A heavy rule set restricts roleplay

Yes, fool. Anything that demands more of a players time, such as complex rulesets, leaves less time for other things, such as rp.

>Given the choice, you'll fall back on what you know.
This applies to rules light systems too. I play in GURPS, if I make a character that has alchoholism I have will rolls that I need to determine if I cave in to my addiction. I then roleplay this exchange whether I succumb or not. Yeah I get lazy sometimes and just say "I failed, let me get wasted, I get some negative modifiers for my DX skills" but those are the exception.

Having lots of rules means you have more of a frame for your roleplay. Saying it restricts you from playing your character is silly because you have more guidelines for how your character is modeled in the game world so you can take that info when portraying and playing them.

Just because you can be lazy with it doesn't mean it's the problem of the rule set just the player. It works for some and not others obviously.

>Having lots of rules means you have more of a frame for your roleplay. Saying it restricts you from playing your character is silly because you have more guidelines for how your character is modeled in the game world so you can take that info when portraying and playing them.

More rules CAN restrict roleplay when you get to stuff like how Pathfinder does it often with feats, where more options results weirdly in less options. As a lot of feats are 'You can do X', which adds in the fact 'Previously you could not' when most of the time it hadn't been said before that.

too much rp means no game and no rules
too much rules means low rp

it's almost as if in everything there's a balance and any extreme will turn out badly.

>More rules CAN restrict roleplay
I'm not saying it doesn't and even cite my own experiences. I just asked why an user says it "absolutely does" when it's not a guarenteed rule hence OP's picture being a facepalm to the statement. I just believe that some people prefer the structure of a rules heavy system when too much abstraction leaves them in a position to doing exactly what says and half ass their character.

>As a lot of feats are 'You can do X', which adds in the fact 'Previously you could not' when most of the time it hadn't been said before that.
I'm not following? Don't play any D20 based systems and in GURPS all skills within reason have a default which is the value you can use to perform a skill should you not have any training with it (obviously stuff like neurosurgery has no default)

From your description you're saying that a player will learn a feat despite that feat not being something the player couldn't do before learning it? That sounds wonky if it's just your standard array of combat skills like Greater Cleave.

>From your description you're saying that a player will learn a feat despite that feat not being something the player couldn't do before learning it?

Pathfinder(And Starfinder) has a fair number of non-combat feats that give you 'options' that go 'Wait...I couldn't do that without the feat?'. Like the ability to roll diplomacy to call a truce or bluff to antagonize someone with insults.

Which is what I meant by adding feats oddly reducing options. As they take things people would assume are stuff you can do by default and lock it behind feats.

>Which is what I meant by adding feats oddly reducing options. As they take things people would assume are stuff you can do by default and lock it behind feats.
Gotcha, yeah that sounds bad.

I see more creativity is OSR characters than in d20 System characters.

>Rules restrict something that doesn't run on rules.
Maybe you just suck at RPG's.

>doesn't run on rules
user, RP specifically does run on rules, and the purpose of rules is specifically to restrict RP to prevent YAH HUH NUH UH loops.

In most games, even rules heavy ones, you aren't restricted in what your character can and can do based off of abilities that you had to buy beforehand. I'd argue that the only reason why 3.PF is designed the way that it is is because WotC had more experience in designing rules for card games than tabletop RPG's, which is why so many abilities that would normally be left to GM discretion or roleplay got itemized into specific feats.

RP does not require rules to function, it's just you speaking as though you were your character, rather than yourself.

The only time rules come into play is if you're playing out an action that needs to be resolved because it has a chance of failure that could be detrimental to you or an action that's resisted by the actions of someone else, which may or may not be detrimental to you.

Speaking is an action.
I hope your rules system allows speaking.

Speaking is a FREE action in D&D (assuming they even list it as an action at all). Even then, unless you're lying, haggling, persuading, threatening, etc. someone into doing or believing something that they might not normally do, you wouldn't normally need to make a roll just to interact with someone.

You also can't talk out of your turn.
And you just listed four instances and an etcetera where rules are specifically restricting your ability to speak or roleplay.
You have proven my argument quite well, in the most common of systems.

And that's without even getting into weird shit like in shadowrun where you have to spend a point of edge to monologue if you want to talk a lot during a battle, or even more obscure systems where characters don't even have the same method of communication.

An excessively heavy ruleset actually does restrict roleplay though.
That's a major part of what makes FATAL thoroughly unplayable rather than just tasteless.

>And you just listed four instances and an etcetera where rules are specifically restricting your ability to speak or roleplay.
Because such instances would fall under "action that's resisted by the actions of someone else, which may or may not be detrimental to you."
>And that's without even getting into weird shit like in shadowrun where you have to spend a point of edge to monologue if you want to talk a lot during a battle
For one, turns in Shadowrun are resolved much faster than in D&D and Shadowrun is much more grounded (magic and matrix bullshit aside) and doesn't play by the normal conventions of fantasy where people exchange words during combat.
>even more obscure systems where characters don't even have the same method of communication.
Without having played these systems (could you list an example?) I cannot comment.

