Why have no rules?

[quozl]

As a companion thread to the Why Not Freeform? thread, I thought I'd ask what are the benefits to not having rules?  

Now, this doesn't mean no rules at all (especially since there will always be a social contract) but since this is not a site that attracts many freeform advocates, I'll simply ask what roleplaying situations have you found that no rules is better than having rules for those specific situations?

[RDU Neil]

The only thing I can think of that benefits from having no rules come from some thread I saw around here that tried to classify relationships.  I guess there are games that do this (relationship trees, I've seen mentioned) but I can't for the life of me, imagine why this would be important.  I truly think it is a matter of setting, not system, for establishing relationships... but I guess I could conceive of some fringe type game where your social position/heirarchy/relationship gave you powerpoints that you used to "win."  But this sounds more like a Settlers of Freud type game than an RPG.

YMMV

[lumpley]

I already kind of answered this for myself in the other thread, but: if you can do a better job getting what you want out of gaming by instinct and trial & error than by following the rules you've got, you should play without the rules.

But that's not what you asked, quite, so:

...what roleplaying situations have you found that no rules is better than having rules for those specific situations?

It doesn't work that way.  Every situation, having no rules is better than having the wrong rules, and every situation, having just the right rules is better than having none.

For maybe the majority of roleplaying situations, having no rules is better than having the rules of a conventional rpg.  I'm a very serious advocate of freeforming when the alternative is a conventional rpg.

-Vincent

[Scourge108]

I'd say that the main benefit of no rules is to avoid the game bogging down with needless chart-checking and dice-rolling.  In most cases in a game, I ignore the system if it interferes with the story.  While some GMs disagree (remind me to tell the story someday), I really don't see a need to check the rules every time someone goes up the stairs to see if they fall.  It's not important to the story, it slows things down, and people lose interest.  However, spending all night arguing... "Hey, that knocks you down, kid."  "Nuh-uh, my cape is made of a titanium alloy!"  "Titanium alloy my ass!"... isn't really any better.  Some kind of rules are needed to keep things moving as well.  You need to find the balance between too many rules and not enough.

[Jonathan Walton]

I second everything Vincent said, 500%.

Additionally, when playing with people who aren't geeked-out on all the traditions and things-we-take-for-granted about roleplaying (GM-player structure, dice, quantifying character traits, party system, the strong focus on violence, etc.) freeform can be a lifesaver, ensuring the enjoyment of everyone involved through a strong social contract and open communication (which can often be lacking in disfuctional play, which is one of the major reasons it's disfunctional).

"Having no system is better than the wrong system."  That needs to be a axiom of both design and play, I think.

[Emily Care]

Anytime simple negotiation is viable and productive.

If you squint hard at it--looking at it on a per-time-spent basis--most role-playing is actually free-form, eg you don't need to roll to tie your shoe-laces.  For all the time when mechanics are not used, the rule in play is, "If ya say it and nobody else objects, then it's true." Free-form.

I personally find most character generation rules to be intrusive.  I ended up creating an eidetic albino with absolute timing (or was it direction?) under the influence of GURPs once.  This may fall under the "wrong system" category.

--Emily

[Valamir]

"Having no system is better than the wrong system." That needs to be a axiom of both design and play, I think.

I'm going to quibble with you a little bit Jonathan.

Of the two parts to what Vincent said, I think this is the less important one.  And as far as bing an axiom of design, it really already is.

This sentiment is where the whole "system doesn't matter", quest for transparancy stuff comes from

The second part of what Vincent said

every situation, having just the right rules is better than having none

is far more important I think, and should be engraved on the forehead of every GM and game designer.


In EVERY situation, having the right rule is better than having none.

[talysman]

Anytime simple negotiation is viable and productive.

If you squint hard at it--looking at it on a per-time-spent basis--most role-playing is actually free-form, eg you don't need to roll to tie your shoe-laces.  For all the time when mechanics are not used, the rule in play is, "If ya say it and nobody else objects, then it's true." Free-form.

that's pretty much my take on this question, too. I think we focus too much on the binary distinction "rules/no rules" because we tend not to notice what we're using rules for and what we aren't unless we ditch all formal rules entirely. we're like fish who don't notice we're swimming in the ocean.

for example, look at D&D 3e. lots of rules, right? but where are the "social ht location" rules to determine how a social mistake affects our reputations? where are the verbal sparring rules? answer: they aren't in the core books because they don't matter for a typical D&D 3e session, so they are handled freeform.

