Experience Systems

[Atgxtg]

23 hours ago, deleriad said:

There are two main reasons that I have gradually come not to like the skill check system: simulation and game play.

The failures of simulation complain is the one complaint I've seen in the thread that is consider to be a valid complaint about the skill check system. Most of the other complaints I've read aren't really a problem with the skill check game mechanic, but more a matter of personal preference, Even the skill check hunting thing seems to come down to GMs who either give the checks out easily and/or won't let a PC die while attempting it. But I don't see how an Improvement roll systems are any better as far as Failure of simulation goes. It's still just as unrelated to context.

 

As far as in terms of game play goes, I  can see your point but don't entirely agree with you. What skill improve depend on what skills the PC use. If most PCs end up with a fairly similar skill set then it is because they are most all doing the same things. And so the similar skill set makes sense. If they are all climbing trees and sniping trollkin, they should all get better at climb and missile weapons.  Once again, I don't see how assigning Improvement rolls stops this. With fewer improvment rolls per sessions, PCs are going to be ever more tightly focuses with an ever more similar skill set. Let's face it, Sword, Spot and Shield, are far more important in most adventures than evaluate, plant lore or Craft. 

The whole spamming skill rolls thing is more of a GM issue. If it isn't a stressful situation, no check. So spamming shouldn't work. And yet again, I don't see how assigning Improvement rolls fixes that. Since most IP systems say that a player has to use a skill to be able to spend IPs in it, PCsare still going to run arround spamming skills so they can improve in the one they want. 

For those who allow PCs to improve skills without using them, you wind up with D&D type silliness where a guy who climbs up in a tree and shoots goblins with a crossbow fails to improve at climbing or crossbow, but instead becomes a better wizard!

As far as POW gain through disruption goes, I blame the game designers. They made POW so crucial to the the magicians and then give only one way to improve it, and it is basically an "optional" process to engage in spirit combat. If you took the fights out of the adventures, and made all the opposition reasonable and willing to negotiate with the PCs, you find the warrior PCs becoming more belligerent so that they can get weapon skill checks. The other abilities don't require a successful roll on the resistance table to improve. I think it would be much better if the POW vs POW bit were dropped and POW improvement rolls triggered with a special success on a casting. 

 

 

[Jon Hunter]

1 hour ago, Atgxtg said:

 

As far as POW gain through disruption goes, I blame the game designers. They made POW so crucial to the the magicians and then give only one way to improve it, and it is basically an "optional" process to engage in spirit combat. If you took the fights out of the adventures, and made all the opposition reasonable and willing to negotiate with the PCs, you find the warrior PCs becoming more belligerent so that they can get weapon skill checks. The other abilities don't require a successful roll on the resistance table to improve. I think it would be much better if the POW vs POW bit were dropped and POW improvement rolls triggered with a special success on a casting. 

I had not articulated it before, but you've just highlight a downside of checkbox system, is that it does not reward non skills based solutions.

So actually role played solutions to problems or issues tend to result in much less experience that combat based solutions. Therefore clever characters who roleplay are not given the same advantages by the system, as players who wallop there way though every encounter.

[threedeesix]

Quote

 

I had not articulated it before, but you've just highlight a downside of checkbox system, is that it does not reward non skills based solutions.

So actually role played solutions to problems or issues tend to result in much less experience that combat based solutions. Therefore clever characters who roleplay are not given the same advantages by the system, as players who wallop there way though every encounter.

 

Actually, I would simply allow a player who role played a solution to a problem to check off an appropriate skill 'as if' they had rolled it. So a character that role plays a dialogue to get past a guard simply checks off an appropriate 'persuasion' skill. The skill was used, whether or not the dice were rolled.

[rust]

16 minutes ago, threedeesix said:

Actually, I would simply allow a player who role played a solution to a problem to check off an appropriate skill 'as if' they had rolled it.

The same here. It is the player's choice whether he roleplays the situation or whether he uses a dice roll to determine a success. In both cases the success results in an experience check.

[soltakss]

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

As far as in terms of game play goes, I  can see your point but don't entirely agree with you. What skill improve depend on what skills the PC use. If most PCs end up with a fairly similar skill set then it is because they are most all doing the same things. And so the similar skill set makes sense. If they are all climbing trees and sniping trollkin, they should all get better at climb and missile weapons.  Once again, I don't see how assigning Improvement rolls stops this. With fewer improvment rolls per sessions, PCs are going to be ever more tightly focuses with an ever more similar skill set. Let's face it, Sword, Spot and Shield, are far more important in most adventures than evaluate, plant lore or Craft. 

