Why do RPGs have rules?

[pemerton]

Pemerton asserted that refereeing a scenario in a fictional world in FK and refereeing an agendaless dungeon crawl in a fantasy world in an RPG are qualitatively different activities.

No I didn't. Here's what I said:

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.

That is basically the opposite of the view you're attributing to me.

 

[pemerton]

I think this dovetails quite well with my suggestion that expertise in such circumstances is conferred.

And "conferred" here is, functionally at least, a synonym for "asserted" or "invented".

And that all dovetails quite well with my suggestion that the notion that the GM is an "expert" about their imaginary domain is simply a fancy way of redescribing the plain fact that they are the only ones allowed to authoritatively imagine it.

This is exactly why Vincent Baker said that "Task resolution will undermine your collaboration."

 

[pemerton]

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.

I've posted more than once about a convention game I played, where we were in a space station with oxygen problems. We had two chemical engineers in our group, and they did rough calculations as to how long we had before all our oxygen was gone. We then planned our strategy based on that - it was in the hours, from memory. And then the GM just stipulated that we ran out of oxygen within minutes.

Utterly arbitrary nonsense. Trying to obfuscate the railroad by saying that the GM was actually manifesting their expertise in respect of their imaginary world is bizarre.

 

[pemerton]

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.

This completely misses @loverdrive's point:

A group of people buy a RPG (say, 5e D&D) and want to play the game. The obvious thing to do is to have some PCs fight some goblins terrorising a village.

Then the GM, thinking that there needs to be a bit of depth or rationale to this, makes up some socio-economic reason.

That doesn't contradict loverdrive: it reinforces her point. It has already been decided that this "living, breathing" world will contain this particular people engaged in this particular event (ie goblins terrorising a village); and then other fiction is made up to rationalise this. It's like an anti-wind tunnel!

 

[loverdrive]

Before we can proceed, I think something needs to be cleared up.

Neither is at odds with world simulation. Possibly what is at odds is the direction of justification, and (depending on what you have in mind) forcing the situation for the sake of the dramatic.

I feel like I don't even remotely understand your point of view.

The way I see it, world simulation would be:

1. PCs are going to the church of the Dragon God
2. Hm, what's going on there?
3. OK, there are several major actors in the area to be considered:
   1. Red dragon Xaryn slumbering in the caverns below the Mountain
   2. Cult of the Black Heart, secretly operating in the whole region
   3. Grand Inquisitor Micaela who is investigating the cult
4. Let's see what they're up to!
   1. Hm, Northern Mining Company is setting up an excavation there, it is likely the process will awaken Xaryn.
   2. Hm, the cult got their asses kicked during a witch hunt a couple months ago, so I guess they will be keeping things quiet
   3. Hm, Micaela earned a Medal of the Flame, so she'll probably be busy preparing a speech and commissioning a proper dress for the ceremony
5. OK, looks like everyone but the dragon is out of the picture for now, let's focus on it
   1. Hm, it is described as "territorial", so I guess it will be pissed by mortals invading its domain
   2. It also likes to take human form to toy with its prey, so I guess it will shapeshift?
   3. Ooh, Viktor Esser, the supervisor of the mining operation, is a devout follower of the Dragon God, so it makes sense he'll attend a mass
6. Looks like PCs will encounter an angry dragon in a human form who is after Viktor. Cool!

With "looks like PCs will witness a giant firestorm in the mining camp ten kilometres away" or "the church will be attacked by a dragon five days later" or "huh, looks like everyone is busy and ain't nothing will happen" being other possible outcomes.

Compare and contrast to:

1. PCs are going to the church of the Dragon God
2. Ooh I love dragons!
3. Hm, I mentioned a legend about one offhand, about time to introduce the beast properly
4. OK, let's figure out why it will show up...

There seems to be an inherent conflict between the two.

 

[clearstream]

Before we can proceed, I think something needs to be cleared up.


I feel like I don't even remotely understand your point of view.

The way I see it, world simulation would be:

1. PCs are going to the church of the Dragon God
2. Hm, what's going on there?
3. OK, there are several major actors in the area to be considered:
   1. Red dragon Xaryn slumbering in the caverns below the Mountain
   2. Cult of the Black Heart, secretly operating in the whole region
   3. Grand Inquisitor Micaela who is investigating the cult
4. Let's see what they're up to!
   1. Hm, Northern Mining Company is setting up an excavation there, it is likely the process will awaken Xaryn.
   2. Hm, the cult got their asses kicked during a witch hunt a couple months ago, so I guess they will be keeping things quiet
   3. Hm, Micaela earned a Medal of the Flame, so she'll probably be busy preparing a speech and commissioning a proper dress for the ceremony
5. OK, looks like everyone but the dragon is out of the picture for now, let's focus on it
   1. Hm, it is described as "territorial", so I guess it will be pissed by mortals invading its domain
   2. It also likes to take human form to toy with its prey, so I guess it will shapeshift?
   3. Ooh, Viktor Esser, the supervisor of the mining operation, is a devout follower of the Dragon God, so it makes sense he'll attend a mass
6. Looks like PCs will encounter an angry dragon in a human form who is after Viktor. Cool!

