Why do RPGs have rules?

[Pedantic]

I don't think it really matters whether it's over 9000 or just a couple of points beyond the guidelines. They are still unenforceable and, thus, completely meaningless.

The fundamental issue doesn't go anywhere: GM has to pull punches and can't create the most brutal adversity she can, so overcoming this adversity matters jack. It's completely arbitrary and isn't set in stone to verify and retry.

You're using a very specific, and I'd argue very videogamey model of "skill" here. I'm not sure that being able to confidently replicate the same inputs or to run the same gauntlet is the most effective means of evaluating a general ability, nor do I think "skill" in the sense you're using it here is particularly important to gameplay.

Shifting to board games for a second, I think a commitment to trying to win is far more important than actual success at doing so. I play some kind of no/low randomness economic euro with roughly the same people most weekends, and our victories are not evenly distributed, running closer to something like E:40%, N:20%, C:30%, and me at 10%. There's no real way to know how generally effective we are at those games (though I would lay heavy odds on any of us over a new or significantly less experienced player), and if we are improving at them, we're doing so in close enough parity that our general win rates stay about the same.

The enjoyment of the experience comes from the novel interaction of mechanics producing new and interesting board states we have to try and puzzle through.

 

[Imaro]

I don't think it really matters whether it's over 9000 or just a couple of points beyond the guidelines. They are still unenforceable and, thus, completely meaningless.

The fundamental issue doesn't go anywhere: GM has to pull punches and can't create the most brutal adversity she can, so overcoming this adversity matters jack. It's completely arbitrary and isn't set in stone to verify and retry.

I don't understand what "unenforceable" means... No book, no words, no principles can force anyone to do anything... Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean by enforceable.... could you explain this?

 

[loverdrive]

You're using a very specific, and I'd argue very videogamey model of "skill" here. I'm not sure that being able to confidently replicate the same inputs or to run the same gauntlet is the most effective means of evaluating a general ability

It was intended to be an OR operation (which, when negated, becomes AND): a test of skill to be legitimate should be either not arbitrary or be set in stone. A fight in a game like dnd is both completely arbitrary (there's no reason there's ten goblins, and not fifty, or five) and impossible to verify "for integrity" and repeat. So, winning this fight means absolutely nothing, it's not a player overcoming adversity, it's GM giving up and rolling over.

nor do I think "skill" in the sense you're using it here is particularly important to gameplay.

I don't think so either! I mean, I can't shut up about my love for Apocalypse World.

Shifting to board games for a second, I think a commitment to trying to win is far more important than actual success at doing so. I play some kind of no/low randomness economic euro with roughly the same people most weekends, and our victories are not evenly distributed, running closer to something like E:40%, N:20%, C:30%, and me at 10%. There's no real way to know how generally effective we are at those games (though I would lay heavy odds on any of us over a new or significantly less experienced player), and if we are improving at them, we're doing so in close enough parity that our general win rates stay about the same.

What I'm saying is, the gameplay of your game has meaning. Decisions that you make matter and impact the outcome. If, on the other hand, E had infinite resources, it would be a pointless endeavour: whether you win or lose does not depend on your decisions during the game, but on E's decision to win or throw.

 

[loverdrive]

I don't understand what "unenforceable" means... No book, no words, no principles can force anyone to do anything... Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean by enforceable.... could you explain this?

Let's say you are playing a game of Warhammer for an agreed upon number of points, and you see your opponent placing a tad too many models to the table. You can check their army list and say: "Hey, there's only 3 tactical squads in your list, why are there four on the table?" (note: they are not necessarily cheating, maybe they just mixed things up, drek happens)

You can (and should!) keep the other player in check, and enforce the rules, guided by things more tangible than "this looks like bull####" gut feeling.

 

[loverdrive]

Would you characterise a teacher and her students in the same way? The ultimate deciding factor determining success of failure in a test isn't the student's knowledge, but the teacher's willingness to crush them underfoot?
The teacher can marked more strictly (in Languages) or set harder questions (in Science and Maths)...etc

I'm not sure if this analogy applies, to be honest.

A) Test is (at least supposed to be) non-arbitrary. Yes, teacher can set harder questions, but it's not like they feasibly can ask first-graders about eigenvectors.
B) Teacher is (at least supposed to be) to have a greater expertise in the field than the student. No one is an expert at navigating trap-riddled tombs of dead gods.

 

[Pedantic]

What I'm saying is, the gameplay of your game has meaning. Decisions that you make matter and impact the outcome. If, on the other hand, E had infinite resources, it would be a pointless endeavour: whether you win or lose does not depend on your decisions during the game, but on E's decision to win or throw.

Oh, that's just category error. You're assigning the GM a player role, when the GM is analogous to your console, not to an opponent. If you insist on not drawing a line between GM-as-worldbuilder (or, perhaps "level designer") and GM-as-referee, you're undermining the premise from first principles, so it's not really worth arguing about.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

This is the point.

