Why do RPGs have rules?

[AbdulAlhazred]

You do understand the difference between "Not unlikely" and "Not the expected result" right? If you think something has a 30% chance of occurring, is it the one you're going to predict?


Less-than-expected results happen fairly often. They're rarely predicted because they're not expected. There's even a term for it in medicine; you look for horses, not zebras.



This is rapidly coming across as you thoroughly missing my point.



And to be equally blunt, I think your premise is faulty from the start. So I guess we're done here.

Here's the thing, if ANY REASONABLE EFFORT would produce good probabilistic ideas of the outcomes of courses of action in the real world that are non-trivially complex, then why isn't the CIA feeding the US government with incredibly accurate advice? We know from historical record that, in fact, the advice given to national leaders by extremely well-funded, highly expert, and vastly experienced intelligence organizations is famously filled with garbage. Clearly no scientific discipline has been invented which is of much use in this endeavor! Heck, as a guy with a math degree and an avowed interest in this subject I am certainly no world-class expert, but if major advances, to the level of being at all useful, had been made,I'd probably have heard about it. We would certainly see the results!

I mean, your point about "things happen and many of them are not the most probable" IS actually a really good point. I think the problem is, there are such a vast array of possible outcomes of complex situations that most of the probability space is filled with very low likelihood ones. So even if a model can pick out a few of the most likely, they only represent a few % of the total probability.

 

[clearstream]

Side note:

My own view is that games, as opposed to recreational activities, have goals with quantifiable outcomes towards which players strive, and if there's no such goal, it's not a game. The Rules of Play (Zimmerman et al.) introduced me to the idea that RPGs may not be games at all, and once seen it's hard to un-see.

Part of my interest in one-shots and/or discrete adventures within a campaign is driven by an interest in embedding games within RPGs by defining goals and quantifiable outcomes for the players to opt into.

Therefore I read a sentence like "in modes under discussion here there is no referee, but only players with asymmetrical roles" and think "in many cases the GM and everyone else are not game players at all, only participants in a non-game shared recreational activity." This is 10x as true when the GM takes responsibility for preventing TPKs, as is common in 2023. It's more like comedy improv than wargaming.

I feel you are technically correct that Salen and Zimmerman say RPGs may not be games. Here's their definition "A game is a system in which players engage in an artificial conflict, defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome." Emphasis mine.

To my reading, in Rules of Play - rather than say RPG is not a game - they investigate RPG as a test of the limits of their definition. That is, their intent isn't to exclude RPG from being counted among games, but to show the difficulties of reaching a definition that covers everything.

 

[chaochou]

I would suggest that a thread titled Why Do RPGs Have Rules? probably has a lot to learn from the debate over rules-heavy vs. freeform wargaming.

I would suggest it has very little, owing to a number of clear and obvious differences between a truly neutral Kriegspiel umpire (Free or not) and an RPG referee / GM / MC:

• the neutral umpire isn't playing one of the sides
• the neutral umpire isn't there to generate story, tension, drama or pacing
• the neutral umpire isn't invested (socially, emotionally, financially) in the set-up or concept of the game
• the range of adjudications required of the umpire is contained to known military practicalities - deployment times, movement rates, written order interpretation, combat effectiveness - done so through the lens of lived experience
• the purpose of the games is to to test reasoning and decision-making, not to pretend the game outcomes are simulative

The supposed 'Free Kriegspiel' rpg movement has adopted the name, but not the principles or practices of the thing they're claiming to be. It's 'GM says' with a rebrand.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I feel you are technically correct that Salen and Zimmerman say RPGs may not be games. Here's their definition "A game is a system in which players engage in an artificial conflict, defined by rules, that results in a quantifiable outcome." Emphasis mine.

To my reading, in Rules of Play - rather than say RPG is not a game - they investigate RPG as a test of the limits of their definition. That is, their intent isn't to exclude RPG from being counted among games, but to show the difficulties of reaching a definition that covers everything.

They're more explicit than that.

