Why do RPGs have rules?

[Micah Sweet]

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

View attachment 285677

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.

I have no problem with things not being made for me, I just don't care for the air of superiority I'm hearing.

Also I don't understand the your last comment, so I guess I am missing whatever "basic point" you're trying to make.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I'll be honest.

I'm not sure.

I understand the point you're making, but how does "I originally thought character X was doing something for Y reason, but during emergent events over the course of a campaign concluded that was probably wrong and instead it was for Z reason" count? I've absolutely had that happen, and I think if I made decisions based on Y early on, in practice it would end up being wrong.

If that sort of emergent and quasi-organic process doesn't happen with someone as a GM--once they've decided people are doing things for a given reason they stick with it--it might seem kind of strange, but its the sort of thing I have happen with PCs and NPCs alike, so...

Fair enough. "I'm not sure" is always a valid and thoughtful answer.

 

[clearstream]

makes me think that there are two ways the GM can orchestrate conflict:

(1) In advance of play, by authoring the puzzle/gauntlet/challenge.​

​

(2) During play, by a process of framing and consequence-narration.​

In case (1), the overarching rule that governs the GM during play must be follow through on what you've authored.

I liked your post here, and it put me in mind of a possible (3) that could be intrinsic to (1) or implied by (2), or perhaps not. Let's see.

(3) During play, through thoughtfully repositioning elements of game state.

Repositioning here would include revising relationships (I can get into why if that's important) which in turn would include as between PCs and NPCs, etc. I put "thoughtfully" because this isn't just an idle repositioning, it's intentional, strategic, principles and rules compliant, and ultimately tactical. Perhaps one would want to instead or also say playfully repositioning?

(3) possibly forms a bridge between (1) and (2), and yet seems like a distinct activity to me. Setting things up is one kind of activity. Framing and consequence-narration is another. I'm not attempting to erode those. Thoughtfully repositioning components of game state seems like a third, especially where it's indirect or to do with background dynamics.

(3) seems very game-like. An obvious analogy is moving chess pieces, but I am thinking more about repositioning the Crimson Bat along the Lunar frontier, or answering questions like "Who was an enemy, but now is afraid; who was an enemy, but now sees better opportunities as an ally?"

Anyway, my €2 worth.

 

[Autumnal]

(3) seems very game-like. An obvious analogy is moving chess pieces, but I am thinking more about repositioning the Crimson Bat along the Lunar frontier, or answering questions like "Who was an enemy, but now is afraid; who was an enemy, but now sees better opportunities as an ally?"

First thought: if you know where the Crimson Bat is, you know where to find people who are afraid and considering opportunities like “Don’t get fed to the Crimson Bat!” with other polities.

 

[Aldarc]

I have no problem with things not being made for me, I just don't care for the air of superiority I'm hearing.

Ever since I got into narrative/story games with Fate, I've had a fair share of people on this forum tell me that they aren't true roleplaying games; that they are non-functional as roleplaying games; or that they are BadWrongFun.

You don't care to hear these games spoken with an air of superiority? Fine.

I'm tired of hearing that story games can't work. I'm tired of seeing story games repeatedly misrepresented year after year by the same people who can't be bothered to read the rules or have had the rules explained to them. I'm tired of hearing that these games aren't equally valid ways of roleplaying or are BadWrongFun. I'm tired of people chiming in to discussions just to complain about and hate on story games. I'm tired of some people here distilling my identity down to being a story gamer or belonging to some imaginary camp of story gamers despite story games only being a fraction of the games that I enjoy playing. I'm tired of feeling like I have to walk on eggshells when talking about story games because people perceive any talk of story games as imagined threats or slights against D&D and associated playstyles. I'm tired of people expecting that for everything I say that story games do well or what their strengths are, that I'm obligated to name a flaw, a weakness, or say something positive about D&D or other traditional games to somehow balance things out. Finally, I'm tired of feeling like people can't say anything positive about story games without being accused of having an air of superiority. It's all quite exhausting.