The only possible way a player can succeed in dnd if the GM lets them succeed. The only reason they won a fight is because GM decided not to bring reinforcements. Didn't, but could. Could, but didn't. Ooh but she needs a narrative justification! Yeah, those cost nothing. I'm not a particularly creative person, but I can create a logical explanation for a new pack of goblins showing up. Or a lich. Or a tarrasque. Or an orbital ion cannon locking on the PCs and evaporating everything within a kilometre of them into fine dust.

Yeah, the GM can show mercy (aka being unwilling to crush PCs underfoot) and decide not to field monsters/obstacles/environmental hazards/whatever that completely shut the players down.

Yeah, we can say that a "decent GM" shows mercy.

Doesn't change much, though.

If Player A can beat a new pack of goblins using PC X but not a lich or a Tarrasque, and Player B can use X to defeat a pack of goblins OR the Tarrasque, and player C can't even defeat a pack of goblins with X, then B >> A > C in skill. (Partial ordering.)

I remain very surprised you've never observed this phenomenon in practice because it's ubiquitous. Some players are really bad at 5E (and presumably at any other wargame-descended RPG).

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Also there is no rule that prohibits players from knowing CR or what the encounter budget for an encounter is... I don't believe the books speak either way to whether it should be known or not so you're assuming something that has no basis in the rules.

There's an interesting Brandon Sanderson short story wherein a character in an extremely deadly island paradise has a magic pet bird which causes him to see various visions of his own corpse, dead on an anthill, dead with some fruit in his mouth, dead from trampling by rhinos along a jungle trail, etc. (Okay, I'm making all of those examples up but they're all consistent with how the bird WOULD work, even though I don't remember specifically what visions he did see, except that I think one was quicksand.) These are warnings of danger.

For a time I playtested using magic items to inform players of encounter lethality to help them decide whether to engage or retreat. I also experimented with giving them XP at the start of an encounter instead of the end, for the same reasons, before landing on my current XP system instead.

Hope that's interesting to someone out there someday, reading through this ginormous thread...

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Honestly? Your 'A' and 'B' read largely the same to me, they're both clearly task based pass/fail systems. One references a meta-currency, one doesn't, but that's a pretty minor difference in my book.

I mean, I am not missing your point, there are different agendas in RPG play. Honestly, I'm not sure what we're arguing about. Is D&D combat a 'simulation'? I think that's an argument you can make, yes. I don't think RPGs do any simulating AT ALL beyond that very tactical immediate level though. Depicting a bear is not a simulation of a bear, its a story about a bear. RPGs vary, as you have observed, in how much of each they do at a certain level, but in terms of 'world sim' I just don't think the word 'simulation' is descriptive and can be attached to that.

Surprisingly, I think there is disagreement on the thread about which things are simulations, but I don't think you and I are arguing about that. And hopefully we're both in agreement that the output (story) from a simulationist simulation and a dramatist simulation and a gamist simulation can look quite similar once you subtract all the player transcripts.

You say RPGs don't do any simulating at all beyond immediate tactical stuff, and as a generalization I disagree, but then again I'm a fan of RPG supplements like GURPS Low Tech Companion 3 (which has lovely, simple, and plausible rules for modeling food production for hunter-gatherer cultures vs. more technologically-advanced cultures that practice agriculture with iron plows) and GURPS Social Engineering (which has lovely, simple, and plausible rules for modeling individual interactions with other individuals and organizations across a wide range of interaction types such as requesting aid or information, interacting with law enforcement, and seeking employment).

As a practical matter though I'm willing to stipulate that at many tables (unknown fraction), many GMs make no effort to determine "what would really happen" in the gameworld in response to player actions. They concern themselves solely with other factors such as making sure players have a good time. There's nothing wrong with this, but if you want to say they're not using a simulation and I want to say they don't lean simulationist, it seems to me that we're not disagreeing on that point. I just don't generalize that judgment to "RPGs" in general.

 

[loverdrive]

Oh, that's just category error. You're assigning the GM a player role, when the GM is analogous to your console, not to an opponent. If you insist on not drawing a line between GM-as-worldbuilder (or, perhaps "level designer") and GM-as-referee, you're undermining the premise from first principles, so it's not really worth arguing about.

I'm not sure this line can be drawn. A level designer doesn't participate in the game and has no ability to change stuff on the fly. A game master can and players cannot tell the difference between something invented right on the spot and something prepared beforehand.

If, say, monster list and dungeon layout were open information (or became open information after the game ends, by handing the players an enveloper or, idk, sending them a password-protected archive with notes), then, yeah, GM-as-worldbuilder and GM-as-referee can be feasibly separated.