Monte Cook on what rules are for

[LostSoul]

It's hard to know what Monte means when he says "shared reality".

I think he (and Vincent) are missing out - or perhaps just not stating - another element of RPG rules: they assign different values to different choices. That's how you build a game, I guess.

I'd say that roleplaying is playing a role. That is, it's getting immersed in the character, getting into that character's mindset, and making decisions purely as that character. I know you disagree. I'm okay with that.

That's roleplaying, sure. You don't need rules to roleplay: "Imagine you are your garbageman" doesn't seem like a rule to me. That's where the game part comes in:

"Imagine you are your garbageman who has a limited amount of time to pick up garbage. If you go over that amount of time, you lose your job. If you don't pick up garbage from this route over here, you lose your job. If you don't pick up garbage from this route over here, no one cares. The more garbage you pick up, the greater chance there is that you will get a bump in pay. Here's the map; what do you do?"

Yeah, I suppose it a really roundabout way. When I'm running a game, when I say that something is true in the game, it's true in the game. When someone else is running a game, the same is true when they say it.

If a player disagrees with me, I'm willing to hear him out, but I make the call, not him. If I rule that something's true, and he disagrees, he has two options: accept it but not like it, or leave the game. So, yeah, he either accepts it and is in the game, or he doesn't accept it (and is no longer playing the game). I'm not sure why that specifically needs to be stated, though, as it seems self-evident to me. Then again, it's just for my style, and this wouldn't be true of much more narrative play styles.

"No Bob, your fighter doesn't attack the monster, instead he wets his pants, drops his magic sword, and runs for the hills."

Now imagine that in a (dark ages) Call of Cthulhu game.

Yeah, no. They exist to model stuff in the game world, as well as to give a common ground to everyone at the table, PC and GM alike. What he's saying is true of a more narrative play style, but it's most certainly wrong as a blanket statement (much like what I think you're saying is the case about Monte Cook).

Think about the rules that make the DM's role different from the player's. Are those rules there to model stuff in the game world?

 

[pemerton]

It doesn't mean, as you assert, that Monte Cook is taking a simulationist approach to the game, it merely means that all of the players involved are playing the same game and have the same expectations for how the game reality behaves.

In HeroQuest (revised), shared expectations about how the game reality behaves are established by reference to genre. The mechanics themselves can't be used until those shared understandings are in place and enforced (the rules give the GM the ultimate power of enforcement).

Maelstrom Storytelling is a bit less clearcut in its wording, but I think ultimately takes a very similar approach to that of HeroQuest. And I think that a similar approach is the most sensible way to use page 42, and the DC-by-level guidelines, in 4e. (The DMG does not itself suggest this, but doesn't suggest any alternative either, and I can't think of any other way of making page 42 work well.)

Whether or not one like this way of building and running an RPG, I think it's the sort of possibility that Monte Cook's presentation of the function of the rules appears to exclude.

 

[DEFCON 1]

In HeroQuest (revised), shared expectations about how the game reality behaves are established by reference to genre.

Which is itself a rule.

The implicit rule that all the players are agreeing to is 'stay within genre'. It might not be explicitly written out in the game handbook because it seems like a pretty obvious 'well, duh!'... but there is in fact a rule there.

I think this is what Monte is referring to with his statement about 'rules'. He's not talking about specific game rules spelled out in a handbook... he's referring to all the rules (or negotiation) that come with social convention and communication. When we talk with other people, there are rules. Who talks first, who talks next, how do you change from one to the other, what does our body or face do as we talk, what does our voice do to inflect what we are saying with emotion, etc. etc. Those are rules of social communication. And in order for us to communicate with each other as human beings, we are 'playing the game' of talking.

Roleplaying is exactly the same thing... except that we aren't talking as ourselves but another character, plus we layer on top of that additional rules that help us focus in on the creation of a shared story. But these rules of communication (explicit to model a particular game, and implicit in the social convention of not being dicks and wanting to help each other in the creation of this shared story) all exist, and are all important. And you can't have this shared reality without these rules.

 

[Umbran]

My second response, going past language issues, is to look more closely at the key assertions. These seem to be:

They [the rules] form the basis of the shared reality.​

Roleplaying is negotiated imagination.​

Setting aside the imbroglio of simulation, those two statements show a clear dichotomy.

I disagree. I think they are saying, in large part, exactly the same thing.

If we agree to play by the same set of written rules, we have already done some large percentage of our negotiation up front, before we sit down to play.

The "basis of the shared reality" is merely those things we have already negotiated (implicitly or explicitly) so that we all agree they are generally true, and can use them instead of negotiating every little thing.

And thus the two viewpoints come together as one, rather seamlessly.

 

[Desdichado]

However, I think this is seriously off as a reflection of the game, as played and written. (I acknowledge that you said, "to me".) See the comments by Gygax on the subject in the 1st ed. AD&D DMG. I'd say that prior to 4E, D&D had somewhat of a pretense to simulation (or "gloss" if you find it less charged than "pretense") which was sufficient for some people who wanted that nod, but not really simulation as most people would understand it. Even 3E's simulation (the heaviest of the bunch) is as nothing compared to RQ or the like. D&D has always had a heavy (and primary) gamist focus, from the original wargame expansion to 4E. 4E replaced the simulation gloss with a narrative gloss.

