Why do RPGs have rules?

[Micah Sweet]

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

Different strokes, I guess. It sounds pretty thin to me, but you and I have very different priorities. I'm sure it serves its purpose well.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

It gets murky. There's no perfect line between hard and soft. Nor is the definition of 'golden opportunity' exact either. Can I telegraph the ghoul thing and then later just frame the PCs there? Is that a hard move or an unwelcome truth? I don't disagree with you, but I prefer not to argue stuff in PbtA land on that basis as I think principles are ultimately the bedrock of play.

 

[clearstream]

I don't see how this helps.

I'm not saying it's something you can picture doing and grok. I'm saying it's something you may grok through doing.

I don't agree with that at all. Plenty of fiction is consistent, that doesn't mean it wasn't made up.

Another way to put this idea is that if the making up is consistent, then the making up is not arbitrary.

But apply it how? Roll for results, or choose from the list of potential results?

Referee. Serve the players judiciously.

That's because as it's typically being described in this thread, simulation seems purely one-sided, and that's the GM side.

GM is able to provide a world that is external to the players. Players are able to immerse themselves in that world. Their roles are asymmetrical. Is your concern that they should not be asymmetrical?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm not saying it's something you can picture doing and grok. I'm saying it's something you may grok through doing.


Another way to put this idea is that if the making up is consistent, then the making up is not arbitrary.


Referee. Serve the players judiciously.


GM is able to provide a world that is external to the players. Players are able to immerse themselves in that world. Their roles are asymmetrical. Is your concern that they should not be asymmetrical?

I Believe they are far more symmetrical in the type of gaming @hawkeyefan prefers, but I could be wrong about that.

 

[clearstream]

I Believe they are far more symmetrical in the type of gaming @hawkeyefan prefers, but I could be wrong about that.

Maybe so. And to be clear, I am not speaking negatively about symmetrical roles, I am speaking positively about asymmetrical roles for the purposes of some modes of play.

 

[clearstream]

What "no myth" play excludes is using that stuff that was thought of in advance as a basis for deciding, in advance, how things go in the fiction independent of the action resolution mechanics.

I found your whole post interesting, and wanted to check this part. Way up thread (my #709) I proposed that rules override and extend norms. So that if I would normally expect X to happen (things to fall down, say) then a rule that conflicts with that overrides it (e.g. not if they are metal and suspended by magnetic powers.)

If that is right, then your principle should apply to any mode of play. Stuff thought of in advance can't be used to decide how things go independent of game mechanics. (It can decide where mechanics are silent.)

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'm not saying it's something you can picture doing and grok. I'm saying it's something you may grok through doing.

I followed what you meant, I just am unsure how that addressed what I was saying.

Another way to put this idea is that if the making up is consistent, then the making up is not arbitrary.

Sure. But I'm honestly not familiar with any games that involve such arbitrary GMing. It doesn't seem like a quality unique to simulation games.

Referee. Serve the players judiciously.

Again, I don't follow how this addresses my question. I asked if you are to use tables to facilitate simulation in order to disclaim making decisions about how things go, or if you should choose.

It sounds like you're saying you should choose? But remain impartial? How do you do that? If there are three possible outcomes, one is 50% likely, one 30%, and the last 20%, how do you decide? Do you just pick the 50% option since it's the most likely?

If you pick, how are you remaining impartial?

GM is able to provide a world that is external to the players. Players are able to immerse themselves in that world. Their roles are asymmetrical. Is your concern that they should not be asymmetrical?

What world isn't external to the players? Do you mean the characters? Either way, I'm not sure what this means.

No, my concern isn't that the roles are asymmetrical. My concern is that when the GM is acting with simulation as a priority, how is it apparent to the players? If the players aren't involved in or aware of the methods of simulation, then it seems to me like the GM is just narrating what he'd like to narrate.

I Believe they are far more symmetrical in the type of gaming @hawkeyefan prefers, but I could be wrong about that.

Not necessarily, it very much depends on the game. My general approach overall is likely to have them be closer than many others likely would, but even then, they're still asymmetrical.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I found your whole post interesting, and wanted to check this part. Way up thread (my #709) I proposed that rules override and extend norms. So that if I would normally expect X to happen (things to fall down, say) then a rule that conflicts with that overrides it (e.g. not if they are metal and suspended by magnetic powers.)

If that is right, then your principle should apply to any mode of play. Stuff thought of in advance can't be used to decide how things go independent of game mechanics. (It can decide where mechanics are silent.)

It's just a trait of no myth play, predefined stuff is not binding. Only stuff that has been introduced into play is binding and forms fictional position which can block actions. If the GM frames a wall into existence then a legal response to "I walk forward" is "you run into the wall".

Note that things are less clear in some cases, like "I climb the wall" which in DW elicits a move, like DD. In BitD there's another layer where we talk about how hard this wall is to climb and the GM can further describe it. BitD generally has guidelines about how hard things are. DW just relegates that to an explanation of what happens.

 

[Bedrockgames]

No, my concern isn't that the roles are asymmetrical. My concern is that when the GM is acting with simulation as a priority, how is it apparent to the players? If the players aren't involved in or aware of the methods of simulation, then it seems to me like the GM is just narrating what he'd like to narrate.

One is by feel. They are interacting with the world you have established and with the characters you have made for it, so they it is something that is discernible (you can tell if a GM is throwing bad guys at you to create a sense of drama for example, versus it seems al lot more naturalistic). But honestly you can always show the players what you have in your notes to demonstrate what is going on. I am pretty transparent about that stuff and don't get overly precious about prep. But when I share it players know concretely if they went left instead of a right that would have been two very different outcomes. The same with NPCs. I don't mind sharing my notes on that so they can see why offering Duke Reginald a Three Way Roast Beef sandwich send him on a murderous rampage and shattered the alliance. You don't have to do all of this of of course.

 

[Campbell]

I found your whole post interesting, and wanted to check this part. Way up thread (my #709) I proposed that rules override and extend norms. So that if I would normally expect X to happen (things to fall down, say) then a rule that conflicts with that overrides it (e.g. not if they are metal and suspended by magnetic powers.)

If that is right, then your principle should apply to any mode of play. Stuff thought of in advance can't be used to decide how things go independent of game mechanics. (It can decide where mechanics are silent.)

This is difficult because in the games where No Myth (or at least Low Myth) play is the norm there are rules that are always in effect that take priority (when players look to you to find what happens next make a move, frame scenes that challenge their beliefs, frame scenes that reflect their kicker, etc). Those always take precedence over ideas you might have of how a given NPC feels, what the setting is like, etc. The lack of myth is pretty much there to provide the flexibility to ensure there is always a way to keep the action focused on character premise. That regardless of how things turn out that there is always a way towards dynamic and interesting conflicts centered on the characters.