FATAL is unplayable because its very rules are not only broken (in both senses of the word) but are also contradictory to one another so often that you can end up with an unplayable character due to rolling the wrong combination of things.

Interaction rolls.
And don't even bullshit me and say you don't use them, the metaknowledge of your GM knowing you're bullshitting to an NPC will make you roll dice for AT LEAST deceiving them.

And that is because the rules go too far and instead of providing a mechanical structure to overlay the RP on cuts out player input entirely.

Nothing of what you said in any way disproves or even argues against the original premise up here.
In fact, you even acknowledge numerous times that RP forms around the rules established.

I mean, I say all this about the necessity of the rules while being a narrativist. Rules REALLY fucking change the RP and narrative.

Absolutely correct in every way. Anyone who disagrees with this post has probably just misread it.
That's what he's saying you stupid fuck.
>restrictions breed creativity

>Nothing of what you said in any way disproves or even argues against the original premise up here.
How so?
>In fact, you even acknowledge numerous times that RP forms around the rules established.
Only if the GM feels as though such a roll is necessary in the first place. I've played with DM's who made me roll a persuasion to haggle for a cheaper price for a room and I've played with DM's who let me get a cheaper price without rolling because I convinced them well enough through roleplay that they felt as though it was fair.

You never need rules to RP user, in fact, CHA in earlier editions of D&D didn't even cover your ability to speak a certain way, it originally only governed the number of followers you could bring and your modifier to reaction rolls to maintain morale.

It depends on the setting.

You already have acknowledged numerous places you specifically need rules to roleplay with the environment, including a large focus on preventing you from impinging on other entities.

All of these are rules. That you fall down and not up is a rule. That you are a human and not a dragon is a rule. That you are a wizard and not a fighter is a rule.

RP without rules is what we did as children, and can only work with an extremely good group without descending into infinity plus one swords and infinity plus two shields.

Unwritten rules are still rules, user, and I guarantee you have them.

You're making me miss being a kid beating up endless hordes of orcs and Tau.

Man, whenever I hear about other people's childhoods, they had WAY shittier children's entertainment.
I mean fuck, I remember watching tank police and vampire hunter D when I was young, and make believe involved using gas masks so the blackened sky doesn't wither your lungs.

Oh, and let's not forget shit like starship troopers and aliens.
That shit is spectacular.

Dunno. We did that too, so it can't be that unique. I'm just generally surprised I was able to lead people through those things, because I wasn't exactly the popular kid.

>You already have acknowledged numerous places you specifically need rules to roleplay with the environment, including a large focus on preventing you from impinging on other entities.
I also mentioned that this is only applies if the GM calls for you to roll in those situations.
>RP without rules is what we did as children, and can only work with an extremely good group without descending into infinity plus one swords and infinity plus two shields.
Rules don't necessarily make those things go away (see: 3.PF).

>this rule only applies sometimes
Not actually important to the argument at hand
>don't necessarily make go away
Not all systems can be perfect.

I do, but the times where I had to exercise them are a rarity.

Look I know it's hip to shit on pf but what?

>Not actually important to the argument at hand
I disagree. As I said, you don't need rules to RP but some games include them for the GM's that want you to roll for such things, when appropriate.
>Not all systems can be perfect.
No, but at the same time, tabletop RPG's generally require some sort of progression so that the player feels stronger than he did at the start of the campaign and adding too many options or having options that are imbalanced against each other while supposedly being the same level of power can create more issues than just letting the players claim to having infinite plus one swords since they can go "but it says right here I can have it."

It's much harder to take away someone's infinity+1 swords when it's the rules granting it to them, especially if they reached spent something to gain access to it.

I didn't mention 3.PF to shit on it, I brought it up to show that having rules for RP doesn't necessarily curb the behavior that the original poster mentioned here >RP without rules is what we did as children, and can only work with an extremely good group without descending into infinity plus one swords and infinity plus two shields.

>you don't need rules to RP
>except when you are interacting with anyone else, doing anything, or in any kind of contention

At this point, it seems like you are being deliberately obtuse for the sake of argument, as you have agreed with the sentiment that rules are there to restrict RP numerous times, but refuse to acknowledge this.

And like I said: RP without rules is what we did as children.

There is no actual infinity+1 sword in D&D or pathfinder,
is using hyperbole to troll, as he has checked out of the argument proper.

Except what we did as children had rules. Everything had to be believable.
Don't be passive-aggressive

Yes, most children quickly realize they need rules on their RP for it to work.

