Why do RPGs have rules?

[Thomas Shey]

Not too dissimilar to the rather large subset of ostensible DND fans who have never actually played the game, and only interact with it via memes and online discussion boards.

Its beyond that; as I noted, there was a period when you'd see people championing AD&D1e who were only using that game in the loosest sense; they were using houserules galore and disregarding have the rules already present, so in practice they were championing their homebrew, not AD&D. Similarly, you sometimes saw Vampire fans who were, in effect, pushing for freeform RPGing using the V:TM setting, but only using the character building rules to any real degree (in some cases they were using dice pools the way some D&D GMs used D20, i.e. "Just roll the pool of dice and we'll see what it looks like).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Not sure how this is a response to the point I was trying to make about how self seriousness gets treated in our hobby.

Because the fact they got abused for taking their roleplaying seriously did not justify the contempt they had for people who were taking an older approach than they were. It explains it in some cases, but that's not the same thing.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Well, people who are only interested in the kind of playstyles they want are always going to see it that way; that's true all over the spectrum of desires in RPG systems. Fundamentally they don't care about other people's needs here; if it doesn't fit theirs, its a failure of design.

(You can run into some complex cases where they accept that other needs exist but consider them uncommon enough its still a failure of design. Its similar to the people who think there's no point in games other than D&D, just a little more cosmopolitan).

But this is objectively wrong. Not all games are designed for one person. There are plenty of games I know aren’t for me. I don’t describe them as poorly designed for that reason.

Yeah, but I've seen others who really don't seem to understand the objections at all. I suspect, in practice, they're just the inverse of people who don't understand why someone would want the PbtA style experience; inability to engage with the fact there are genuinely different desires here.

When taken along with the above, it seems like you want to cut some slack for folks who think a game is poorly designed of it’s not for them, but you don’t want to cut some slack for folks who don’t always understand someone else’s preference?

I’m all for cutting some slack and trying to not assume the worst, but this seems odd.

I do feel sometimes that I'm talking to missionaries looking to convert. Proselytizing is what it can feel like.

I’m not sure why you keep asking about such games, or discussing them. Why not talk about the games you do enjoy?

Because I think anyone who’s talking about a game that they enjoy is typically going to be excited and positive about it. I don’t think that’s proselytizing so much as just being enthusiastic.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

So, one of the ways I have always approached this is a principle of 'no give backs'. You won through, X is safe, Y is defeated, etc. I won't take back what you won, I won't simply threaten it again, the BBEG is not going to suddenly return to life. You could create new stakes using those possibilities, but that's up to you and I will tell you if I think you're asking for that.

There may be a bit of an exception, maybe you saved the town. There might be a front somewhere that presents a completely separate threat to the same thing, BUT you already know it is out there, it's not going to suddenly appear next week after the town was made safe.

The other possible caveat being where something forms the concept of the game. Like there are endless possible threats to Stonetop. Your role in the game is to protect it. Success there means continued survival and prosperity. Still once a threat is beaten, it's not coming back!

 

[Micah Sweet]

But this is objectively wrong. Not all games are designed for one person. There are plenty of games I know aren’t for me. I don’t describe them as poorly designed for that reason.



When taken along with the above, it seems like you want to cut some slack for folks who think a game is poorly designed of it’s not for them, but you don’t want to cut some slack for folks who don’t always understand someone else’s preference?

I’m all for cutting some slack and trying to not assume the worst, but this seems odd.



I’m not sure why you keep asking about such games, or discussing them. Why not talk about the games you do enjoy?

Because I think anyone who’s talking about a game that they enjoy is typically going to be excited and positive about it. I don’t think that’s proselytizing so much as just being enthusiastic.

This all started in the "Fighting Law and Order" thread because people seemed to pushing narrative/storygame solutions to a trad problem, in a D&D thread. And continued to extoll the virtues of said games in that thread long after it was clear the OP was uninterested in those solutions (or indeed any solutions as far as I could tell). Had the discussion explicitly been about those kinds of games I likely wouldn't have engaged. Now I've got my back up and am unfortunately finding it difficult not to chime in when the subject comes up, which it seems to be doing a lot lately.

Regarding your second point, enthusiasm is one thing. Talking about how gaming is so much better now that you've left behind stuff a lot of people really like is quite another, especially if, as some have done, you proceed with your enthusiastic claims using non-subjective vocabulary.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So, one of the ways I have always approached this is a principle of 'no give backs'. You won through, X is safe, Y is defeated, etc. I won't take back what you won, I won't simply threaten it again, the BBEG is not going to suddenly return to life. You could create new stakes using those possibilities, but that's up to you and I will tell you if I think you're asking for that.

