Worlds of Design: You're Playing it Wrong!

Does it matter if you play a game “wrong”?

Picture courtesy of Pixabay​

Getting it Wrong in Two Parts​

The question of possibly playing a game “wrong” has at least two separate parts: first, how much must you adhere to the game rules and second, what should the spirit of the game be?

Board Games vs. RPGs​

The “inviolability” of rules is different for board games than for RPGs because there’s no GM in board games. In effect, the board game rules are the GM. There should be no room for interpretation of board game rules, but because they’re written by humans, and read by humans, doubts arise - even the designer may not be sure. RPG rules are much more like miniatures rules, partly a matter for negotiation. The lack of GM or other arbitrator/interpreter of rules is why board game rules must be much more carefully constructed and written than RPG rules.

I don’t play my board games after they’re published, except when I change the rules to try different things for variants or new editions. I design games for other people to play, not for me to play. And when someone asks me about the rules for my games I say “you have to play according to what’s written in the rules” and “I’m not the best person to ask about the right way to play.” Because people who play the game regularly sometimes know the rules better than I do.

Rules as Written (RAW)​

Nonetheless, if you spend much time on social media, you might run into comments from a group of people who are very sure that AD&D must be played exactly as AD&D was written (sometimes called RAW, Rules As Written).

There is no assurance that the game’s rules as written are going to be the best way to play for some players. Here’s the reality of writing rules for boardgame or role-playing games: sometimes you playtest a game and have a choice between two rules, and one seems to be just as good as the other. Which rule you use becomes an arbitrary choice. Some people prefer your choice, some might prefer the one you rejected.

Keep in mind, when someone publishes your game, rather than you publishing it, changes can be made either accidentally or without your knowledge (as my Britannia) or even against your will.

I first watched a published version of my board game Britannia being played in 2004 (it was published in 1986 and 1987, but I took 20 years out from the game industry and only played D&D). I remember exclaiming “no way!” when I saw Jutes floating at sea long after they were required to have landed, in the prototype. But owing to a misunderstanding (I was not sufficiently clear in my rules), Gibsons (the original publisher) had changed the rules so that interminable floating at sea was allowed.

I told people to play the game the way the rules were written, even though I didn’t write those incorrect rules, which were nonsensical historically. But the 1st edition was and is pretty popular even though the Avalon Hill version incorrectly changed several rules from the original Gibsons version (both are regarded as first edition).

Rules as Intended (RAI)​

I think RPGs are written to accommodate many different styles of play, different preferences. As Justin Arman of WotC put it, "The game [D&D] was designed to be house-ruled." That’s certainly true of most if not all role-playing games.

Some boardgame designers have been known to tell people that something that’s legal within the rules is nonetheless wrong because “that’s not what I meant” or “that’s not the right way to play.” - as though even the rules are not enough. This is nonsense.

Consider also, because RPGs are responsible for everything in the entire game world, creators typically don't have or take the time to playtest all the rules, not even once! When Gary Gygax was writing the AD&D rules he had a lot of experience from play of the earlier versions of D&D. Nonetheless, he was adding rules for a lot more situations to the game. IIRC he was also in a hurry.

When a designer changes a rule in a game, this can cause unintended consequences as it meshes with other rules. That’s also true when players change a rule. Even Gygax said he regretted certain rules (e.g. grappling).

Nowadays you can organize massive playtesting for a new edition of very popular games, but that’s the exception to the norm.

RAW vs. RAI​

In the light of many years of play experience it certainly could occur that the rules as written ought to be superseded by changes to make the game work better. (Or at least better according to the preferences of the person doing the revision.) For example, I think the AD&D training rules are nonsense both from a game design point of view and how people actually learn. But others think they’re sacred. House ruling is inevitable, quite apart from the many rules that are open to multiple interpretations.

Speaking as a game designer, I don't mind if people want to play my game not according to the rules; but they must recognize it probably won’t work as well as they expect, and won’t work as the original game works. But they bought the game, they can play however they choose.

Your Turn: Do you adhere strictly to every rule in the RPGs you play?

 

[piou]

I apply with rules the same approach I use with cooking recipes: I always try not to change them before trying them a few times unmodified.

I think your analysis is missing an important chunk. On one hand I agree with you that ultimately what matters is that people have fun playing the game. If you're having fun as a group, you shouldn't feel ashamed of playing the way you do.

But if you focus on what you think is best and disregard what the game is trying to do you can end up playing only one game: "Let's play Traveller, but I don't like the dice system, I'd rather have d20 like in D&D. And the random character creation is stupid, I want players to build the characters they want to play. I'll just write some D&D-like classes based on the common archetypes you find in traveller. And what's that about being in debt for the ship? That doesn't sound fun, let's just get rid of it." etc etc. Does that mean you're going to have a bad time with your players? No. But at that point are you really playing Traveller anymore? Or are you just playing D&D in space? That example can seem obvious, but it can come in more subtle flavours when considering games that aren't D&D.

