccups in the underlying system it is a great game. You have creativity and storytelling which are completely non-competitive alongside a challenging tactical simulation where you can struggle to win.

I'm not saying there's nothing fun about the first option. In fact it's a very pure form of roleplaying with nothing getting in your way.

But it's not the same as the second option I describe and it's not definitively, objectively more fun.

Some people really like the second option. I guess to answer the question in your title, those are the people who care.

 

[ggroy]

For example, back in the day I was in multiple long-running AD&D games. And yet we never used the nigh-incomprehensible Initiative system presented in the 1E DMG. Initiative was basically just handled by common sense, judgment calls and situational concerns. I still handle it that way today. I don't want to roll for initiative. I just want to go with what works.

For example, one side moves up to a group that has pole weapons. The pole side gets to strike first that round. The next round, the other side gets to go first (if they're still standing) because they're now inside the reach. Or one group is concealed in the bushes... the other group in the clearing knows that they're there, but not exactly where. The group in the bushes can go first if they conduct missile fire, but if they decide to run out into the open (from difficult terrain) then the other side will be ready for them, etc.

When we first played the Moldvay basic D&D box set, we couldn't figure out what the rules were precisely. We were largely guessing at what the rules could be.

Initiative was one of those rules which we were not able to figure out at the time. So how we ended up doing the combat encounters was more or less in a "free form" manner. For example, if a badguy fighter was hiding around the corner and the party was not able to figure that out in advanced, this badguy fighter would try striking the closest player that first passes by the corner. Other stuff like badguy archers hiding in the dark at the other side of the room, would shoot arrows right away at the players at the front of the marching order.

A few years later when we finally figured out what the rules were suppose to be in Moldvay B/X and 1E AD&D, it turned out to be a huge mess for initiative and things like weapon speed factors when dealing with simultaneous initiative for both parties. An older more experienced guy who sometimes DM'd some of the D&D games we played in, had his own houserule where everybody rolled for initiative individually with a d20 and tallying the initiative order, which seemed a lot easier to do than dealing with weapons speed factors and other stuff.

Even today whenever I play one-on-one type D&D games with another person (ie. one person is the DM while the other person plays 4 or 5 characters), the combat encounters were largely played in a "free form" manner.

 

[ST]

There's folks who really, really like the idea that the rule system is a complete codex of everything that can happen in the world. Like it's the ingame fictional physics, or something.

I'd hazard a guess that for some of those folks, system mastery and an immersive sort of "grokking" of their campaign world come together in some Zenlike 3.x immanence where every orc peon and human farmer moves around under the celestial sphere, each HP in place, no DC unbalanced.

Or something. That's what it sounds like when you ask some of these folks what's wrong with simpler systems. Seriously, though, I don't know what it was about 3.x, maybe the fact that OGL meant everyone was encouraged to generate more content, but it's the first system I've really seen a ton of people use to argue that every single thing that can be quantified in a game, should be. Even hardcore GURPS and HERO folks will sometimes just go "Oh, it's an NPC, so I winged it on the numbers".

I've never personally run a campaign using more than 20-30 pages of rules. Like, if it was a more complex system, we ignored the bulk of it. I did run a fair number of "stock" D&D 3.0 adventures online through Neverwinter Nights, but that hardly counts since the server did 90% of the rule-handling. Most of the time I run with FATE or something similarly light, with most of the effort ensuring results are believable and realistic in genre coming just from how the folks at the table describe what happens.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

There's folks who really, really like the idea that the rule system is a complete codex of everything that can happen in the world. Like it's the ingame fictional physics, or something.

That pretty much describes my style - I think of the rules as the physics of the game world. I don't play 3.x (when I feel like playing that approach I play Hero).

I do play 4E though and enjoy it. And I enjoyed 1st and earlier back then too.

 

[Crothian]

Just an observation. Sometimes I'm a bit surprised, I guess, when people seem to care about what the rules say and what it says on page X, etc. I'm more of a "close the book and listen to the Ref" guy. I'm not arguing for one way being better or worse (I may have an opinion on that, but I'm keeping it to myself)... just that it's an interesting difference.

I like to close the rule book and listen to the ref but it doesn't always work. There are some bad refs out who make inconsistent calls and who need a solid set of rules for them to run games. Also when going into a game at cons I prefer the letter of the rules because that's all I know going into the game. I've sat down at games at con and the ref throw out most of the rules at the table and it made the game a lot different and not what I was expecting.

Both ways can work and their are games written for each style.