When everyone tries the same things, they end up with the same skills. It isn't something I particularly like. I remember the RuneMasters supplement, where everyone had 90% Riding, Jumping, Climbing, Spot Hidden, Spot Trap and so on, which reflected our RQ2 characters at the time, but everyone was the same. I prefer some variation in skills.

 

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

The whole spamming skill rolls thing is more of a GM issue. If it isn't a stressful situation, no check. So spamming shouldn't work. And yet again, I don't see how assigning Improvement rolls fixes that. Since most IP systems say that a player has to use a skill to be able to spend IPs in it, PCsare still going to run arround spamming skills so they can improve in the one they want. 

If a party is walking through an area and the GM asks everyone to make a Perception roll, to spot an approaching lion,how is that not stressful? Everyone has a chance to succeed, which increases the chance of success. Or are you saying that only one person should make the skill in order to get a tick?

In the case of picking a lock, I can see that subsequent rolls might be harder, but they should be able to be attempted.

Are these spamming? I honestly don't think so.

 

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

For those who allow PCs to improve skills without using them, you wind up with D&D type silliness where a guy who climbs up in a tree and shoots goblins with a crossbow fails to improve at climbing or crossbow, but instead becomes a better wizard!

A wizard is a wizard whatever he does in the scenario. Does he stop doing wizardy things, just because he hasn't stated that he does so? Of course not, when camping he'll be reading his books and practising spell casting. When riding through a wilderness, he'll be recalling spells, reciting rituals, reading books and so on. All of that allows the wizard to take an experience roll, in my opinion.

There is another kind of RQ silliness where someone could use a skill 12 times and end up a master (12x6=72, plus starting skill/bonus of 18).

 

2 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

As far as POW gain through disruption goes, I blame the game designers. They made POW so crucial to the the magicians and then give only one way to improve it, and it is basically an "optional" process to engage in spirit combat. If you took the fights out of the adventures, and made all the opposition reasonable and willing to negotiate with the PCs, you find the warrior PCs becoming more belligerent so that they can get weapon skill checks. The other abilities don't require a successful roll on the resistance table to improve. I think it would be much better if the POW vs POW bit were dropped and POW improvement rolls triggered with a special success on a casting. 

I have no problem with this at all.

Personally, I like the POW economy, it makes things simple and means that PCs can spend their POW how they want.

I would expect that PCs should get a POW gain roll every session.

 

[deleriad]

4 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

The failures of simulation complain is the one complaint I've seen in the thread that is consider to be a valid complaint about the skill check system. Most of the other complaints I've read aren't really a problem with the skill check game mechanic, but more a matter of personal preference, Even the skill check hunting thing seems to come down to GMs who either give the checks out easily and/or won't let a PC die while attempting it. But I don't see how an Improvement roll systems are any better as far as Failure of simulation goes. It's still just as unrelated to context.

I agree. For me the point of an Improvement Point system is that it doesn't try to simulate. Whenever IPs are handed out, players spend them (ideally) in whatever way seems to be appropriate. My preferred way of doing this is that when they're handed out each player briefly explains to the table what they're assigning them to. If something seems a little odd then an explanation justifying it is called for. 

2 hours ago, threedeesix said:

Actually, I would simply allow a player who role played a solution to a problem to check off an appropriate skill 'as if' they had rolled it. So a character that role plays a dialogue to get past a guard simply checks off an appropriate 'persuasion' skill. The skill was used, whether or not the dice were rolled.

I would argue that's just an Improvement Point system in disguise. It's often claimed that a skill check system negates the need for GMs to have to "reward" people for role-playing. To be fair, I think this simply shows that in actual use there is probably more of a blurred overlap than a hard and fast boundary.

Personally how I like to handle improvement through experience (using Mythras) is: "OK, everyone gets 3 experience rolls plus your experience modifier. You can also all have a free experience roll in the Drow language." I then like to ask everyone what they're spending them on. It means the whole table gets a short little session and often players will suggest things to each other. 

