Why do RPGs have rules?

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, I feel it is more that GM as referee is performing a job for the group, which consents in view of that service.

The assumed rule you offer is too impoverished to do the work. Or perhaps to put it another way, to me you're offering an impoverished form of GMing that no GM is obliged to adopt.

I think you simply have not played in a really fully ZM/narrative game where the GM's role wasn't contaminated with ideas crossing over from trad play. There's nothing 'impoverished' about it! And I have no idea what you mean by "that no GM is obliged to adopt." Sure, you're not obliged to do anything, and we're not obliged to employ you as our GM either! lol.

But practically, in DW for example, the TABLE has the authority to figure out cases where there is disagreement vis-a-vis what move was triggered, if a GM move is allowed or justified, etc. It very rarely comes up IME, but its not like the GM has some privileged role there. USUALLY the GM is the most knowledgeable on the process of play, and thus may get some deference, but that's not a necessity, and is even specifically called out as not such in the DW rules text IIRC. (5e has a similar statement that the GM can always refer to another player for rules advice).

 

[clearstream]

I think you simply have not played in a really fully ZM/narrative game where the GM's role wasn't contaminated with ideas crossing over from trad play. There's nothing 'impoverished' about it! And I have no idea what you mean by "that no GM is obliged to adopt." Sure, you're not obliged to do anything, and we're not obliged to employ you as our GM either! lol.

This comprehensively misunderstands what I am saying.

 

[Campbell]

They're not restrictions if I don't have to play that way from moment to moment. I can choose to ignore constraints I put on myself if I want, because the game I'm playing doesn't demand, in the text, that I follow their principles or I'm doing it wrong and we won't have the very specific experience the game promises.

There is nothing sacrosanct or somehow more flexible about the particular arrangement of GM roles and responsibilities within traditional games. You would realize this if you ever tried to break out of the confines of those expectations. I personally spent years fumbling in the dark, frustrated that play was not living up to my expectations. I thrashed and fought against the structures imposed upon me as a GM.

You cannot get the sort of experience you get from a game like Apocalypse World utilizing the division of roles/responsibilities and organizational structure inherent to traditional play structures. I know because I have tried, again and again. D&D will not get you. The good news is that it does not need to because it gets you somewhere else (and it can be a wonderful place).

If you are going to claim that the structures of traditional play are somehow less restrictive than I am going to need more than pure conjecture to go off of. Again, this is not about preferences. It's about accurately depicting differences between models of play.

 

[clearstream]

1) My over exaggerated snark from posts earlier was largely for comic effect, and in some ways self deprecating, because prior to late 2017, those were views I would have held myself. I would have unquestionably held sim and immersion as apex priorities in play, and derided any sort of hard encoded rules or system that didn't implicitly or explicitly encode that value set.

In my view at that time 6 years ago, I would have imagined, I would have told anyone who asked that narrative style games were by definition functionally "incoherent".

And the reason I felt that way was because of the notion I had about simulationism---that it was paramount to the overall RPG experience. Sure, it didn't matter that I kind of hated a lot of the baggage sim entailed---the need to "gate" content from players because that's what was "realistic". The need to ignore what were clear dramatic needs of the characters, based on their build and background, because sim doesn't countenance playing to the character. That's by default undoing the nature of sim, and undoing the nature of sim in play means you're likely "ruining" the opportunities for true, deep character immersion.

But I was definitely starting to question by late 2017. Based on my described experience with Savage Worlds, where after a year and a half I could no longer justify or rationalize decisions I was making as a GM based solely on "extrapolation" and "fictional causality".

And it bothered me, because I somehow felt I was being untrue to the paradigm I held dear.

But cognitive dissonance is an interesting thing. So when I tried Dungeon World in late 2017, and totally didn't get it, but saw glimpses of what it was trying to do, I had to admit that there must be something incomplete in my understanding of a GM's role when it came to sim.

The key thing I discovered---that the entire foundation of simulationism rests on---is that I had the notion that I was doing something with sim that simply wasn't the case.

Sure, I was extrapolating, and adhering to causality with all my might, but those processes were only heuristics to the bigger process of "Make s**t up." Or in the more formal vernacular, "Introduce fiction".

I had never examined the broader point of authorial authority --- that I was merely privileged in my ability to introduce fiction to play. The fact that I was using some heuristics---increasingly faulty heuristics beyond a certain length of play/gamestate---to introduce fiction didn't change the fact that what I was doing was introducing/authoring fiction, nothing less, nothing more.

I think the larger resistance of some GMs to narrative style gaming is resistance to this reality. It feels . . . less ennobling, somehow, if the GM role is reduced from "maintainer of game world fidelity" and "keeper of the secret tomes of history" and "grand master of the hidden backstory that shall amaze and astound upon reveal" to "Person with the most authority to make s**t up."

But as soon as I could accept that reality, it unlocked an entirely new realm of RPG play. I'd never have fallen in love with Ironsworn without that paradigm shift. And I can't imagine how much I would have missed out on if I hadn't.

