Why do RPGs have rules?

[pemerton]

Something that is really crucial to understand is how different sandbox play is from linear adventure paths and similar structures (even different from Monster of the Week) because it fully embraces the player's ability to not engage what has been planned, to strike out in completely new and unexpected directions. In a sense this can exist in any RPG in any RPG adventure structure but it tends not to.

Most of the people you're discussing with in this thread are playing Burning Wheel, Apocalypse World, Blades in the Dark, and other "story now" RPGs that use either scene-framing or "play to find out" techniques.

There is no one posting in this thread, for the past N pages (where N is well into the double digits) who is talking about linear adventure paths. So I'm not sure why you're explaining your play by contrast with something that no one you're talking to is engaged in.

As I said not far upthread, no one posting here is confused about sandboxing. At least in my case, I ran sandbox FRPGs over 30 years ago. And was reading about how to run them nearly 40 years ago.

 

[robertsconley]

I didn't fail to address it. I addressed it fully by noting that "All the action is buried in the sentence 'the referee's job is to be a neutral arbiter adjudicating what the players do as their characters and bringing the setting to life'."

I mean, the fact that players can declare actions for their PCs is a trivial one, and doesn't distinguish sandbox RPGing from any other sort of RPGing. The fact that players use knowledge about the setting to inform those action declarations also seems a fairly trivial one, unless you're wanting to contrast with death-match/arena-style RPGing, or "dungeon of the week" games in which there is no meaningful setting.

Thanks for addressing this.

I mean, the fact that players can declare actions for their PCs is a trivial one, and doesn't distinguish sandbox RPGing from any other sort of RPGing. The fact that players use knowledge about the setting to inform those action declarations also seems a fairly trivial one,

You missed a crucial point.

But no one in this thread is posting about those sorts of games.

I am discussing tabletop roleplaying games, which happens to the be subject of the entire thread including recent posts, among them yours.

In a game of Burning Wheel or Apocalypse World, the players are free to declare actions for their characters using whatever knowledge they have about the setting, and those actions can encompass anything that makes sense within the setting and situation. The difference between those systems and a sandbox consists in the fact that, in those systems, the referee's job is not to be a neutral arbiter adjudicating action declarations and bringing the setting to life.

That is not the difference.

 

[pemerton]

In a game of Burning Wheel or Apocalypse World, the players are free to declare actions for their characters using whatever knowledge they have about the setting, and those actions can encompass anything that makes sense within the setting and situation. The difference between those systems and a sandbox consists in the fact that, in those systems, the referee's job is not to be a neutral arbiter adjudicating action declarations and bringing the setting to life.

That is not the difference.

What do you take the difference to be, then?

 

[robertsconley]

This is what the thread started out with. It is not a qualified statement.

So why do RPGs have rules?

Most of the people you're discussing with in this thread are playing Burning Wheel, Apocalypse World, Blades in the Dark, and other "story now" RPGs that use either scene-framing or "play to find out" techniques.

That may be so, but @Bedrockgames, myself, and others have chosen to participate in this thread. And our focus is on RPGs that are not "story now". Because the question of "So why do RPGs have rules." is interesting for all types of RPGs.

As I said not far upthread, no one posting here is confused about sandboxing. At least in my case, I ran sandbox FRPGs over 30 years ago. And was reading about how to run them nearly 40 years ago.

Sorry, I am not seeing that in your answers. And 40 years ago people didn't talk about how to run sandbox FRPGs. Because while sandbox campaigns were being run there was no sense they were something different than RPG campaigns in general. Speaking as someone who played then and who has copies of Dragon Magazine, and zines like Alarums and Excursions. When the word sandbox was used it was a synonym for setting.

It wasn't until the mid-2000s that it was used to describe a particular style of RPG campaign. It was borrowed from computers where sandbox games were used to describe a particular type of computer game.

 

[robertsconley]

What do you take the difference to be, then?

I answered that in my post.

