Why do RPGs have rules?

[Micah Sweet]

If you mean, "can pre-established fiction in a ZM/LM paradigm become binding in such a way as to preclude the possibility of later actions being feasible." Yes, of course. Just like if the GM were to frame you into a jail cell you cannot walk out! I mean, there's no doubt that fiction binds, otherwise play cannot exist! Now, that being said, could a player in, say DW, declare their way out of a jail cell, say by using DR? Well, yes, sort of, and even if the cell was established in earlier play. I think, technically, you could get to a point where it is pretty well established that the Duke's jail cell is escape-proof, and that might thwart some possible GM statements in response to DR, but that's not putting a constraint on the PLAYER, only on the GM. He's now got to figure out how to give you your 10+ "interesting and useful" answers even in the face of any prior fiction! I would generally use a technique of 'zooming out' as a reliable way to do this. That is, DR isn't going to tell you the jail cell has a secret door in it that we already know logically cannot exist. However, it may well tell you that there's a guard who owes your family a favor and will smuggle a note out to your gang and bring back an answer. There's ALWAYS a way! At least nobody has yet in all my years found a situation where I couldn't come up with something to say next.

As an aside, it is in large part the fact that the constraints are mostly or entirely on the GM and not on the players that leads me to believe that narrative/storygame play as the GM makes them exist primarily as a servant of player desires.

 

[loverdrive]

As an aside, it is in large part the fact that the constraints are mostly or entirely on the GM and not on the players that leads me to believe that narrative/storygame play as the GM makes them exist primarily as a servant of player desires.

The constraints on the GM in a narrative game are pretty much the same as on a player in any other RPG. Is a player a servant of GM's desires in trad play?

 

[Maxperson]

edit never mind

 

[Maxperson]

So are you trying to tell me that ALL the stuff that happens in your campaign is entirely pre-established in a consistent lore ahead of time? That the proper descriptions of lightning and when and where it might hit is all defined, etc. etc. etc.? LUL.

Or based on/refers to something that is prior established. This goes for fantasy realism. Something based on real world realism, like how lightning bolts can split trees but not houses doesn't need establishment in the setting, because that sort of realism is assumed unless the setting changes it, such as with dragons and casting spells.

 

[Maxperson]

As someone who’s not been engaging directly in this branch of the conversation, I just wanted to say that none of the above seems like a coherent argument at all. You’re saying that lightning in your campaign is a simulation because magic and @pemerton ’s isn’t because…I don’t even know.

I never once said or implied it was a simulation because magic. I said it simulates lightning because REAL WORLD lightning can't split a house in half and neither can my game lightning. I don't even know where you came up with, "Because magic." It's perplexing.

 

[clearstream]

As someone who’s not been engaging directly in this branch of the conversation, I just wanted to say that none of the above seems like a coherent argument at all. You’re saying that lightning in your campaign is a simulation because magic and @pemerton ’s isn’t because…I don’t even know.

I don’t know what point you’re trying to make at this point, but I think you should give it some more thought and stop trying to just counter folks. Maybe say something on the topic that’s not a direct response to someone else?

I think the claim is just an appeal to a preexisting norm. So there is no need for further lifting in the game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The constraints on the GM in a narrative game are pretty much the same as on a player in any other RPG. Is a player a servant of GM's desires in trad play?

No, because in a non-narrative/storygame the player controls their PC, and the GM controls everything else, while in the other they keep those roles but have additional power (for the player) or less power (for the GM). The roles are not reversed, rather the power of the GM is being partially drained and being given to the players. As the GM can't really do anything on their own but must react to the players, they are in a subservient role, while the players have always had the ability to declare actions for their PCs.

 

[Maxperson]

Because "bad faith DMing" (which, I assume, is anything than you don't like?) is impossible to distinguish from "good faith DMing".

This is quite frankly a joke. Bad faith DMing is incredibly obvious the overwhelming majority of the time. The only kind of bad faith DMing I can think of off the top of my head that isn't incredibly obvious is illusionism of the quantum ogre kind. Subtle railroading. Dropping 50 liches or Tarrasques on the group(your example) isn't going to go unnoticed.

Violation of No Myth, on the other hand, is immediately apparent to everyone at the table.

Okay. So it's obvious in the same way that it is in a traditional game. It's no different. If bad faith DMing invalidates player skill, it also invalidates no myth.

 

[Campbell]

As an aside, it is in large part the fact that the constraints are mostly or entirely on the GM and not on the players that leads me to believe that narrative/storygame play as the GM makes them exist primarily as a servant of player desires.

There are plenty of constraints on players. They are expected to play dynamic, compelling protagonists who actively pursue their dramatic needs. They have to contend with constant complications / adversity along the way, often are subject to social mechanics that influence their decision space, etc. There is casual exploration of their environment, no conflict neutral play.

Plenty of posters have given testimony that they run Story Now games because they enjoy/prefer to. Do you not believe them when they say they are definitely servants and have plenty of say on how things go?

For my part when I run games like Apocalypse World I do so because I want to run something that is more reminiscent of dramatic fiction than adventure fiction. I do so because I want the other players to provide some of the juice. I assure you I expect plenty from the people I choose to play with.

For you it would probably feel like you were being a servant because the parts you enjoy about GMing are not central to the role in games like Monsterhearts. The ones I enjoy (at least sometimes are). You are universalizing your preferences to all GMs.

 

[loverdrive]

Dropping 50 liches or Tarrasques on the group(your example) isn't going to go unnoticed.

What about 15 extra goblins? Or an extra trap The difference between those and 50 extra liches is non-existent.

You got hanged up on specifics and failed to grasp the point: it's impossible to distinguish pre-planned things and things invented on the spot.

No Myth rejects the need for this distinction in the first place, because pre-planned things cannot have influence on the game.