Why do RPGs have rules?

[clearstream]

What a ranked competitive leaderboard for dnd would even look like?

Three questions about that

Is skill found only where a game is competitive so that there cannot be skill in a cooperative game?
Is skill predicated on the existence of a leaderboard so that in the absence of a leaderboard no skill exists?
Is it right that you exclude the existence of skill in D&D and admit the possibility of skill in all other RPGs?

Those aside, for a tournament one could easily create a leaderboard around a skill construct for RPGs. The first step would be to develop a skill construct that participants agree on. I've developed game skill constructs before... but here frankly it would be far too great a digression for me to embark on it!

 

[Numidius]

I thought of another thing I like about simulationist GMing: it makes players' genuine emotional reactions to what happens more enjoyable for me to witness. "Holy moly, I can't believe it!" feels really good to hear when I didn't pull any strings to make "it" happen, aside from initial scenario construction.

I guess it makes me feel... successful as a creator?

Hi. Nice post, I'm ruminating on it.

I share your feelings and satisfaction when "it" happens at my table as well. I doubt that no strings were pulled, however delicate the pinch might have been.
I get the sim approach, the rejection of narrative rules, metacurrencies and the like, but content has to come from somewhere/someone: a well constructed scenario, engaged players putting forward decise action declarations*, compelling responses and adjudications by the Gm... I see a continuous pushing and pulling of strings (however frantic or diluted during the game) to get there, to the "unexpected" (to use the words of Baker), or the "genuine emotional reaction" as you say.

Going back to the OP, Baker (in 2008, so a couple of years before AW was published) identifies the scope of Rules to "get there", to the "unwelcomed and unexpected", otherwise they're pretty much interchangeable.
(FKR, anyone? ; )
Not even formalized distribution of authority he sees as an important facet of rules systems, evaluating "Live negotiation and honest collaboration as almost certainly better". (Again, I sense a smell of FKR in the air).

I lean on an FKR approach lately, but definitely seek those unexpected, genuine, honest surprises. I roll less dice than usual, but extreme results must have extreme consequences, good or bad.

Don't pull punches, pull strings!!

Joking aside, I mean, even when designing a cursed magic artifact, I'm pulling a string, albeit a long term one, sometimes.



*as per: pemertonian action declarations

 

[Imaro]

Hi. Nice post, I'm ruminating on it.

I share your feelings and satisfaction when "it" happens at my table as well. I doubt that no strings were pulled, however delicate the pinch might have been.
I get the sim approach, the rejection of narrative rules, metacurrencies and the like, but content has to come from somewhere/someone: a well constructed scenario, engaged players putting forward decise action declarations*, compelling responses and adjudications by the Gm... I see a continuous pushing and pulling of strings (however frantic or diluted during the game) to get there, to the "unexpected" (to use the words of Baker), or the "genuine emotional reaction" as you say.

Going back to the OP, Baker (in 2008, so a couple of years before AW was published) identifies the scope of Rules to "get there", to the "unwelcomed and unexpected", otherwise they're pretty much interchangeable.
(FKR, anyone? ; )
Not even formalized distribution of authority he sees as an important facet of rules systems, evaluating "Live negotiation and honest collaboration as almost certainly better". (Again, I sense a smell of FKR in the air).

I lean on an FKR approach lately, but definitely seek those unexpected, genuine, honest surprises. I roll less dice than usual, but extreme results must have extreme consequences, good or bad.

Don't pull punches, pull strings!!

Joking aside, I mean, even when designing a cursed magic artifact, I'm pulling a string, albeit a long term one, sometimes.



*as per: pemertonian action declarations

Can you explain in more detail what "pulling a string" entails? I'm confused from the above on whether this is something one specifically creates, in other words an action a GM specifically takes or instead the result of an action/creation the GM has taken/made.

 

[Numidius]

@Imaro We should ask @FormerlyHemlock , since I was quoting them.
My point being that inevitably strings of any kind are constantly being pulled, even if actual meta-rules are not employed, and "drama", or "story", are not the explicit purpose of play.

