Why not freeform?

[Bluve Oak]

Why have rules?

1) Rules are fun!

2) Rules are just.

Everyone wants to have fun and not feel ripped off.

[quozl]

Why have rules?

1) Rules are fun!

2) Rules are just.

Everyone wants to have fun and not feel ripped off.

But what makes the rules fun?  Are they fun because they are just or for some other reason?

[BPetroff93]

if you are employing a system, aren't you equally always in contact with the unwritten system you employ that decides when you use the rules from that system or don't (eg, what decides a balance roll is needed/isn't needed to walk down the rocking ships deck).

Interesting question Noon.  I think it depends on what you mean by "rules."  There are always rules that govern our behaviour but in this instance we are discussing a particular set of rules:  "The RPG rule set."  Yes, this rule set does stipulate when it can be called into practice and when it is left alone, but degree of game time to rules set contact can vary greatly.  

It also depends on what you mean by contact.  For example, lets say you and I are wrestling and the match has a 5 min time limit that starts, "once contact is made."  The match starts out and we are just circling looking for an opening for the first 2 minutes.  Are we in contact?  Well, from certain perspectives yes.  You and I are sharing the same general space, we are aware of each other, we are sharing information and we are engaged in an active competion with each other.  However, this is NOT the type of contact that is meant by wrestling, ie: actually body to body contact.  The "points of contact" are actual rules to game contacts and not theoretical points of influence.  

Another note, does high rules contact also mean rules heavy? I'd presumed rules heavy means to have many rules, rather than to be contact with just a hand full, constantly.

In theory rules heavy vs rules light does not necessarily relate to high vs low contact.  You could have a lot of rules but have them used very rarely  (Rules heavy, low contact) or you could have very few rules but have them used almost all the time (Rules light, high contact).  However, in practice they become almost identicle.  If you have high contact you need a large rule set because a variety of situations require it.  The reverse is equally true.  Light vs heavy is an alternate way of describing the same concept but slightly misleading.  If you want the feel of "light rules" you really mean "low contact"

At least thats as far as I understand it.  :)

[Scourge108]

Here's a good reason for rules nobody has mentioned: they add drama.  There is nothing heroic about succeeding at a task with no risk involved.  In those tasks, there are generally no rules.  There are no rules to cover tying shoelaces, or walking down stairs.  Tying shoelaces together on a guard unnoticed so he falls is a risk, because he might notice, and rules cement the fact that it is a risk.  Running down greased stairs while being chased by bloodthirsty zombies is also a risk, and calling for a rules check emphasizes this.  I always preferred Batman stories to Superman, because there was no challenge for Superman.  Stopping bankrobbers is about as difficult for him as it is for me to take out the trash.  What makes Batman more interesting to me is the fact that he is a fallible human, and one mistake could be fatal.  That takes balls, and that's what makes him a hero.  This doesn't mean that I think the PCs should be failing all the time, anything but.  But the potential should be there, or else there is no risk and no real triumph.

Also, one place where rules are usually ignored is in backstory, where no "play" actually happens.  For example, as a backstory for a D&D character, I could say that his father was a great general for the king who was murdered at a masquerade ball, stabbed in the back with a dagger by an unknown courtesan.  Nobody would object most likely, because this does not affect play other than giving me a motivation for revenge.  However, we all know that this is impossible given the laws of physics of D&D.  A powerful general is sure to be a high-level fighter with lots of hit points, and even with a critical hit a dagger doesn't do ebough damage to kill someone like that with one hit.  Players rely on that fact when they face armed opponents without fear.  But in the real world, daggers are lethal even to experienced people, so it sounds plausible and is accepted without rolling any dice.  In play that probably would not happen; the general's character would demand an initiative, to hit, and damage roll.

In short, rules facilitate play, and keep it from being telling a story you just made up.  Not that I have a problem with telling stories you made up, that can be fun.  But it's not playing a game IMO.

[Callan S.]