"Role-playing games (or RPGs) certainly have the trappings of games. A paper-based, tabletop RPG usually involves dice, rulebooks, statistics, and a fair amount of strategic play. Role-playing games clearly embody every component of our definition of game, except one: a quantifiable outcome. As an RPG player, you move through game-stories, following the rules, overcoming obstacles, accomplishing tasks, and generally increasing the abilities of your character. What is usually lacking, however, is a single endpoint to the game. Role-playing games are structured like serial narratives that grow and evolve from session to session. Sometimes they end; sometimes they do not. Even if a character dies, a player can rejoin as a different character. In other words, there is no single goal toward which all players strive during a role-playing game. If a game does end, it does not do so quantifiably, with players winning or losing or receiving a score.

"... From this description, it would appear that multiplayer role-playing games are not, in fact, games. But this seems like a ridiculous conclusion, because RPGs are so closely bound up in the development of games and gaming culture. Our position is this: RPGs can be framed either way—as having or not having a quantifiable outcome. If you look at the game as whole, there may not be a single, overriding quantifiable goal. But if you consider the session-to-session missions that players complete, the personal goals players set for themselves, the levels of power that players attain, then yes, RPGs do have quantifiable outcomes. In this sense, an RPG is a larger system that facilitates game play within it, giving rise to a series of outcomes that build on each other over time."

Hence my interest in creating games within RPGs.

 

[clearstream]

EDIT nvm - I misread a post

 

[clearstream]

They're more explicit than that.

"Role-playing games (or RPGs) certainly have the trappings of games. A paper-based, tabletop RPG usually involves dice, rulebooks, statistics, and a fair amount of strategic play. Role-playing games clearly embody every component of our definition of game, except one: a quantifiable outcome. As an RPG player, you move through game-stories, following the rules, overcoming obstacles, accomplishing tasks, and generally increasing the abilities of your character. What is usually lacking, however, is a single endpoint to the game. Role-playing games are structured like serial narratives that grow and evolve from session to session. Sometimes they end; sometimes they do not. Even if a character dies, a player can rejoin as a different character. In other words, there is no single goal toward which all players strive during a role-playing game. If a game does end, it does not do so quantifiably, with players winning or losing or receiving a score.

"... From this description, it would appear that multiplayer role-playing games are not, in fact, games. But this seems like a ridiculous conclusion, because RPGs are so closely bound up in the development of games and gaming culture. Our position is this: RPGs can be framed either way—as having or not having a quantifiable outcome. If you look at the game as whole, there may not be a single, overriding quantifiable goal. But if you consider the session-to-session missions that players complete, the personal goals players set for themselves, the levels of power that players attain, then yes, RPGs do have quantifiable outcomes. In this sense, an RPG is a larger system that facilitates game play within it, giving rise to a series of outcomes that build on each other over time."

Hence my interest in creating games within RPGs.

Perhaps I put more weight on the bolded lines than you do? Or do you mean more that you like the possible framing of RPGs containing games within them?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Perhaps I put more weight on the bolded lines than you do? Or do you mean more that you like the possible framing of RPGs containing games within them?

I'm not sure what you mean by "like", but my takeaway is that RPGs are not gamelike by default, and it's worth investing mental energy into the design of gamelike scenarios that you can embed inside of play for your players. This explains for example why many players like being given "quests", or missions on a bounty board: successful completion becomes something they can choose to measure themselves against. Ditto treasure and XP. You can't necessarily predict which game structures players will want to engage with (and they might make up their own, like tacitly competing with other players for highest damage output or most treasure clandestinely found) but it's worth some explicit design attention from the GM/world designer because it's not there automatically. This includes designing OOC activities like when and how often to award XP, and when and whether to have post-adventure Q&A.

It also puts some really unsatisfying past experiences into perspective, like when a certain DM was focused primarily on lore and world building and NPC personalities and not on giving us gamelike challenges to engage with.

 

[clearstream]

Is it legitimate for immersionist play to begin in medias res, with a goblin attack? Play has to start somewhere.

My immediate objection was to "have". It's not ideal to have the players do anything. I would also avoid techniques from linear media designed to start things at a dramatic moment (and potentially requiring backfilling from there.)

In some respects this is a gamist concern: do we commence Chess in media res of the King about to fall? While that might be dramatic, it would defeat the enjoyment of Chess. It seems focused on the narrative at the expense of the game. Games as games often start at moments of tranquility, where forces and tensions are balanced. Players then decide the direction of play. That moment might be against a backdrop of turmoil, but as regards the players options they are open. Again, the problem is largely with "have".

