Why do RPGs have rules?

[AbdulAlhazred]

Agreed. I feel there is a conversation worth having about how each thread can be woven together. When might I pivot into narrativism to drive a rising tension focused on the inner world of characters? Where could gamist challenges elevate that for the group? How might it feel plausible on account of how things are and must fall out? Along every dimension, I can be intentional and I can play to find out.

In your example, you made a decision to prioritise story for one facet of play. I wouldn't make that particular compromise, but I don't feel doing so forces you to prioritise story for every facet of your play. You could, but then you wouldn't have any questions to ask of simulation.

I think the question about how true RE's observation about coherency is would be useful here. IME systems, GMs, players, etc all tend to certain forms. One will encounter difficulty trying to go back and forth.

 

[Bedrockgames]

To me, all serious RPGing seems to have this. I mean, Burning Wheel and Apocalypse World are full of rules and guidelines intended to produce this sense.

Sure but the sense of world is often in service of different things. Some campaigns I may want a sense of a world but what is more important is the gam emulate certain genre or story elements. Some I want something that isn't particularly connected to fiction or movies. I think in these kinds of campaigns, they are often a reaction to more heavy handed railroading efforts to impose story by the GM, so they are aiming for a more consistent sense of a world the players are exploring. Again it does depend on what we are talking about here, and I think its rarely 100% X

This is why, upthread, I've asked some other posters what their contrast is with (what they call) simulationist RPGing. In my imagination, the sort of contrast I am seeing is with "arena"-style play, or some "dungeon of the week" play. But in that case "simulationism" becomes a label for the scope and depth of the fiction, and not for any sort of GM technique or (what the Forge would call) creative agenda.

Again, I think we are often using simlulationism differently here, and it is not a label I personally use. And creative agenda isn't really something I am all that into as a concept (styles of play and styles of GMing are things I grasp much better than creative agenda). But there is a style of play I enjoy that seems to fall under the same line of critique in these threads. So I am speaking very broadly here, including my personal sense of a living world in the term simulation (and seeing it as a spectrum of ideas about setting and GMing). I wouldn't say GM technique doesn't matter though. In this style of play one of the key elements is the player assuming the role of their character in a world that seems external and to do that certain techniques and procedures are going to be better than others. When it comes to emulating the world, then most GMs in this style will be doing a number of things and drawing on a range of techniques. Weather tables are a big one, as are event tables, but planning it advance is fine for some, and extrapolation can also be fine, so long as the sense of an external world feels right. This style of play often also would deemphasize things the thing you mentioned earlier: "... play that is aimed at generating, via the distinctive forms and techniques of RPGing, an experience that emulates narrative fiction - rising action leading to crisis/climax (which is a function of protagonist dramatic needs)" If there is a narrative at all being followed in this style of play it is more historical narrative than literary. Storms happen because they happen, not because it adds tot he sense of rising action. That sort of thing (it can still be meaningful and disasters tend to lead to interesting things, but it is going to play out a little more like a historical narrative I think).

 

[loverdrive]

Here's an example... A manor is established in play that is owned by a benevolent mayor who really has his town's best interests at heart. The players are invited to the manor as acting diplomats for the town to discuss the rising tensions in the political state with a group of representatives from a secondary village to the north. There is a feast, introductions and the true negotiations are declared to start tomorrow. The players are all ready for a game of political intrigue, negotiation and closed door deals... I however as GM want to run a dungeon crawl I wrote up last night full of ghouls, undead and body horror. So I have decided that under the manor is a dungeon secretly built by his son (a secret cultist) who, when the players sleep at the house for the night, drugs them and dumps them into the ghoul-infested, haunted catacombs full of body-mutatring fungi. Now going strictly by what you said this doesn't violate No-Myth. But if this drastic of a change can be introduced from pre-planned notes through fictional maneuvering... I don't know it feels like this agenda doesn't really stop or enforce anything.

I intended to go paragraph-by-paragraph through your post and then completely forgot.

Subverting expectations and turning the game from political intrigues into a dungeon-crawl would not violate No Myth play. Drugging PCs is trickier, and, uhm... Depends.

In Dungeon World, if someone tries to Parley and rolls 6-, GM can make a move as hard as she likes, and it can be "reveal unwelcome truth": turns out, it was a trap! But then PCs are drugged because someone rolled 6-, not because the GM's notes say so. Whether catacombs were prepared in advance or invented on the spot is irrelevant.

Just saying "turns out it was a trap!" unprompted would be a violation of the rules of DW first and foremost, and feeling like this violation is justified by GM's notes that no one else at the table has seen would be a violation of No Myth.

Drastic change of tone is not, in itself, in a conflict with No Myth. It can be a breach of some other agreements ("hey, let's play a game of political intrigue!"), though, but that's another thing entirely.

 

[loverdrive]

Just throwing it here, because I thought of an illustrative example and why not.

Spoiler: GM's notes

Dariga Aqqus, Head of Security in PYRAMID Inc.: tall, imposing woman in her 40s with a no-nonsense attitude. Amir's sister. Hates his guts.

Amir Aqqus, Middle manager in PYRAMID Inc. IT department: dishevelled guy in his 30s. Constantly screws up and has a gambling problem. Dariga's brother.

