Why do RPGs have rules?

[Thomas Shey]

How is one high school student or office worker a greater expert on fantasy dungeons than another? FK is, in its serious form at least, a highly technical training tool where the referee is a PhD level expert on EXACTLY the situation being simulated. In the 'FK' (The US Army uses different terminology, but it IS an FK) we did in ROTC we did things like: Joe - you are the commander of a mixed tank-heavy company team defending hill 406 in the Fulda Gap. You have the following artillery mission resources.... the following air support... You may position your forces anywhere in and around grid square 40-72. Recon indicates a Red Army tank regiment sized component of the 1st Guards Tank Army is moving towards your position and will arrive in approximately 1 hour. Your mission is to halt the enemy's advance, inflict maximum casualties, and delay them for at least 5 hours. Now a US Army captain (in our case, because its ROTC) runs this game. This guy has commanded this type of force, and been deployed in this very area. The terrain on our table is totally realistic, we have realistic information, platoon commanders played by other players, and its up to Joe to create a defense and execute that against a realistic armored assault.

That's nothing like a dungeon where some kid is GMing. That kid may be smart and do a fairly realistic job where that's possible, but its nothing like that ROTC scenario and that tank commander refereeing it.

There are a lot of interim cases, too.

The classic that comes up is when some event is going on in a game that has even casual simulation pretensions, and one of the players does, or at least may, have more knowledge about the topic than the GM, and the event is partially outside what the game system handles. The assumption the GM is the best person to make the final decisions there is, shall we say, not always non-controversial.

 

[Darth Solo]

It is unreasonable to not use pretty much the only language that has terms to talk about RPGs, though.

Everything of value about RPGs came from Forge. Rejecting Forge lingo = rejecting any kind of actually interesting RPG discussion, period.

If "Forge Games™" are so valuable and interesting, why don't they dominate the RPG hobby - like say WoTC's golden calf or CoC or Traveller or Cyberpunk or those other really boring games that everyone is playing?

 

[aramis erak]

To me, if you're going to argue for absolute GM authority, then you're going to exercise absolute GM authority.

All authority is limited in scope. Every last kind and form.

"Divine Right Monarchs" are limited by their neighbor states... and when they get to trying to enforce their will across the border, they find out just how limited their authority is...

And while the authority in scope of, say, the AD&D 1E rules (where the DM is explicitly allowed to change the rules for a variety of reasons, and explicitly need not explain why), but the scope is limited to those players willing to put up with the DM's approach; When Johnny rebels against DM Dan, and storms away, Dan's authority ends with Johnny's character, thanks to other authority - to wit, the threat of incarceration if Dan tries to force Johhny back to the table by force or threat thereof, or locks or blocks the exits.

 

[Thomas Shey]

And while the authority in scope of, say, the AD&D 1E rules (where the DM is explicitly allowed to change the rules for a variety of reasons, and explicitly need not explain why), but the scope is limited to those players willing to put up with the DM's approach; When Johnny rebels against DM Dan, and storms away, Dan's authority ends with Johnny's character, thanks to other authority - to wit, the threat of incarceration if Dan tries to force Johhny back to the table by force or threat thereof, or locks or blocks the exits.

While this is true, there can be some serious issues that pressure Johnny against storming away, whether its knowing Dan is pretty much the only GM he has available, or knowing all the others will probably be just as bad. That doesn't mean he can't still just say the hell with it, but it may put his choice as a stark one between playing and not playing when he has only those as recourses.

 

[loverdrive]

This seems to be a question about why I should prefer pears over peaches. I enjoy pears. That does not impinge upon your enjoyment of peaches. Sometimes I like peaches, too.

Maybe.

I see the appeal of "living breathing world", but pursing this goal in a medium that by its very nature places specific people front and centre rather than the world itself sounds counterproductive.

Alex Jeffe from Riot Games calls such games, that contain conflicting fantasies, "cursed". A world needs to be indifferent to the PCs in order to be, well, living and breathing. But an RPG with characters needs cool, engaging situations, which, in turn, requires the world to be bent for the PCs to at least some degree.

Culling one or the other will allow for a more focused experience that scratches the itch much more thoroughly?

 

[loverdrive]

If "Forge Games™" are so valuable and interesting, why don't they dominate the RPG hobby - like say WoTC's golden calf or CoC or Traveller or Cyberpunk or those other really boring games that everyone is playing?

For the same reason Call of Duty dominates shooters instead of better games like Quake. Because casuls don't understand things and refuse to be educated.

Regardless, rejecting the vocabulary of RPGs when talking about RPGs is like being mad at terms like "juggle" or "frame trap" when discussing fighting games. Idiocy.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Because casuls don't understand things and refuse to be educated.

Mod Note:

What makes you think this is an appropriate way to describe your fellow gamers?

If you feel like posting similarly inflammatory comments in the future, reconsider before hitting “Post reply”.

 

[Aldarc]

If "Forge Games™" are so valuable and interesting, why don't they dominate the RPG hobby - like say WoTC's golden calf or CoC or Traveller or Cyberpunk or those other really boring games that everyone is playing?

 

[clearstream]

I see the appeal of "living breathing world", but pursing this goal in a medium that by its very nature places specific people front and centre rather than the world itself sounds counterproductive.

My posts #709 and #721 answered the OP through a lense of RPG as conversation. Through that lense, rules serve a normative purpose: they convey candidate descriptions to consequences in game state (fiction + system.) I suggested that they can even invite descriptions that would otherwise not occur.

