Why do RPGs have rules?

[Bedrockgames]

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.

A lot of people find the forge valuable. And that is fine. But there are other ways to talk about RPGs, and some people find Forge lingo counter productive. I think the Forge deserves recognition for putting together a system of thought, but I think it is big mistake to think that system explains everything in RPGs or is the only way to think about RPGs

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

Also I think most of the things that constrain people at the table are a lot less extreme. The GM may not worry about Dan storming off, but he might worry about the table not liking one of his calls or Dan taking it personally. As a GM, I do think you have to account for the tastes of the people present. I like a certain style of play but the most important thing is having a functional table that is having a good time, so being flexible is pretty important I think. And while I do think GM authority works, it is never meant to be GM as king of the group. It should be balanced by the GM trying to serve the interests of the group.

 

[clearstream]

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.

I feel you do a good job here of getting at our differences. A dramatic or narrative approach wants those goblins to terrorize the village so that PCs have something to do. An immersionist approach by my lights wants the goblins to terrorize the village because there's a socio-economic reason. There is a confidence (or if you like, faith) that such reasons will ultimately play out more interestingly in play.

The players capture a goblin. "Why did you attack the village?" "Because their cows polluted our drinking water." The players find themselves on the spot in a way that for me has depth behind it. The dramatic approach can focus on what matters to the conversation, and fill in those details later. Either can work.

We could be speaking from positions in one of the major divisions in game studies: narratology versus ludology. However, I would say my position is more skeptical. I resist finally categorising games in either of those ways. (Sometimes I picture that everything that has been called narrative until now is a primitive form of game, so that game both contains and supersedes narrative. How does it supersede? Through those facets a ludological perspective brings into focus.)

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.

RPGs must accept arrangements made for the sake of the play. If what you mean here is that ideally they would not: then why? One concept is the maintenance of suspension of disbelief (SOD). Arrangements that shatter SOD for the given players are not ideal. Perhaps then you are expressing fears for the suspension of disbelief?

It's not clear then, why one would not have similar fears for say rolling dice? I suppose one could say that cranking the handle is dissimilar from the water in the bucket. What then of limits that character generation mechanics put on who can exist in the game and the paucity of facts about them (compared with a person in the real world)?

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.

That can work for immersionist play. Ars Magica sometimes has the feel of it. I'm not sure about the necessity to discard. For example, it can be immersive to play a family or institution of some kind - generating characters for the folk forming it.

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!

Those are good examples. I agree that playing one character has limitations. It's just that I prefer those limitations.

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.

I'm not sure what you have in mind for "traditional". If you would feel more immersed not shackled to one character, I would say go for it. I've tried it - albeit, not as extensively - and while it could just be down to lack of the right structures, focusing on one character has so far given me the strongest feeling of being within the world.

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.

That seems very gamist

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.

Think of characters as the spotlight or viewpoint. That makes them the centre of our attention as an RPG troupe. It's not ideal to put the character in the background... because the point is to be immersed as the character.

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 falls within the definition of exceptional by my lights.

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.

Everything being perceived through them, and everything being about them, seem to me two different things.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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 is absolutely true. However, its not at all uncommon that the person at the table with the greater knowledge is not the GM. And there can be a number of problems that can arise from that fact. Being a GM does not mean you're going to be the person in the group who knows the most about climbing or aircraft, and the reactions among GMs to this fact have, shall we say, been varied over the years. It is not, in fact, impossible for the GM to be the person at the table who knows the least about a particular game-relevant topic. When the rules have coverage of this, if it concerns the more knowledgeable (and sometimes it very much does; people extremely knowledgeable about a topic sometimes have great difficulty getting around shortcuts or incorrect representation of it that they would not in areas they're less focused in) it can be worked out outside a normal game session. When its peripheral and decisions have to be made on the fly, it can be much more fraught.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Also I think most of the things that constrain people at the table are a lot less extreme. The GM may not worry about Dan storming off, but he might worry about the table not liking one of his calls or Dan taking it personally. As a GM, I do think you have to account for the tastes of the people present. I like a certain style of play but the most important thing is having a functional table that is having a good time, so being flexible is pretty important I think. And while I do think GM authority works, it is never meant to be GM as king of the group. It should be balanced by the GM trying to serve the interests of the group.

While I don't disagree with any of this, how this sort of thing works out in the field can be--complex--for any number of reasons, and I think the automatic assumption of GM authority throughout much of the hobby does it no great favors here.

 

[clearstream]

This is absolutely true. However, its not at all uncommon that the person at the table with the greater knowledge is not the GM.

Just for clarity, I didn't mean to imply that the participant with greater would necessarily be GM. More acknowledging your point in general: domain knowledge might be distributed unevenly.

And there can be a number of problems that can arise from that fact. Being a GM does not mean you're going to be the person in the group who knows the most about climbing or aircraft, and the reactions among GMs to this fact have, shall we say, been varied over the years. It is not, in fact, impossible for the GM to be the person at the table who knows the least about a particular game-relevant topic. When the rules have coverage of this, if it concerns the more knowledgeable (and sometimes it very much does; people extremely knowledgeable about a topic sometimes have great difficulty getting around shortcuts or incorrect representation of it that they would not in areas they're less focused in) it can be worked out outside a normal game session. When its peripheral and decisions have to be made on the fly, it can be much more fraught.

