Mucking about with some Mind Map practice yesterday, I noticed an element to the so-called Play Styles dimension of roleplaying games that I hadn’t thought much about before. Some people are strict with the rules and methodologies of the game, and others are much more flexible.
I really hadn’t run into many strict “by-the-rules-as-written” players over the years. These are people who not only prefer to play the rules as published but who also really don’t enjoy any deviation from them. The other end of the spectrum are people for whom the rules-as-written are the merest suggestion of guidelines from which divergence is a given.
Given all the other sliding scales in roleplaying game circles – such as loose vs detailed crunch, lite vs heavy rules weight, and higher vs lower complexity – I was surprised that I had missed the strict vs flexible dial. It also got me thinking about how I fit on that scale.
When I have a new game and am learning it, I usually force myself to play “rules-as-written” so that I can assess the rules and systems within it. Generally, however, I feel pretty free and at liberty to tinker with mechanisms that I either don’t much like, find too fiddley, or outright feel don’t work. Most players I know are fine with this as long as it gets discussed.
But it’s important to accept that some people don’t like this flexible attitude to the rules-as-written. Some say it’s cheating to bend or break the rules. Others feel that it opens you up to unexpected complications and side-effects, leading them to assert that playing the game as designed is safer. A few feel that their game of choice is objectively “best” and should not be tinkered with lest it be spoiled.
The realisation brought me back to the importance of dialogue and discussion, both prior to starting a game and periodically during the campaign. I’ve added strictness and adherence to the rules to my list of things to discuss. I simply hadn’t given it that much thought until now.