 

[Mugen]

2 hours ago, deleriad said:

Personally how I like to handle improvement through experience (using Mythras) is: "OK, everyone gets 3 experience rolls plus your experience modifier. You can also all have a free experience roll in the Drow language." I then like to ask everyone what they're spending them on. It means the whole table gets a short little session and often players will suggest things to each other. 

I do the same, but I impose half the IP I award. Those I give are experience, whereas those players assign are training, or self-focus.

Edited September 4, 2016 by Mugen

[Questbird]

On 9/3/2016 at 1:00 AM, Atgxtg said:

A short list, off the top of my head, includes critical and/or specials percentages, hit locations, the resistance table, skill category modifiers, differences between RQ2 and RQ3 and reasons why some who like one don't like the other, major wound table, how RQ3 sorcery is broken, opposed skill rolls, Gloanthan non-humans vs. D&D/Generic Fantasy RPG/J.R.R. Tolkien non-humans, how HeroQuest changed Glorantha from what was presented in old RQ, how MRQ1, MRQ2, RQ6, Mythas, Open D100, Call of Cthulhu, Elric!, Strombringer, or whatever does something compared to Chasoium's RQ and "Gregging". 

About the only things that I  think everybody on this forum has agreed on are that:

- Jason did a good job compiling most of Chasoiums variant rulesets into BRP.

- That Pete and Loz did a better job with MRQ2/RQ6 than Mongoose did with MRQ1

- That we all like the nostalgic cover for RQ6/Mythas. 

 You just summarised the BRP central forum!

[Questbird]

On 9/3/2016 at 1:00 AM, Atgxtg said:

Multiple checks during a (long) adventure are fine. The old RQ2/RQ3 rules basically state that you get to make improve rolls about one game week after "the adventure". When something takes a long time to play, like some sort of epic quest, then multiple improvement rolls are the way the rules work. There are even some examples of PCs making improvement rolls during travel in the rules. 

I only play once a month, so I always allow skill checks at the end of the session, even if the 'adventure' is 'unfinished'; and also more checks if a significant amount of campaign time passes during a session. I use Elric! rules which give you 1-10% if you make a check (characters in Elric! are in a hurry because the end of the world is coming fast), so characters advance at a moderate rate. I also use a house rule which gives a character an instant +1% if they roll a critical or a fumble. I allow skill checks for characters whose players are not present, if they do anything significant. Of course with their players away there's much less chance of that. (I prefer characters to be taking 'time out' when their player is absent; I don't like it if a character dies when their player is not there, but sometimes it's unavoidable.)

Apart from skill checks I also hand out allegiance points/checks based on characters' actions, and also fame/status and Favour awards (thanks, Fire and Sword!) for different groups the players have interacted with.

[davecake]

My personal bugbear - I quite like the skill check mechanic, and have no issue with it, but even though the POW gain roll mechanic is very similar, I've come to really dislike it. 

The difference is that the POW gain mechanic gives players a strong incentive to *decrease* their personal power. The optimal strategy to become powerful in the long term is to voluntarily decrease your personal POW, keep it relatively low by sacrificing it for Rune Magic (or use it for Enchantments, etc), and thus get much higher POW gain rolls. This is what I call a perverse incentive - the 'right thing to do' known to the player is different to that understood by the character. 

Its not a big game breaking deal for me. But I suspect I'll have some sort of workaround house rule for POW gain, perhaps involving Runes or passions or something. Maybe get a point of POW every time your Rune Affinity hits a certain level or something. 

[Atgxtg]

22 hours ago, soltakss said:

When everyone tries the same things, they end up with the same skills. It isn't something I particularly like. I remember the RuneMasters supplement, where everyone had 90% Riding, Jumping, Climbing, Spot Hidden, Spot Trap and so on, which reflected our RQ2 characters at the time, but everyone was the same. I prefer some variation in skills.

 

So, do you think that  if everybody tries the same things they should end up with different skills? If people want some variation in skills then they should try different things. 

22 hours ago, soltakss said:

If a party is walking through an area and the GM asks everyone to make a Perception roll, to spot an approaching lion,how is that not stressful?

When they don't know that there is a lion in the area. Most of the GMs I know don't usually say "Make a Spot roll to see if you notice the lion that's approaching."

 

22 hours ago, soltakss said:

Everyone has a chance to succeed, which increases the chance of success. Or are you saying that only one person should make the skill in order to get a tick?

