Why do rules lawyers exist? All tabletop gaming is, is just people having fun imagining shit. All D&D/Pathfinder/etc. are is just a guideline and recommendation, if the GM doesn't wanna use a rule because it's stupid (fucking grapple calculations) then they shouldn't be bitched at by their players.
Thoughts?
Then why do rules even exist?
If the GM doesn't wanna use a rule they should announce it at the beginning of the game so everyone is on the same terms.
>make character based on guidelines agreed on by playing game
>get to game
>"yeah, this rule hurts my feelings so we wont use it"
>rework character quickly
>three hours into game
>dickass dm uses the rule against us
Fuck off
No rules is an extreme, and rule lawyers are the personification of the other extreme. It's about finding a balance that suits your group.
The DM gets to decide what flies at their table, considering the amount of effort they generally have to put in to the group... But it's up to the players to accept those choices. If your DM is being an unfun bitch in your eyes: Ditch him and move on. Trust me: Having all your players ditch out on you is a fairly significant wake-up call to most DMs.... Though there are a few neckbearded exceptions that are proud of their various obnoxious DM habits.
Like every question on Veeky Forums, it fully depends on the group. Remember that RPG has the word, "Game" in it. And that a bit part of what we do. We actually not only play a role, but also the game, which can only exist within the rules of it.
If players enjoy the fights and their tactical side, you'll need the rules to play it out. If yours just want to do cool/dramatic things, then you won't really need them. But many will want a kind of balance between them and it's the DM job to find the best one (as possible of course).
Tl;dr: I also greatly enjoy tactical side of fights and thus rules
Let us take a moment to enjoy the lewdness provided.
...
Alright gentlemen, carry on.
You're right, I should go through the whole rulebook and have the forethought on every iteration of every rule in every scenario and figure out which ones will need to be skimmed over or ignored for those situations. You're absolutely right, thanks for the info. Not OP btw
Play is created by context. Rules create that context.
The context is most generally:
>rules by which players operate
>end goal
Of course, the end goal part is messy as RPGs are not written (save for prewritten adventures) with a specific end goal built-in, it has to be made. Still, these choices could paradoxically be to continue the game rather than reaching the end of play. Of course, games as generally defined exist as paradoxes in and of themselves because they are played in order not to be played; the goal of play is to end play.
Indeed, this. The rules exist to prevent godmodding- a term one generally only finds in a freeform (no rules) roleplay (which scarcely merits the term "game" at that point).
Rule 0 is often considered GM fiat. I think there should instead be a rule that superceeds even that however. "If this action would work in real life and can be performed without any special training, and the DM is wrong about physics/economics/technology/basic psychology, the action succeeds."
As said before, rules exist to prevent godmodding. Which means only that they determine what your character is capable of that you are not, or vice versa. I am capable of creating a gun in a workshop. My character however should not have the requisite knowledge to perform such a task, even if he is physically capable. I am also somewhat versed in rhetoric and diplomacy- but if my character has dumped charisma he should fail in such pursuits. I am not capable of parkour, but perhaps my character is. I am certainly not capable of magic, but my character most likely has access to some.
But in each case you must provide why it is I cannot accomplish such a task. What limitation does my character have that prevents his success? If the action is obviously common sense, or the result of an action is nonsensical because the DM lacks an understanding of physics, he is wrong, and should be held accountable, and should not have the ability to FIAT my common sense actions as failing because he wasn't clever enough to anticipate them.
Oh, how the tables have tabled
I can see what you're getting at, but having a "If the DM is stupid, then we get our way" rule would be slightly problematic... In that the DM sets the rules, and a stupid DM is extremely unlikely to admit that they're stupid. Especially during an argument over physics bullshit.
Ahh yes. Rule Zero, the impenetrable "nyah nyah I'm right you're wrong faggot" of RPGs.
See, role-playing games are based on s similar contract as movies abd books. You suspend disbelief and give a few hours of your time and I will give you an entertaining story.
And of course if you want Harry Potter to die in the last chapter, of Darth Vader to start jacking off halfway through, you can. Its your movie
But it's a shitty one. And so is a shitty GMs shitty role-playing campaign where he hides behind rule zero because he can't stand not being 100% in control.
I think you misunderstand the rule of law. No finite amount of rules can actually prescribe a perfect system. There's no fixing a stupid DM. Only detecting and avoiding them. Any DM that refuses my rule that supercedes FIAT is very unambiguously one I do not need to waste my time on.
That's fine. If you are going to try and interject a rule over my head in a game I have written and host just so you can argue about something I sidelined for gameplay/story/dramatic/fun purposes you probably aren't a player I would have invited anyway.
And what I'm saying is that most situations that would require a rule that overrides rule 0 likely has a bad DM that wouldn't abide by that rule in the first place.
If an action makes sense and the DM refuses to acknowledge it for whatever reason, then that anti-DM rule isn't going to be acknowledged either.
On one hand, a lot of rules get in the way and should safely be ignored for most group.
On the other hand, tinkering with the given rules and working within the system can create experiences that cannot be had while free-forming. Plus playing around with the rules can be fun in and of itself. Why do people play meatgrinder games? Because it's fun to make characters that work well within the setup of the game.
No, but by presenting this rule upon meeting the group, I can determine this immediately rather than waiting for that scenario to crop up.
It's fine if you throw out a rule, but if you're playing with experienced players you need to inform them of this before/while they make their characters.
If they made a barbarian specifically for the rage abilities and you've decided to toss them in the trash for whatever reason, they have a right to demand a new character.
The rules exist to prevent player AND DM godmodding. Thus while the rules restrict the player, they also are a guarantee of what the player can do.
If you take away grappling rules, and I want to grapple, the burden is on you to provide a reasonable and accurate simulation of grappling.
Hug it out?