Why do RPGs have rules?

[Micah Sweet]

This seems like saying that it's easy to play wrong with AD&D, because one might not be sure about how to map or key a dungeon, or how to adjudicate the play of the dungeon. I mean, maybe that's true, but both Moldvay and Gygax provide worked examples (for what it's worth, I think that Moldvay's is a better teaching text).

Apocalypse World is full of examples, and explanation. It's not arcane!

Again, the rules don't seem particularly open to interpretation. There are many ways to play D&D. I only see one correct way to play AW. The entire book is full of imperatives about how exactly to play that way. The hard structure this and other storygames are designed for is difficult to follow coming from other styles of play, and isn't to me worth it to force myself to learn.

 

[Bedrockgames]

This seems like saying that it's easy to play wrong with AD&D, because one might not be sure about how to map or key a dungeon, or how to adjudicate the play of the dungeon. I mean, maybe that's true, but both Moldvay and Gygax provide worked examples (for what it's worth, I think that Moldvay's is a better teaching text).

Apocalypse World is full of examples, and explanation. It's not arcane!

But with these I wouldn't say they are right approaches, just approaches. That is kind of the beauty of it.

 

[Fenris-77]

Again, the rules don't seem particularly open to interpretation. There are many ways to play D&D. I only see one correct way to play AW. The entire book is full of imperatives about how exactly to play that way. The hard structure this and other storygames are designed for is difficult to follow coming from other styles of play, and isn't to me worth it to force myself to learn.

I haven't found this to be true in play. The book is indeed specific about when to make a move, but what exact move and what it looks like is very open. The notion of 'make a move here' is really just a rewriting of what most GMs do anyway, but codified differently. The move itsewlf isn't being dictated, just that a move of some sort should take place. It's a very different approach than, say, D&D.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I haven't found this to be true in play. The book is indeed specific about when to make a move, but what exact move and what it looks like is very open. The notion of 'make a move here' is really just a rewriting of what most GMs do anyway, but codified differently. The move itsewlf isn't being dictated, just that a move of some sort should take place. It's a very different approach than, say, D&D.

It is a very different approach, unfortunately with a play goal that I don't value enough to learn that approach.

Also, they literally put a list of moves on every character sheet. To me that strongly implies that, outside of free roleplay, you should be trying to do one of those things when you engage with the game's rules. The GM has a hard list of do's and don'ts. The structure is hard-coded.

 

[pemerton]

But with these I wouldn't say they are right approaches, just approaches. That is kind of the beauty of it.

I don't know what you have in mind here.

Think about things like keeping the map and key secret from the players (such that, say, players should not read the module in advance of play). Setting up dungeon levels (no red dragon in the first room of the first level). Designing traps and tricks so that they are detectable or otherwise fair, rather than arbitrary.

There are a host of things that a new D&D player/GM needs to learn. Moldvay Basic spells all of this out.

 

[pemerton]

Again, the rules don't seem particularly open to interpretation. There are many ways to play D&D. I only see one correct way to play AW.

I don't know how you are individuating "ways".

Clearly there are many people who play DW (which is a variant on AW) in a neo-trad rather than "story now" fashion.

It's clearly possible to play AW with quite different degrees of thematic and emotional intensity, and with different degrees of focus on the external and the internal/dramatic.

 

[pemerton]

It is a very different approach, unfortunately with a play goal that I don't value enough to learn that approach.

Also, they literally put a list of moves on every character sheet. To me that strongly implies that, outside of free roleplay, you should be trying to do one of those things when you engage with the game's rules. The GM has a hard list of do's and don'ts. The structure is hard-coded.

This is like saying that, because an AD&D PC sheet has AC, hp and to hit all listed prominently, AD&D players should be trying to engage in combat at every opportunity!

All a player in AW has to do is to declare actions for their PC. The extent to which a player wants to control the flow of play, by seeking to trigger player-side moves, is up to them.

 

[Maxperson]

Max, that strains credibility... Especially given FR's 25+ years of development and multiple cataclysmic events each justifying a rules set change (post hoc change, to be pedantic), plus the TSR and 3E era WotC carelessness about canon.

There is no FR that I use after 3.5 and the Time of Troubles doesn't alter what I said at all.

D&D (esp Greyhawk and FR), Trek, and Marvel are notorious for canon inconsistencies, as is the WEG era and later SWEU, and post Disney-purchase-of-Lucasfilm SW canon universe.

So, items developed from inconsistent Lore often are inconsistent with existing lore because the canon self contradicts.

Much of the older lore is changed due to sociopolitical tolerance changes, and it is strongly implicit more such change will follow.

As I said, I haven't gotten rid of the older lore for the most part. One exception is that I liked King Azoun, so he never died in my game.

TLDR: one can only extrapolate with consistency if the sources to extrapolate from are consistent.

Not true. I can also decided on one of the contradictory bits of lore and just go from there. A few contradictory pieces of lore doesn't at all mean that I cannot extrapolate just fine. At worst it means that I have to pick one as true and ditch the other. For the other 99.99% of the lore that isn't contradictory, there is no problem.

 

[Campbell]

Again, the rules don't seem particularly open to interpretation. There are many ways to play D&D. I only see one correct way to play AW. The entire book is full of imperatives about how exactly to play that way. The hard structure this and other storygames are designed for is difficult to follow coming from other styles of play, and isn't to me worth it to force myself to learn.

There are plenty of play style differences from game to game. They're just not the ones you are used to. It's like looking at gin rummy and complaining it does not have the same sort of variances as poker when you are not familiar enough with rummy to even tell what the differences could be from table to table.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is like saying that, because an AD&D PC sheet has AC, hp and to hit all listed prominently, AD&D players should be trying to engage in combat at every opportunity!

All a player in AW has to do is to declare actions for their PC. The extent to which a player wants to control the flow of play, by seeking to trigger player-side moves, is up to them.

You can't imagine what I'm talking about, so I'm just going to leave it there.