Also I don't understand the your last comment, so I guess I am missing whatever "basic point" you're trying to make.

To rephrase: The play agenda of desiring simulation out of your roleplaying games is more important than whether perfect simulation is possible.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I'd say hardship being a reward is a necessary component of any PvE game (which RPGs tend to be).

Consider this hypothetical example: PCs have ventured into a tomb of a long dead god, survived all the obstacles on the way and stole its power, becoming god-like beings as a result.

What now, assuming that it wasn't the premise of the whole campaign, and the game is expected to carry on?

But in practice, a single adventure doesn't confer godlike power, so it's absolutely legitimate to say to the players, hooray, you won! Not only did you repair the hyperdrive and get Princess Amidala safely to Coruscant, but you picked up the bonus mission and actually liberated Naboo months before Republic forces would have even gotten there! It's true you had to depose Chancellor Velorum in the process but at least Chancellor Palpatine is from Naboo too, so he'll probably be on your side in the future. Have 30,000 XP each!

In other words, pacing matters. Presumably more hardships will arrive in their own time, eventually, but they shouldn't feel like something inevitably caused by your successes. It shouldn't be a treadmill. (I don't know Dungeon World well enough to say whether this is how Dungeon World feels, but since you and Thomas both seem to agree that it does and are arguing whether that's a good thing, I'll take it as a given.) It's certainly okay for your failures and unintended consequences to cause hardship (Palpatine), and some kinds of success (getting rich) may legitimately lead to trouble (getting targeted by con men). But it's important that victory should be possible.

Hardship is an opportunity and comes at the beginning of a scenario. Victory is a reward and comes at the end of a scenario, along with closure. Sometimes you don't even know if you're going to play another scenario in this same world--it's okay to end on a high note with no known unsolved problems.

TL;DR: "you win, have XP and come back next week" can feel very different from "you win, and then the empire strikes back." It's legitimate to not enjoy the latter.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I'm tired of hearing that story games can't work. I'm tired of seeing story games repeatedly misrepresented year after year by the same people who can't be bothered to read the rules or have had the rules explained to them. I'm tired of hearing that these games aren't equally valid ways of roleplaying or are BadWrongFun.

Point of order:

Saying that a storygame like Microscope or Union or Fortunately/Unfortunately is not a role-playing game != saying that Microscope is not a fun game.

Maybe you're talking about some other storygame like Mind of Margaret which arguably is roleplaying. It's not clear what you have in mind; but it is not insulting per se to say that a given storygame does not involve any role-playing.

 

[Aldarc]

Point of order:

Saying that a storygame like Microscope or Union is not a role-playing game != saying that Microscope is not a fun game.

Maybe you're talking about some other storygame like Mind of Margaret which arguably is roleplaying. It's not clear what you have in mind; but it is not insulting per se to say that a given storygame does not involve any role-playing.

Point of order: I'm keenly more aware of my experiences here and what was said to me in past discussions than you. You are welcome to play apologia for posters here who have contributed to my bad experiences here by telling me that games I liked weren't roleplaying games and/or badwrongfun, so long as you are willing to be among them.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Point of order: I'm keenly more aware of my experiences here and what was said to me in past discussions than you. You are welcome to play apologia for posters here who have contributed to my bad experiences here by telling me that games I liked weren't roleplaying games and/or badwrongfun, so long as you are willing to be among them.

Yes, you are more aware of your experiences. Maybe what I said has no bearing on your intended meaning. However, I cannot read minds, and I thought the point was important enough to emphasize just in case.

If you really do feel that Microscope and Fortunately/Unfortunately are RPGs, then by all means say so.

 

[Autumnal]

@Aldarc , so with you on that, when it comes to tastes any out of a mainstream at place/group/scene X. It is wearing and discouraging and flat out sucks. There is usually a way to discuss stuff without soul-grinding along with it, and more people need to learn it.