And he's right to be passive aggressive,
is being deliberately obtuse for the sake of getting (you)s

You do know that availability doesn't mean auto acquisition right? First the swords in question are not infinity plus ones. Secondly the gold only shows the worth, not a guaranteed auto acquisition. This isn't a system allowing the players to do whatever with impunity.

Hey now, he MIGHT just be an idiot. He doesn't have to be a troll.

>RP without rules is what we did as children.
Is that really an issue though? At least when THAT GUY made a temper tantrum we could kick him out without having to worry about filling up his space.

It is something of an issue, as it fails to work properly over a long period of time quite often.

Success rates of enjoyable times become better as you add some referee rules, and even better when you assign one guy as the arbiter of rules.

Really, it's about finding a balance you and your group are good with.

>There is no actual infinity+1 sword in D&D or pathfinder,
What is [insert full caster here]. Hell, being able to cast spells in 3.PF already made you more powerful than classes who couldn't.

>what is (not an infinity +1 sword)

The sword in this instance is a metaphor and some characters start off with this "sword" by default.

>I have friends over the internet that I mainly converse through with text, but also dank images.
Veeky Forums doesn't count.

Yes, some rules systems don't offer perfect game balance. That doesn't really effect whether rules restrict roleplay, the purpose of rules, how much worse this can get without rules, and suchlike.

>Can do practically anything under the sun at no cost.
>Not an infinity + 1 sword
The only thing limiting [insert full caster here] is that they only get so many spell slots but even that is barely a weakness once you gain access to more spells and the ability to scribe scrolls and make magic items.

So even out the box they have a number of restrictions on their powers given by rules, without any kind of arbitrator to keep them in check.

It's enough to keep you sane, sort-of. Like a homeless man looking in the window of a bakery.

>You also can't talk out of your turn.
Wrong.

>missing the forest for the trees

>So even out the box they have a number of restrictions on their powers given by rules
Only if you think that having the least HP is a good downside to being able to step on other class's toes while still having access to their own class abilities.

>there are only restrictions on this if you care about HP
>ignore all that shit I said about spell slots existing, or shit about having to refresh said spell slots, or anything about how spells work, or any of that, I am too busy having my pathfinder battle to bother understanding that all these things are still rules.

>It is something of an issue, as it fails to work properly over a long period of time quite often.
The most common reason why most campaigns fall apart is because people weren't on the same page, which will not necessarily be fixed by adding rules to the game.

True, but nothing is necessarily fixed by anything. There are exceptions to all rules, including this one.

No, NOT including that one.

Rules are for pussies. I have spoken.

So you had a rule that when someone is THAT GUY, you get to kick him out?

Thankfully, there are exceptions to that rule.

>ignore all that shit I said about spell slots existing
Scrolls, wands, orbs, etc. allow [insert full caster here] to have more spell slots than would normally be allotted to their level.
>shit about having to refresh said spell slots
There are also spells that allow you to rest in an area that cannot, by RAW, be affected while it's active and are virtually impossible to detect using mundane means.
>anything about how spells work
And the way they work is too powerful relative to classes that don't have access to spells.

I'm not trying to turn this into an argument against 3.PF, I'm just using it as an example since that's a system that most people are familiar with.

None of this has any bearing on the argument at hand, mr. pathfinder troll.

I'm saying that if THAT GUY was being a problem on the playground, we could freely tell him to go away without having to worry about not having enough players to play the game.

I don't understand how someone can say RP is separate from rules. The world is literally made out of rules. You are made out of rules. Everything you are is defined by the rules that made you and the world around you. The rules of the game are no different, and treating them as such requires a staggering amount of cognitive dissonance.
Even getting together a group of people requires hundreds of rules.

Not him but is this your first day on Veeky Forums? Threads commonly devolve into sub-conversations.

I agree to disagree, if only because we've gone too far off topic already.

That's a yes.

I have no obligation to entertain your side conversations or red herrings. I will continue to be a stick in the mud.

No obligation, but it's unreasonable to shit on someone for delving into a new trouser-leg of autism.

Fair play, given how unreasonable they were being.

We never had a rule, it was just a consequence that occurred since we didn't have any obligations to keep THAT GUY around while we were playing our game.

As opposed to nowadays, where people are forced into dealing with THAT GUY insofar as they were either short on people or short on someone else who could run the game for the group.

>We never had a rule, it was just a consequence that occurred
That's how rules work, user.

Not everything revolves around rules user.

One example is a feat that lets you quickly build cover out of rubble/random objects in starfinder. Another one lets you distract an enemy by talking a lot, before combat even starts

Really that kind of thing should be dependant on the situation or just a regular skill check rather than a feat you have to choose.

literally everything is the result of natural (or supernatural if you swing that way) rules, user.