D&D is a game that doesn't really care about how you GM it. There's some guidance, very generic advice not to hard railroad your players and ensure everyone is having fun… But overall D&D is a game that leaves it up to the DM to find the style of GMing they want to use. This is in line with the fact that D&D is a game that's made to be hacked. But when you consider something like Apocalypse World, that's another beast entirely. Apocalypse World cares deeply about how you GM, and is so convinced that there is a DMing style that fits the game best and will produce the best experience that this GMing style is codified as rules. And frankly, yeah, it does fit the game very very well, and it's not a style that is very common among D&D GMs so you can't just assume people will use it naturally.

But here the idea that it's perfectly legitimate to ignore the rules push many GMs to ignore these DM rules and rule the game as they would any other (by which I mean, generally whataver their D&D style is) and often these styles don't make the game shine and people end up frustrated and not understanding how anyone can like that game that just doesn't work properly. I take Apocalypse World specifically here because it's a clear example where we can see many such complaints and many people being annoyed to be told that they're playing the game wrong when often (not always of course - plenty of people very legitimately dislike PbtA games after giving them an honnest try) they are indeed playing the game wrong. And by that I mean they are changing rules in a way that prevents them from experiencing what the game is designed to let them experience and that is harmful to their enjoyment of the game.

So all in all what I'd say is:

• Fun is paramount. If you have fun, don't let anyone or anything shame you for it.
• If you change the rules, you're doing it at your own risk. If you don't have fun, it may be that the game is bad, or it may be that the rule change you made is bad. Don't take it out on the game, you haven't actually played it yet.
• For that reason, it's better IMHO to try playing the game on its own terms first. That way you also avoid essentially always playing the same game with different flavoring.
• Different games can be more or less tailored to a specific experience. Some games do care about how you GM them. Some games do care about how you roleplay them. Some games do care that you use minis. Not every game has the same stance as D&D that essentially everything is optional and you shouldn't approach all games with that mindset.
• But if you tried a game and made a change and found it awesome, that's great! Talk about it, share it, play it. You shouldn't be afraid to tinker, you should only be afraid to judge something you haven't actually experienced.

 

[Emberashh]

Design wise, its good to not design a game in such a way that theres a wrong way to play (PBTA), BUT, its also pretty critical that there is an intended way to play.

Not having an intended way to play (5e) is a quick shortcut to developing an incoherent and unfocused design.

 

[aco175]

There is also another RAI- rules as interpreted. I recall not understanding some of the words used in the rules when I was young. I may have guessed at how I thought they ran. There also may be language barriers with terms used how they are understood in different cultures. I recall vacationing in England long ago and someone telling me that I was pissed, which I understood to mean upset or angry but to them it meant drunk.

 

[piou]

Design wise, its good to not design a game in such a way that theres a wrong way to play (PBTA)

There's a lot to unpack in that assumption IMHO. You're free to have your opinion on the matter of course, but presenting it as a general truth hides lots of opportunities.

We agree that having an intended way to play (IWTP) is beneficial to a game. Then what does it mean to have a wrong way to play it? Is it a question of rules? IMHO having rules providing a framework is a very effective way to convey the IWTP so that shouldn't be an issue at face value.

Having a wrong way to play, if not related to the mere presence of rules, may have more to do with the gap in fun between playing the intended way and playing another way. If the gap is small (on average, among many different styles of play) then there is a best way to play the game and lots of acceptable ways to play the game. If the gap is large then there is a best way to play the game and very few or none acceptable other ways to play. In that case it's ever more critical that the game conveys that best way to play effectively, hence rules (I'd argue PbtA largely fall in that category).

Is one better than the other? At first glance the "low gap" case seems preferable: if it can accomodate more ways to play it can reach a larger audience which matters commercially. It also means that the margin for error is bigger. And on the design side it means you don't have to be as tight when conveying the IWTP, it's alright if you leave out some ambiguities.

But on the other hand, what if the experience you can deliver is much more fun with a "large gap" scenario? What if you can provide a truly awesome game but only if played one specific way? Such a game may not appeal to as many people, and may be more difficult to learn, but I'd argue that if your goal is to maximize fun these are acceptable things. There are tons of examples of niche games that manage to find their audience because they're awesome. But you need to really nail it because you're going to make it harder for people to tinker with your game and adapt it ever so slightly to what they prefer. Your experience needs to be so goo that they don't think they could do better by changing it essentially. In the case of PbtA games, I think this shows a lot: it explains why they're hard to hack effectively, why they're popular among so many people and why they're also so easy to misdesign, providing a subpar and dull experience marred by a strange rigidity.

So, is one better? Is it true that "Design wise, its good to not design a game in such a way that theres a wrong way to play"? I'd say that's one of those good rules of thumb that absolutely must be broken if you think you can. It's certainly easier to design a good game if you design it so there's no wrong way to play, and there are tons of good games that exist that do just that. But if you think what fits your game best is a very specific way to play, if you think that you can increase the fun of your game by a lot at the cost of supporting other ways to play, I say go for it. This is no stone-carved truth.

