The Relationship Between The Game And The Rules

Well, my plans for the setting creation session have been put on hold for the near future. The majority of my players, and myself, are still in school so it's crunch time right now and everyone is buried under assignments. Just about everything is on hold.

Thus today shall be some of my musings on RPGs.

I like investigating various rule systems. This stems from my love of making rules. I love modifying rules so that they better represent what I'm trying to accomplish, and I don't fret too much about the balance of those rules. However, I'm getting off track.

My investigations have lead me to a number of rule sets that I enjoy and have run. My table top RPG history looks like this: 2e D&D, a variety of homebrews based on 2e D&D, 3e D&D, a number of homebrews based on 3e D&D, Serenity RPG, a long running homebrew based on Serenity, d20 Modern (combined with d20 Past AND Future), a Dark Heresy one shot, and finally BESM 3e. I've also read some of the rules for 2e Exalted, Fantasycraft, Vampire the Masquerade, Shadowrun 4e, and Spirit of the Century.

I've obviously tried a wide variety of games with a wide variety of players. Each player has had their own level of the knowledge of the rules, and each game has had its own level of detail. What I've found from play is that the games with more detail give the players more control than the GM (when there are players who know the details). For example, if the GM's made a big bad evil guy/gal (BBEG) and the GM has broken a few rules to make the battle more interesting (such as giving the BBEG abilities that don't exist in the rules or that they "shouldn't" have because of rules restrictions), and a player spots the broken rules, they may complain that the rules have been broken and make a big fuss about it. This could potentially ruin an entire campaign if it becomes a big enough issue, and at least will ruin the moment.

I have been on both sides of the GM screen and experienced the other side too: if I want to do something, say hold onto the mast of a ship as it rocks in a storm so that I don't fall down, and the GM tells me that it won't have any effect mechanically because there is no provision in the rules for such an action, then I'll feel like I've been cheated out of some fun.

So there's two causes of this problem, one is overly detailed rules, the other is "rules lawyers" (whether they are the GM or a player). The only real solution is to create a game where everyone has a similar idea of what constitutes fun. If that's doing awesome stuff whether or not the rules allow it, that's fine, or creating consistency through the rules, that's fine as well. Personally, I prefer the former to the latter, and I try to accommodate the players' desires unless I think it could set a house rules precedent that could bite me in the ass later. Fun is where it's at.