I hadn't ever really given it much thought until I read a post some years ago in the blogosphere about something called "Gygaxian naturalism", i.e., the inclusion of mechanics that have no purpose other than to simulate reality, i.e. tell us something about the setting by letting us know, for example, the number of females and children to possibly be found in a monster lair.

Granted, D&D doesn't really simulate the real world very well, but certainly since the release of AD&D, if not before, there was a slant of rules that serve no purpose other than simulationism of the fantasy mileu in which the game takes place. The 3e family of games made some attempts to be gamist, i.e., the abstraction of combat to the grid being a notable example, while still maintaining a fair amount of simulationist flair. 4e really was the first edition of D&D to decide that simulationism wasn't an important goal, and focused more exclusively on gamism.

I think most games, and most game tables, anticipate that the players have a degree of authority over at least some aspects of the fiction very intimately related to their own PCs (as in the examples I've given above, and perhaps others as well - eg the patterns of the stitching on the boots my PC starts with, or the style in which my PC's hair is cut).

Yes, but it's more implicit rather than an artifact of the rules. It's more like the implicit rules of social communication (in fact, arguably, it is the implicit rules of social communication exactly) rather than game rules that are a factor here in "negotiating" what happens in game, especially with regards to those examples you gave.

Vincent Baker's point, as I understand it, is that the core of an RPG is the participants agreeing on what happens in the shared fiction - and the rules contribute to the process of reaching that agreement. (Ie they facilitate the "negotiation" - as it is trite to note, they replace the "I shot you"/"No you didn't" of childhood cops and robbers.)

I agree, but I don't see that as a contrast to Monte's claim, as you assert; I merely see that as a different way to stating the same concept.

The contrast I had in mind in pointing to the two AD&D rules is this: the open doors rules are not only (i) a mechanic that determines who has the authority to say whether or not the door was opened by a particular PC (if I roll high enough, we are all obliged to accept that the door is opened by my guy, and if I don't then we are all obliged to accept that the door remains shut) but (ii) the mechanic also models the gameworld in producing that result - namely, it tells us why, within the fiction, the door is opened or remains shut: either my guy was strong enough, or s/he wasn't.

Eh, maybe it made more explicit something that was implicit, but I don't see that as a substantive change. Heck, I don't even see that as a change at all.

The saving throw rules in AD&D are different, though. They do the first job - of settling the question of whether the fiction contains one outcome (my guy got poisoned) or another (my guy didn't get poisoned). But they don't do so by modelling the gameworld. They don't tell us what happened, in the fiction, to bring it about that I did or didn't get poisoned. Gygax is quite clear, in the discussion in the combat section of the DMG, that it is up to the participants (he is ambiguous as to whether the player or the GM has final narration rights) to work out what happened in the fiction such that my guy did or did not get poisoned (eg maybe my guy was tough enough to survive the poison, or maybe the stinger didn't actually hit my guy at all, or perhaps it did but didn't inject the venom, etc). This is an early instance of a fortune-in-the-middle mechanic.

In 3E I think saving throws are different - by making poison saves a Fortitude saves, I think the rules do dictate not only an outcome but an ingame process (namely, my guy was or was not tough enough to cope with the poison). This change in the role of the rules has other implications, too, like making it much harder to take the view that a hit that mandates a poison save did not involve physical damage (because, if my guy was never scratched, why would the question of toughing it out even come up?), and therefore making the non-physical model of hit points, which the game at least hints it is carrying over from AD&D, harder to implement.

Rather, I'd say that's just an example of taking something rather arbitrary ("save vs. poison") and making it something more systematic (Fortitude save) without having a significant effect on whether the game itself is more simulationist. You could argue, I suppose, for that very narrow mechanic, that it is, but you'd be hard pressed I think to make the claim that that was a trend throuhout the game overall. Hit points, for example, remain hit points, and what that means when you take a hit that doesn't kill you in narrative terms is still very much more a question of player style than of anything else.

Detail of rules doesn't necessarily make a game more simulationist vs. narrativist, although they could. It simply means that there are more tools for me as the GM and as a player to get to various results in game.

This is one example which, for me, shows that the purpose of the rules has not been the same across all editions of D&D. In AD&D the saving throw rules do not serve the purpose of determining how, in the fiction, the character survives or fails to survive. In 3E they do aim at that purpose. (And I think other, comparable, differences can also be identified.)

I think that most players would tell you that the game merely made explicit what was already implicit, which means that there was no substantive change unless you played with some other paradigm other than the implicit one that the older versions of the game did. I doubt the designers set about trying to change the fundamental nature of saving throws; in fact, I seem to recall quite clearly that the 3e designers were merely trying to simplify arbitrary systmes into less arbitrary systems for purposes of system lean-ness and aesthetic harmony.

 

[the Jester]

This is very strong stuff, and I'm curious as to whether you mean it literally.

For example, in your game, suppose (i) it is already established that a PC is not gagged, is not in an airless environment, has not had his/her throat ripped out, etc, and (ii) the player of that PC says "I say XYZ". Does the player really need the GM's permission before that statement becomes true in the fiction?

Yes- he has to wait for his turn if the party is on initiative; there's no point in telling the dm what you're doing when he's busy with another player.

Or what if you're charmed or possessed?

A lot of the 'permission' has to do with the situation, but I absolutely agree with JamesonCourage on this.

That said, in an rpg, the one place that the dm MUST NOT go (IMHO) is into the area of the player's volition without a strong in-game reason. It's okay to dominate or charm a pc, but the dm should never tell a pc "You do X" or "You won't do Y".

Or suppose that (i) it is already established that the PC has a sword in hand, that there is an orc a few feet away from him/her, etc, and (ii) the player says "I swing my sword at the orc". Does the player really need the GM's permission before that attempted attack becomes part of the fiction?

He certainly needs to wait for his turn, so yes. What if the orc has the initiative?

The thing is, once it's your turn, you have your sword out and the orc is within reach, you (generally) already have permission to attack. You've satisfied all the conditions necessary, and the dm runs his game by a set of rules that give you that permission to attack. On the other hand, if you want to fly 100' and fire your blaster rifle at the fleeing bad guy but you're playing a non-flying dude with a sword, then no, you don't have permission- the rules say you can neither fly nor do you have the blaster rifle you want. It's the in between places that need a more explicit dm's permission: What if you're near a ballista? Can you fire that at the fleeing guy? Does it take more than one action, more than one person, is it loaded, is it broken? You have no way of determining that without asking the dm.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I hadn't ever really given it much thought until I read a post some years ago in the blogosphere about something called "Gygaxian naturalism", i.e., the inclusion of mechanics that have no purpose other than to simulate reality, i.e. tell us something about the setting by letting us know, for example, the number of females and children to possibly be found in a monster lair.

Granted, D&D doesn't really simulate the real world very well, but certainly since the release of AD&D, if not before, there was a slant of rules that serve no purpose other than simulationism of the fantasy mileu in which the game takes place. The 3e family of games made some attempts to be gamist, i.e., the abstraction of combat to the grid being a notable example, while still maintaining a fair amount of simulationist flair. 4e really was the first edition of D&D to decide that simulationism wasn't an important goal, and focused more exclusively on gamism.

I agree that Gygaxian naturalism is a useful and descriptive term for something that exist in D&D. I disagree that it in any way answers my point about consistent gamism in D&D from the get go. See his views on simulation expressed in the 1st ed. AD&D DMG. Also, there is a difference between "good enough" simulation in setting material versus a simulation focus in the ruleset itself. One of the big ways that D&D, like many early games, has done "good enough" simulation is by pretending things in setting materials that were not supported by the mechanics. Nothing wrong with this, if you like it, but to call the whole big mash "a focus on simulation" is a misnomer.

Granted, the inclusion of fluff details like numbers of females and children in a lair does contribute to the whole "system in actual play" at a given table, per the L&L article. Dropping these drops some of the simulation from the "system in actual play"--or would at most tables, in any case. But they were not dropped to make room for more gamist play, and the assertion that they were is a mistaken notion of what narrativist play entails.

But we might be getting into an intractable tangent, like some of the relatively recent conversations that have boiled down to an argument between the "immersion is roleplaying" camp versus the "immersion is one of many possible components of roleplaying" camp. If so, I don't see it being resolved here.

 

[Desdichado]

I see it as rather a descent into pedantism and semantics. How much simulationism is required to be considered "simulationist" and what does that mean exactly anyway?

Either way, doesn't sound like a useful conversation to have.

 

[P1NBACK]

I see it as rather a descent into pedantism and semantics. How much simulationism is required to be considered "simulationist" and what does that mean exactly anyway?

Either way, doesn't sound like a useful conversation to have.

Agreed. This conversation has little-to-nothing to do with GNS. I wish people would quit throwing those terms in every. single. conversation. about RPG theory.

On Topic:

I think this blog post by V. Baker is relevant to his statement.

And, I agree with Vincent that "moment-to-moment assent" trumps any pre-agreed upon rules or authority in play.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

In his latest column, Monte Cook says

The game needs rules. They form the basis of the shared reality that allows everyone to participate in the same game.
​

Monte says this as if it's uncontroversial, but I'm not sure that it is.

I don't deny that the game needs rules. But is the purpose of the rules to form the basis of the shared reality among the participants?

Substitute "boundaries" for "basis" in Monte's statement, and it fits my view better. If I can be blindingly obvious for a moment, I see it as the game rules are a model. The roleplaying activity is a specialized form of collaborative story telling where the audience and participants overlap. The game model sets the boundaries between the ongoing story and the people involved.

I used "boundaries" plural, not only because there are multiples rules, but also multiple types of boundaries possible. They will vary from game to game.

In the oft-cited example of kids playing cops and robbers, there is conflict between the kid cop and the kid robber. "Bang, you're dead!" Then there is the story about the cop chasing the robber. Impose a game model on it, and you set the boundaries of what, when, and how, "Bang, you're dead," means.