Hi Brendan,

Well, we had compared free forms constant contact with rules, and I believe this applies to RPG's as well (even if the original post asks just about written rules, if we use an example of freeforms contact with unwritten rule, it'd seem odd to ignore contact with unwritten rules that happens when also using written rules).

Now, that wrestling example is really good. But it still represents high contact. For those two minutes before the wrestlers converge, we are checking over and over, every second 'have they made contact'. It's only one rule and simple, but we are checking this rule/making contact with it over and over. Is this considered a high contact rule?

Also, good call on the rules heavy/rules light and level of contact issue. I think, just for open mindedness, I wanted the idea of them being seperate in place. But in practice, yes, they probably do go together more often than not.

Cheers,
Callan

[Callan S.]

Hi Scourge108,

I get the feeling that rules don't create/inject drama. Instead they help stop it from fizzling away. This is because drama/tension tends to evaporate when the source of that tension, which is uncertainty, is revealed to actually be from a certain source. That source might be the GM 'just deciding something'.

For example, say I'm GM'ing and I've hyped up everyone about the zombies and the greasy froor. No one is sitting down because they are all leaning forward. Finally, they run down the grease and...I tell them they make it. Bums hit the seats.

The players now correctly reason that the essential uncertainty of the moment, which supports the drama/tension of it all, wasn't uncertain or they can't be sure it wasn't as uncertain as they felt it was. A moment ago the tension had credibility, but now they either give it none or are uncertain just how much cred to give it
'Did the GM really take everything into account...gah, I'm relying majorly on trust in my GM rather than uncertainty, to support my sense of drama/tension'

Rules, either with randomizing factors or factors that the players don't know about/are uncertain about (how many grease points does this floor have?) help inject/create uncertaintly.

Then again, I'm prepaired to be shot down. Hope the idea was stimulating, anyway.

[neelk]

I get the feeling that rules don't create/inject drama. Instead they help stop it from fizzling away. This is because drama/tension tends to evaporate when the source of that tension, which is uncertainty, is revealed to actually be from a certain source. That source might be the GM 'just deciding something'. [...]  The players now correctly reason that the essential uncertainty of the moment, which supports the drama/tension of it all, wasn't uncertain or they can't be sure it wasn't as uncertain as they felt it was.

While it's certainly true that chance can create tension (people gamble all the time, after all), it's something that I find to be a mild negative when roleplaying. The reason is that dramatic tension is fundamentally uncertainty that arises from causality, rather than from chance. That is, the tension is based on the cognitive uncertainty that arises from not having full information, or not knowing the causal mechanisms at work. In literary terms, the actions of the characters should obey the maximum capacity principle -- the characters should have do the best they could have, given their capabilities, personalities and knowledge. Otherwise the action cannot support a theme[*], and the narrative will be flat and uninvolving.

Tension and drama are easy to create, as long as there is a causality at work within the gameplay, and you don't really need game mechanics to ensure their existence. Game rules are interesting to me mainly as a quick way of describing how someone else played a game. That's interesting, because those are ideas I can use. I kind of wish that the Japanese idea of "replays" were common here, because those are potentially even more useful.

[*] with the exception of "o fortuna", of course.

[BPetroff93]

my example regarding wrestling was not intended to provide an example of high vs low contact but rather what constitutes the "contact" mentioned in the high vs low contact dicotomy.  The idea being not imagining the supposed example in an RPG context but simply that the word "contact" does not mean any kind of contact but is dependant on venue we are discussing.

[Callan S.]

my example regarding wrestling was not intended to provide an example of high vs low contact but rather what constitutes the "contact" mentioned in the high vs low contact dicotomy.  The idea being not imagining the supposed example in an RPG context but simply that the word "contact" does not mean any kind of contact but is dependant on venue we are discussing.

Ah, right. So were talking some types of contact, but not all. But I'm not sure what criteria is being used to determine which types. What do you mean by venue, in terms of the criteria? Do you mean that when we use written rules as the venue to judge what a contact is, rather than looking at both the written and unwritten/freeform rules that a group would use at the same time?