>I don't understand how someone can say RP is separate from rules
Some "rules" come intuitively without having to consult a manual. That's the main difference.

We're using a more strict definition of rules in this conversation.
In this context, rules means "things that are written in the rule book."

>Unwritten rules are still rules
Epidemiologists insist they are patterns, not rules.

Epistemologists

The auto-correct recognizes Epistemology.
The hell does it not recognize Epistemologist for?

It is a blight sent by the LORD to punish phoneposters.

I've been playing HERO since June, 1983. It grows in complexity every edition and my role-playing is first class. Facepalm, indeed.

>>restrictions breed creativity
My contention was with the first part. My argument is that having a rules heavy system provides more of a framework, not that it gets in the way of roleplaying. Maybe it's you who has misread posts. I play a system people constantly say is for Rollplayers because "it has a rule for everything" yet don't feel like I'm being held back from playing the character I imagined, I express what I wanted through the options a character can have and my actions don't get impeded although I'm aware sometimes my GM might just roll dice but make up what happens without consulting anything.

Yeah in GURPS both of those equivalent feats have defaults so the first would be the Camoflague which can be substituted with IQ-4 or using the Survival skill with a -2 modifier.

The second one is the advantage Rapier Wit which uses the Public speaking skill as it's base which defaults to IQ-5, Acting-5, Performance-2, or Politics-5. So there are options for how you can meet the requirements for an action.

One thing I take away from this thread is that Rules heavy systems get in the way of Roleplaying when they have contradictory or poorly balanced rules and requirements for actions.

>My argument is that having a rules heavy system provides more of a framework
That's what he said. That's literally what his "restrictions breed creativity" part meant. It forces you to e.g. find food or die if you are starving, instead of...anything else.

Christ.

>That's what he said.
No what he said was
>I mean, it absolutely does
and then the thing we both agree on. What we disagree on is whether or not rules heavy systems restrict roleplaying in the first place. All systems have restrictions what I'm saying is that a rules heavy system doesn't get in your way (with the caveat that a poorly thought out system will absolutely get in your way)

Yes restrictions create a structure for your games, but that structure isn't inherently in your way when trying to play a character.

He didn't say it was in your way. He said it was a restriction.

No, here is the order

>A heavy rule set restricts roleplay
Then
>I mean, it absolutely does, but that's fine because restrictions breed creativity.

Meaning that he agrees with the sentiment that a heavy ruleset restricts roleplaying but views it as having a positive effect. I'm saying it doesn't restrict you from roleplaying unless the system is poorly thought out for reasons I've stated.

What do you think restrict means anyways?

Restrict simply means it reduces your options -- it puts a limit on what you can and can't do. So, for example, when you are starving your roleplay is limited to finding food or suffering. This is exactly what you have been talking about with your structure, and in fact you use the exact word.

>This is exactly what you have been talking about with your structure
Yes because it's not a restriction in the sense that it reduces your ability to roleplay, just a more concrete model for how the game world is supposed to operate.

Remember, OP's post was a sarcastic dismissal of the idea that having lots of rules inhibits your ability to roleplay. I agree because it's not a restriction to me given my experiences. Which is why I said I disagreed with the first part of that sentence but agree with the second part. The comma is the seperator in case you're still confused.

>yes because it's not a restriction, just a restriction
Seriously, don't you get that a "more concrete model" is itself restriction? That is what you have been saying.

I think you're just applying the most sensible definition of the word to your own posts and the most uncharitable definition to the original user's post. Do you agree that user was NOT saying rules make roleplay worse? Then why are you acting as if that's what he's saying?

Did you misread what he wrote? The guy isn't here to clarify himself but when he said "it absolutely does" in response to OP it was a concession that he believes heavy rules restrict roleplay. They CAN, but I only agree it's under specific circumstances not a set rule for all systems.

My "more concrete model" isn't a restriction to your ability to roleplay, it's a limitation that creates focus for the scope of actions that can be taken and the environment they can take place in. Every system does this regardless of how crunchy it is unless you are talking about pure freeform. Even generic systems have a tone and mechanical feel derived from how they structure their rules and handle resolutions.

I'm not changing how the word 'restrict' is applied to his and my statements. Hell, using your definition a rules heavy system is probably more likely to create more options for players since you have more factors that govern the gameworld which are mechanically represented. This may be bull since I only really have experience with two systems which are kind of on similar but opposite spectrums of the "fluff vs crunch" line (the other is FATE)

If "heavy rules systems inhibit/restrain roleplaying but through that obstacle, creativity is fostered" is the thrust of that user's statements than I disagree with the first part because. once again. I do not view heavy rules as adversarial to the ability to roleplay. Give me 250 points to make a character or give me 50 I'm still going to make someone interesting to play within the setting and have fun and it's not in spite of some shackles that supposedly exist because the rulebook is heavy.