Why do RPGs have rules?

[Maxperson]

Any GM who tells their player the kind of stuff you're saying has, in my opinion, failed as a simulationist. Of course the PCs can change the world, through their actions. That's the point. Big changes require more effort and more time, of course. Just like in real life.

This. Anyone who prevents the players from doing things in the name of simulation has failed at simulation.

 

[Maxperson]

Why is it more realistic to meet the goblins, rather than the Orcs the PC hopes to confront?

"Realistic" here just means "What the GM decided would be part of their world."

This is wrong. Realistic means anything that could realistically happen at that juncture. Just because the DM decided does not prevent it from being realistic.

 

[Maxperson]

It's not. But if both are equally (un)realistic, why not frame the situation that speaks to the PC's dramatic need?

Conversely, if there's no plan to do that, then why bother having players establish such things for their PCs?

Because the game is not a dichotomy of meet a dramatic need or don't. Important dramatic things can happen to the PCs sometimes and not others, as befits a more realistic world where everything encountered doesn't have to meet a dramatic need.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I realize that is one of the perils of writing tersely. I had a more detailed explanation but that caused its own problems. I found writing tersely and then explaining that I am not assuming that any of the steps are handled in any particular way results in better discussion.

Fair enough. I am highly likely to expect a certain PoV is likely in posts here .

Fiction is one of those terms that hobbyists use in many ways. You will have to clarify what you mean. However in terms of setting the initial pages outlines the different character types and their description paints a specific picture of the world the characters inhabit. The fact that it doesn't go into whether the character will be facing the Mad King of Redgate Keep versus The Evil High Priest of the Hellbridge Temple doesn't change that Baker has a very specific type of setting in mind when writing Dungeon World. This is further reinforced by the gamemaster advice given later. Dungeon World is not an RPG that lends itself to running every type of fantasy setting. But instead, focuses on a narrow range of settings that have a specific feel.

Well, I tend to be fairly specific in my use of these terms. I find imprecision often leads to false impressions. Particularly the idea that somehow narrative and trad games are "just doing the same thing", which they are most decidedly NOT. So I would use 'fiction' to mean what is described in-game, including any setting that might be prepped or not. Other stuff I'd generally call 'color', though I am aware that some of it can be pretty binding on the participants (IE no laser pistols in a Dungeon World game). I would call that 'more binding' stuff 'genre', and then there are things like 'tone' which is generally more attributable to the specific instance of play, though it is certainly also something that systems may aim for (IE light and nonserious ala 'Dying Earth', or hard like WH4K).

I agree that DW itself is probably aimed at a fairly limited range of play, but I think that is true only to the degree that something like D&D also is. That is, you can do quite a lot with it, but given the ease of hacking PbtAs there's not a lot of reason to call it 'Dungeon World' much past a certain point.

And keep in mind we are talking about Dungeon World specifically not the PbtA framework which powers other types of RPGs which deal with different settings and different genres.

Well, I used that as my example, yes, so I'm OK living with that.

Then a clarification is needed by what I am calling a setting. Again it is meant to be taken expansively not narrowly. A setting is the background of the campaign. Anything and everything that could impact how a player will roleplay a character.

I don't disagree necessarily with this, as I understand what you are getting at, but I think it is worth being more precise. That is, if you and I each run a DW game, the 'world' that arises out of that play will be different, maybe quite different, in lots of important respects. If I use 'setting' only to cover 'fiction which pertains to the world, its lore, etc.' and not to stuff like character classes and such, then we have a word to capture just that, since presumably we are using the same classes (give or take). And I can use other terms for that other stuff, depending on context, rules, or player options, etc.

The point of all roleplaying whether it is with a human referee as with tabletop RPGs, collaborative storytelling, refereed by a software algorithm, or adjudicated by the rules of a sport (LARPS), is to pretend to be a character having adventures. In order to have adventures there needs to be a place in which adventures can occur. In order for players to decide what to do as their characters there needs to be a context on which the player can make a decision. All of this forms the setting of the campaign.

Yet the whole sub-genre of Zero Myth games shows that NONE of that need be established previous to play, beyond what I call genre and player options. This distinction becomes important later on!

What I am calling a setting is not just a list of specific details like the Sorceror Supply Shop is on Regal Street just south of the Square of the Gods in City State. It also the more general assumptions and tropes from which those details are created from. The details of Harn are grounded in the fact that it is a medieval setting with some elements of fantasy and the fantastic.

The procedure that I outlined and claim covers all tabletop RPGs works just fine if the group decides to start the campaign with just general assumptions and tropes and paint in the details later as characters are created and the campaign is played. It also works just fine with campaign where the group is sitting with the entire Glorantha corpus sitting on shelves next to the table.

Thus I stand by my point that the first thing that happens when any type of tabletop RPG campaign is run, is that a setting is defined.

I'm certainly not here to argue about any of that, just to point out that there are profound differences between a game where the FICTION, who, what, and where of stuff is determined beforehand and establishes the boundaries and context in which the characters are able to act, and a game where this is not so.

Given what I said above, Dungeon World is an example of an RPG that starts out a campaign with a setting that is comprised of no details just assumptions and tropes.