While it's certainly true that chance can create tension (people gamble all the time, after all), it's something that I find to be a mild negative when roleplaying. The reason is that dramatic tension is fundamentally uncertainty that arises from causality, rather than from chance. That is, the tension is based on the cognitive uncertainty that arises from not having full information, or not knowing the causal mechanisms at work. In literary terms, the actions of the characters should obey the maximum capacity principle -- the characters should have do the best they could have, given their capabilities, personalities and knowledge. Otherwise the action cannot support a theme[*], and the narrative will be flat and uninvolving.

I think that for the tension not to deflate, the players would have to have faith that the GM knew all the causes involved. If one began to suspect that instead of using causes that are there he is instead making up events because that part of the game world wasn't properly defined before the session, it could go stale. This could happen when the GM is making up things on the fly. Since causality is important, its important that the environment you go through was subject to causality effects prior to the party being there. Ie, everything has a back story of reasons why it is now here. If the GM is being pressed, he may need to start building world elements as the game progresses. Since they are made on the fly, they can lack a causal back story. Without this backstory, the effects they have on play aren't much different from a GM just deciding stuff. In other words, world and NPC's that effect through causality have to have been effected by causality themselves (believeably), for their causality effect to have crediblity. While on the other hand, with a randomiser or being unsure of point scores, the GM can make up stuff and uncertainty remains.

On that maximum capacity principle, I get the feeling that in literature/etc, characters don't pass or fail so as to progress the book, but to demonstrate something. If someone is foreshadowed to have an excellent gun skill, and they fail, its to show something about the story. They can't 'just' fail...the rule of 'there is no such thing as co-incidence' means that the failure was tied to something else in the story. Its not so much optimum capacity, because you can be foreshadowed as always failing at a certain task as well ('What are ya, chicken?' - back to the future movies morale check). It's just that to do something other than what your foreshadowed you need a story excuse to do so. I'm not sure, but I may have drifted here.

[Nuadha]

The closest thing I could think of to rules-less roleplaying game available would be S.L.U.G., The Simple Laid-back Universal Game.  If you haven't read it, check it out.   Long before someone wrote S.L.U.G., I played a few games using this exact system and had a blast.   Your mileage may vary.

Of course, there is also the roleplaying that you may find in chat rooms and message boards on the web, which I'm fairly certain is rules-less as well.

Having played a few "anarchist" game sessions, I have to say that rules are completely unnecessary IF:

1- The game does not focus on combat but more on interactions and planning.  Games like Amber and Nobilis fit this type of setting very well and there should be no suprise that they work well as diceless games.   Without rules you probably won't have a dice rolling mechanism.  Although, in theory a GM could just have the player roll dice to determine outcomes and assign a win scenario at the time, but as soon as he chooses a single type of dice roll for this it becomes a rule.  Heck, if the game never uses dice to determine outcomes, I guess that would be a rule as well.  The dice adds drama to combat, but for a setting like Amber or Nobilis, the outcome of a fight is usually determined long before it ever comes to blows by how the characters have prepared for the fight and what alliances they have made.  If you use dice, it would probably be best that you don't use them often.   Some players maty dislike the inconsistencies of a diced game with no rules.

2- Players trust the GM.   Like diceless gaming, rules-less games take a lot of trust.   Many rules in place are built as arbitrary mechanic so that the PC does not make judgements calls like "I think it would be better for the story if PC1 loses, so I'll have him lose."  Now, most GMs make these kinds of judgement calls anyway when designing the scenarios or rolling the dice behind GM screens, but it is important for most players to have that illusion of impartial-ness.    Of course, just by determined that one person is a GM, you have determined a rule, so I guess the games I played in weren't really proper "anarch games."  Anyways, players must be able to completely trust the GM that he or she will be making decisions fairly and in the best interest of the story or the fun of the players.

3- It's not a long campaign.  My few experiences with "anarch" gaming were a lot of fun.  Inspired by the fact that friends and I wanted to play, but had little or no dice and no rulebook with us, we made things up on the spot with no guidelines.  We said who are characters were and played.  However if you continue to play like this, you are bound to develop your own rules and your players will start craving the structure of character advancement and a consistent mechanic.

So, I think rules-less games are completely reasonable and acceptable.   If you look at kids playing their favorite superheroes on the playground, it is basically rules-less play and there is no reason that we adults can't toss aside our rules and just have fun.   However, I think it would be impossible to mantain an anarch roleplaying game for any longer period of time.

[Scourge108]

So, I think rules-less games are completely reasonable and acceptable.   If you look at kids playing their favorite superheroes on the playground, it is basically rules-less play and there is no reason that we adults can't toss aside our rules and just have fun.   However, I think it would be impossible to mantain an anarch roleplaying game for any longer period of time.

True, and the last South Park episode gave a good example of that.  However, in these, cases, it always breaks down like it did there.
Cartman: "I can see into the future, too, only better than Kyle!"
Kyle: "Dammit, Cartman, you can't keep just making up powers!"
Stan: "Yeah, dude, that's like 5 so far."
Kyle: "From now on, you only have one power."
Cartman: "I have the power to have any power I want."

I swear Matt Stone and Trey Parker must have done some gaming sometime, because I have heard this same argument from adults on freeform chatrooms.  I gave up on them quick because the whole thing is a pointless childish argument about who can or can't do what and who isn't doing it right.  And inevitably, some rules have to be defined (like only one power).  Even "anarchic" societies that last (i.e. those without a codified set of rules) will have a system of mores and customs everyone tends to follow, because it makes life easier in the long run.  What the chatrooms end up becoming is a bunch of people telling stories they made up on their own that have nothing to do with whatever anyone else is doing.  If they don't like what you did, their character instantly kills you with no rules to interfere.  All you can do is say "Nuh-uh!" and annoy everyone arguing about it.  Rules are not always a good thing, but a bare minimum is preferred IMO.

[Doctor Xero]

Here's a really abstract way of looking at it <grin> :

Structure defines and delimits into existence any system of symbolic interaction.  Structure defines and delimits what the symbols are and how they might interact and not interact.

The symbols of language are words; they interact via syntax and grammar.

The symbols of mathematics are numbers; they interact via equations and calculations.

The symbols of set theory are sets; they interact via operations.

The symbols of RPGs are characters (PC, NPC, monster, even the setting when it is an interactant such as a high wind, which is encoded within its own statistics just as is a character); they interact via the game mechanics.

Without words, no language -- without numbers, no mathematics -- without characters, no RPG.  Without syntax, no way for words to interact meaningfully in phrases, sentences, poems, stories, essays, etc.  -- without equations and calculations, no way to manipulate/operate numbers meaningfully -- without game mechanics, no way for meaningful interaction between characters.

In Playing Pretend, the social contract and the game mechanics are usually the same thing, and the symbols are our pretend selves and the pretend reality around us.

Doctor Xero
cf Wittgenstein, Lacan, Austin, Serles, Saussure, etc.

[Jack Spencer Jr]

True, and the last South Park episode gave a good example of that.  However, in these, cases, it always breaks down like it did there.

*snip*

I don't think that fair. I don't think it "always" breaks down and if it does, it breaks down because of the presence of an asshole like Cartman. Cartman is an asshole. That's why he always acts like that. He enjoys pissing in peoples breakfast cerial.

If there's an asshole in your group, best thing to do is eject him...or her. See this thread for discussion of why many groups continue to play with assholes.

Actually, Cartman is the sort of person who likes to find workarounds and loopholes. The sort of selfish person who doesn't care for the spirit of the rules but just how to gain the greatest advatange for himself. So rules or no rules, Cartman would be an asshole. He'd be the sort to have a multi-classing Half human/elf/dwarf/orc/balrog and would try to horde all of the magic items for himself. He's also the sort who may decide he doesn't want a magic item and discards it, but if someone else wants it, he wants it back.

Point is, this is a problem that is beyond any RPG rules can fix.  So I hardly think it's a strike against freeforming.