The Forge Archives

Hi,

After reading John Kim and Marco (and many others) going at it on another thread, I was thinking of starting a thread called, The Game Between the Rules.  It would be about all that play that occurred with my high school AD&D (1st) group where we'd just wander la-la-la away from any sort of actual game text and do court intrigue or chance upon the crazy old farmer who killed his wife and daughter and they had to piece the murder together.  

As marco points out, there's nothing to say you can't do such a thing with the AD&D rules...  But you're not actually playing the rules either.  Thus, "The Game Between the Rules."  We knew the rules were there for those times when we actually stumbled across situations where we could use them, but there was something quite freeing, quite daring and setting off for uncharted lands about saying, "We have no idea how to arbitrate this.  Let's go for it anyway."  (Lots of house rules cropped up here: d20 rolls against your Charisma stat to lie to people and so on....)

The point is, I couldn't quite put my finger on this new thread I wanted to do, until I responded to Jack's "Gamist/Repitition" thread.  

It seems to me that "tightly focused games" (or, as I think of them, "well designed games") let players use the same tools and rules over and over again to build the kind of game that is "supposed" to be played.  Thus, Sorcerer provides tools and rules for a specific kind of entertainment -- but if you're looking for a game that's going to make sim judgements on a PC beating a back road speed trap you're plum out of luck.

Meanwhile, there are plenty of people who are more than content with games that actually must be left behind to play out the kind of entertainment they want.  The rules don't cover court intrigue?  Fine.  We're here, we can talk. We'll wander off the rules path for a while and if or when we get back on the rules path, we'll pick up the rules once more.

Now, most "games" don't offer this as a potential.  Even in Monopoly games with house rules, there are now *rules* that tell us how to play, even though they be rules that are different than what's printed in the rule booklet.

On the other hand, a game like Sorcerer doesn't need to leave the rules path.  You walk it the whole game. You don't fudge rolls, you don't leave the rules behind.

So the issue about confusing people about RPGs who aren't used to RPGs isn't about RPGs or not RPGs -- its about this presumed and acceptable Game Between the Rules -- which actually only makes sense within the world of tabletop RPGs. CCGs, boardgames, party games, even as far as I'm aware LARPS (but please, don't get all wonky and sidestep the real issue at hand if I'm wrong about that), stick pretty tightly to the rules.  That's what makes them work, it's what makes play possible.

RPGs on the other hand have a rich tradition of leaving the rules behind (and, as stated before) joining up with them later.

I'd offer that this leads to a second issue: Even for those who play RPGs, there's a whole world of confusion and complication that can take place.  Because the focus of the game isn't clear, you get the bizarro argument about whether or not someone with fourteen arrows in his back and a deep plunge off a cliff could survive.  If you're playing by the rules, yes he can.  If you're modelling some sort of "real" (fantasy) life -- maybe, maybe not.  

Where we get to leave the rule's path -- since we do it already, and all agree it's a good thing -- is now open to question, and folks can think (or feel) it's their right to get the hell off the rule's path now to make the game experience better.  (After all, that's why we didn't play with rules for the last twenty minutes, right?  Or why Jeremy kept rolling behind the GM screen until he got the "right" result for the random encounter.)

This leads to a whole host of GNS issues, but I'll end it here.

The main issues are, most RPGers expect to wander off the rules path, and this

a) really is very strange to anyone else who has played other games;

b) is not inherent in RPG (Sorcerer leaps to mind);

c) is seen as a defect by some when the game isn't designed to do this (Sorcerer again);

and d) leads to breakdowns at the table when the expectation of when to leave the rules path and when to stay on it get fuzzy as people use the open-ended tradition of RPGs to their own ends/expectations/aestetic sensabilities/what have you.

And there's my thoughts.

Christopher

Quote from: Christopher KubasikNow, most "games" don't offer this as a potential.  Even in Monopoly games with house rules, there are now *rules* that tell us how to play, even though they be rules that are different than what's printed in the rule booklet.