That fits with the observation that games are ergodic literature, and should suit narratologists. A ludologist will say that a game is also a mechanism. Consider a relatively simple problem - what is the ideal probability distribution across favourable, mixed and unfavourable consequences, and what is the ideal responsivity of that distribution to circumstantial modifiers? Another problem - how do opportunities for action and survival in scene interact to produce an action economy translating to some, but not too much volatility, and some, but not too much snowballing? How might the resultant tempo offer opportunities for both challenge and mastery? Or a simulationist problem - how many supplies can be carried, what distance can be attained per unit, and what tempo does that produce in the overall game system? (Torchbearer 2's grind offers an ideal example of structured tempo.)

The classic that comes up is when some event is going on in a game that has even casual simulation pretensions, and one of the players does, or at least may, have more knowledge about the topic than the GM, and the event is partially outside what the game system handles. The assumption the GM is the best person to make the final decisions there is, shall we say, not always non-controversial.

As this post points out, what might be simulated may be outside the knowledge of participants. The post focuses on the possibility that some participant has the right sort of knowledge and others do not, but it is equally possible that no participant has the right sort of knowledge. Especially if the domain is esoteric.

This purpose of rules - to fabricate a mechanism that successfully controls and simulates the desired play - falls outside of viewing play as narrative that "by its very nature places specific people front and centre rather than the world itself." As it turns out, the nature of an RPG can include modelling the world itself. Almost all do, to a greater or lesser degree.

Alex Jeffe from Riot Games calls such games, that contain conflicting fantasies, "cursed". A world needs to be indifferent to the PCs in order to be, well, living and breathing. But an RPG with characters needs cool, engaging situations, which, in turn, requires the world to be bent for the PCs to at least some degree.

Sure - "to at least some degree". In the case of immersionism, that degree is that the only parts of the world that will turn out to be played in will be those the PCs choose to explore. Generally speaking, player characters in an immersionist game are to some degree exceptional. RuneQuest character arcs take them to becoming rune lords/priests. In Traveller you can start with your own spaceship! In L5R you may be a samurai.

Culling one or the other will allow for a more focused experience that scratches the itch much more thoroughly?

Is a cake better made with only flour? But more seriously, I don't think so. Let's imagine the immersionist world sans player characters. That does not at all satisfy the itch! It's the opportunity for the characters to explore the world and find out what happens there, that is the draw. And on the other side, player characters sans world? That's scarcely reflective of most RPGing: players seem to delight in having some sort of world to play within.

Hence I would say that the choice is as to relative quantity of each ingredient in the mixture... not whether it will be a mixture.

 

[loverdrive]

Sure - "to at least some degree". In the case of immersionism, that degree is that the only parts of the world that will turn out to be played in will be those the PCs choose to explore. Generally speaking, player characters in an immersionist game are to some degree exceptional. RuneQuest character arcs take them to becoming rune lords/priests. In Traveller you can start with your own spaceship! In L5R you may be a samurai.

It's not only the exceptionality of the characters, it's things that happen to and around them. Like, goblins don't terrorize the village because of socio-economic reasons, they do it, so the PCs have something cool to do. One way or another, interesting things need to be happening, so the play can commence.

And on the other side of the screen: the players are often forced to make their characters behave in ways that would be weird for actual people living in this living breathing world. They have to accept a stranger into their party (or continue adventuring waay after they've already accomplished their goals, or whatever) because otherwise Vasya ain't playing the game.

Let's imagine the immersionist world sans player characters. That does not at all satisfy the itch! It's the opportunity for the characters to explore the world and find out what happens there, that is the draw.

The way I see it, not having designated PCs, but rather grabbing characters from the world and discarding them as needed would accomplish the exploration of a secondary world better than being stuck in a single PoV for extended periods of time.

First, it limits what cool interesting things players can actually get to experience. As an example, the beliefs and rituals of the Cult of Ancestor Moths in Elder Scrolls are pretty neat, but pretty much impossible to "access" in a game because the cult is very secretive. To explore them is to devote the whole game to it (and then probably end it, as you'll inevitably run out of fuel pretty quickly).

Second, there's only a portion of a world that immerses one in this world. It's kinda hard to put into words, but bear with me here. I really, really like Elder Scrolls. If Lady Nerevar didn't claim Kirkbride, I'd tie him down in my basement. Immersing myself in the world of Elder Scrolls is something I do genuinely enjoy. Debating the nature and origin of Talos; listening to sermon delivered in the temple of ALMSIVI; crawling through filth in the canals of Foreign Quarters, all that is awesome!

But the process of playing a "traditional" RPG will inevitably include a whole bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with Elder Scrolls. Killing goblins in Cyrodiil ain't any different from doing the same in Phandervel, after all. If anything, experiences that are not unique to Elder Scrolls in any way shape or form will probably constitute a way larger portion of the play process.

Isolating these highs of Elder Scrolls-iness, culling the shackles of a single character to give a damn about and focusing on the world and its lore sounds, to me, like a straight-up better way to immerse myself.

And on the other side, player characters sans world? That's scarcely reflective of most RPGing: players seem to delight in having some sort of world to play within.

Well, it's not like the world doesn't exist. It's just the world is subservient to the goals of the people at the table. Like Silent Hill, built and rebuilt to specifically torture the PCs, rather than be a thing in of itself.

In the same vein, I'm not suggesting to remove characters and never ever introduce them under any circumstances. No. What I'm suggesting is rather than making them the centre of attention, put them into background.

Rather than having players to control exceptional heroes in a world adjudicated by the GM, have one take on a role of, say, Arcane University professor delivering a lecture on the history of Psijic Order, and players to be her students.

This purpose of rules - to fabricate a mechanism that successfully controls and simulates the desired play - falls outside of viewing play as narrative that "by its very nature places specific people front and centre rather than the world itself." As it turns out, the nature of an RPG can include modelling the world itself. Almost all do, to a greater or lesser degree.

What I mean is, the characters will be at the centre, whether it's a high-octane action film or a simulation of a world with all its mundanity, as everything is perceived through them.