In the case of picking a lock, I can see that subsequent rolls might be harder, but they should be able to be attempted.

Are these spamming? I honestly don't think so.

Sure everyone has a chance to succeed. And depending on the roll and circumstances, everyone has a chance to mess things up and make them worse. For instnace someone who fumbles that perception check might be watering the wrong shrub when someone else notices the lion. 

As far as picking the lock goes, maybe the character could be allowed another attempt, and almost certainly it should be harder. The problem I have with just allowing rerolls, even at increased difficulty is that at long as the player is rolling dice he will eventualyl make the roll and succeed. Realistically, if somebody doesn't pick the lock in the first couple attempts, he probably isn;'t good enough to do it, and should have to improve his ability  (higher skill, better tools, magical enhancement) before he can have a chance to doing it.

 

I don;t consider either of those situations to be "spamming". What I consider spamming is when a player runs around making a lot of frivolous rolls or other to get more skill checks. Something like somebody picking the same lock over and over again every day with no real reasonother than to get a skill check. Now, as I posted earlier, I do not consider than a "skill check issue: but a "GM issue". In my campaigns the guy who keeps picking the same lock everyday wouldn't get a skill check, but would count the time towards practice.

 

22 hours ago, soltakss said:

 

A wizard is a wizard whatever he does in the scenario. Does he stop doing wizardy things, just because he hasn't stated that he does so? Of course not, when camping he'll be reading his books and practising spell casting. When riding through a wilderness, he'll be recalling spells, reciting rituals, reading books and so on. All of that allows the wizard to take an experience roll, in my opinion.

 

Yes, he stops doing wizardly things if he isn't doing them. Just becuase somebody claims to be a wizard doesn't mean that he is working towards his wizardly abilties. While bhe certainly is working towards improvement in the things he actually is doing during the game. 

 

[Atgxtg]

23 hours ago, threedeesix said:

Actually, I would simply allow a player who role played a solution to a problem to check off an appropriate skill 'as if' they had rolled it. So a character that role plays a dialogue to get past a guard simply checks off an appropriate 'persuasion' skill. The skill was used, whether or not the dice were rolled.

Even if the player were better at handling the situation than his character? If so, does the player really need the skill anymore? If the character has low social skills the player shouldn't get a free pass just because he happens to be a charmer in real life

 

 

Edited September 5, 2016 by Atgxtg

[Atgxtg]

20 hours ago, deleriad said:

I would argue that's just an Improvement Point system in disguise. It's often claimed that a skill check system negates the need for GMs to have to "reward" people for role-playing. To be fair, I think this simply shows that in actual use there is probably more of a blurred overlap than a hard and fast boundary.

But then isn't the skill check system an improvement point system in disguise? Once you get the check the rest of the game mechanics are the same. The differences, mechanically, as far as I can tell, come down to:

• Determining what triggers a chance for improvement
• If the number of things that can be improved are capped at some predetermined number. 

 

[threedeesix]

Quote

Even if the player were better at handling the situation than his character? If so, does the player really need the skill anymore? If the character has low social skills the player shouldn't get a free pass just because he happens to be a charmer in real life.

Of course not, any more so than I would allow a character with an INT of 8 to make all the intellectual decisions for the group. You role play the skills on your sheet in the same way you role play the characteristics. That's the basis of good role playing, playing the character you designed, as designed. In a previous post in another thread I mentioned how I wouldn't allow a character with a low INT and no science skill to invent gun powder just because his player knows how to do it, this is no different.

Rod

[Jon Hunter]

46 minutes ago, Atgxtg said:

Even if the player were better at handling the situation than his character? If so, does the player really need the skill anymore? If the character has low social skills the player shouldn't get a free pass just because he happens to be a charmer in real life

 

 

Depends of your a wargamer or a roleplayer really?

if you take all social interaction down to a role of a dice were pretty much doing complex simulations and wargaming.

It does sound like the fun police invading the game table, "Now stop enjoying yourself, you haven't made an enjoy yourself gaming roll."

What next? refs saying "You cant use that idea, because I don't think you character is bight enough to think it."

Whats the aim of your evenings gaming?

• A perfect rule simulation of events that could never take place?
• or bunch of friends getting together playing a game/telling a story and having a set of rules to add structure to the event? 