 

[pemerton]

I am not seeing that in your answers. And 40 years ago people didn't talk about how to run sandbox FRPGs Because while sandbox campaigns were being run there was no sense they were something different than RPG campaigns in general.

I didn't say they used the word "sandbox". But they talked about the things you and @Bedrockgames talked about: GM creation of setting, the players declaring actions that move their PCs through the setting, GM as neutral arbiter of actions. Discussion of this can be found in White Dwarf - Lewis Pulsipher in relation to D&D, other contributors in relation to Traveller; to a reasonable extent in Gygax's DMG; and tools for doing it, such as random events charts, are found in various places including the original OA. Campaign Law for Rolemaster also presents world-building as oriented towards a sandbox approach to play.

I remember having conversations about RPG world-building with a friend who was also a serious humanities/social science student (we are now both academics in our fields) over 30 years ago. I still have notes about NPCs, factions, places and possible events that I made back then.

The contrast between arena-type play, dungeon-of-the-week type play, GM storytelling, and "open world" exploration-type play was plainly evident in the RPG club I was a member of in the early 1990s. I can't recall now if we had a neutral vocabulary that we used to talk about it - given the preferences I and my friends shared, we talked about serious vs non-serious play, and railroads. Serious play involved rich settings with backstory that was relevant to and manifest in the current play, and relatively richly-realised characters. The approach was a sometimes unstable combination of, or alternation between, purist-for-system simulationism against a backdrop of GM authorship of setting, and vanilla narrativism.

I answered that in my post.

That post doesn't say anything about Burning Wheel, Apolcalypse World or similar RPGs.

During an RPG campaign, the group could take the narrative, story, and other literary concepts into account. What if you didn't?

<snip>

The alternative thesis that I developed in the course of running sandbox campaigns sidesteps the issue of literary terms for RPGs. Along with whether anybody participating is collaborating on a story.

The play of Burning Wheel or Apocalypse World doesn't use or rely on literary concepts such as "narrative" and "story". They do not involve anyone collaborating on a story. In fact the whole point of the design is that no one needs to collaborate on a story or use literary concepts such as "narrative" or "story".

What if instead, it is treated as a pen & paper virtual reality that one visits as some imagined character having adventures? Run with pen, paper, dice, and with a human referee adjudicating.

This is a very general description. I don't see how it doesn't apply to BW and AW.

The outcome is uncertain but the players know with good planning and some luck what they want to do could be done even if it is as ambitious as conquering a kingdom or toppling an empire. Or something more modest such as protecting a neighborhood in the City-State of the Invincible Overlord.

This is also very general.

A game of AW could involve protecting the hardhold. A game of BW could involve conquering a kingdom.

the essential steps are the group choosing the setting that the campaign will focus on.

This is a key step in starting the play of BW or AW.

Preparation for the "visit" for both the referee (campaign prep) and players (character generation). Then the "visit" begins when the campaign starts.

<snip>

Like a real-world trip, the group and players may have a bunch of goals they want to achieve.

The referee's job is to be a neutral arbiter adjudicating what the players do as their characters and bringing the setting to life. Along with fleshing things out as a result of the players' choices as make their way through the setting. The players are free to do anything their character can do within the setting using whatever knowledge they have about the setting.

As I already posted, these passages are where one can find the difference.

Both BW and AW involve players formulating goals for their PCs. But the GM is not a neutral arbiter. The GM's decision-making, as guided by the action resolution rules, is expected to have regard to the goals the players have adopted for their PCs.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Most of the people you're discussing with in this thread are playing Burning Wheel, Apocalypse World, Blades in the Dark, and other "story now" RPGs that use either scene-framing or "play to find out" techniques.

There is no one posting in this thread, for the past N pages (where N is well into the double digits) who is talking about linear adventure paths. So I'm not sure why you're explaining your play by contrast with something that no one you're talking to is engaged in.

As I said not far upthread, no one posting here is confused about sandboxing. At least in my case, I ran sandbox FRPGs over 30 years ago. And was reading about how to run them nearly 40 years ago.