There may be a bit of an exception, maybe you saved the town. There might be a front somewhere that presents a completely separate threat to the same thing, BUT you already know it is out there, it's not going to suddenly appear next week after the town was made safe.

The other possible caveat being where something forms the concept of the game. Like there are endless possible threats to Stonetop. Your role in the game is to protect it. Success there means continued survival and prosperity. Still once a threat is beaten, it's not coming back!

Wouldn't success in that context mean get ready for the next threat, ad infinitum? If so, then yes, you definitely need to know in session 0 that that's what you've signed up for.

 

[Campbell]

Because the fact they got abused for taking their roleplaying seriously did not justify the contempt they had for people who were taking an older approach than they were. It explains it in some cases, but that's not the same thing.

I am not really speaking to the cohort who put themselves on pedestal. Doing so regardless of your agenda makes you an ass. I am speaking to the cohort of players who does not do that but seeks emotional intensity and takes their play self seriously. Yet still gets accused of elitism on a consistent basis just because of what they desire/aim for.

 

[Emberashh]

Because I think anyone who’s talking about a game that they enjoy is typically going to be excited and positive about it. I don’t think that’s proselytizing so much as just being enthusiastic.

While I don't know the context of what Micah was experiencing, I will note that suggestions to play another game have a place and time, and expressing some dissatisifaction with what 5e or some other game does with some part of itself is not really that place or time.

Recommending Pathfinder as an alternative is most appropriate when someones trying to homebrew 5e to death because it doesn't do anything they want it to do.

It is at is most inappropriate when someone just wishes 5e didn't have crummy class balance.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This all started in the "Fighting Law and Order" thread because people seemed to pushing narrative/storygame solutions to a trad problem, in a D&D thread. And continued to extoll the virtues of said games in that thread long after it was clear the OP was uninterested in those solutions (or indeed any solutions as far as I could tell). Had the discussion explicitly been about those kinds of games I likely wouldn't have engaged. Now I've got my back up and am unfortunately finding it difficult not to chime in when the subject comes up, which it seems to be doing a lot lately.

Sure, the conversation quickly moved beyond the OP when it became obvious he didn’t really care what anyone was suggesting. And as the conversation moved on, plenty of folks asked about how more narrative minded games work. Or expressed bewilderment about how they could.

So attempts were made to explain.

Regarding your second point, enthusiasm is one thing. Talking about how gaming is so much better now that you've left behind stuff a lot of people really like is quite another, especially if, as some have done, you proceed with your enthusiastic claims using non-subjective vocabulary.

But if my experience is that my GMing and my games have gotten better the more games learn, why shouldn’t I say that? Why must more care be taken to defend the sensibilities of others who like the by far dominant form of gaming? Which I also still play and enjoy, by the way.

I’m not a fan of GURPS. Like at all…. I’ve had minimal experiences with it, but they were sufficient for me to know it’s not for me. When other posters bring up GURPS either as a game they enjoy, or as a recommendation for a new game or a game from which you can incorporate elements, I don’t question them about it. I don’t constantly point out how I don’t get GURPS. Nor do I take offense if they describe GURPS in a flattering way.

You can of course engage in conversations however you want. But it seems to me you’re often doing the equivalent of throwing logs on the fire in these discussions.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure, the conversation quickly moved beyond the OP when it became obvious he didn’t really care what anyone was suggesting. And as the conversation moved on, plenty of folks asked about how more narrative minded games work. Or expressed bewilderment about how they could.

So attempts were made to explain.



But if my experience is that my GMing and my games have gotten better the more games learn, why shouldn’t I say that? Why must more care be taken to defend the sensibilities of others who like the by far dominant form of gaming? Which I also still play and enjoy, by the way.

I’m not a fan of GURPS. Like at all…. I’ve had minimal experiences with it, but they were sufficient for me to know it’s not for me. When other posters bring up GURPS either as a game they enjoy, or as a recommendation for a new game or a game from which you can incorporate elements, I don’t question them about it. I don’t constantly point out how I don’t get GURPS. Nor do I take offense if they describe GURPS in a flattering way.

You can of course engage in conversations however you want. But it seems to me you’re often doing the equivalent of throwing logs on the fire in these discussions.

I don't believe that the dominance or lack thereof of any playstyle has anything to do with making clear that your opinions, positive or negative, are just that. Being the "underdog" doesn't grant you special rhetorical privileges.