What are the rules for?

[mmadsen]

A map is part of the rules. It is a set of rules that determines where objects, people, and terrain features are in relation to each other. Rules need not be written in a book. They can be communicated in an infinite number of ways. Anything that assists the participants in imagining the same situation in the same way is a rule. Even a description of what a character is wearing is a rule. Most rules are social or descriptive, not mathematical.

This is not at all how I’m using the term.

 

[Piperken]

We actually don’t rely on rules for a lot of that. The canonical example would be a map.

This is in of itself, not a good example. What if the map your characters are given is partial, lacks its key, or those who fictionally receive the map cannot understand it because of the passage of time, cultural mores, etc.? This is a very common example!

 

[mmadsen]

I'd argue the map has rules baked into it too: distance is usually there in some way, and that's relevant because players know how long it takes for people to cover those distances. The latter in particular are part of rules.

The whole point here is to differentiate game-specific mechanics, or rules, from a simple understanding of how the real (or imagined) world works, which a decent game master can adjudicate.

Most of any RPG is saying what you do, and the game master simply agreeing with you or rolling a die and surprising you with an unusually good or bad outcome.

Only a few activities have well spelled out mechanics that diverge from this pattern.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The whole point here is to differentiate game-specific mechanics, or rules, from a simple understanding of how the real (or imagined) world works, which a decent game master can adjudicate.

Can they, though? As six people how long it will take to travel ten miles through hilly terrain, and I suspect you'll get at least four different answers, possibly all four wrong.

Even things that have real world analogs are often in areas people aren't knowledgable in, and the game rules on that subject set a common ground for the people playing (including the GM). Not all game rules involve dice resolution or are about things that don't relate to mundane reality; it such things weren't "rules" then wargames wouldn't have visiblity or movement rules.

Most of any RPG is saying what you do, and the game master simply agreeing with you or rolling a die and surprising you with an unusually good or bad outcome.

Only a few activities have well spelled out mechanics that diverge from this pattern.

As you can see, I disagree. I think dropping back to GM adjucation is either an indication of an event being outside the normal scope of the game, or an indication the rules are incomplete. A GM shouldn't be forced to make (possibly badly based) assessments of travel distance without any rules support, nor should players be routinely forced to consult with him to make an estimation of that. And this is not the only place that can apply.

 

[A_Carrington]

Well, that's what it actually means. If you want to communicate a different meaning, use a different word.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I’ll throw this out there. The rules are there specifically so no one person has too much influence over the way things go in the game.

 

[Fenris-77]

The rules, as their core concern, determine how the characters interact with the setting and how the setting functions.