[SDLeary]

3 hours ago, Atgxtg said:

I don;t consider either of those situations to be "spamming". What I consider spamming is when a player runs around making a lot of frivolous rolls or other to get more skill checks. Something like somebody picking the same lock over and over again every day with no real reasonother than to get a skill check. Now, as I posted earlier, I do not consider than a "skill check issue: but a "GM issue". In my campaigns the guy who keeps picking the same lock everyday wouldn't get a skill check, but would count the time towards practice.

Well, in RQ3/BGB, I would have allowed this, but deemed it Research, and imposed the time limit for improvement rolls on the character. Considering it was the same lock, may even have only given one improvement roll. Clearly the GM should not allow checks in such a situation.

SDLeary

[SDLeary]

On September 4, 2016 at 9:24 AM, soltakss said:

A wizard is a wizard whatever he does in the scenario. Does he stop doing wizardy things, just because he hasn't stated that he does so? Of course not, when camping he'll be reading his books and practising spell casting. When riding through a wilderness, he'll be recalling spells, reciting rituals, reading books and so on. All of that allows the wizard to take an experience roll, in my opinion.

This is why I like the RQ3 method.

A Wizard should only advance in wizardly skills if he is using wizardly skills. If he is in combat defending himself with a weapon, then he should advance in that weapon. If he is using first aid or medicine or "human lore" or something to treat an injured or ill character, he should advance in said skill. Thats why its called an "experience roll". 

If the GM allows Research while riding through the wilderness, then the time should be figured out or guesstimated (perhaps with an appropriate penalty for environment), rolls made, and advancement then allowed.

I'm not opposed to allowing the players assigning advancement at times, but certainly not on a wholesale basis. I would suggest something along the lines of normal "experience" during actual play/useage of skills, along with something like Pendragon's Winter Phase. During this phase though the player would have to assign the points to a skill that was appropriate to their profession and/or physical situation (hold up in a cabin in the wilderness for winter, thus survival, hunting, stewardship, etc.).

SDLeary

[SDLeary]

2 hours ago, Jon Hunter said:

Depends of your a wargamer or a roleplayer really?

if you take all social interaction down to a role of a dice were pretty much doing complex simulations and wargaming.

It does sound like the fun police invading the game table, "Now stop enjoying yourself, you haven't made an enjoy yourself gaming roll."

What next? refs saying "You cant use that idea, because I don't think you character is bight enough to think it."

Whats the aim of your evenings gaming?

• A perfect rule simulation of events that could never take place?
• or bunch of friends getting together playing a game/telling a story and having a set of rules to add structure to the event? 

[devils advocate] But doesn't the actual rules system matter? I mean, if the game is utilizing something to represent the smarts of a character, shouldn't that matter? Most games model physical characteristics of a character, and those matter, right? 

Now the GM can make exceptions, and they should clearly state the reasons for an exceptions. They also need to remember the exceptions so that if a similar situation comes up later with another player, so that player doesn't feel left out. But you don't simply ignore the basic modeling/rules of a game, unless the GM has stated ahead of time that they are house ruling X, or they pause to discuss the situation and imposing a new house rule with players. [/devils advocate]

SDLeary

Edited September 5, 2016 by SDLeary

[Jon Hunter]

3 minutes ago, SDLeary said:

[devils advocate] But doesn't the actual rules system matter? I mean, if the game is utilizing something to represent the smarts of a character, shouldn't that matter? Most games model physical characteristics of a character, and those matter, right? 

Now the GM can make exceptions, and they should clearly state the reasons for an exceptions. They also need to remember the exceptions so that if a similar situation comes up later with another player, so that player doesn't feel left out. But you don't simply ignore the basic modeling/rules of a game, unless the GM has stated ahead of time that they are house ruling X, or they pause to discuss the situation and imposing a new house rule with players. [/devils advocate]

SDLeary

Rules are there to generate stimulate, facilitate and create fun, when rules stop doing that they are broken or being misused.

So if we get to the point where we stop to step out of character to role some dice instead, we've screwed things up.

Now a good player limits what his character does and gets in the idiom, but that should player call not a ref one/

[rust]

32 minutes ago, Jon Hunter said:

Rules are there to generate stimulate, facilitate and create fun, when rules stop doing that they are broken or being misused.

Yes, but a player who lets his character use abilities or skills he did not design into this character also breaks or misuses the rules, and I think it is one of the tasks of the referee to prevent or stop this. 