I mentioned it because some peoples descriptions of sandbox prep in this thread occasionally sounds more like what I would experience in a linear adventure or similar structure than a sandbox

 

[robertsconley]

I didn't say they used the word "sandbox".

That wasn't the main point of that part of my reply. I mentioned it because the word was used back then with a different meaning

But they talked about the things you and @Bedrockgames talked about: GM creation of setting, the players declaring actions that move their PCs through the setting, GM as neutral arbiter of actions. Discussion of this can be found in White Dwarf - Lewis Pulsipher in relation to D&D, other contributors in relation to Traveller; to a reasonable extent in Gygax's DMG; and tools for doing it, such as random events charts, are found in various places including the original OA. Campaign Law for Rolemaster also presents world-building as oriented towards a sandbox approach to play.

I addressed that.

The contrast between arena-type play, dungeon-of-the-week type play, GM storytelling, and "open world" exploration-type play was plainly evident in the RPG club I was a member of in the early 1990s. I can't recall now if we had a neutral vocabulary that we used to talk about it - given the preferences I and my friends shared, we talked about serious vs non-serious play, and railroads.

Serious play involved rich settings with backstory that was relevant to and manifest in the current play, and relatively richly-realised characters. The approach was a sometimes unstable combination of, or alternation between, purist-for-system simulationism against a backdrop of GM authorship of setting, and vanilla narrativism.

That sounds about right for the early 1990s. Except in my experience campaigns focused on "Open world" exploration wasn't considered distinct from the other ways one could run a campaign. It was generally lumped in with traditional fantasy roleplaying that AD&D 2e represented at the time.

There was however a lot of excitement for RPGs like Ars Magica and Vampire the Masquerade. As you mention there were RPGs offered rich backgrounds filled with roleplaying details that were also fleshed out in the mechanics. RPGs like these started appearing in the mid-80s were considered new, distinct, and interesting to play.

That post doesn't say anything about Burning Wheel, Apocalypse World or similar RPGs.
The play of Burning Wheel or Apocalypse World doesn't use or rely on literary concepts such as "narrative" and "story". They do not involve anyone collaborating on a story. In fact the whole point of the design is that no one needs to collaborate on a story or use literary concepts such as "narrative" or "story".

This is a very general description. I don't see how it doesn't apply to BW and AW.

Not sure why you don't see how it applies. You lumped them together as "Story Now" RPGs.

Most of the people you're discussing within this thread are playing Burning Wheel, Apocalypse World, Blades in the Dark, and other "story now" RPGs that use either scene-framing or "play to find out" techniques.

Your use of "Story Now" stems from Ron Edwards' discussion of Narrativism. And one of the things Edwards does in his essay is repurposing various literary terms to discuss roleplaying games. Hence why I said

During an RPG campaign, the group could take the narrative, story, and other literary concepts into account.

Both BW and AW involve players formulating goals for their PCs. But the GM is not a neutral arbiter. The GM's decision-making, as guided by the action resolution rules, is expected to have regard to the goals the players have adopted for their PCs.

Yes, that is a difference. That difference for "Story Now" campaigns produces a different experience than what sandbox campaigns create.

 

[pemerton]

That sounds about right for the early 1990s. Except in my experience campaigns focused on "Open world" exploration wasn't considered distinct from the other ways one could run a campaign. It was generally lumped in with traditional fantasy roleplaying that AD&D 2e represented at the time.

Well I can repot that I was very cognisant of the difference. So were my friends. The difference was the basis on which I recruited a number of players for my RM game from railroad-y AD&D games.

There was however a lot of excitement for RPGs like Ars Magica and Vampire the Masquerade. As you mention there were RPGs offered rich backgrounds filled with roleplaying details that were also fleshed out in the mechanics. RPGs like these started appearing in the mid-80s were considered new, distinct, and interesting to play.

Not sure why you don't see how it applies. You lumped them together as "Story Now" RPGs.

You may have missed a "not" in the post you are replying to here:

This is a very general description. I don't see how it doesn't apply to BW and AW.