2) Over time I was becoming increasingly disillusioned with how difficult it was to even get the thing that sim supposedly promised---deep immersion. There seemed to be so much sacrificed---character stakes, stronger dramatic tension, player investment in something beyond, "Okay, we're exploring some new cool place that's mostly like all the other cool places we've already explored, and meeting more NPCs we don't care about. When do we get to fight again?"

Not only wasn't sim producing the one thing I cared about---deep immersion---it wasn't even producing intermediate positives.

And I'm willing to bet there's a lot of GMs that have the same problem. Trad sim priorities, unless deeply invested by the players, is largely ineffective at producing more enjoyable intermediate drama/stakes the players really care about.

My experience has parallels and differences. I learned a great deal from PbtA games (DW, then MotW, currently Ironsworn, soon Stonetop) and that gave me new perspectives on what I was doing and wanted to do in other modes. I started to see how GM as referee supplies as well as guarantees lusory means (differentiating them in that significant way from sports referee.) I saw that dramatic tension and character stakes were rightly prioritised for some play, and still were not the only satisfaction that I and others in our group sought.

At no time did I see nar games as incoherent. My immediate impulse was over-eagerness to take advantage of nar ideas, because I experienced play that I was naturally drawn to. It took me awhile to see what worked and did not work (and that's a journey I am still on.) My personal priorities these days are role-play and immersionism. Story and drama - particularly of the "drive your character like a stolen car" sort - is less to my taste. More something I will pick up and put down, between returning to open-campaigns with role-play and immersionist priorities.

Certainly I have no concerns about nar being "less ennobling". Even as I write I find it quite hard to see why folk feel that way? On the other hand, your personal struggle with sim doesn't resonate. I accept that you have learned that it doesn't work out for you.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There is nothing sacrosanct or somehow more flexible about the particular arrangement of GM roles and responsibilities within traditional games. You would realize this if you ever tried to break out of the confines of those expectations. I personally spent years fumbling in the dark, frustrated that play was not living up to my expectations. I thrashed and fought against the structures imposed upon me as a GM.

You cannot get the sort of experience you get from a game like Apocalypse World utilizing the division of roles/responsibilities and organizational structure inherent to traditional play structures. I know because I have tried, again and again. D&D will not get you. The good news is that it does not need to because it gets you somewhere else (and it can be a wonderful place).

If you are going to claim that the structures of traditional play are somehow less restrictive than I am going to need more than pure conjecture to go off of. Again, this is not about preferences. It's about accurately depicting differences between models of play.

Fair enough. I'm clearly talking about preferences, vis a vis the rules of the game I'm expected to follow. I didn't spend "years fumbling in the dark, frustrated that play was not living up to my expectations". My experiences with my preferred model of play have been pretty positive, leaving me with no motivation to go so far outside my comfort zone. The only game that even flirts with these ideas that I am excited to run is Star Trek Adventures, and that's because I love Star Trek so much I'm willing to give a somewhat more narrative system a try. And keep in mind that I have played both Apocalypse World and Monster of the Week, and bounced off both, so this isn't coming from absolutely nowhere.

 

[innerdude]

My personal priorities these days are role-play and immersionism. Story and drama - particularly of the "drive your character like a stolen car" sort - is less to my taste. More something I will pick up and put down, between returning to open-campaigns with role-play and immersionist priorities.

Certainly I have no concerns about nar being "less ennobling". Even as I write I find it quite hard to see why folk feel that way? On the other hand, your personal struggle with sim doesn't resonate. I accept that you have learned that it doesn't work out for you.

So here's the thing --- if there was a foolproof, guaranteed way to get strong, ongoing deep character immersion through sim priorities, I'd go back to it in a heartbeat.

I love sim and immersion at heart. I love the idea of slowly letting the real world fade into a misty blend of the real and imaginary, seeing the fictional representation through a character's eyes.

But I know enough now to definitively say that sim techniques do not create enough immersive experiences, with enough frequency, and without an undo burden of prep by the GM, to make it worth it.

That said, it may be more possible with a specific kind of group, who are fully committed to the agenda, who will do everything possible to adhere to sim principles in a studied, methodical way. But barring that, which is an exceptionally unlikely occurrence for me personally, I'm largely "off" of GM-ing "trad sim".

Others may disagree. The effort may still be worth it to them even without a perfect group. To which I say, if it truly is the right style for you, by all means. I would just hate for GMs struggling like I did to not realize the alternatives because they fall for the rhetoric that narrative styles of play are inherently opposed to the experience they want out of play.

 

[clearstream]

But I know enough now to definitively say that sim techniques do not create enough immersive experiences, with enough frequency, and without an undo burden of prep by the GM, to make it worth it.

This is a reasonable preference for you to have. For me they are more than worth it. It's worth calling attention to prep as you do, because if I didn't enjoy that prep when I GM it seems reasonable to imagine I'd find that side of the table less fun.

That said, it may be more possible with a specific kind of group, who are fully committed to the agenda, who will do everything possible to adhere to sim principles in a studied, methodical way. But barring that, which is an exceptionally unlikely occurrence for me personally, I'm largely "off" of GM-ing "trad sim".