The approach is more natural and there is not set-piece of goblins raiding a village where we must - for dramatic effect - start the play. I would rather have mapped out tensions which the players could get caught up in depending on their choices. That all said, this is not to say that an immersionist campaign couldn't start situated in the turmoil of a raid, only that the framing in this case is suggestive of having the wrong thing in mind. I must admit that I particularly dislike the choice of goblins here.

It might be better for example to focus on the characters as refugees, or as folk who hear rumours of conflict coming worryingly nearer. The feeling that we're committed to getting combat underway is not ideal. Why not start after the raid is over, in the early morning when a light rain fails to quite dissipate the rank odour of smoke in the air.

At the risk of repetition, it's not ideal to use dramatic forcing techniques such as in media res, even though such techniques might have a worthwhile purpose (and implications) in the linear media they come from and other modes of RPG. Answering this question makes me see that my immersionism is connected with a desire to see game play out as game. Conflict ought to be emergent, not imposed for the sake of a dramatic narrative.

 

[clearstream]

I'm not sure what you mean by "like",

I mean just in the sense of find agreeable or enjoy.

but my takeaway is that RPGs are not gamelike by default, and it's worth investing mental energy into the design of gamelike scenarios that you can embed inside of play for your players. This explains for example why many players like being given "quests", or missions on a bounty board: successful completion becomes something they can choose to measure themselves against. Ditto treasure and XP. You can't necessarily predict which game structures players will want to engage with (and they might make up their own, like tacitly competing with other players for highest damage output or most treasure clandestinely found) but it's worth some explicit design attention from the GM/world designer because it's not there automatically. This includes designing OOC activities like when and how often to award XP, and when and whether to have post-adventure Q&A.

Okay, that is helpful to know. My position is that to play a game requires forming some goals. However, I don't require those goals to be finite, singular, or numerically represented (10 XP, 5 rats killed, etc). My test for quantifiable is essentially - noticeable - can we sense when we are moving toward rather than away from our goals? Do we know if we have achieved them?

It also puts some really unsatisfying past experiences into perspective, like when a certain DM was focused primarily on lore and world building and NPC personalities and not on giving us gamelike challenges to engage with.

This chimes with my own feelings, but I see no dichotomy between gamelike challenges and world building and NPC personalities. In fact, I would say those things are very helpful to game as game (consider here the Czege Principle.) Rather, the immersionist play of the kind I enoy sees no specific use for techniques from linear narrative. The goal is not to stage a play, but play a game.

It's not a mode that is in opposition to narrativist play, but can be defined by its differences. Narrativist play is to a certain extent post-modern (as I said above, the conversation is the content, no-myth, etc). Immersionism requires the objective or external referent. It can't be unanchored.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

This chimes with my own feelings, but I see no dichotomy between gamelike challenges and world building and NPC personalities. In fact, I would say those things are very helpful to game as game (consider here the Czege Principle.) Rather, the immersionist play of the kind I enoy sees no specific use for techniques from linear narrative. The goal is not to stage a play, but play a game.

It's not a mode that is in opposition to narrativist play, but can be defined by its differences. Narrativist play is to a certain extent post-modern (as I said above, the conversation is the content, no-myth, etc). Immersionism requires the objective or external referent. It can't be unanchored.

I didn't say it was a dichotomy, but the complete absence of quantifiable goals (challenges) is something I can identify in retrospect as something that was unpleasant. At the time I just knew that the DM kept describing NPCs and places to us, and we would do something logical and boring like buy spell component supplies or try to keep out of trouble, but trouble didn't find us and then we ran out of time and it was an extremely boring four or five hours despite the fact that we had met and talked to a powerful lich and been transported to a new world.

Hamburgers and buns aren't a dichotomy either, but if one of them is clearly absent, it's not a good experience.

It's interesting BTW that we feel so differently about starting in medias res. Also unlike you I don't associate it with linear media. Gameplay has to start somewhere, and experiences like the one I described above make me wary of starting without immediate interesting decisions to make. (Unlike a linear story there's no social pressure to make the decisions in a certain way--either killing the hypothetical goblins, or surrendering to them and telling them fables about a great hidden treasure you can show them, or challenging the biggest goblin to single combat in a bid to take control of the goblin band, are all valid things to attempt. A linear story in the other hand would have exactly one of those options in mind.)