[Rifts] -- Rifts workable? Possibly, maybe...
Aaron Baker:
Callan,
I think I see what you are saying, and I would put it as "the rules are the rules."
To put it another way, if we were playing monopoly, and I put $500 in the middle of the board for free parking, or didn't auction a property that I chose not to buy, you would object to my ignoring the rules.
However, those two instances are the two most common "house rules," in monopoly, and you would probably find that outside of tournament play or video game adaptations of monopoly, more people play with those house rules than without.
I interpret what you said about "unless of course, everyone agrees that these behaviours are "canonical" and appropriate" as saying that if before a game starts either the DM writes a "rules addendum," or the DM and players hash out an agreed upon set of rules changes, that would then be "part of the rules."
But I do see a significant problem.
If you played Zork or similar early text based computer games, you probably remember a lot of frustration because you came up with good ideas, and the computer wouldn't let you do them because the designer of the game didn't think of them. As I see it, that is the advantage of RPG's.
Now, how many systems have rules for grabbing a chandelier rope at the top of the stairs, swinging over the fight, and landing on a foe? And yet, a player who has just come to the game from watching Errol Flynn movies may reasonably want to try this...
At this point the system has "failed," by my interpretation of your definition, but as I see it, the genius of RPG's sweeps in to save the day. The DM looks at the rules, makes an ad-hoc decision, and play continues.
The player will be happier hearing "OK, that isn't in the rules, but roll this, then this, and if you succeed you do it," than "That isn't in the rules, so you can't try it." 99 times out of 100... The DM will be happier making up a rule and keeping the game running than looking up rules trying to find out the "right answer," and the other players will probably agree.
In fact, the "rules as written," for most published game systems have something like "But if the player tells you that he wants his character to knock over a brazier full of hot coals into the orc's face, you (as the DM) have to make some snap judgements." (4th ed DMG page 12).
I hope this does not come off as an attack on your idea, I just want to get a feel for how "flexible," you see the rules as written. I would argue that no system can cover every situation with rules without being so abstract that most decisions devolve on the DM (or as in Amber, it falls into "I have the best stat, so I win). So I guess I feel pretty strongly that a strong DM with a good ability to improvise rules is important to a good game that doesn't just involve "I attack, I rolled a 12," over and over again.
Callan S.:
Hello Aaron,
The only attack would be if, while I'm prepared to consider if I'm wrong, the other person is never prepared to consider whether they are wrong. I'm going to just cut straight to the technical parts. Welcome to the forge - if I come across in a bad way, I in no way represent the forge overall. Or if I come across in a good way, I'll just leave the impression I represent the forge overall.
Now, your post actually covers several subjects, all of which could be part of their own threads and are often drawn together all at once by gamers. I'm touching on them lightly.
Quote
I interpret what you said about "unless of course, everyone agrees that these behaviours are "canonical" and appropriate" as saying that if before a game starts either the DM writes a "rules addendum," or the DM and players hash out an agreed upon set of rules changes, that would then be "part of the rules."
Normally I wouldn't be symantically so very accurate, but it's become important, so no, it's not 'part of the rules'. It's part of the rule changes, or the new game they've made which draws on alot of the other games writings. Drawing the distinction is the main point here. Talking design is pointless if you don't acknowledge it.
Quote
If you played Zork or similar early text based computer games, you probably remember a lot of frustration because you came up with good ideas, and the computer wouldn't let you do them because the designer of the game didn't think of them. As I see it, that is the advantage of RPG's.
Now, how many systems have rules for grabbing a chandelier rope at the top of the stairs, swinging over the fight, and landing on a foe? And yet, a player who has just come to the game from watching Errol Flynn movies may reasonably want to try this...
At this point the system has "failed," by my interpretation of your definition
Well, machines don't fail - only men do. Who has failed? And what have they failed at? Actually, that's the pivotal point - you don't decide for someone else what they were trying to do to begin with. If they have any spine of their own, they decide that for themselves.
"But roleplay games are about like if the player wants to do an Errol Flynn chandelier swing, they can and..."
No, this is you telling the other person what they were trying for in running the activity they did, or attempted to run.
That's about it.
Quote
The DM looks at the rules, makes an ad-hoc decision, and play continues.
Back to that lack of distinction. Play doesn't continue - in fact the very opposite, the old game ended, entirely, and a new game with a new rule was invented and started using a set of conditions duplicated from the previous game.
Do it fast enough and like the magicians sleight of hand, it appears that play continues. A bit like the trush of every frame of a movie is that it is a static image, but run them past fast enough and the illusion of movement occurs. Do it for years, from an early, formative age and it becomes the 'magic' of roleplay. Or more exactly, a terrible mental habit that'd be heartbreaking to quit.
Quote
The player will be happier hearing "OK, that isn't in the rules, but roll this, then this, and if you succeed you do it," than "That isn't in the rules, so you can't try it." 99 times out of 100... The DM will be happier making up a rule and keeping the game running than looking up rules trying to find out the "right answer," and the other players will probably agree.
Again it's not keeping the game running, it's ending it and starting a new one.
And again, what is the person running the activity shooting for? If he's changing rules mid play, has he done that because before he had screwed up in what he was aiming for? Taking it it would be a screw up, what'd be great and sans any error is if he had a rule that encapsulates what they'd do, right from the begining of play. It'd avoid a screw up. But gamer culture lauds it as good GM'ing/play to keep making new rules. When really it's kind of like a mexican walking fish, a mutated development between not caring at all about screwing up and actually completely avoiding screwing up.
