I was going to go write a long post comparing different levels of rules and their effects on play but I thought I'd ask this question first.

Why not just roleplay freeform with no rules at all except for the implicit social contract? What are the benefits of having rules?

I'll start it off: rules provide uncertainty in action resolution that isn't inherent in freeform play.

Here's a couple:

Rules provide a framework for impartial arbitration

Rules provide creative constraints (like trying to fit poetry into a Haiku)

I'd answer this by saying "Rules reinforce the social contract. They put boundaries on action and provide structure, which are necessary for meaningful interaction."

"Because the Social Contract is just an unstated set of rules. In creating additional rules, you're extending the Social Contract to cover situations in which it might be unclear how people should interact."

I have found that different players have different comfort levels with rules. This may have something to do with their early exposure to RPGs or whatever, but it is true. For example, as much as I like some of the style and innovation of a lot of (pardon the term) "rules light" games, I am not comfortable with them because of the places where the rules are loosley defined or undefined.

Some of the reasons for rules:

* Freeform play requires a degree of like-mindedness, willingness to work together, and maturity that is by no means universal. While play with explicit rules requires some of the same qualities, that need is mitigated by the mechanical structure.

* Rules provide consistency of adjudication, which spares the players the "last time it worked like this" headache.

* Rules can provide some thematic structure that helps players get on the same page.

Because rules arise naturally from any sort of social interaction, so by agreeing to some of them beforehand, you save the time and effort of defining them by trial-and-error.

Rules structure negotiation. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that everything else rules do, they do by structuring negotiation. I don't think that's quite the same thing as Neil's "structure necessary for meaningful interaction," but I'll split the difference.

Jonathan, instead of just comparing no rules vs. rules in the abstract, regardless which, can we talk about what some certain rules do, not just what any and all rules do?

Like, the rules I play with:
- provide powerful and directed adversity;
- provoke the players into escalating conflict;
- protect the players' authorship of (especially) character and situation.

These are all subsets of Ralph's "provide creative constraints."

Back when I played pretty much exclusively with nonstructured negotiation instead of with rules, it was because I hadn't found rules that delivered these three things.

Interestingly, the rules I play with don't provide much uncertainty in action resolution a'tall.

-Vincent

lumpley wrote: Jonathan, instead of just comparing no rules vs. rules in the abstract, regardless which, can we talk about what some certain rules do, not just what any and all rules do?

In addition to the other things mentioned, rules structure the negotiation of exploration in repeatable ways. They are reproducible operations. Not only can this give consistency to adjudication, but also to the actual experiences had while playing. This may facilitate the creation of a logic or flow of the collaboratively imagined elements.

They contain passed on wisdom--they are short-hand developed by group or game designer about ways to construct meaningful exchanges that have been found to have a desirable result. Using rules may help you shape your imaginings in ways you wouldn't have thought of on your own.

--EC

I think rules are an agreement among people to limit themselves to certain known patterns of behaviour for the sake of greater ability to predict what is going on in another individuals mind. This is not exactly communication, because the purpose is not to convey information from one mind to another, but to increase the ability of each participant to construct a model of anothers internal state. Rules are found where there are negative consequences to an inability to predict the behaviour of others, which is a lot. We agree to the rules of the road in exchange for the predictability the roads achieve thereby. The cheat who breaks the rules violates the trust implicit in the agreement to limit behaviour for the sake of predictability, even exploits that predictability.

You'll always end up with rules, unwritten or not. So I'll move on to why you as a user would buy a written down set.



• It maintains one version of some rules to use, rather than the group having to try and maintain an exact copy between their memories in order to be coherant.
• You may not wish to develop a set of rules, seeing the cost and lack of customisation of a purchased book as still being cheaper than the cost of hours of your life trying to make a batch of rules.
• You may believe the author(s) have something to add to you groups game, through their written contribution.


That's about it. As a writer you can only guess what contibution would be welcomed in the third. The second and first you can't help with much at all...it'll be up to them to decide it.

Johnathan: I think your right to talk about no rules Vs rules in the abstract. When we start talking about specific rules, we start to analyse how effective that specific rule is in its specific task. We don't analyse how effective written rules are on a whole. Obviously no one thinks you just have to have written rules, which equally means that if you don't have to have them, you can question why many do use written rules.

Noon wrote: You'll always end up with rules, unwritten or not. So I'll move on to why you as a user would buy a written down set.

Hey Quozl,

It seems that you may be suggesting two possibilities. The first is that there are no rules, just the human to human interactions between players.
If that is the case what you are suggesting amounts to "story time" with multiple people. When a conflict arises, and a conflict will arise, the solution is to "just work it out amoung yourselves." That is a receipe for disaster. It is essentially "might makes right" in whatever venue (social, intellectual, emotional, possibly even physical!) your group uses to resolve conflicts. This is not freedom but the most brutal form of dictatorship.

The second possibility is that you are suggesting establishing a social contract amoung the group for the purposes of establishing play.
"We agree to abide by X in order to engage in Y ." In which case your suggestion is that we simply limit the shear volume of rules. Not different in type from a traditional RPG, merely in degree.

