Why do RPGs have rules?

[Thomas Shey]

What does that mean? Is it not reasonable to expect in a very heavily D&D (and its derivitives) based and frequented forum that most posters here are familiar with D&D idioms and terminology, and that this might not be true for other games? This is a general RPG thread, but not a PbtA and the Forge thread (all evidence to the contrary).

It means its not reasonable to automatically expect familiarity with terms that are, fundamentally, cultural knowledge rather than formal terms of art if you're not willing to do the same for others. Its still going to happen because that's how things work, but his irritation is not unfounded.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It means its not reasonable to automatically expect familiarity with terms that are, fundamentally, cultural knowledge rather than formal terms of art if you're not willing to do the same for others. Its still going to happen because that's how things work, but his irritation is not unfounded.

Do they not understand the D&D-based terms being used, or is this just an empty complaint?

 

[Aldarc]

Do they not understand the D&D-based terms being used, or is this just an empty complaint?

Just because people can speak English (as an international lingua franca) here in Austria, I am still expected to learn German as a permanent resident in Austria.

 

[Thomas Shey]

What does that mean? Is it not reasonable to expect in a very heavily D&D (and its derivitives) based and frequented forum that most posters here are familiar with D&D idioms and terminology, and that this might not be true for other games? This is a general RPG thread, but not a PbtA and the Forge thread (all evidence to the contrary).

So? That means they need to have it explained to them. It doesn't give them an excuse to be rolling their eyes and being annoyed its even used. You don't get to use jargon and then object when other people use jargon. And that happens fairly frequently around here. Not without other people rightfully considering you a hypocrite.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Do they not understand the D&D-based terms being used, or is this just an empty complaint?

People understand the term "Story Now" when its explained to them, but they still complain and/or object to it. So are we back to who's ox gets gored?

 

[pemerton]

I am confused as to where you think there might not be an agreement, as your follow up seem to be matching exactly my point? We appear to fully agree natrating fiction is the mean games generally provide for establishing players' interest. That is if in the ludic mode, it can be argued that the GM should avoid means like hyping, bribery or reference to YouTube reviews to establish such interest, even if that otherwise might have been more effective means to the end goal.

This has nothing to do with rule zero that I can see.

Also, I'm not persuaded that, within the confines of Suits's analaysis, that the goal of play to generate an emotional state in the players; any more than that the goal of play in football is to create an exciting match. The emotional states are (desirable) byproducts.

 

[pemerton]

@pemerton Would you say that - for game texts that include it - an explicit GM agenda could set up prelusory-goals as an essential first step toward bringing GM into the game as player?

When I think about GM as player, I quickly reach a dissolution of the distinct role altogether: leaving players with complementary, asymmetrical roles. You have potentially described something like that with turn-about BW GMing.

That is where GM does not retain distinct GMly functions that must be managed by wearing multiple hats, or by not being counted among the players.

If agenda establishes prelusory-goals - if that is the effect it necessarily has - then that could be used in examination of game texts to see if anything like an agenda puts such goals in place. I'm not sure of course that it necessarily has that effect. What do you think?

When I think of the GM as a player, I do not reach a dissolution of the distinct roles altogether. In this respect I follow Vincent Baker and John Harper and Luke Crane.

There is nothing about a game that requires every player to have the same function within the scope of the game. Consider tag, or football.

I have explained upthread the difference that I see between refereeing in free kriegspiel or Braunstein - that is, making a decision based on expert knowledge that is subject to external conditions of correctness, as to how the modelled situation would unfold were it real - and GMing a non-austere-dungeon-based RPG.

The latter does not involve judging in the way the former does. It involves making up new bits of the fiction, often in response to bits of the fiction introduced by the players (in the form of action declarations).

I think this is pretty clear. And in the context of Suits's framework, I think it's pretty clear that it is a type of play, provided that it is shaped by "lusory means".

A GM agenda can spell out those means. As per the Lumpley principle, a group of RPGers might stumble upon such means without having it spelled out in a written text authored by someone else.