[Jon Hunter]

1 minute ago, rust said:

Yes, but a player who lets his character use abilities or skills he did not design into this character also breaks or misuses the rules, and I think it is one of the tasks of the referee to prevent or stop this. 

Whats the purpose of a gaming evening, to follow the rules or have fun?

A pet hate of mine is refs and systems who/which try to play your character for you.

The ref can define the whole world bar five or six individuals. He should be trusting his players to work with and define there characters in that world.

If a players isn't do it they way you think it should be done, just roll with it, its the one thing they control in the game world, and they may be doing ti ore subtlety than the a ref can think about.

I think its rude and arrogant to ask for or 5 people round for the evening to watch you play your game.  I know i've taken the argument to a much further extreme than you were suggesting, but that is the kind of reffing you get if you go too far down that line.

Most things are a matter of balance and id always re on the side of two much player interaction and creativity than ref /system over reach.

[g33k]

10 minutes ago, Jon Hunter said:

Whats the purpose of a gaming evening, to follow the rules or have fun?

A pet hate of mine is refs and systems who/which try to play your character for you.

The ref can define the whole world bar five or six individuals. He should be trusting his players to work with and define there characters in that world.

If a players isn't do it they way you think it should be done, just roll with it, its the one thing they control in the game world, and they may be doing ti ore subtlety than the a ref can think about.

I think its rude and arrogant to ask for or 5 people round for the evening to watch you play your game.  I know i've taken the argument to a much further extreme than you were suggesting, but that is the kind of reffing you get if you go too far down that line.

Most things are a matter of balance and id always re on the side of two much player interaction and creativity than ref /system over reach.

To have fun, of course!

But IME most players are there to have fun by playing the game... and that includes a reasonably-close adherence to the rules (RAW +/- HR's), for most of them.  Players who "let [their] character use abilities or skills [they] did not design into [their] character" more-often (IME) break other players' fun, than any other player activity that I see at the table (saving only player-expectation mismatch, e.g. the "real RP'er" at the table of "munchkins" or the lone "munchkin" at a table of "real RP'ers").

 

[rust]

33 minutes ago, Jon Hunter said:

Whats the purpose of a gaming evening, to follow the rules or have fun?

I do not see a contradiction there, in my view it is to have fun by following the rules. 

[Jon Hunter]

1 minute ago, g33k said:

To have fun, of course!

But IME most players are there to have fun by playing the game... and that includes a reasonably-close adherence to the rules (RAW +/- HR's), for most of them.  Players who "let [their] character use abilities or skills [they] did not design into [their] character" more-often (IME) break other players' fun, than any other player activity that I see at the table (saving only player-expectation mismatch, e.g. the "real RP'er" at the table of "munchkins" or the lone "munchkin" at a table of "real RP'ers").

 

Two things here

• Its a difference in what the game is, i'm a roleplayer, so I want to have as much of the game as possible with players in character and solving problems and issues in character. if we step out of character and deal with rules and challenges that fine its part of the game, but the rules based solutions are there to support when we cant roleplay our way through it (ie combat etc).    Now if you approach it from simulations or wargamers ( lets not use loaded language ) viewpoint adherence to the rules becomes primary and the roleplaying becomes secondary. That is fine and well, but its not how I try to run my games. 

 

• It also comes down to trusting you players.  As a ref my mind is busy, i.m trying to deal with all my players, the setting. the NPC's., this encounter, setting up the next encounter. The player is focus on his/her character, their capabilities,  subtleties and  is usually in the zone with the character. The player is much lore likely to make the right call for that character than I am.
• An example in my recent campaign I have the only other experienced Gloranthan kept going on in game about how Balazar was stacked full of dinosaurs and the players were going to get eaten if they went there, this was annoying me and I almost slapped him down in front of everyone. It was only afterward that I realised his character had botched lore role and he was carrying that through into the session. It became an in game theme and added to the in game atmosphere for the next couple of sessions. if id of made my ref knows best call we would have missed that input.

 

 

[Jon Hunter]

6 minutes ago, rust said:

I do not see a contradiction there, in my view it is to have fun by following the rules. 

Often rules get in the way of having fun, often rules are an arse.

In a roleplaying game a rule that says stop role playing, and start roll playing is wrong and should be ignored.