 

[kitsune9]

I consider this a "3E / OGL" topic because I think it may be a trend which came about as a result of 3rd Edition and D20. When I recall how we used to play AD&D 1E back in the day, or how I run OD&D now, I would say that the style of game with which I am familiar (and enjoy) could be characterized as "fast and loose".

For example, back in the day I was in multiple long-running AD&D games. And yet we never used the nigh-incomprehensible Initiative system presented in the 1E DMG. Initiative was basically just handled by common sense, judgment calls and situational concerns. I still handle it that way today. I don't want to roll for initiative. I just want to go with what works.

For example, one side moves up to a group that has pole weapons. The pole side gets to strike first that round. The next round, the other side gets to go first (if they're still standing) because they're now inside the reach. Or one group is concealed in the bushes... the other group in the clearing knows that they're there, but not exactly where. The group in the bushes can go first if they conduct missile fire, but if they decide to run out into the open (from difficult terrain) then the other side will be ready for them, etc.

Initiative is just one example. For the most part, we never really cared (and I still don't care) what the rules say. The rules, on this model, are treated as guidelines. And I think that works for Old School games because everything is pretty modular and the individual PC doesn't have too many powers that actually require consistent application of the rules beyond the basics of combat, etc.

I would contrast this with the ethos of 3E and later. In those games, PCs have all these feats, skills, powers, class abilities, etc. that require consistent application of the rules to really be useful. Inititiative for example... there are feats, ability bonuses, class powers, all sorts of things that interact with it. If the DM throws out that rules subsystem, all the sudden somebody's PC just got nerfed. The whole thrust of having all these complex powers and chains of bonuses is that you're supposed to use the rules as written, use them all, and use them consistently without much intervention of judgement calls and on-the-fly rulings.

Just an observation. Sometimes I'm a bit surprised, I guess, when people seem to care about what the rules say and what it says on page X, etc. I'm more of a "close the book and listen to the Ref" guy. I'm not arguing for one way being better or worse (I may have an opinion on that, but I'm keeping it to myself)... just that it's an interesting difference.

I'll stick on the 3.0 and later editions as I agree that fast and loose can be better at earlier editions than in the later ones. The problem with fast and loose that I have run into time and time again is the lack of consistency. I wouldn't have a problem with DM's who run a game fast and loose, but it often becomes a consistency issue that runs afoul of fairness in a game. This is gets my goat.

For the polearm example, if the DM had said as a rule that all polearms go first, that's cool with me, so if I have a fighter who has a polearm, I know I'm going first and if I don't, I hope to go a close second or if I got a dagger, then I know I'm going dead last. But if one battle the pole arm folks go first, then the next battle the halfling with the dagger goes first, and then the next battle monsters just go first, and the next battle after that the characters go first, it gets frustrating.

I'll give another example that I gave in another thread (the no-goes thread). I went to a convention and saw one of my close friends. He told me about his old buddy that he hadn't seen in years and wanted me to register for his 3.0 D&D game and show some support, so we did.

At the beginning of the game, the DM gives us the fast and loose talk in that he read the rules, but wanted to streamline the play. After a while, it was quite evident that he either didn't read the rules or truly didn't care about them at all. If the rules are thrown away to some degree, then I've stopped playing D&D. I'm playing a fantasy version of Make Believe with some dice and character sheets thrown in, because the rules hold no meaning.

Anyways, the DM ran haphazard encounters as he was gaming on the fly, there was no plot other than we met at a tavern to go explore some dungeon which at the end was Orcus and we needed to be saved by the DM's PetNPC. End of Game. Yay....

We rolled for initiative, but the DM didn't. Monsters went first. Just the way it was. When the DM decided combat was over, combat was over, right in the middle of one player's turn. We fell into a trap with no Spot check, no reflex save, nothing. The rogue's statement of "I'm looking for traps" was pointless, because the DM nor the player rolled for searching for traps. Soon after three hours of this, we no longer made statements of "I attack the orc!" or "I search the room for secret doors.", but we switched to "Can I attack the orc?" or "Can I search the room for secret doors?" Nothing was consistent or made sense and our confidence in being able to make reasonable assumptions that D&D provides to us has been taken away. This also has the same kind of behavior that one asks when being taught a new boardgame--"Can I do this?", "Can I do that?", "Can I...?". Once the fast and loose DM retains all the power of actions and logic, then the players need to get "clearance" before they can proceed.