With "looks like PCs will witness a giant firestorm in the mining camp ten kilometres away" or "the church will be attacked by a dragon five days later" or "huh, looks like everyone is busy and ain't nothing will happen" being other possible outcomes.

Compare and contrast to:

1. PCs are going to the church of the Dragon God
2. Ooh I love dragons!
3. Hm, I mentioned a legend about one offhand, about time to introduce the beast properly
4. OK, let's figure out why it will show up...

There seems to be an inherent conflict between the two.

The concern you have seems to be not about the scene, but the forcing of the scene. Is the scene possible in world simulation? Yes? Does the scene get forced? No. I'm not following why that is an obstacle beyond that the scene emerges differently.

Perhaps you are focused on the possibility that the scene does not emerge at all? It is true that it might not. What I had in mind in my earlier response was whether the scene could emerge in immersionist play? I believe that it can. It's typically not at issue in immersionist play if a given scene emerges.

 

[clearstream]

This completely misses @loverdrive's point:

A group of people buy a RPG (say, 5e D&D) and want to play the game. The obvious thing to do is to have some PCs fight some goblins terrorising a village.

This has at this point diverged from immersionism. There should be no "have some PCs fight some goblins".

 

[clearstream]

I've posted more than once about a convention game I played, where we were in a space station with oxygen problems. We had two chemical engineers in our group, and they did rough calculations as to how long we had before all our oxygen was gone. We then planned our strategy based on that - it was in the hours, from memory. And then the GM just stipulated that we ran out of oxygen within minutes.

Utterly arbitrary nonsense. Trying to obfuscate the railroad by saying that the GM was actually manifesting their expertise in respect of their imaginary world is bizarre.

There seems to be additional thought needed to separate imaginary facts that the group decides should match their real counterparts, from imaginary facts that have no real counterparts. That chimes with what I have said about preexisting norms versus those that supersede or extend them.

So in the case of oxygen consumption. As described, the group have a preexisting norm - oxygen consumption in the real world - that seems to them like the right norm to apply. It's jarring therefore if the GM supersedes that norm. A less jarring case would be where the GM said that 11 and not 12 turpled dragons are found nesting on turple trees, because there are no preexisting norms for turpled dragons and turple trees.

In the oxygen example, it seems that the group did not confer expertise on the GM in regards to imaginary facts with real-world counterparts. Their expected norm was that such facts would mirror their counter-parts. In the case of turple dragons and turple trees, the GM is an expert just so long as it is conferred upon them; i.e. that they should be the one to select which imaginary domain is chosen. In this light, I can sketch out a case where the group established earlier that oxygen consumption in their fiction does not match that in the real-world. In this new case, the putative expertise of the chemical engineers does not apply. Only the participant conferred with selecting oxygen consumption facts can function as an expert.

 

[clearstream]

And "conferred" here is, functionally at least, a synonym for "asserted" or "invented".

And that all dovetails quite well with my suggestion that the notion that the GM is an "expert" about their imaginary domain is simply a fancy way of redescribing the plain fact that they are the only ones allowed to authoritatively imagine it.

This is exactly why Vincent Baker said that "Task resolution will undermine your collaboration."

I don't think it needs to be GM specifically. I am speaking more about what would make one an expertise in an imaginary domain. I'm thinking in particular of this definition of expert -

S is an expert in domain D if and only if S has the capacity to help others (especially laypersons) solve a variety of problems in D or execute an assortment of tasks in D which the latter would not be able to solve or execute on their own. S can provide such help by imparting to the layperson (or other client) his/her distinctive knowledge or skills.

It seems to me that so long as a participant is the one selecting the imaginary domain, they are uniquely capable of meeting that standard. While it's true that so far as imaginary domains go, anyone can solve or execute whatever tasks they imagine, to make that work for a group typically requires a consenus on which imaginary domain is selected. Which can be done in different ways. One way is to assign that duty to GM.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I'm not sure why you're stating my point back to me as if it's a point of disagreement with me.

Apparently there's been a misunderstanding, because when you contrasted Braunsteins/FK with GMing an RPG ("The latter does not involve judging in the way the former does") I thought you were saying the opposite.

If you don't in fact think that there's no overlap then we don't disagree.