Minor disagreement here. Although it is mentioned in the rulebook, there is no rule, per se, for it which is making side deals. That is, in Monopoly, if you land on a property, you can buy it. If you buy it and someone else lands on it, they pay you rent. Repeat until someone wins that is bankrupts everybody else. Making side deals is a part of the game, but it kind of leaves the rules path as well.

Now, here's a question, would the making of side deals in Monopoly work better if there were rules for it? I think not. I think it leaves the rules path, the contraption, if you will, behind and makes use of just standard human interaction. Human interaction when preoccupied with the activity at hand of playing the game.

Quoteleads to breakdowns at the table when the expectation of when to leave the rules path and when to stay on it get fuzzy as people use the open-ended tradition of RPGs to their own ends/expectations/aestetic sensabilities/what have you

Ever see the documentary Heart of Darkness: A Director's Apocolypse? It's about the making of Apocolypse Now. One thing Coppola kept saying about that movie is that it was big, really big, too big. He had no idea if it would ever be finished. Nearly ended his career. I can't be sure but it sounds like it might be very similar here. Leaving the rules path, you enter a bigger world, bigger than side deal making in Monopoly because you're still playing the game of trying to bankrupt your opponents. Out there, you have little to go on even in light of the rules of the game you are playing. Maybe. I can't be certain of this.

Quote from: Jack Spencer JrAlthough it is mentioned in the rulebook, there is no rule, per se, for it which is making side deals. That is, in Monopoly, if you land on a property, you can buy it. If you buy it and someone else lands on it, they pay you rent. Repeat until someone wins that is bankrupts everybody else. Making side deals is a part of the game, but it kind of leaves the rules path as well.

I'm not one hundred percent sure, but I believe that Monopoly does provide at least a framework for transactions besides buy it or pay rent. There are specific rules for mortgaging properties, and I believe it does say that a player can sell a property to another player at an agreed price, provided any mortgage is satisfied before the transfer is made. I'm not sure how much more "rules" there could be on that.

Also, I suspect the rules as written have been revised a few times over the generations, so it may be that I'm remembering a different revision. I recall that the rule surprised me.

--M. J. Young

Quote from: M. J. YoungI'm not one hundred percent sure, but I believe that Monopoly does provide at least a framework for transactions besides buy it or pay rent. There are specific rules for mortgaging properties, and I believe it does say that a player can sell a property to another player at an agreed price, provided any mortgage is satisfied before the transfer is made. I'm not sure how much more "rules" there could be on that.

Not to turn this thread into another Monopoly thread, but I do recall (now) those rules, but I'm refering to rules outside of all that, like forming an alliance with another player so you can land on each others properties and waive or reduce the rent, then stabbing this guy in the back, breaking the agreement once you feel you're in a position you don't need him anymore. That kind of thing.

Hmm, some good points. I think the process of 'leaving the rules path' is expected by rpgers because they've played and are well aware that their game, whatever it is, always has 'blank spots' for things they tried or may want to do. If you've read the rules to this or that, you will know that domesticating a feral cat or starting your own furniture store simply isn't accounted for.

I think people 'expect' to wander off the rules because they also WANT to wander off - as open-ended as rpgs are already, its their way of grabbing that little bit of 'free play' that somehow dimensionally intersects normal play and exists of its own self and can be 'meta-magically injected' into the rules-governed portion of the game. The players are using the referee's willingness to allow them to help WRITE a small part of the adventure - sometimes for no other reason than just because the players may feel creative or frustrated or the referee may even seem at a loss - the player takes this opportunity to go 'outside' of the game, with a pet idea, work it over with the referee and other players, and by concensus, have it manifest via referee fiat (thereby validating it) in game.

The player, sometimes through the use of no, or even a player-designed, task resolution or roll (like weird non-standard checks against Charisma to do something that could *marginally* be seen as relating), has, without any stats, skills or notes written on his character sheet that even hints at this possibility, even independent of his own character, performed an action that has lead to the creation of a new activity or 'construct' INSIDE the game world, really, wholly by metagame efforts, though explained and justified IN game by the player character's actions.