Perhaps all modes are most engaging when played with a group committed to the agenda

I would just hate for GMs struggling like I did to not realize the alternatives because they fall for the rhetoric that narrative styles of play are in herently opposed to the experience they want out of play.

100% agree! I'd urge folk to try narrative styles of play. These are powerful modes that to me represent a real and valuable evolution of RPG.

 

[Aldarc]

It does sound like a very cool setting, and ancient history is an interest of mine anyway (its basically what I went to school for). I may have to pick it up when there's an actual release, even though I would definitely be doing so only for the setting material.

So unlike a lot of the prior "no myth" talk, Stonetop does lean into myth. However, it's not "high myth." It's more akin to "incomplete myth." It reminds me a lot of the Nentir Vale. In true Dungeon World fashion, it creates a sketched-out setting with a lot of blanks that are left blank or filled-in through play, whether by the players or GM. It gives you by-products of the setting's history but it doesn't give you answers. Instead of providing detailed explanations of world history, Stonetop forces the players and GM, and, by extension, the PCs to make assumptions about parts of the world and its history. In this way, it aligns the players and PCs in the history and mysteries of the setting.

Honestly, if I were to run a PbtA game for you, it would probably be Stonetop. Not only because I happen to like it, but also because I suspect that it would be a PbtA game that would be closer to your liking. The world feels real. More real than I have felt than in the worlds of many of the most hardcore sim GMs with whom I have played. There are GM move suggestions connected to places, creatures, and items in the setting. These moves are more like "here is some possible crap that could go wrong with X that you can use" rather than "you must do these moves."

2) Over time I was becoming increasingly disillusioned with how difficult it was to even get the thing that sim supposedly promised---deep immersion. There seemed to be so much sacrificed---character stakes, stronger dramatic tension, player investment in something beyond, "Okay, we're exploring some new cool place that's mostly like all the other cool places we've already explored, and meeting more NPCs we don't care about. When do we get to fight again?"

Not only wasn't sim producing the one thing I cared about---deep immersion---it wasn't even producing intermediate positives.

And I'm willing to bet there's a lot of GMs that have the same problem. Trad sim priorities, unless deeply invested by the players, is largely ineffective at producing more enjoyable intermediate drama/stakes the players really care about.

This was kinda my issue as well. There were some settings that sim-oriented GMs threw their entire selves into making a simulated world, only to end up like the bold and my character (and those of the rest of the party) forgotten in the shuffle. Like it didn't really matter what character I had made for the game or how I roleplayed them. It would have mostly ended up the same.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So unlike a lot of the prior "no myth" talk, Stonetop does lean into myth. However, it's not "high myth." It's more akin to "incomplete myth." It reminds me a lot of the Nentir Vale. In true Dungeon World fashion, it creates a sketched-out setting with a lot of blanks that are left blank or filled-in through play, whether by the players or GM. It gives you by-products of the setting's history but it doesn't give you answers. Instead of providing detailed explanations of world history, Stonetop forces the players and GM, and, by extension, the PCs to make assumptions about parts of the world and its history. In this way, it aligns the players and PCs in the history and mysteries of the setting.

Honestly, if I were to run a PbtA game for you, it would probably be Stonetop. Not only because I happen to like it, but also because I suspect that it would be a PbtA game that would be closer to your liking. The world feels real. More real than I have felt than in the worlds of many of the most hardcore sim GMs with whom I have played. There are GM move suggestions connected to places, creatures, and items in the setting. These moves are more like "here is some possible crap that could go wrong with X that you can use" rather than "you must do these moves."


This was kinda my issue as well. There were some settings that sim-oriented GMs threw their entire selves into making a simulated world, only to end up like the bold and my character (and those of the rest of the party) forgotten in the shuffle. Like it didn't really matter what character I had made for the game or how I roleplayed them. It would have mostly ended up the same.

I would be open to playing in Stonetop, actually. I really like some setting to sink my teeth into, incomplete or not.

As far as that last comment goes, that can be a problem. Which is why I always incorporate into session 0 a conversation with the players focusing on the PCs goals. That way I can make sure to build into the world stuff that matters to them specifically before the campaign begins.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This was kinda my issue as well. There were some settings that sim-oriented GMs threw their entire selves into making a simulated world, only to end up like the bold and my character (and those of the rest of the party) forgotten in the shuffle. Like it didn't really matter what character I had made for the game or how I roleplayed them. It would have mostly ended up the same.

Yeah, I identified a lot with that whole feeling of "yawn, another D&D-esque fantasy world." I started to find I was just getting sleepier and sleepier at the table! Sure, each one is 'unique' in terms of there being an infinity of configurations of orc tribes or whatever, and undoubtedly every GM DOES put some little unique stamp on their thing, but exploration of entirely invented worlds for its own sake simply wears thin. This is especially true if you have been at it for a decade or two!

There were always these fairly rare instances of really interesting play, but I noticed they were ALWAYS about the characters, not the setting. Well, 95% of the time at least, Mike managed to hit us with a few cool setting things, but even his wacky creativity couldn't do that very reliably. The good stuff was how the Free Trader captain turned the ship towards the Sun and made the hijackers surrender because he proved he REALLY WAS willing to burn up instead of surrendering.