Spoiler: Player's notes

Current goal: get into PYRAMID Inc. headquarters.
What we know:

• Amir Aqqus's email credentials and contacts list
• He has a sister (?) who works in security department (?)
• He has a reputation of being disorganized and incompetent

Spoiler: Yes-Myth

Player: I'm going to email Dariga, like I'm sooo sorry, but, hey, sis, I forgot the door code, can you pleease send it to me?
GM (thinking): she hates her brother, so it's unlikely she'll compromise her job for him. Ain't gonna work.
GM (out loud): OK. You send her an email, and several hours latter, she responds: "go to hell".

Spoiler: No-Myth

Player: I'm going to email Dariga, like I'm sooo sorry, but, hey, sis, I forgot the door code, can you pleease send it to me?
GM: OK, sounds alright. Roll...
Player: Success!
GM (thinking): hm, she hates her brother, but maybe she still begrudgingly cleans his messes, blood is thicker than water and all that?
GM (out loud): sure. You send her an email, and she responds: "go to hell". Five minutes later, she sends another email: "4269".

 

[Imaro]

Just throwing it here, because I thought of an illustrative example and why not.

Spoiler: GM's notes

Dariga Aqqus, Head of Security in PYRAMID Inc.: tall, imposing woman in her 40s with a no-nonsense attitude. Amir's sister. Hates his guts.

Amir Aqqus, Middle manager in PYRAMID Inc. IT department: dishevelled guy in his 30s. Constantly screws up and has a gambling problem. Dariga's brother.

Spoiler: Player's notes

Current goal: get into PYRAMID Inc. headquarters.
What we know:

• Amir Aqqus's email credentials and contacts list
• He has a sister (?) who works in security department (?)
• He has a reputation of being disorganized and incompetent

Spoiler: Yes-Myth

Player: I'm going to email Dariga, like I'm sooo sorry, but, hey, sis, I forgot the door code, can you pleease send it to me?
GM (thinking): she hates her brother, so it's unlikely she'll compromise her job for him. Ain't gonna work.
GM (out loud): OK. You send her an email, and several hours latter, she responds: "go to hell".

Spoiler: No-Myth

Player: I'm going to email Dariga, like I'm sooo sorry, but, hey, sis, I forgot the door code, can you pleease send it to me?
GM: OK, sounds alright. Roll...
Player: Success!
GM (thinking): hm, she hates her brother, but maybe she still begrudgingly cleans his messes, blood is thicker than water and all that?
GM (out loud): sure. You send her an email, and she responds: "go to hell". Five minutes later, she sends another email: "4269".

Ok my only question here is what if the GM makes it a harder difficulty but not impossible because of the sister and brother's relationship?

 

[loverdrive]

Ok my only question here is what if the GM makes it a harder difficulty but not impossible because of the sister and brother's relationship?

No, because what is not known to the players cannot influence the resolution.

You can leave the No-Myth land but stay close, though, like in Blades in the Dark it's possible to say:
— Risky position, limited effect
— Why limited?
— Unknown factors.

But in Blades, player can do a whole bunch of stuff to influence position and effect, and also just refuse to roll and find some another approach without suffering any repercussions.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Another point of confusion for me... Are agendas ways/styles to play games or are they design goals for games... or does this depend on the specific model/theory?

This gets pretty muddy. In GNS parlance agenda belongs to people. But the implications of design of RPGs in light of this is that the design needs to account for agenda. The upshot is that different games serve specific agendas better or worse. Consequently we tend to erroneously state that game X has agenda Y.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Ok given this is true how do the players know the GM has violated No-Myth play... what does a game designed for No Myth do, outside of advice, to force proper play?

I think @loverdrive and @pemerton both touched on the really core thing. In ZM there's no such thing as a point where a player describes an action which seems plausible fictionally and then the GM says "no, that fails" and the reason is some sort of thing they cooked up last week but never incorporated into shared fiction.

GMs can prep as much as they want, and introduce stuff from their notes, but it doesn't supercede anyone else's say at the table. Thus it's pretty unlikely that a GM is going to just dictate the story, not for long! Also the game has a say, and that also holds, no illusions, no fudging, etc. ZM narrative play is very open! If you want to bring on the Ghoul Palace, talk about it, ask questions, etc. You don't have to reveal every detail ahead but you should be serving up a meal the table wants.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think @loverdrive and @pemerton both touched on the really core thing. In ZM there's no such thing as a point where a player describes an action which seems plausible fictionally and then the GM says "no, that fails" and the reason is some sort of thing they cooked up last week but never incorporated into shared fiction.

GMs can prep as much as they want, and introduce stuff from their notes, but it doesn't supercede anyone else's say at the table. Thus it's pretty unlikely that a GM is going to just dictate the story, not for long! Also the game has a say, and that also holds, no illusions, no fudging, etc. ZM narrative play is very open! If you want to bring on the Ghoul Palace, talk about it, ask questions, etc. You don't have to reveal every detail ahead but you should be serving up a meal the table wants.

Very open for everyone but the GM, it sounds like. Which some people like (including some GMs), so that's fine.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

What is your oppinion on the default world of Blades... IMO it is thin and not very simulationist at all... as I said earlier, my first impressions were this is a moody, darkly cool world to pull of capers in but... its paper thin and some of it doesn't make causal sense or is left with no causal relationships...

Also note: I don't think thats a bad thing.

It's no thinner than WoG or FR. Less familiar to us is all. It's a logically consistent world, albeit fantastic.