Why do RPGs have rules?

[AbdulAlhazred]

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?

How about the player of the character who wants a dramatic entrance? Or the dice, which can distinguish between that and arriving with a mighty CRASH! lol.

 

[Clint_L]

How about the player of the character who wants a dramatic entrance? Or the dice, which can distinguish between that and arriving with a mighty CRASH! lol.

Yeah, this seems like a classic player decision. However, in D&D the DM would immediately intercede, make some sort of DC determination (probably secretly), and then have them do an acrobatics check, probably interpreting a bad failure as the chandelier crashing down. From my understanding of DW it would be similar except it would be done as a player-initiated move and the various levels of failure->success are already worked into the move system rather than being at the DM's discretion.

This is exactly the kind of scenario that really makes me want to try DW - I love the idea of the player taking control of story beats like this.

 

[pemerton]

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.

<snip>

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?

In your example, as I understand it, Pia is doing some things - preparing and eating food, swimming in an ocean, sailing a vessel, etc - with things that Jo created or place in Pia's path.

So the analogue in RPGing would be a player picking up the GM's notes, reading them, folding some into paper hats, using others to light a fire, etc?

Or did you intend that Jo tells Pia to imagine doing all those things, and then to ask Jo what happens in the imagined circumstances?

 

[Enrahim2]

How about the player of the character who wants a dramatic entrance? Or the dice, which can distinguish between that and arriving with a mighty CRASH! lol.

The context of my answer was replying to the trouble with splitting the ones knowing hidden information from referee in a game where hidden information is a central part of the game. The player nor a pure PtbA style dice cannot take into account hidden information, and hence were not relevant candidates for that example.

My key point here was that both the content creator and the advisary player might in such a game hold information hidden from the player, that could affect the outcome. Coordinating such hidden information between content creator, advisary and referee in a way the player do not learn about it can pose quite severe practical challenges, unless those 3 happen to share the same brain..

In a game without hidden information, distributing traditional GM responsibilities and narration powers is a piece of cake.

 

[clearstream]

In your example, as I understand it, Pia is doing some things - preparing and eating food, swimming in an ocean, sailing a vessel, etc - with things that Jo created or place in Pia's path.

So the analogue in RPGing would be a player picking up the GM's notes, reading them, folding some into paper hats, using others to light a fire, etc?

Or did you intend that Jo tells Pia to imagine doing all those things, and then to ask Jo what happens in the imagined circumstances?

That is the right question to ask. Were this occurring in the real world, then it can hardly be disputed that each possible Pia can tell their own story. However, in the game world what happens relies on a shared set of norms; existing in virtue of a common experience of life and of rules agreed between Jo and Pia that will say what is normal. (I'll cover ground here that I'm certain you're aware of, but hopefully serves a purpose in revealing thought processes.)

Thus, if what Jo means by "chair" is something that Pia also understands by "chair", the imagined upending of imaginary chairs goes as described. It is only in view of possible differences in what is meant by "chair" (Jo - "that is a heavy chair, far too heavy for you to upend") that it becomes possible to talk in terms of Jo dictating Pia's acts, and then only to the extent of those differences.

The fictional positioning is therefore expected to be at times incomplete or in contradiction: Jo says "chair" meaning "heavy chair", while Pia hears "chair" thinking "wooden chair, one that I can upend." Just so long as Jo and Pia have a common experience of life or rules agreed then - so far as those extend - it can't really be disputed that each Pia can tell their own story. (Unless of course for every element described there is uniquely one future state: chairs cannot be upended, chess games can only proceed along one line of play, water can only be swum in at the prescribed hour and place)!

A thought-experiment that segues into is the following...

Jo and Pia have between them a black-box. Where they have an agreed rule in force, that prevails. Lacking such a rule, when they have a life experience in common - such as chess positions and legal moves, or the recipe for a bloody mary - that prevails. But whenever they imagine something that no life experience in common nor agreed rule provides a norm for, they each input what they want to become the norm to that black-box, which outputs the norm that they must go on with. The workings of the box are inscrutable.

It might be that the box contains an entity that deliberates and chooses, or perhaps Jo exercises mental control over its workings, or there are myriad algorithms chosen among according to some principles, or it could be using a weighted but randomised distribution. Or something else. On the subject of upendable chairs, then, Pia and Jo input their expected norms - U and non-U - to the box, and it ouputs U. Can Pia then claim free will? And what is the sort of free will that Pia can lay claim to?

A question I have in mind is, do two different Pias (two people working through these two thought experiments) feel bound to tell the same story? How widely can they picture their stories diverging?

And do the workings of the box matter to this? Suppose that the workings certainly had nothing to do with Jo, but came out only 10% of the time in Pia's favour. Is Pia freer to tell their own story then they would be if the box's outputs were 50% in their favour... but with Jo secretly controlling its functioning!?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah, this seems like a classic player decision. However, in D&D the DM would immediately intercede, make some sort of DC determination (probably secretly), and then have them do an acrobatics check, probably interpreting a bad failure as the chandelier crashing down. From my understanding of DW it would be similar except it would be done as a player-initiated move and the various levels of failure->success are already worked into the move system rather than being at the DM's discretion.

This is exactly the kind of scenario that really makes me want to try DW - I love the idea of the player taking control of story beats like this.