I'm thinking about this a little more, because I'm about to playtest Co9C this weekend in DC... and I know the system is very abstract in terms of rules, but I'm not really sure if I can identify all of the rules my system is missing, unless I were to decide which game system represents a "typical" rpg and go through the rules one by one... and even then, there would still be huge quantities of rules neither my game nor the "typical" rpg would have.

but I have to think about it carefully in order to make further design decisions. I know I don't have elaborate rules about how motifs may be worked into the current scene, aside from some brief suggestions. do I need rules here? that's one of the things I need to consider.

[Jonathan Walton]

In EVERY situation, having the right rule is better than having none.

Honestly, that type of design philosophy worries me.  I mean, I guess if you interpret this to mean "sometimes the right rule is not having a rule at all," then I might agree.

I mean, if you read John's post, above, it seems obvious that you often times just don't need rules for certain things.  It's design by exclusion.  If you don't want you game to be about combat, just don't include rules for it.  Personally, I feel this is one of the most powerful tools that all artists have.

There's a strong danger, traditionally, of having rules to cover any and every situation that might arise.  This is the GURPS model, the d20-everything model.  Personally, I find it to be a stronger supporter of "System doesn't matter" in the sense that "GURPS/Fudge/d20 can do everything, so why would you even bother designing another system."

[Callan S.]

If you subscribe to the idea that the GM always uses rules, in that he doesn't randomly speak but makes judgements, and judgements are balanced on a set of rules in his head, then you realise rules are being used all the time and can move on to this point.

* Having no rules written down means that there will be no pressure to use a written rule which I judge as less applicable than my own/my groups judgement/unwritten ruleset.

[MPOSullivan]

Anytime simple negotiation is viable and productive.

at the same time though, and i don't mean to be nit-picky, but can't this be seen as some sort of use of rules?  most negotiations in game follow social contract: a rules set put into place to ensure that gameplay follows a certain communal outline.  and if not Social Contract, it seems that most players will wind up comparing Attribute ratings and simply going diceless, or using some sort of power meter to reach an understanding of difference between two opposing sides, be they characters or more abstract things.  

it seems to me that the idea of a "no-rules" or truly freeform roleplaying game is a myth, the Sasquatch of the gaming community.  like i said above, most players will simply lean on some kind of rating system to understand that something is more powerful than another thing.  that sounds like rules to me.

but anyway, back to the original question: the situations that i have found during gameplay that i feel require the least amount of rules are social in nature.  i generally dislike the idea of taking the self-determination and control of a player away and deciding on the outcome of social interraction through the use of rules.  i am much more comfortable with going comeplately freeform/negotiation as Emily mentioned above, or using the role-playing to impact the dice-rolling, I.E.: if a player role-plays well and puts up a convincing bit of socializing, i'll add in bonuses to his roll.

[M. J. Young]

Not surprisingly, I think Vincent is right on target; and not surprisingly I think Ralph is right that the second half of the statement is at least as important as the first half: no rule is better than the wrong rule, but the right rule is better than no rule. Always.

Does this contribute to rules bloat? Not necessarily. Understanding what is "the right rule" can be a cause of this, but it doesn't have to be. Sometimes a simple rule is elegant enough to cover so many cases that it's always the right rule.

Let me look at resolution in Legends of Alyria. The rules, in fine, would seem to be:

[*]If a reasonably possible action is unopposed, success is automatic.[*]If an action is opposed, success is based on a contest between the actor and the opposition.[*]If the opposition is not a defined character, the opposition should be defined as a character for the purpose of this contest.[/list:u]Now, those rules cover a vast amount of actions; but they don't have much in the way of bloat to them.

Neil takes issue with games in which relationships are codified. Since the only games of which I am aware in which something at all like a "relationship tree" exists as part of the rules are Sorcerer (Relationship Map) and Legends of Alyria (Story Map), I am tempted to think he is referring to these. These are critical parts of these games, and they govern the starting point for play. In both cases, these are part of character generation and situation generation, and they function to connect the characters to the situation and to each other within the situation. These are specifically potent techniques for inducing narrativist play. But perhaps he is unfamiliar with how they work, or perhaps he is referring to something else.

As far as rules for social interaction generally, that's a sticky wicket. Most players don't like them in most games, because they really want their social interactions to be based on their (undoubtedly perceived by them as expert) ability to roleplay the situation. (Honestly, on a number of occasions had I used the player's roleplay to determine whether he had persuaded his audience, he'd have been taken out and shot; having a mechanic to tell me that the character was more eloquent than that was useful in those moments. But those players continue to believe that they are charming, suave, and debonair, and that they could charm the pants off the Queen of England if they had some reason to do so.) However, I think that if social interactions are going to be the focus of play, it is often important to have mechanics that address such interactions directly--and especially in gamist play, where players will press their advantages and system is intended to create the limits of their abilities.