In any event, if you think that "story now" RPGing involves the use of literary concepts, or collaboration on a story, you're wrong. It doesn't. Practically the whole point of the design of a game like BW or AW (or DitV, or Agon 2nd ed, or . . . ) is that the procedures of play do not require anyone to have regard to "a story" or "the story" or "theme" in order for play to generate the desired play experience. That's the whole point of the quotes from Vincent Baker in the OP of this thread, explaining how rules can do something useful that unmediated collaboration cannot achieve.

Your use of "Story Now" stems from Ron Edwards' discussion of Narrativism. And one of the things Edwards does in his essay is repurposing various literary terms to discuss roleplaying games.

Yes. He is engaging in criticism. He does not assert, nor imply, that literary concepts are needed to play "story now" RPGs. And your post was a discussion of play - what a group does in the preparation for, and play of, a RPG game - not a discussion of criticism.

 

[robertsconley]

Well I can repot that I was very cognisant of the difference. So were my friends. The difference was the basis on which I recruited a number of players for my RM game from railroad-y AD&D games.

That sound reasonable but however you are still missing the point. Sandbox campaigns were played from the earliest days of the hobby. Elements that made up these campaigns were used in other styles in varying combinations. My point is that until the mid-2000s the idea that the concepts used together to create sandbox campaigns was not seen as something distinct. Something that together could be a topic of conversation about the hobby. This is unlike the railroad which was recognized early on and was a topic of criticism and commentary. The style of RPGs was emerging in the late 80s as represented by Ars Magica and Vampire likewise subject to commentary. However, the bundle of concepts behind sandbox campaigns was not recognized as distinct until the mid-2000s.

Nothing in my observation contradicts your experiences.

You may have missed a "not" in the post you are replying to here:
In any event, if you think that "story now" RPGing involves the use of literary concepts, or collaboration on a story, you're wrong. It doesn't. Practically the whole point of the design of a game like BW or AW (or DitV, or Agon 2nd ed, or . . . ) is that the procedures of play do not require anyone to have regard to "a story" or "the story" or "theme" in order for play to generate the desired play experience. That's the whole point of the quotes from Vincent Baker in the OP of this thread, explaining how rules can do something useful that unmediated collaboration cannot achieve.

Yes. He is engaging in criticism. He does not assert, nor imply, that literary concepts are needed to play "story now" RPGs. And your post was a discussion of play - what a group does in the preparation for, and play of, a RPG game - not a discussion of criticism.

I find it strange that you are arguing strongly about the use of literary terms in the work of Baker and Edwards when you have examples such as this.

Everybody else plays a protagonist in the story. Even if the players decide to take on the roles of destitute wastrels, no matter how unsavory their exploits, they are the focus of the story.

-Burning Wheel, Gold; Page 11.

Found in the discussion of the Flow of the Game in the Hub and Wheel chapter.

Then you felt the need to reiterate Vincent Baker's view on the importance of the rules. Which leaves me wondering, "Why?" I see no contradiction in Baker and Edwards using literary terms and using rules. They both say numerous time point of their work is to help people run tabletop roleplaying campaigns.

Focusing on this avoids the main thesis that I made with my post. That the concepts and ideas based on Baker's and Edward's work, that were talked about in the posts prior to mine are irrelevant to a Sandbox Campaign. The concept and ideas that lie behind "Story Now" RPGs are based on their (and others) work.

And to be clear just as you cleverly injected the word play

He does not assert, nor imply, that literary concepts are needed to play "story now" RPGs.

To make it seem I was implying something more than I was to those reading this thread.

I am not saying that none of the concepts and ideas behind "Story Now" RPGs are useless to sandbox campaigns.

The central idea behind my thesis is that sandbox campaigns have different considerations than "Story Now" and other types of roleplaying campaigns. With means things like prep and how it played out are approached differently. Even when some elements are shared. It is how elements of Sandbox Campaigns are used together that makes it distinct from other types of campaigns. Just as the elements of "Story Now" RPGs and campaigns are used together makes them distinct enough for you to create a unique category in your mind.