 

[TheSword]

I always liked how when Cubicle 7 launched WFRP 4e the designers including Andy Law were very active (and still are active) on the Discord - Rat Catcher’s Guild.

There response was usually “this was what we originally intended”

But they’re humble enough to say “but that way sounds cool if you prefer it.”

And after several iterations sometimes “This was what I intended, however that is how it ended up, and I actually do it this way in my own games”.

In a game with hundreds if not thousands of rules like a complex TTRPG of course some things are going to need tweaking.

Funnily enough C7 are pretty good at tweaking their own system and reviewing what works and doesn’t works so they have released optional alternative rules in the subsequent books.

 

[payn]

I've always been a rulings over rules type when it comes to RPGs, but I start with a healthy respect for the rules as written. When I go off script its often because I find the RAW to be tedious and of little value. Im more likely to horseshoe something than devise my own equally complex version. Though, the fact that the games boundaries in an RPG are much more expansive than a board game is something that has always been attractive to me. I think you will always need a bit of flexibility with the ruleset to take full advantage of that aspect. YMMV.

 

[Emberashh]

Then what does it mean to have a wrong way to play it?

Ie the game starts to break down and become unfun if played in a particular way.

Some of what that entails you can't strictly avoid (you can't really make an in-game rule that'll stop cheaters from ruining a game, for example), but there's a fairly wide gulf between unsolvable problems and gameplay thats too rigid.

But this also relates to the idea that any given game is not going to survive intact with its audience; once players are playing the game, how they choose to play it becomes a part of the experience, and developers have to be conscious of it.

So when one designs a game that is so rigid that player agency to engage with the game as they wish becomes difficult if not impossible, then there's going to be problems of abrasiveness. And likewise if a game has no intended way to play, then players are going to define one for themselves, and then run into problems when/if the game can't support what they chose.

It is not a coincidence that both PBTA and WOTC DND are as divisive as they are when they both have problems with this coming from the different ends of the scale.

Something like Call of Cthulu for example doesn't have this issue at all. While one can be punished in-game for trying to play it like its DND, the actual mechanics don't stall or start violating the intended experience if they do. If COC players come up with an ingenious plan to fight Cthulu himself, they'll deal some 800 damage perhaps and he'll keep on coming, and that just reinforces the themes of the game that these things are simply beyond humans and even reality itself.

Whereas if one tries to play BITD or even Ironsworn like its DND, it quickly becomes a farce as constant consequences start diminishing the capacity for the game to be dramatic like it wants to be, and players that (at least in Ironsworn) are meant to be gritty heroes start to feel like bumbling morons, which is obviously not intended.

And the fix there isn't necessarily hard design wise, but it would take a significant shift in how Moves are designed.

(And just because its on my mind, Ill note with PBTA games that much of what they do, including their core philosophy of fiction first, are not impossible in Trad or other games. But where Trad games often don't do a good job of establishing that practice, PBTA forces it. Not good)

 

[clearstream]

I've always been a rulings over rules type when it comes to RPGs, but I start with a healthy respect for the rules as written. When I go off script its often because I find the RAW to be tedious and of little value. Im more likely to horseshoe something than devise my own equally complex version. Though, the fact that the games boundaries in an RPG are much more expansive than a board game is something that has always been attractive to me. I think you will always need a bit of flexibility with the ruleset to take full advantage of that aspect. YMMV.

Something I think about is the utility of a game text to my purposes. I pay close attention to what the designer communicates regarding the distinct play they intend to deliver, and I am unafraid to use what I want to use in the way I want to use it. That is, I'm confident enough in my own understanding of games to do what I like with them.

In a recent example, I took 5e rules to a place that I'm morally certain the designers didn't have one iota of intent to deliver - a no-myth, fiction-first, collaborative effort - and it worked extremely well. The abundance of PbtA-inspired games (not to mention Baker's own words on the matter) should be more than enough to establish that PbtA isn't (and isn't intended to be) a straitjacket.

That noted, I agree that if you don't attempt to appreciate the designers intent and implement that, then you may miss out on satisfactions that their design could have delivered. Worse still, you may fail to grasp potential inherent in the game text that might have tremendous utility to what you in future decide to do at the table. It's only through play that one ever deeply understands a game.

And on the other hand, regarding worries that a game might be less fun played wrong: consider how new game designs are born! From the start they were born of deliberately playing existing designs wrong. The fear of less fun is a canard - maybe doing it your way will be more fun.

 

[Emberashh]

And on the other hand, regarding worries that a game might be less fun played wrong: consider how new game designs are born! From the start they were born of deliberately playing existing designs wrong. The fear or less fun is a canard - maybe doing it your way will be more fun.

Thats not necessarily what I mean. If playing wrong is still ultimately fun, then there likely isn't an actual issue from a design standpoint, because it means that the game isn't blocking or otherwise interfering with that mode of engagement.