I think you are right, especially as regards the "great difficulty getting around... incorrect representation".

Another thing to consider is where expertise in a domain, and expertise in translating facts from that domain into playable mechanisms, are distinct.

I think I'm - no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater - on this. It's useful to translate the most essential aspects from the domain into game mechanics, and that is a skilled job. Maybe at some tables someone will know more than the designers and be able to articulate that knowledge in a way that improves play. That's actually okay. Tables where that isn't the case can still benefit from the written mechanic.

 

[loverdrive]

I feel you do a good job here of getting at our differences. A dramatic or narrative approach wants those goblins to terrorize the village so that PCs have something to do. An immersionist approach by my lights wants the goblins to terrorize the village because there's a socio-economic reason. There is a confidence (or if you like, faith) that such reasons will ultimately play out more interestingly in play.

I'm honestly very sceptical that someone actually starts with socio-economic situation in the region and then extrapolates goblin raids from it, rather than putting goblins there and figuring out a diegetic justification for their raids afterwards.

We could be speaking from positions in one of the major divisions in game studies: narratology versus ludology. However, I would say my position is more skeptical. I resist finally categorising games in either of those ways. (Sometimes I picture that everything that has been called narrative until now is a primitive form of game, so that game both contains and supersedes narrative. How does it supersede? Through those facets a ludological perspective brings into focus.)

I don't think so. I'm honestly not a big fan of this division in general, even more so when it's applied to RPGs.

From where I stand, the difference between "ooh dragons are cool, and fighting one in the ruins of a church of the Dragon God would be very dramatic, really highlighting how the religion was stolen and subverted by the priests!" and "ooh dragons are mechanically interesting and fighting one in a tight space where it can effectively deny large areas will create an engaging fight that emphasizes positional awareness!" is slim (if not non-existent, as juggling narrative is the meat of the gameplay in games focused on that), and both are at odds with world simulation.

I'm not sure what you have in mind for "traditional". If you would feel more immersed not shackled to one character, I would say go for it. I've tried it - albeit, not as extensively - and while it could just be down to lack of the right structures, focusing on one character has so far given me the strongest feeling of being within the world.

Full disclosure: I hate the word "immersion" with a burning passion. I always feel like everybody talks about a different thing when it's mentioned.

The way I see it, immersion is a process of capturing a feeling through play. If the source, a lightning rod, of that feeling is the character, then the world should bend for them, to enhance and sharpen that feeling; otherwise the feeling would be blurry and fuzzy, weak, becoming sharp only by an accident at best. If I want to, say, capture the thrill of cheating, then I want my character's partner to call them when she is oh so busy getting railed, not a minute earlier or latter.

If the lightning rod is the world itself, then the character is unimportant, and their needs and desires are entertained only so long as they enhance and sharpen the feelings extracted from the secondary world.

This falls within the definition of exceptional by my lights.

It would still be uncommon, I guess. RPGs usually focus on player agency manifested through the PCs, and the way I envision this example, PCs can't really do jack. The history of Psijic Order already happened, and the players can only learn of it.

...well, OK, rewriting the history through meta-game means, by acknowledging that both the character, the lecture and the Psijics are fictional, would be extremely on brand for Elder Scrolls, but still.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think I'm - no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater - on this. It's useful to translate the most essential aspects from the domain into game mechanics, and that is a skilled job. Maybe at some tables someone will know more than the designers and be able to articulate that knowledge in a way that improves play. That's actually okay. Tables where that isn't the case can still benefit from the written mechanic.

I do agree that the accurate way to handle something and the playable way to handle it do not have to be the same thing.

The issue that sometimes comes up is when a designer just flat out has it wrong, and the wrong way to represent it isn't any more particularly gameable than the right one would be. That's usually easy to fix if they haven't, for some reason, wrapped a bunch of other game elements around that wrong understanding.

(Of course it can get more complicated if the wrong decision is an element of genre representation or the like--then if it bothers people they just either have to get over it or not play in that genre. As a long time superhero GM I've seen that one more than once).

 

[Pedantic]

Full disclosure: I hate the word "immersion" with a burning passion. I always feel like everybody talks about a different thing when it's mentioned.

The way I see it, immersion is a process of capturing a feeling through play. If the source, a lightning rod, of that feeling is the character, then the world should bend for them, to enhance and sharpen that feeling; otherwise the feeling would be blurry and fuzzy, weak, becoming sharp only by an accident at best. If I want to, say, capture the thrill of cheating, then I want my character's partner to call them when she is oh so busy getting railed, not a minute earlier or latter.

Yeah, the word has become more of a battleground than a useful way to signify much of anything. Personally, I view immersion entirely mechanically. It's about the relationship between my decision making power as a player, and the decision making power of the character I'm playing, and how their incentives align. The more harmonious those are, the more immersive the situation, as I don't have to juggle differing decision making priorities. Thus, things that decrease immersion have more to do with the manipulation of time/causality, or entering an authorial stance that is at odds with the character's goals.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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).

Welcome to the world of troupe play and scenario one-shots! You're not wrong about it being cool and interesting.

Best of all, it's not mutually exclusive with campaign play. If player Z can't make it to the February game session, playing a one-shot scenario with players X and Y, as cult leaders vying for control, is still on the table. (You can tie the cult outcome back into the main campaign too, either as antagonists or just a source of recognizable NPCs.)