In a related vein, some people say "freeform" when what the really mean is to use a drama mechanic for everything. In other words there are rules but conflict is decided through communication between participants according to those preestablished rules. This sounds like freedom from system however, without the resolution mechanics or reward mechanics common in most games this ammounts to drama resolution with the maximum amount of points of contact. In the game system is in effect ALL THE TIME. At no time can one not encounter the system, so this is actually rules heavy, rather than rules light.

I think Ron address some of these points briefly in one of his essays. I think it is either the sim essay or the narritive one. Whichever, they are both worth taking the time to read. Actually they are all worth taking the time to read, if you haven't done so yet. I will admit that they aren't necessarily an easy read. I just read them for a second time and I think they finally sunk in. Anyway, happy gaming :)

BPetroff93 wrote: *snip*
In a related vein, some people say "freeform" when what the really mean is to use a drama mechanic for everything. In other words there are rules but conflict is decided through communication between participants according to those preestablished rules. This sounds like freedom from system however, without the resolution mechanics or reward mechanics common in most games this ammounts to drama resolution with the maximum amount of points of contact. In the game system is in effect ALL THE TIME. At no time can one not encounter the system, so this is actually rules heavy, rather than rules light.
*snip*

Mm. I'm going to chime in on this as a veteran free-former. I have done it for many years, and still do it occasionally.

Free-form doesn't mean lack of rules.. At least not in most established and thriving free-form communities. The rules are just a bit more.. abstract. The rules which are in effect in my own roleplaying community are the following:

1. Nothing happens to your character without your consent.
2. Character and player are separate. The character should not act on knowledge that he or she cannot reasonably know, or have found out.
3. "Take your hits", as I short-hand it. Basically, try to have the character react realistically to what's going on around and to them.

Add to this "code of conduct" the syntax of freeform, which in our case includes what certain symbols mean. A few examples follow:

::smile:: Words and descriptions surrounded by double-colons are typically descriptions of what the character is doing, looks like, or in some instances, is thinking.

@::shivers from the cold:: lines preceded by the at symbol are denoted as being somewhere separate from the main setting area, such as outside the room, or in a separate room.

#La-la-la!# lines bracketed by the pound sign are meant to be singing.

There are others, but these just give the idea.

The rigidity of these rules, both in the code of conduct and the syntax varies from situation to situation, and between people. For example, typically, by the first rule, I cannot write something like:

::reaches over and smacks Quozl in the face::

because I am stating that your character gets smacked. What I should write is:

::reaches over to smack Quozl in the face::

which leaves the option of whether I hit up to Quozl. But if I am playing with someone I know well, and who I have established a certain level of trust, this rule is relaxed. Depending on the level, I may ask permission to dictate an action for their character, or I may simply do it, and they'll know that I won't take things further than they want me to.

Likewise, where I am playing out a scene with another player whom I know well, I may have the character act based on something I know, but the character does not, usually for dramatic effect. For instance, my character may be engrossed in a book, and have no way of knowing that someone is trying to quietly catch their attention from across the room. Realistically, the character would probably continue reading. I as a player know that this other player wants to interact with my character, so based on that knowledge, my character may rub his eyes and glance around. This is an exceptionally low-level example, but higher level relaxation of the "blending" rule is known to happen. It's what might be called Author or Director stance here on the forums, whereas most free-form is primarily strict Actor stance.

Rule three is one that is both most commonly abused, and one that is most commonly relaxed. Abuse occurs when someone refuses to have their character act in a consistent manner; dodging every single hit from 5 highly skilled attackers, for example. Relaxation of the rule may involve a healer failing to notice an injured person because something OOC has been communicated that the injured person's player doesn't want them healed for some reason or another. The healer, usually very alert, becomes distracted at that moment, and simply does not notice things.

Respect is a key issue with successful free-form. You must respect each person's right to determine what happens to their character. You must respect the fact that your character will not know everything the player knows. You must also respect your fellow players enough to work with them in having their character react realistically. In the above example, the wounded character couldn't make a big scene, then have the player expecting the healer character to ignore it. When you have specific goals, you must be willing to communicate and cooperate behind the scenes to make sure everyone involved can react realistically, get what they want out of the scene, and have fun.

So.. Freeform does not mean that there are not any explicit rules. It's perhaps just the ultimate in "rules light".

Sorry, went on a bit of a ramble there. I hope I managed to contribute, regardless.

Why have rules?

1) Rules are fun!

2) Rules are just.

Everyone wants to have fun and not feel ripped off.

Bluve Oak wrote: Why have rules?

1) Rules are fun!

2) Rules are just.

Everyone wants to have fun and not feel ripped off.

Noon wrote: 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).

Noon wrote: 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.

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.

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

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.

Noon wrote:
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.

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.

BPetroff93 wrote: 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.

Neelk wrote: 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.

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.

Nuadha wrote:
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.

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.

Scourge108 wrote: 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*