So I would say its partially creativity, partially free play, partially wanting a little bit of control, just now and then, plus any other personal or session-specific factors or variables. Its like, instead of coloring on one side of the paper or the other, you color on the INSIDE - sometimes just because.

I think that there's a qualitative difference in "leaving the path" in a RPG, as opposed to doing so in a game like monopoly. And that is, that the game does have "rules" for adjudicating these things in a RPG, despite what's been said so far. That is, in all RPGs that I can think of, there's a rule that says, more or less, "if something happens that's not covered under the other rules, some player (often the GM) has the authority to decide what happens." Usually this is caveated with things like "the GM should use common sense", or "the GM should consider the ongoing story when making such decisions".

Essentially there are no in-game events in RPGs that are not accounted for in some way.

Now, does that mean that I don't think that there's a "game between the rules"? No, I think that the play described does vary from the intent of the overall rules. It's as though you were playing monopoly with a GM and he adjudicated what happened in cases where the rules do not apply. You could go off and explore a fantasy world with such a set up.

But the system would not support such exploration very well. At best you'd have what was essentially a freeform game. At worst, you'd have players looking for Baltic Avenue in your fantasy world, and wondering why play with the monopoly rules if you weren't going to have one. The question becomes, why play your fantasy game using the Freeform GMed Monopoly system.

Now, nobody is suggesting that anyone would. But the point is the same. There are better and worse systems for each sort of game you want to play. If you're looking to design a system, make one that better supports your game than worse. So that players have less need to play "between the rules". Pretty simple.

Mike

I think it's a very good point, really.

Only two notes:

1. Thanks for pointing out that you equate focused with well-designed. I was looking for a definitive statement to that effect (I realize this is only speaking for yourself and a personal opinion at that).

2. I've yet to see a focused game that couldn't use modification for something still within the bounds where I'd want to use it (I don't have Sorceror so I can't comment). Nicotine Girls: my intended use for it will need some re-design. The idea I'd run it with would be marginally outside it's designer's intent (although I suspect Paul'd find what I'd do with it interesting--rather than a monstrosity of Frankenstienian porportions). Furthermore, even with the modification (drift?) I'd still want to use the core system. It's still a lot closer to what I'd want than FRP with Monopoly.

Mayhem PT: same here (two hard and fast concrete examples). Both are still, I think, *squarely* within the theme of the game.

So just keep in mind that your well-designed game may be my "almost good enough"--but not quite. It might also be someone's "boy, I'd like to do that--but the rules won't work *at all* for me."--I realize you're aware of this--but then, it's not the game, it's the people with it that interpert the success of the design.

And at that point, RPG's become a *medium* for creative expression rather than the end result (Monopoly is the end result--that's the major difference between most games and RPGs, IMO).

-Marco

Chris...wonderful points.  I can't find a single thing I disagree with.  This ties in to Ron's old Mainstream threads and why "mainstream" RPGs aren't "Mainstream".  

The tradition of "leaving the path" as you put it (great imagery there) is a rich one in RPGs and one that many gamers are rightly proud of.  Some gamers are very very good at it, others only think they are, and for some the necessity of having to blaze a trail through the wilderness is a major pain in the ass.

I think there is also alot of vanity and ego at stake.  I offer as evidence the number of comments like "what, you need rules for everything?". "just use your imagination," and the like that tend to crop up whenever a discussion of designing rules to perform a task better begins.

People do get a lot of enjoyment out of jerry rigging their own rules.  Its the same sense of accomplishment that I might get from being able to complete a house project using a fork and steak knife when I can't find the philips head screwdriver.

The mistake that these people make is equating their rightful sense of accomplishment at being able to do these things as being the "right way" to play, and asking for a more appropriate tool to be a crutch or an inferior cop out.  I may strut a little at my silver ware tool box skillz, but I'm firmly aware of how much better off I'd have been with an actual screwdriver.

Wandering off the path is what you do when you don't have the right game for the job.  Some people may actually PREFER that to having the right game (same as some people prefer to wander through the woods rather than follow a trail) but that doesn't mean that a quest to design the right game is unnecessary, or counter productive, or anything else.