However, if one looked at it from the DM's point-of-view, it was a cool story. The characters are mercs who think they've seen it all (we're 5th level after all!). There's a dungeon infested with some orcs, go clear it out. The characters are in for the fight of their lives when they discover that they are not up against just any orcs, but special orcs devoted to Orcus and Orcus shows up! The DM's pet NPC, some Elminster like great archmage shows up and saves the characters! The problem with this was that only the DM could see the story from his point-of-view and his style of fast and loose made this an exercise in frustration for the players and clouded their view of the game in general.

In my experience with DM's who like fast and loose translates into having never read the rules or even skimmed the books. Again, this can be frustrating for players who have read the rules or frequently play in regimented campaigns like Living Greyhawk or Mark of Heroes from the RPGA and then play in a home campaign where the players just follow the logic of the DM and hope for the best.

I usually wouldn't have too much of a problem with these types except where I get burned the most is at conventions where I've paid money to play a game and the DM shows up disorganized, gives us the "fast and loose" spiel and the next four hours is just sitting and listening to him give out his narrative of what he thinks is a great and awesome adventure and allowing me to roll some dice and participate every once in a while. Just like the one I described above.

Lastly, don't take this as a criticism you guys personally who play this way. Everyone has their own style and play and really there is no right or wrong as long as you and your players are having fun. If you guys are having fun, that's awesome. But for me....I'd probably would go crazy.

Sorry for the quasi-rant, but fast and loose gets my goat and too many bad memories. I know people will disagree with me, which I am cool with that if this style is what works for your gaming group and everyone enjoys it. Having fun at the game is what I think to be the most important aspect of all, regardless of style.

Happy Gaming!

 

[mmadsen]

I've run in the past games that had no rules that you'd recognize as typical RPG rules. We had no character sheet, no dice, no GM fiat and players could declare their own victory or failure as they saw fit.

The only rule we had was, "this game is trying to recreate X genre. We all know that genre, let's try to simulate that genre as best we can."

It was a great deal of fun. It was creative, it told a story and it was quick and easy.

But it didn't have tactics or the intervention of random chance, the thrill of playing a game and trying to win. You can argue that roleplaying games have no winning or losing, but when the character you control is facing an adversary and you can determine the results with your choices and a bit of luck... well, it certainly feels like a win when that character triumphs.

When you play a game like D&D with the rule system intact and GM intervention occurring only to cover up glitches and hiccups in the underlying system it is a great game.

I think you've drawn a bit of a false dichotomy there. The choice isn't between let's tell a story and D&D with lots of rules.

After all, you can play a game full of tactics and random chance with virtually no rules by relying on GM fiat. That's what a free kriegsspiel is: the ref judges the situation, decides on some odds, then rolls a die to see whether the best-case, worst-case, etc. happens.

 

[Dykstrav]

There are indeed times where you can ignore the rules with creativity and flair. In fact, the old World of Darkness games were usually much better when you did ignore or change a large portion of the rules (the setting and its core "truths" were either so vague or obfuscated that it gave many simulationists a migrane).

I personally like having the rules in place, where everyone can see them or check on them as they'd like, and the players know that the rules are applied evenly and fairly. The reason for this is because DM fiat is only as good as the DM in question.

In my experience, many DMs who don't use the rules usually either a) don't really understand the rules, or b) are poor at designing a narrative within the framework of the rules. Either situation is extremely frustrating when I go in to a game without some sort of notice about house rules or the like, I've left campaigns over such issues.

A prime example of this is the last 3.5 game I played, where the DM had a group of thugs cast sleep on our elven druid when she got seperated from the party. When two players pointed out that elves are specifically immune to sleep, he told us that we were wrong and proceeded to describe the druid's plight. We showed him the elf's racial entry in the Player's Handbook, he looked it over, and then flatly told us that he never knew that elves were immune to sleep before then and the campaign's story hinged on the use of sleep spells. Therefore, elves aren't immune to sleep in his setting.

In this same campaign, we were tasked with tracking down an orc camp in the wilderness. So I told him that I would scan the horizon in the day time for smoke. He didn't really understand why, so I explained to him that campfires give off smoke, so if the orcs had a campfire, we could find them that way. So he told me that my cleric character wasn't smart enough to think of something like that (with an Intelligence of 13, for what it's worth), Spot doesn't appear on the cleric's class skill list so I wouldn't think of doing something like that, and the only possible way for us to find the orc camp was to go through this whole Track thing. We didn't have a ranger either, so our barbarian had to blow a feat to find this orc camp. To top it all off, there were six blazing campfires when we found this orc camp.

I could relate several such anecdotes from several games. Suffice to say that many veterans of the hobby have similar experiences. "Common sense" and "judgement calls" are unfortunately not universal, and in the hands of an inept DM, are frustrating enough to make you leave a group.