 

[Imaro]

@Imaro We should ask @FormerlyHemlock , since I was quoting them.
My point being that inevitably strings of any kind are constantly being pulled, even if actual meta-rules are not employed, and "drama", or "story", are not the explicit purpose of play.

Gotcha. Sorry about that. Also this makes your point clearer for me and I don't think I disagree.

 

[loverdrive]

Is skill found only where a game is competitive so that there cannot be skill in a cooperative game?

Being able to compare and contrast the skill level of different people (or teams) is, I think, a prerequisite. A leaderboard is competitive by definition.

Is skill predicated on the existence of a leaderboard so that in the absence of a leaderboard no skill exists?

Not existence per se, but a possibility of existence of a leaderboard. I have a bunch of small indie fighting games on my hard drive that I sincerely doubt have leaderboards, but they could.

Is it right that you exclude the existence of skill in D&D and admit the possibility of skill in all other RPGs?

"All" others - no, hard no. A possibility of skill in some other RPGs? Sure! I admitted that already in #1174, and never intended to suggest otherwise.

Those aside, for a tournament one could easily create a leaderboard around a skill construct for RPGs. The first step would be to develop a skill construct that participants agree on.

Like, yeah, but would it be representative of the process of playing the game outside of a tournament?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Being able to compare and contrast the skill level of different people (or teams) is, I think, a prerequisite. A leaderboard is competitive by definition.


Not existence per se, but a possibility of existence of a leaderboard. I have a bunch of small indie fighting games on my hard drive that I sincerely doubt have leaderboards, but they could.


"All" others - no, hard no. A possibility of skill in some other RPGs? Sure! I admitted that already in #1174, and never intended to suggest otherwise.


Like, yeah, but would it be representative of the process of playing the game outside of a tournament?

Plenty of sports use judges to measure performance (for example gymnastics or the forms category for Martian arts). You just need criteria for how skill would be measured. You could easily do the same for player or GM performance

 

[clearstream]

Being able to compare and contrast the skill level of different people (or teams) is, I think, a prerequisite. A leaderboard is competitive by definition.

Comparative. Not competitive. One can compare skill at cooperative games, even though such games don't pit players against one another.

"All" others - no, hard no. A possibility of skill in some other RPGs? Sure! I admitted that already in #1174, and never intended to suggest otherwise.

Dread, Mujik is Dead, Swashbuckling!, and Inner Sanctum. Just those?

Like, yeah, but would it be representative of the process of playing the game outside of a tournament?

So the additional constraint - notwithstanding that the play was to be competitive - is that it be not too competitive. Not a tournament?

Skill seen in tournament play does not count as skill?

 

[innerdude]

I thought of another thing I like about simulationist GMing: it makes players' genuine emotional reactions to what happens more enjoyable for me to witness. "Holy moly, I can't believe it!" feels really good to hear when I didn't pull any strings to make "it" happen, aside from initial scenario construction.

I guess it makes me feel... successful as a creator?

Whereas the opposing view would be, you've been pulling nearly all the strings, all the time.

I don't want to dismiss the emotional payoff, because that really is rewarding. But I think @hawkeyefan points out pretty astutely with his dragon behavior example that the GM isn't just "extrapolating", (s)he's determining all possible baseline details that presuppose the extrapolation.

One could reasonably ask, what's so special about the players having that reaction to your specifically curated set of string pulls? Is it less rewarding if it's someone else's set of strings?

One of the more compelling things I discovered with Ironsworn was that I-as-GM actually got to start having some of those fun, "Oh my gosh, how cool is that!" moments myself, and it was at least as rewarding to have those moments with my players at the same.

I think my questions are more how is it achieved. Because how a dragon attacks is entirely up to the GM. There’s no baseline to simulate from. Yes, we can all suggest that certain tactics are likely better than others… but that assumes a lot about a dragon. There could be reasons the dragon has to land… perhaps it can only maintain flight for so long. Perhaps it has a massive ego and needs to crush foes directly. Any number of other traits or factors could come into play here.