Quote
In fact, the "rules as written," for most published game systems have something like "But if the player tells you that he wants his character to knock over a brazier full of hot coals into the orc's face, you (as the DM) have to make some snap judgements." (4th ed DMG page 12).
Can I sell you a novel where some of the chapters are blank and I advise in it for you to find someone to fill it in? Seems a bit bullshitty?
If your interested in what the game author was shooting for, and he's not telling you and instead directing you to someone else to decide on rules, then your not getting what you wanted. Your failing to get what you want in that case.
If your not interested in what the game author was shooting for, I'm as interested in the cited rule as you are and it means as much to me as it does to you. Ie, nothing.
Quote
I just want to get a feel for how "flexible," you see the rules as written.
I don't decide this/see how it is for others on this matter. I may point out where they may be in conflict with their own values, though.
Quote
I would argue that no system can cover every situation
Again, this is you shooting for the idea every situation must be covered. It's just you shooting for this. Maybe other people do too, but alot of other people shooting for the same thing doesn't make it how things are (otherwise slavery and women not having the vote would be 'how things are').
I'm pretty much undermining what you've been taught and practiced for a long time. It'll either not go well (not because I've sworn or anything) or it'll be like water off a ducks back. Or maybe it'll be terrible, but seemingly have a ring of truth to it.
Aaron Baker:
Callan,
At the risk of your whole comment "be(ing) like water off a ducks back," I guess my question becomes something like "so what if we do change the game?"
Or to put it in a less offensive way, I don't think I got your salient point.
Are you saying that it is wrong for the group to improvise rules, or are you just saying that if a group has to improvise rules, that it is a flaw in the underlying system?
If the latter, how important do you think that is? I am more "friendly," to the latter point of view than the former, because, to misquote Eris, "if that is what you want, what is wrong with it?" or in other words, if a gaming group changes the rules, and no one minds, who is harmed?
Of course, I am also biased in that I have the intention of creating a rules system that fits all worlds, as Gurps has done and Rifts attempts to (and 3rd ed DnD failed miserably at).
I do have one other question, and again I hope this is not an attack. When you say "what is the person running the activity shooting for? If he's changing rules mid play, has he done that because before he had screwed up in what he was aiming for?" I have a fear that you and I are at diametrically different poles of gaming.
I DM by creating a bunch of NPC's with goals and abilities, and turning them loose in either a published or self created game world along with the PC's, and seeing what happens. It can be chaotic, and often even NPC's with similar alignments and goals can work at cross purposes-I think this is like real life, so I strive for it.
If your goal is to have the world story stay "on track," then PC improvisation can certainly knock you "off the rails."
If your gaming system seeks to keep the players "on track," then again, I think it is fighting against player improvisation. I love to see the PC's surprise me-and even like it when my NPC's surprise me, as when the treacherous orc cleric of Grumsh became a friend of my good PC's because they allied against Iuz...
I think I am wondering off topic, so I will end here, but I would enjoy further discussion...
Callan S.:
Quote
I guess my question becomes something like "so what if we do change the game?"
If your own idea of what game design is that it includes recognising when you've made a change (rather than pretending your still just playing the same game) - then, well, if you can only keep talking as if the game kept running and you were still playing the game, your incapable of game design. Not by my standards, but by your very own standards you'd be incapable. You'd have two sets of values which are in conflict with each other.
If your own idea of game design is that it doesn't include recognising the change, well you don't have that internal conflict, but either your not compatable with this design forum, or I'm not compatable with what is most often called design amongst this forums members. Probably the latter given gamer inclinations on average, so hey if that's the case, indeed 'so what' and it was all a rather longish side note.
Quote
If your gaming system seeks to keep the players "on track," then again, I think it is fighting against player improvisation.
Or more exactly, players ignoring the standing ruleset when they improvise and don't try to improvise within it's structure. Much the same as if I say to describe an apple without saying apple or red, and you straight away say red. Making design/structure talk moot. May as well talk about safety vest design for people who wont don them when they go on a boat.
Quote
If your goal is to have the world story stay "on track," then PC improvisation can certainly knock you "off the rails."
I think as much as talking about better guitar construction (so your not putting duct tape on it mid performance) doesn't exactly control the music you can make with a guitar, talking design doesn't control 'the story' made with the instrument/system. It certainly shapes the overall spectrum, as much as piano and guitar shape their overall sounds differently, but that's what makes playing different games worth the price and/or effort, as much as it does with musical instruments.
Quote
I have a fear that you and I are at diametrically different poles of gaming.
Barring any social dissolution over it, I don't think there's anything to fear.
Aaron Baker:
OK, I think I see what you are getting at, can I say it "in my own words," and get a yes or "nope, you still don't get it," from you before I reply?
Basically, what you are saying is that if the DM has to change a rule in mid-play to handle a situation that comes up, it is a change in the game system. This may not matter to most players and DM's, but should be important to game designers, as it indicates a potential hole in our design?
So you don't have a problem with the players/DM's changing the rules to fit their own play style (putting money in the middle for free parking in monopoly), but you think such changes should be a clue to designers?
At the risk of making a reply, I think players will always come up with ideas not anticipated, and I am not sure it is possible to make a system that covers all ideas a player has. So at that point I guess the question is, should the DM force a player to stay "within the rules," or should the DM come up with an ad-hoc rule for the player action that falls outside the rules as written? I am asking for your answer to this question, I suspect my answer is quite clear.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page