Classifying good rules

16 October, 2008 at 4:30 pm (game design, rpg theory) ()

In this post I will outline three (or two) different ways in which rules can be good. For the purpose of this post, let rules be good if and only if they produce good play, and let good play be defined by the people playing.

I am also assuming that freeform play, defined as play in which resolution is handled by social negotiation or fiat and where there are few explicit rules, is not utterly broken and can actually work.

Fading to the background

As was assumed above, freeform can be good play. Rules that fade to the background make freeform easier and channel it to specific fictional style. Take, for example, a game that has attributes (strength, speed, …). Creating characters gives players a sense of how capable their characters are when compared to each other, and also possibly to the rest of the world. Note that this also happens to other numbers that represent the character.

It has been my experience that given a set of rules that tend to fade, the resolution system is first used frequenly to resolve anything and everything, but it is used less and less as the game proceeds, because people already know what is going to happen. Your character has three times bashed a door down and charged in, so we already know your character is capable of bashing doors down, and there’s no need to roll anymore (assuming a door that is not stronger than those bashed before).

Rules, even though they fade to the background, also shape the fictional world. Take a random fantasy rpg and add magic rules stolen from D&D or Ars Magica, and you will have vastly different sorts of mages in the setting.

I have heard that BRP (basic roleplay, used in Runequest, Stormbringer and Call of Cthulhu) and Unisystem are this kind of games.

Creating fun play

Some rules have fairly discrete mini-games. The traditional example is combat in modern D&D (3rd and 4th editions). It is clear that such mini-games don’t fade into background; rather, they are entertaining in and of themselves (given players who like such mini-games, of course). Another feature of them is that there is no need to ever use them; you can play D&D 3rd and never touch the combat rules. It would be something of a waste in that most of the game would be unused, but that doesn’t really matter, as long as the play is good.

In summary: Good rules can create new kinds of good play, or make an existing activity interesting in a new way.

Extreme case

An extreme case of the above is rules that don’t work properly unless they are embraced. Almost all board games are in this category. Burning Wheel is close, because the character development and artha mechanics require actively using and remembering the rules.

I’d be as bold as to say that many games influenced by rpg theory from the Forge are close to this extreme case. It might even be possibly to characterise them by this classification scheme, though there is bound to be loose ends.

Design implications

From design perspective it is useful to have a baseline; what am I improving? (My default baseline is freeform play.) Minigames and games that simply don’t work unless used properly may benefit from another point of comparison, or may be considered without much context, which is not advisable to any game that relies heavily on people already knowing a particular activity or mode of play.

Continuum, not absolutes

As is generally true, this classification creates a continuum, not two (or three) pair-wise distinct sets.

5 Comments

  1. Callan said,

    “It has been my experience that given a set of rules that tend to fade, the resolution system is first used frequenly to resolve anything and everything, but it is used less and less as the game proceeds, because people already know what is going to happen. Your character has three times bashed a door down and charged in, so we already know your character is capable of bashing doors down, and there’s no need to roll anymore (assuming a door that is not stronger than those bashed before).”

    Hmmm, apart from getting bored about rolling what is a foregone conclusion, I don’t see any reason to stop rolling to bash the door down. If you all commited to using the rules, then it’d be cheating to do so. Yeah, it’d be boring – that’s a reason to not play the game, rather than a valid reason to stop using rules you decided to use.

    Are you sure your commiting to using the rules, or just using them until they establish some sort of benchmarks in the imagined world (ie, the barbarian can always smash down regular wooden doors), that you then build further imagination on?

  2. Tommi said,

    Are you sure your commiting to using the rules, or just using them until they establish some sort of benchmarks in the imagined world (ie, the barbarian can always smash down regular wooden doors), that you then build further imagination on?

    The latter. The commitment, if any, is to the fiction; rules are one way of adjudicating what happens in the fiction.

  3. Callan said,

    I’d thought so. Fair enough. I’m of the sort who commit to the rules and either play through them all, or give up on playing the game entirely.

    I’ve no real point except to say the difference and wave a greeting from over in my position :)

  4. the_blunderbuss said,

    I am also assuming that freeform play, defined as play in which resolution is handled by social negotiation or fiat and where there are few explicit rules, is not utterly broken and can actually work.

    This created an instant-smile on me. You an I come from very similar game styles so you know that I agree with you on this. To be honest I believe we had a chat about it online didn’t we?

    From design perspective it is useful to have a baseline; what am I improving? (My default baseline is freeform play.)

    That was creepy, I basically used the same question in a conversation with some friends the other day. This whole post is a sort of deja vu. In any case the point is clear: If I can do something that works within a freeform background, I need to know what is the benefits that any particular rule would bring.

    Compare that to the framework some of my friends work with and you’ll see a radical difference between the two (see comment on Strategic rules.) Then again, what I posted there was the product of some heavy probing and some intricate extrapolation. My point: the idea that rules (and in most cases, a very specific and detailed set of them) is the baseline for play is paramount to some people (some play styles.)

    @Callan
    I come from the same place as Tommi here. Roleplaying games (for me, and my play style) are flexible enough that I can change any tedious aspect of them (usually mid play.) Since the rules are purely functional to me (they allow me to “run” the fiction better), anything that is not working get’s modified or ditched. There is no commitment to the rules, only to the fiction.

    That being said, it’s just a play style. The good thing is that we know the difference and thus are better prepared to deal with the problems that would arise if we were to play together.

    Fred.

  5. Callan said,

    Well, we probably couldn’t play together at all – at the very root, were go in two different directions. At a social level rather than think we could play together we should just think that atleast we can chat here and there about the whole thing.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: