Why do RPGs have rules?

[clearstream]

Getting back to a thought-experiment I hoped to construct earlier, picture that Jo has set up a stage something like as follows

• The stage is divided into a few rooms
• In one room are the makings of beverages and repasts, and tools for doing so, along with a sturdy wooden table and chairs
• In a second room is set up a chess game a few (legal) moves in, papers and drawing tools, a number of chairs and desks, a couch
• In a third room - the last - there is a broad ocean, some yachts at anchor, dinghies at the quay, gulls, a pebbled strand

Onto this stage comes Pia, possessor of a lively sense of adventure. No one has given Pia instruction as to how they should behave or what, if anything, they should interact with. Pia first walks about the three rooms seeing what is there. They take a dip in the broad ocean. Refreshed, they recall a favourite beverage and, going to the first room, mix themselves a stiff and spicy version of it and hum a tune while sipping it. They wander into the second room and examine the chess game... soon making a move that they think a good one. Taking up some paper and drawing tools, and putting down their drink, they draw a bee, a yacht, some leaves. They write a few lines of a poem about a reflective moment in a quiet, snow-filled wood. After all these exertions, they sleep on the couch. Some hours later - waking - they turn a few chairs and desks upside down, and leave a brief note for any later visitors "Am gone to sea. P.". Returning to the third room, they row a dinghy out to a sleek two-masted schooner and - happening to possess the skills needed - set the sails, slip anchor, and sail out onto the broad ocean.

A question I have in mind is whether Pia has to any extent authored their exploration and interaction with the set? Could Jo be rightly characterised as a "set dresser", so that they work in performance of a role that is in some way differentiable from that of Pia? Have Pia's actions been dictated by Jo, so that Pia has only been told a story authored by Jo? Was Jo the authoritative dictator of Pia's traverse of the set? Or did Pia have something to say about that?

So far in this thread, GM-as-referee has been discussed and it is a fact that some game texts explicitly assign that fuction to them. Here I am concerned to discover if GM-as-set-dresser (or as the function is often called "world builder") is feasibly a role differentiable from "player"? In my thought-experiment I've limited myself to a fixed set. Suppose that Jo from their perch above the stage, seeing Pia set sail, hastily dresses a new set - an archipelago inhabited by wind-folk. Would such set-dressing on the fly change Jo's role so that it now seems to be undifferentiated from Pia's?

 

[Enrahim2]

I too have been wondering about that. In recent play I am finding that the job of generating unnecessary obstacles can be separated out from the job of managing those obstacles (such as the providing of motive/action to NPCs that you identify... only, after they are established.)

That doesn't seem as a big reveal, as I guess this is what all the prewritten adventures essentialy are doing?

Whatever is necessary in the play constrains of the GM, and/or the design constraints of the system to serve that point is fundamentally more important than either producing a consistent simulation or "interesting" situations. To that end, I've found it's generally necessary to assign the GM broad authority and heavy constraints on its use. Perhaps the ideal state of affairs would be to actually split the assorted GM roles into separate people, someone with broad worldbuilding authority, someone serving as a referee and someone else providing motive/action to established NPCs.

I experimented with such division of GM power in my game storyboard. I found it great fun, but my aproach to it there gave a very different feel than traditional role playing games. One major challenge is if you would like the game to have a serious coherent feel to it. My experience with GM less games is that they tend to become quite unhinged and crazy as different people with radically different visions are somewhat unmoderated throwing their best, coolest and wildest ideas into the ring. Great for a chaos one shot game like fiasco. I still haven't seen game that distribute "unlimited" power among multiple players that has appeared suitable for campaign play unless you play with a very diciplined and dedicated group.

 

[clearstream]

That doesn't seem as a big reveal, as I guess this is what all the prewritten adventures essentialy are doing?

The case is specifically that where a complication is part of resolution. So player adds that to fiction. It cannot be part of anything prewritten because it is happening in the process of play.

 

[clearstream]

I experimented with such division of GM power in my game storyboard. I found it great fun, but my aproach to it there gave a very different feel than traditional role playing games. One major challenge is if you would like the game to have a serious coherent feel to it. My experience with GM less games is that they tend to become quite unhinged and crazy as different people with radically different visions are somewhat unmoderated throwing their best, coolest and wildest ideas into the ring. Great for a chaos one shot game like fiasco. I still haven't seen game that distribute "unlimited" power among multiple players that has appeared suitable for campaign play unless you play with a very diciplined and dedicated group.

The poster will of course be best placed to say what they mean, but as I read it - referee power is not distributed among multiple players. A single participant has referee power. In many modes that participant would also manage adversity. In the proposed mode, that's not the case: a different participant manages adversity. "Unlimited" power - if on the table - remains with one participant.

 

[Enrahim2]

The poster will of course be best placed to say what they mean, but as I read it - referee power is not distributed among multiple players. A single participant has referee power. In many modes that participant would also manage adversity. In the proposed mode, that's not the case: a different participant manages adversity. "Unlimited" power - if on the table - remains with one participant.

No, I didn't read it as distribution of referee powers, but rather distribution of the content creation and manipulation powers usually granted to the GM in traditional rpgs.

I guess some of the misunderstanding lies in my use of "Unlimited". This is a poor word, that was why i put it in quotes, as I couldnt come up with a better one. The issue I talk about seem to arise if several players is allowed free reins to introduce content, only restricted by some sort of wide "class".

To illustrate: In my game storyboard one of my favorite roles is the "item responsible". They are responsible for introducing any kind of items of modest size to the scene (the geographer is responsible for more fixed things like buildings, and there are seperate roles for introducing and controlling non-hero characters). This might seem like a quite restrained power, but it is indeed virtualy unlimited in what it can acheive. For instance in a zombie apocalypse scenario I played with the game, a manhole cover took a very prominent role trough rolling around bouncing off stuff and generally being in the right place at the right time.

Give a player god like power, and you can expect them to flex it - especially when there are others around also flexing their god like powers. Indeed in this scenario any referee might be considered quite powerless in comparison.

Of course for instance seperating the role of refereeing, content creation and controling adversaries are very simple. That is in essence what for instance classic dungeon crawl board games like heroquest or descent is doing. However that involve leaving the content creation to someone not being a player of the game, and no single player taking on an exlusive referee role. Indeed I think it would be a hard sell to have a participant volounteer to be exlusive referee, after all that is a pure job. Combining the job with actually being a player with agency in the game make sense from a recruitment and fun perspective.

Moreover I traditional RPG, hidden information has been an important part of the gameplay experience for the PC players, but a referee have needed to have access to that hidden information in order to make judgements. Hence the referee role have to go to the one player knowing the hidden information. In a rpg mode without hidden information I see no reason the weight of refereeing couldnt be a shared burden on the group the same way as it is in most board game scenarios outside organized turnaments.

 

[Pedantic]

Well, illusory, or just good guidance? You put a flavor on things that matches your conception of how difficult a thing should be an at-level DC for a 15th level PC. I mean, the game itself provides quite a few examples, and the skill descriptions are fairly clear about what a lot of the DCs 'should be'. The level thing to me is just "why of course terrain in places that 15th level PCs go to is DC25!" Yeah, that's primordial ice, adamantium doors, whatever. I can't figure out what 5e is trying to do AT ALL, it doesn't even make sense to me.

That is exactly what I mean by illusory, and runs exactly counter to the sort of gameplay I just described. "Challenge" isn't a function of rolling a 13 on a 20 sided die, it's in stringing together a set of action declarations that achieve the outcome you want with the least risk or compromise. In a level scaling system, the expected breadth of declarable actions and their relative impact should increase as the players increase in level, not remain static in relationship to a palette swapped setting. If a character is getting better at something, (say, picking locks) the number of locks they risk not being able to open should decrease as their capabilities expand, not remain static as the fiction changes to meet them.

This is not a problem in games that don't particularly focus on advancement, though, I rather like advancement as it provides the most tangible change to the kind of game being played.

But 4e has just as many non-combat rules as any D&D-like game. Anyway, whatever, it seems less arbitrary than most in my book.

I did say it gets quite a bit thinner if you remove half of the non-combat rules as incompatible with my stated goals, in direct response to "that sounds like a call to play 4e."

 

[Pedantic]

The poster will of course be best placed to say what they mean, but as I read it - referee power is not distributed among multiple players. A single participant has referee power. In many modes that participant would also manage adversity. In the proposed mode, that's not the case: a different participant manages adversity. "Unlimited" power - if on the table - remains with one participant.

No, I didn't read it as distribution of referee powers, but rather distribution of the content creation and manipulation powers usually granted to the GM in traditional rpgs.

@clearstream has the correct reading of my intent here. I was specifically suggesting separating, as he put it, set-dresser, manager and referee into three separate roles, each handled by a different person, but not calling for the subdivision of those roles.

Of course for instance seperating the role of refereeing, content creation and controling adversaries are very simple. That is in essence what for instance classic dungeon crawl board games like heroquest or descent is doing. However that involve leaving the content creation to someone not being a player of the game, and no single player taking on an exlusive referee role. Indeed I think it would be a hard sell to have a participant volounteer to be exlusive referee, after all that is a pure job. Combining the job with actually being a player with agency in the game make sense from a recruitment and fun perspective.

Those games lack what I would define as the fundamental differentiator between TTRPGs and board games; they don't allow for players to set their own goals, and they don't allow for unbounded time scaling, so that play can continue after a goal has been achieved or rendered impossible. They rely heavily on scripted scenario design and thus can't produce an emergent story (or at least, only a very thin one).

Moreover I traditional RPG, hidden information has been an important part of the gameplay experience for the PC players, but a referee have needed to have access to that hidden information in order to make judgements. Hence the referee role have to go to the one player knowing the hidden information. In a rpg mode without hidden information I see no reason the weight of refereeing couldnt be a shared burden on the group the same way as it is in most board game scenarios outside organized turnaments.

I don't see how this would be in conflict with the other two roles described. The referee could simply ask for and/or be provided any relevant hidden information by the parties playing the other two roles. It is certainly convenient to keep that all in the same person, but I don't know that it's essential.

 

[Enrahim2]

Those games lack what I would define as the fundamental differentiator between TTRPGs and board games; they don't allow for players to set their own goals, and they don't allow for unbounded time scaling, so that play can continue after a goal has been achieved or rendered impossible. They rely heavily on scripted scenario design and thus can't produce an emergent story (or at least, only a very thin one).

There are board games that really pushes those two characteristics. For instance HexploreIT has an overarching goal, but the posibility space of what you can do in the game and the scope is so large that you effectively have to set shorter term goals, and those goals can fail without ending the game. Also here the content is created by an outsider, but is not scripted. Rather generated trough card draws. It is beyond doubt a emergent story generator.

I don't see how this would be in conflict with the other two roles described. The referee could simply ask for and/or be provided any relevant hidden information by the parties playing the other two roles. It is certainly convenient to keep that all in the same person, but I don't know that it's essential.

It might not be essential, but at the very least extremely convinient. The problem arise when you make a player dynamically generate content as part of play.

To take one example: The classic A player character want to swing in the chandelier of the evil prince. Who is to say if the chandelier is falling down? The referee based on a general understanding of the world? The world builder based on decison of how strongly fastened the chandelier is to the ceiling? Or the adversary claiming that the evil prince is surely so extravagant that his chandelier already almost defy physics hanging up in the first place?

Merging the roles into one person sidesteps this conondrum of responsibilities.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I don't see how this would be in conflict with the other two roles described. The referee could simply ask for and/or be provided any relevant hidden information by the parties playing the other two roles. It is certainly convenient to keep that all in the same person, but I don't know that it's essential.

I would suggest that any hidden information reside with the set dresser, or whatever you want to call the content generator guy.

In keeping with the Czege principle, you could say: whoever manages a given responsibility may not resolve problems created by it. If you're the guy in charge of running NPC motives and dialogue, and you're also running a PC, then no NPC will ever be meaningfully swayed by anything your PC says or does, so don't play a face. If you're in charge of content generation, your PC will never discover any secret doors or traps before they trigger, so don't play a thief.

It might be possible to play a two-person no-GM game this way. Hmm. The monster advocate would be asking the content creator what the monsters see, at the same time the content creator is trying to determine what the PCs want to do, and the monster advocate is trying to determine how the PCs navigate the environment/look for traps. Hmmmmmmm. It might work but it would work a lot better with a third person, and even then it's not necessarily better than GM + two players.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I would suggest that any hidden information reside with the set dresser, or whatever you want to call the content generator guy.

In keeping with the Czege principle, you could say: whoever manages a given responsibility may not resolve problems created by it. If you're the guy in charge of running NPC motives and dialogue, and you're also running a PC, then no NPC will ever be meaningfully swayed by anything your PC says or does, so don't play a face. If you're in charge of content generation, your PC will never discover any secret doors or traps before they trigger, so don't play a thief.

It might be possible to play a two-person no-GM game this way. Hmm. The monster advocate would be asking the content creator what the monsters see, at the same time the content creator is trying to determine what the PCs want to do, and the monster advocate is trying to determine how the PCs navigate the environment/look for traps. Hmmmmmmm. It might work but it would work a lot better with a third person, and even then it's not necessarily better than GM + two players.

For the record, I really object to the term "set dresser". It seems diminutive, like your job is to make a performance look nice.