The history of tabletop gaming includes a constant tension between rules and narrative. The whole hobby takes place somewhere between rules-free narrative (playing make-believe) and narrative-free rules (the instruction manual for your slow cooker). I’d bet money that every TTRPG you can think of is some form of “a system by which we frame imaginary events”. That framework is necessary. Even freeform solo-journaling games have some rules or limitations to guide what happens. Without some standardization around decision-making or a character’s capabilities or generating events or what have you, we’re not playing a game. We’re writing a novel (which is fine, and I do that too, it’s just not what I’m here for).
And yet I keep seeing this refrain that rules are bad and narrative is good. “Rules-light” is a selling point; “rules-heavy” is a warning. Games you can pick up in five minutes are good; games with tons of content are bad. Logically, we know there’s space for games all across the rules/narrative spectrum and there’s something for any kind of player, but If I tell you a game “even has rules for how long it takes to build a bespoke ladder”, you probably squirm in your seat a little.
Heck, I do it here. Law 0 could be phrased as “don’t let the rules get in the way of the fun”. This is what the Rule of Cool is. We bake a derision for rules into the standard language of TTRPGs. There’s a slew of advice out there, from mediocre to brilliant, about how to toss out the rules when they don’t fit the game you want. It’s a perfectly valid way to go about things. You as a GM or player probably have some go-to methods of your own for adding narrative to your game by setting aside the rules.
But is it possible to do the opposite, adding rules to your game by setting aside the narrative? Even if it is possible, is it wise, and even if it is wise, is it easy? How can you do it?
Yes, to every question.
…except “how”, I guess. Continue reading