That ultimately leads me to address the original question:

I'll simply ask what roleplaying situations have you found that no rules is better than having rules for those specific situations?

The answer is that it is better not to have rules for areas of play that should be glossed over during play, and which should not be regarded as important.

The reason Multiverser is so comprehensive in its design is because it is intended to provide rules to cover whatever becomes important for any imagined character in any imagined situation in any imagined world. The same is probably also true of GURPS. The reason D&D doesn't have rules for social interaction in the core books is because the focus of the game is supposed to be on fighting monsters and getting treasure. The adaptations to social situations in the Oriental Adventures rules are weak, but it doesn't particularly matter, because very few people see D&D as a game for playing social interaction.

Thus, if it doesn't matter, the only rule that should be written is one that makes it clear that it doesn't matter and should be decided however the group finds convenient and credible. That will be different for every game you create.

--M. J. Young

[Tomas HVM]

I truly think it is a matter of setting, not system, for establishing relationships...

You people of the english persuation have a problem when discussing roleplaying games, the use of these two words; "rules" and "system".

The problem with "system" is that it is used synonymous with "rules", and that it is the only word used to descibe "the way we organize and play RPGs". The problem with "rules" is that this word is not applicable to most of the things going on in a roleplaying game. Even "rules heavy" RPGs are light on rules in actual play.

Try to use the word method (rather than system) when discussing and thinking on how roleplaying games are played, or may be played.

Try to think of tools (rather than rules) when thinking on singular parts of the way we play, and what we use to make it come about.

Relationships in roleplaying games are clearly a part of the setting, but establishing them and developing them is part of the method. If you want relationships to have a place in your game, you have to have some way of handling them. The handling of such actions or happenings in the game, is clearly a part of the method.

[Jack Aidley]

It doesn't work that way.  Every situation, having no rules is better than having the wrong rules, and every situation, having just the right rules is better than having none.

I have to disagree.

Rules always have an associated cost - that cost is threefold: time taken to know and understand the rule; time taken to decide if the rule is relevant and time taken to process the rule. Having a rule, any rule, for anything will break the flow of a game more than not having a rule assuming the GM is capable of ruling swiftly and effectively.

So why have rules? Rules can give you three things: they can define the game (spell rules, for example); they make things consistent and they make things predictable. The rules, in effect, make the world one that the players can know and thus interact with intelligently (which is still possible without rules but requires a greater investment in common vision).

These costs and benefits are always there regardless of the situation the rules are acting in - in some cases, I believe, the cost is greater than the benefit of the right rule and in some cases the benefit of a wrong rule can make it worthwhile anyway.

Cheers,

Jack.

[lumpley]

Forgive me but rule bloat rule schmoat.

Rule bloat happens when a) you want a rule to "cover every possible situation" plus b) you don't know what "cover every possible situation" even means.

"Cover every possible situation" means that the rules support your group in negotiating the resolution of one situation into the next, with no exceptions.

Check out Universalis.  Its rules cover every possible situation, and it's not bloated.  In fact it's superslick.

Check out My Life with Master.  Its rules cover every possible situation too.  It's dude anti-bloated.

Check out Ars Magica, a game I love with all my heart.  Its rules don't cover any possible situations, practically.  For instance, the situation where the old master Tremere believes (incorrectly) that his newest apprentice is the Antichrist and so, when a dragon threatens, sends the boy out to "order the dragon to you as though it were your dog," and how does the boy deal with that?  Ars Magica is simply not built to handle that situation, it has no rules by which we'd resolve it into the next.  Let alone, I say let alone rules by which we'd resolve it into the next that also: provide powerful and directed adversity, provoke us into escalating the conflict, and protect our authorship*.  

Nope.  We'd freeform it!  

My Life with Master or Universalis, though, we'd be all set.

Jack, I hope you can see that from this angle, your "assuming the GM is capable of ruling swiftly and effectively" undoes the whole rest of your post.  You can't assume that.  You can't even assume a GM, let alone one whose input into the game is to be accepted without negotiation.  The costs associated with having that sort of GM are far worse than the costs of learning slick, well-designed rules.

Eh, let me backpedal that last to: at least you have to balance the costs, you can't hide them behind an "assuming the GM...".  Whether the costs are worse in balance is up to each of us individually.

Absolutely crucial to all of this is understanding what rules do, which is structure negotiation.  If anybody still thinks I'm saying that you need lots of rules, start there.

-Vincent

* Per my post in the first thread.