Again, I think this is all pretty clear. I don't see the need to make heavy weather of it.

 

[Clint_L]

I think it can be a trade off, yes. Have I ever used my full authority as a GM to useful effect? Absolutely. Would I lose such an opportunity if my authority was limited. Yes, I could.

However, I think my game has gained far more for me to perform my role as a GM in a principled and consistent manner. So while I lose the option of hiding a DC from the players (using that technique to heighten the sense of the unknown), what I gain by always sharing every DC more than makes up for it. That’s just a base example, but I think it’s broadly applicable.

I think if folks actually examine their preferences instead of just insisting upon them, perhaps we can drill down a bit into the reasons for those preferences. And I know when I did that, it was enlightening.

I am happy to share every dice roll or DC with players except for ones their character couldn’t know about. I eat my cake and have it, too.

 

[clearstream]

Anyway, why do RPGs have rules? In a nutshell, here is a proposed partial answer*

So far as pre-existing norms extend, participants can often agree that a description D will have the consequences C. Rules supersede pre-existing norms, and extend beyond them. During play it can be decided if any D has the consequences C by matching that D to a norm/rule that explicitly states or implies that C.

Each candidate description must be matched to a norm/rule that will explicitly state or imply its consequences. (Explicitly state more often for change to system; imply more often for change to fiction.) Along the D -> N/R -> C chain are a number of tasks -

1. Supply a candidate description
2. Match that description to a norm/rule
3. Read off the norm/rule the explicitly stated consequences, or propose fitting consequences
4. If more than one consequence is possible, select one

2. is not always a trivial task. Unless a description exactly matches a game text there is room for ambiguity. The AW game text calls attention to this (p10 in the 2nd edition.) D&D gives DM the job of matching descriptions to rules.

3. can get pretty nuanced. PbtA moves are compound rules that do a good job of directing toward the system and fiction consequences connected with any description that matched the move. D&D spells in most cases spell out the exact consequence. D&D skills on the other hand define scopes of effect that often imply a wide range of possible consequences. Again, D&D gives DM the job of fitting consequences.

In many games 4. is down to a dice roll that selects between some or all of - progress, progress+complication, no-progress, and no-progress+badness. The word "progress" shouldn't be read too literally here. Candidate descriptions are usually supplied with an ends in mind ("I climb the wall"... to get to the top. "I swing my mace"... to deal damage to the squirrel.) Progress generally means toward that ends.


*It's partial, because while rules set up to model things - simulations - can be made to fit this answer, it doesn't say quite enough about them. Likewise meta-rules - rules addressed to rules. It's one lense, not the only lense.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I have explained upthread the difference that I see between refereeing in free kriegspiel or Braunstein - that is, making a decision based on expert knowledge that is subject to external conditions of correctness, as to how the modelled situation would unfold were it real - and GMing a non-austere-dungeon-based RPG.

The latter does not involve judging in the way the former does. It involves making up new bits of the fiction, often in response to bits of the fiction introduced by the players (in the form of action declarations).

Emphasis mine.

You're trying to draw a distinction which doesn't actually exist--it's not actually the case that FK and Braunsteins have no elements of subjective judgment to them. Rather, in both cases, the referee's subjective judgment is all that ultimately matters. You don't get to tell your referee that your battleship didn't really blow up; you don't get to tell your referee that nunchucks are actually awesome weapons; you don't get to tell your ref that the French cities being invaded have not actually been evacuated yet; you also don't get to tell your GM that his Spartan-flavored society actually produces weak and dysfunctional armies. The fact that the FK ref is running a slightly-fictional world and the GM is running a more-highly-fictional world is not in fact relevant, especially if they are both trying to perform the same job: good-faith extrapolation.

In both cases, the quality of the extrapolation (and overall simulation) depends on the quality of the GM/ref.

There's another role, scenario/adventure builder, but that isn't universally considered part of the ref's/runtime GM's job.