Well, its 'player initiated' in either case, and potentially in the same way. But you are right, D&D has this historical legacy way of looking at its rules, and thus checks. Everything players can try is thus uncertain and hazardous, and often to no relationship with what it might bring to either the game or the character. So the DW version, technically the GM doesn't get to call for a check unless a move is triggered, though he could say "you aren't sure that chandelier will hold you" and then pull a hard move when you swing on it. 99% of the time everyone will agree on a Defy Danger move, though I'm not convinced there's really a need. The character isn't overcoming an obstacle that is in their way, they're just doing a cool entrance! So, by looking at the action's place in the narrative, intent, how interesting failure would be, etc. we can work out what the GM's principled options are.

As for trying DW, there must be a few people around that wouldn't mind giving it a try... Online games are not perfect, but one could presumably happen!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That is the right question to ask. Were this occurring in the real world, then it can hardly be disputed that each possible Pia can tell their own story. However, in the game world what happens relies on a shared set of norms; existing in virtue of a common experience of life and of rules agreed between Jo and Pia that will say what is normal. (I'll cover ground here that I'm certain you're aware of, but hopefully serves a purpose in revealing thought processes.)

Thus, if what Jo means by "chair" is something that Pia also understands by "chair", the imagined upending of imaginary chairs goes as described. It is only in view of possible differences in what is meant by "chair" (Jo - "that is a heavy chair, far too heavy for you to upend") that it becomes possible to talk in terms of Jo dictating Pia's acts, and then only to the extent of those differences.

The fictional positioning is therefore expected to be at times incomplete or in contradiction: Jo says "chair" meaning "heavy chair", while Pia hears "chair" thinking "wooden chair, one that I can upend." Just so long as Jo and Pia have a common experience of life or rules agreed then - so far as those extend - it can't really be disputed that each Pia can tell their own story. (Unless of course for every element described there is uniquely one future state: chairs cannot be upended, chess games can only proceed along one line of play, water can only be swum in at the prescribed hour and place)!

A thought-experiment that segues into is the following...

Jo and Pia have between them a black-box. Where they have an agreed rule in force, that prevails. Lacking such a rule, when they have a life experience in common - such as chess positions and legal moves, or the recipe for a bloody mary - that prevails. But whenever they imagine something that no life experience in common nor agreed rule provides a norm for, they each input what they want to become the norm to that black-box, which outputs the norm that they must go on with. The workings of the box are inscrutable.

It might be that the box contains an entity that deliberates and chooses, or perhaps Jo exercises mental control over its workings, or there are myriad algorithms chosen among according to some principles, or it could be using a weighted but randomised distribution. Or something else. On the subject of upendable chairs, then, Jo and Pia input their expected norms - U and non-U - to the box, and it ouputs U. Can Pia then claim free will? And what is the sort of free will that Pia can lay claim to?

A question I have in mind is, do two different Pias (two people working through these two thought experiments) feel bound to tell the same story? How widely can they picture their stories diverging?

And do the workings of the box matter to this? Suppose that the workings certainly had nothing to do with Jo, but came out only 10% of the time in Pia's favour. Is Pia freer to tell their own story then they would be if the box's outputs were 50% in their favour... but with Jo secretly controlling its functioning!?

My only objection is that it never goes this way. Jo watches 'Pia' and tries to extrapolate. Not only as to what Pia might do next but also to what Jo wants to see Pia do next, and to how to engage Pia in such a way that Pia visits all the different locations. And then there's PLOT, something must happen in one place in order for another thing to happen in another place, all of this liberally sprinkled with hidden information. That's actual standard play.

 

[nevin]

Sure. But what are the rules actually for? What do they do?

they give a framework of shared expectations so that you don't end up with the school yard. "Bang your dead. no you missed me. No I used an atom bomb your dead!"

 

[clearstream]

My only objection is that it never goes this way. Jo watches 'Pia' and tries to extrapolate. Not only as to what Pia might do next but also to what Jo wants to see Pia do next, and to how to engage Pia in such a way that Pia visits all the different locations. And then there's PLOT, something must happen in one place in order for another thing to happen in another place, all of this liberally sprinkled with hidden information. That's actual standard play.

One way I thought to put that sort of concern is as a proposition like this:

P. It's not ideal if the only stories that can be told are those one participant wants to hear even if those stories are not determined by that participant.

and then make the following conjecture

C. It is not the case that P. is true of every play mode.

 

[clearstream]

My only objection is that it never goes this way. Jo watches 'Pia' and tries to extrapolate. Not only as to what Pia might do next but also to what Jo wants to see Pia do next, and to how to engage Pia in such a way that Pia visits all the different locations. And then there's PLOT, something must happen in one place in order for another thing to happen in another place, all of this liberally sprinkled with hidden information. That's actual standard play.

As a follow up thought, what you describe is certainly what's preferred for trad play as defined in the Six Cultures thought-piece. GM is going to offer an engaging plot that will engender compelling play. It's really the selling point of that mode and a great deal turns on GM's ability to do so.

For what I would call fully immersionist play it's not like that. For me game texts such as RQ, Bushido, L5R, and Traveller all provide great opportunities for that mode. There may be stuff going on, but it's just not the case that anything must happen in one place in order for another thing to happen elsewhere. It's more - oh, so this happened here, what will be the ripples of that? It's not no-myth because a ton of stuff may exist that hasn't yet been said to the group, but it is no-plot.

Part of the trick is to not care if all the locations get visited. Characters don't visit Dykene? Doesn't matter. I feel like folk who enjoy world creation (as distinct from story-telling) will often enjoy GMing in immersionist mode. I'll read folk relating how they spent a pleasant few hours in solitary world development. The point being that one isn't attached to it appearing in play because one has enjoyed the work for its own sake.