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?

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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

Emily Care wrote: 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.

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

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.

Emily Care wrote: Anytime simple negotiation is viable and productive.

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.

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:

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

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

lumpley wrote: 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.

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.

Hi Vincent,

I'm not sure whether the first part of your post was meant to be in reply to me or not. If it was I don't understand how, 'cos I think I agree with everything you said there.

lumpley wrote: 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.

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

Thierry Michel wrote:

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

Whenever everyone agrees on the desired outcome of a decision.

Hey Jack. The first part of my post wasn't addressed to you, you're right!

The cost of having a GM who gets to make non-negotiable rulings is: it undermines player authorship and introduces, not just structure, but power-based hierarchy into a game group. The people I play games with are my peers and collaborators, so even when we take on different responsibilities, everyone's input is negotiable. Exempting a GM is no small thing.

It's also not freeforming, if freeforming means non-structured negotiation. "My word is law" isn't non-structured. It's a big-time rule.

You wrote:

I wrote:
Absolutely crucial to all of this is understanding what rules do, which is structure negotiation.

I think some rules do a lot more than this. Take a look at Great Ork Gods, the rules here don't just tell you how to resolve a situation they tell you what the situation is and how it works. A sizeable chunk of the play is caused by the rules. The same is true of a some of the rules in a lot of games; particularly the magic rules.

This is some great discussion. Thank you everyone!

However, I should have clarified from the first post that I'm talking about written rules only.

Hi Vincent,

lumpley wrote: The cost of having a GM who gets to make non-negotiable rulings is: it undermines player authorship and introduces, not just structure, but power-based hierarchy into a game group. The people I play games with are my peers and collaborators, so even when we take on different responsibilities, everyone's input is negotiable. Exempting a GM is no small thing.

Tomas HVM wrote: 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".