But of it’s all just up to the GM, then I get that the GM is deciding what makes the most sense to them… but I’m just unsure how one outcome in a range is decided upon.

This goes back to @loverdrive 's comment about "all things ultimately being reliant on GM restraint". I regularly struggled in GM-ing trad play with the notion of, "Well really, if the BBEG is really as powerful as I believe (s)he is, and the PCs really are mucking with her/his plans as much as they are, isn't BBEG going to eventually just go nuclear and drop an army of 50 liches and 50 balors on them at some point and just be done with it? And am I being untrue to 'the simulation' if that DOESN'T happen?"

I'm very, very sympathetic to the goals of sim. On a certain level I, even to this day, find it an appealing idealization.

But at some point, I've had to reconcile the idealization against what I saw and felt when GM-ing in a "sim" fashion, which was, Don't fool yourself, despite your best intentions, you're pulling far more strings and exerting far more will on the outcomes of events than you want to admit.

3/4 of the way through a 20-month Savage Worlds campaign---one of the better campaigns I've ever run---one of my players came to me after a session and said, "You're kind of just making stuff up so we can keep playing now, aren't you?" And he said it with a smile, completely non-accusingly, but fully recognizing that after 20 months of endless "extrapolating" and "string pulling" to maintain "fidelity to the game world", that he and his character were really just along for the ride at that point.

*Edit for typo

 

[Imaro]

Whereas the opposing view would be, you've been pulling nearly all the strings, all the time.

I don't want to dismiss the emotional payoff, because that really is rewarding. But I think @hawkeyefan points out pretty astutely with his dragon behavior example that the GM isn't just "extrapolating", (s)he's determining all possible baseline details that presuppose the extrapolation.

One could reasonably ask, what's so special about the players having that reaction to your specifically curated set of string pulls? Is it less rewarding if it's someone else's set of strings?

One of the more compelling things I discovered with Ironsworn was that I-as-GM actually got to start having some of those fun, "Oh my gosh, how cool is that!" moments myself, and it was at least as rewarding to have those moments with my players at the same.



This goes back to @loverdrive 's comment about "all things ultimately being reliant on GM restraint". I regularly struggled in GM-ing trad play with the notion of, "Well really, if the BBEG is really as powerful as I believe (s)he is, and the PCs really are mucking with her/his plans as much as they are, isn't BBEG going to eventually just go nuclear and drop an army of 50 liches and 50 balors on them at some point and just be done with it? And am I being untrue to 'the simulation' if that DOESN'T happen?"

I'm very, very sympathetic to the goals of sim. On a certain level I, even to this day, find it an appealing idealization.

But at some point, I've had to reconcile the idealization against what I saw and felt when GM-ing in a "sim" fashion, which was, Don't fool yourself, despite your best intentions, you're pulling far more strings and exerting far more will on the outcomes of events than you want to admit.

3/4 of the way through a 20-month Savage Worlds campaing---one of the better campaigns I've ever run---one of my players came to me after a session and said, "You're kind of just making stuff up so we can keep playing now, aren't you?" And he said it with a smile, completely non-accusingly, but fully recognizing that after 20 months of endless "extrapolating" and "string pulling" to maintain "fidelity to the game world", that he and his character were really just along for the ride at that point.

Do you think this still applies in traditional sandbox and hexcrawl play? I ask because your assumptions seem to be based, in large part, on the GM curating the experience in real time as the campaign progresses vs having something like an area where monsters, geography, settlements, etc. are pre-made, and motivations and goals (at least for major NPC's) are created without knowledge of the PC's and where the PC's are then allowed to explore it however they choose to.

EDIT: I think I'd add traditional dungeoncrawl as well as structured AP play as well to those I don't think your assertion above would necessarily apply.