Why do RPGs have rules?

[AbdulAlhazred]

I generally think the player's role should be to mitigate failure, and try to succeed at all times. At a certain point, of the game is determined not to let me do that, or to ensure that any effort to do so is inherently futile (not futile because of an outside, evolving circumstance), then engaging with the mechanics at all starts to feel like a violation of the Czege principle. I cannot press a case, because any action I take is more likely than not to make the situation worse.

Fundamentally, my action declarations become my own primary source of opposition. So why am I doing things? Laying down and dying is more efficient. Trying to succeed and getting ahead of the obstacles is the primary appeal of PvE games. Consider Slay the Spire.

I would call it pretty much axiomatic that the play of a game like, say, Dungeon World should NOT do that! If it actually does do that, then your characters are absolutely doomed, right? There should be play, maybe requiring some skill/creativity, that doesn't result in such a 'pit of despair'. Simply by virtue of our understanding of probability we can thus see that AT WORST the 7-9 results should be producing a net "character advances towards his goal without incurring an overall disadvantage which cancels that progress out."

How you perceive things is what it is of course, but I tell myself "I'm rolling 7+es and so I'm getting on with it." Do make sure you GM understands this! Its also worth everyone considering that there's a lot "It was hopeless but the hero pulled the fat out of the fire at the last instant" in fantasy particularly. I always go into games with an attitude of "crazy stuff is going down!" and it ups the fun.

 

[Campbell]

And the fact that's not true with all players is, I think, one of the issues fans of PbtA games sometimes have trouble engaging with.

Not at all. Only the conception that some people have that the core play model being different than what they are used to / might prefer is some sort of fundamental flaw that fans/designers need to account for instead of the result of design choices meant to shape a particular sort of play structure regardless of how some people may feel about it.

Not everything needs to be made for you. Apocalypse World may not be for you. HERO System isn't for me. Not going to cry into my cheerios about it.

 

[Deset Gled]

So why am I doing things?

I know this is just repeating myself from the first page of the thread, but I feel it is worth repeating. You are doing things for fun. You play TTRPGs because they're fun. The #1 reason people play games like D&D (and other RPGs or tabletop games), learn the rules of games, spend money on games, is because they want to have fun.

If a theory or framework of game design doesn't have the design space or terminology to address the concept of fun, I propose that the theory is prima facie falsified.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not at all. Only the conception that some people have that the core play model being different than what they are used to / might prefer is some sort of fundamental flaw that fans/designers need to account for instead of the result of design choices meant to shape a particular sort of play structure regardless of how some people may feel about it.

Not everything needs to be made for you. Apocalypse World may not be for you. HERO System isn't for me. Not going to cry into my cheerios about it.

Fair enough, but it does read to me sometimes that narrative/storygame fans seem to push the idea that, "i used to be like you, but then I discovered better gaming, and you can too" a little too hard for my tastes.

 

[Maxperson]

Then you’re for absolute GM authority.

It exists in D&D whether I'm for it or not.

 

[Aldarc]

Fair enough, but it does read to me sometimes that narrative/storygame fans seem to push the idea that, "i used to be like you, but then I discovered better gaming, and you can too" a little too hard for my tastes.

Have you visited the FKR thread recently?

If I thought that story games were inherently better, then I would have no reason to play non-story games; however, I, in fact, do mostly play non-story games. One reason I enjoy story games is because they offer me a different gaming experience that I don't easily get from a pretty big chunk of D&D/OSR style games, which is the prevalent form of gaming. For me, game variety is the spice of roleplay gaming.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Have you visited the FKR thread recently?

If I thought that story games were inherently better, then I would have no reason to play non-story games; however, I, in fact, do mostly play non-story games. One reason I enjoy story games is because they offer me a different gaming experience that I don't easily get from a pretty big chunk of D&D/OSR style games, which is the prevalent form of gaming. For me, game variety is the spice of roleplay gaming.

Glad to hear it. I decided to stay away from the FKR thread actually, in the barest nod to my mental health.

 

[clearstream]

Well, from a PRACTICAL standpoint, simulations, that is models plus state, are generally incomplete.

Not generally incomplete. Always incomplete. To model something is to represent it incompletely.

While this is, again practically, a kind of 'feature' it is not a basis upon which they acquire utility. Were I to be able to perfectly simulate the World's weather 3 days in advance by pure brute force application of processing power to a complete model and state, nobody would argue that 'fundamentally' this is a bad simulation. Quite the contrary! Obviously they wouldn't like the electricity bill though....

It would be a worse simulation than one with the same predictive power that took half the time and energy. And one that did not finish processing until after the event being projected would be worthless (setting aside backcasting.)

If the models you have in mind couldn't be run at the game table, they are worthless in that context. Efficiency is at issue.

Thinness ABSOLUTELY IS an issue, it is THE issue, an utterly insurmountable issue. To not understand that is to fundamentally not understand how a model has to be constrained, how it has to have enough of the relevant data to even conjecture about what might take place next. Yes, there are very simple models out there, like the simple 1D atmosphere models, and they can provide a very general answer to very specific questions, but they don't PREDICT much of anything at all. Calling them 'simulations' is just reducing the word to nothing.

It's right to specify "relevant" as not all data has equal impact on a model's success. Failure to include the most relevant data and dynamics can scupper a model no matter the thickness of its other data and dynamics.

So if by thinness you mean the bolded part, then with regard to imagined worlds enough of the most relevant data is in place. That was the poster's point.

Perhaps generally you are supposing that models of imagined worlds should play by the same rules as military, economic or scientific models of the real world. It's better to see them as comparatively simple functions. Efficiency is crucial as you normally want quick answers without too much pondering.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Not generally incomplete. Always incomplete. To model something is to represent it incompletely.


It would be a worse simulation than one with the same predictive power that took half the time and energy. And one that did not finish processing until after the event being projected would be worthless (setting aside backcasting.)

If the models you have in mind couldn't be run at the game table, they are worthless in that context. Efficiency is at issue.


It's right to specify "relevant" as not all data has equal impact on a model's success. Failure to include the most relevant data and dynamics can scupper a model.

So if by thinness you mean the bolded part, then with regard to imagined worlds enough of the most relevant data is in place. That was the poster's point.

Perhaps generally you are supposing that models of imagined worlds should play by the same rules as military, economic or scientific models of the real world. It's better to see them as comparatively simple functions. Efficiency is crucial as you normally want quick answers without too much pondering.

Yup. @AbdulAlhazred is continuing to demand perfect simulation, or it doesn't count and the playstyle isn't a real thing.

 

[Aldarc]

Not everything needs to be made for you. Apocalypse World may not be for you. HERO System isn't for me. Not going to cry into my cheerios about it.

I'm reminded of the below comic that I post from time to time, though I wish the below comic included tabletop roleplaying games and not just media.

Spoiler

Yup. @AbdulAlhazred is continuing to demand perfect simulation, or it doesn't count and the playstyle isn't a real thing.

It seems like a basic point that gets lost in this particular discussion is that simulation represents the play agenda. That's good enough, IMHO.