In addition, since the first campaigns of the early 70s the process has always started with "Hey what would be fun to play?" Whether it was a decision by a single individual, the referee, throwing it out to the rest of the group. Or a group just brainstorming ideas until one is reached by consensus. Then the details are fleshed out. What Baker did with PtbA style RPGs is make this process explicit and an expected part of how PbtA style campaigns are run.

Well, there are many possibilities WRT how a game and its parameters could be established. I've seen a lot of games in my 40+ years of RPG play. Anywhere from a GM simply decreeing that a certain game will happen with 'thus and such' provisions, all the way to long discussions and negotiations covering all aspects of the game to be. And in all sorts of permutations of chronology, from everything hashed out beforehand to nothing agreed upon until after everyone sat down at the table with character sheets in hand (potentially leading to issues of course). There are also tournaments and organized play, etc. of course, though I think we can mostly consider those special cases.

Step 1 happened when the group decided on using Dungeon World.


To answer look at the steps I outlined and what I highlighted

1. The referee describes a setting
2. The players describe some character they want to play in the setting.
3. The referee describes the circumstances in which the characters find themselves.
4. The players describe what they do as their characters.
5. The referee adjudicates what the players do as their characters and then loops back to #3.

You (and @pemerton ) are assuming, likely based on my reputation, that all of what I highlighted are handled more or less the same way that Dungeons & Dragons and other similar RPGs campaigns are handled.

I deliberately elected not to expand on what one does to describe a setting, describe characters, describe circumstances, how player describe what they do, and how the referee adjudicate. All of these can be handled in different ways including delegating it to the consensus of the entire group. Dungeon World other PbtA RPgs represent a specific implementation of the above.

These steps I feel represent the minimum one has to do in order to run a tabletop role-playing campaign. A group wants to pretend to be characters having adventures using pen & paper this is what works. There are other broad alternatives but that means you doing something different like playing a board game, a CRPG, wargaming, LARPing, Collaborative Storytelling, and so on. Each of those are fun but have different consideration to make them work.

Yeah, I am simply pointing out that the most straightforward and common interpretation of the items on that list, worded as such, is going to involve an assumption that you are discussing trad D&D-esque RPG play.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Sincere question to anybody knowledgeable: does Dungeon World even have the concept of modifiers to probability distributions? Simple example: in 5E, if your AC and to-hit are better than the enemy's, it's advantageous to impose disadvantage on both sides (e.g. by dropping prone in an archery duel, or fighting on bad terrain) because disadvantage probability curve hurts them more than you. Or you might try to lead the enemy into a ruined city to create 3/4 cover for yourself for a +5 AC bonus, even if that lets the enemy do the same. Or you cast Bless on yourself, expecting the combat to last long enough for it to pay off. Does Dungeon World inspire this kind of tactical, quantitative decision making? If so would someone mind pointing me to a page reference, as a favor?

The rules-light systems that I've seen generally eschew making tactical details matter but maybe Dungeon World is an exception.

I think the way things are likely to go in DW is more specific. So, if you have a high STR you probably want to Hack & Slash, and with a high DEX you probably want to Volley, as a general rule. A high CON character can probably handle Defend more readily (as they're tougher). More armor can be advantageous, but can also clearly cause you issues. Beyond that, advantages and disadvantages are much more likely to play out in terms of danger avoided or not. If you get the drop on your opponent, then you can unleash damage on them without even needing to make a move (IE the enemy is helpless, just damage them). If OTOH you foolishly find yourself needing to advance against a prepared opponent, then you probably need to Defy Danger just to get near them. Frankly 'cover' and such are not concepts that are specifically covered by some sort of modifier. They could come into play via the explanation of a DD check "I go prone, the arrows miss" or in terms of 'hold' gained through a Discern Realities check "what is useful here to me?" or Spout Lore "It is advantageous to seek cover!" etc. Notice these are much more focused on what the character DOES vs simply the nature/geometry of the situation.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This is wrong. Realistic means anything that could realistically happen at that juncture. Just because the DM decided does not prevent it from being realistic.

You are totally missing the point. Nobody said goblins were not as 'realistic' as orcs, we question why it is possible to even posit that one is MORE realistic than the other. Beyond that, even if one IS more realistic (we'll ignore whether realism is even a cogent idea here) the GM is the one who determined all the factors that he then evaluated to make that determination, so it is still just an arbitrary ruling! Sim GM cannot escape responsibility, they invented ALL the 'facts' which are then weighed!

 

[innerdude]

Sincere question to anybody knowledgeable: does Dungeon World even have the concept of modifiers to probability distributions? Simple example: in 5E, if your AC and to-hit are better than the enemy's, it's advantageous to impose disadvantage on both sides (e.g. by dropping prone in an archery duel, or fighting on bad terrain) because disadvantage probability curve hurts them more than you. Or you might try to lead the enemy into a ruined city to create 3/4 cover for yourself for a +5 AC bonus, even if that lets the enemy do the same. Or you cast Bless on yourself, expecting the combat to last long enough for it to pay off. Does Dungeon World inspire this kind of tactical, quantitative decision making? If so would someone mind pointing me to a page reference, as a favor?

The rules-light systems that I've seen generally eschew making tactical details matter but maybe Dungeon World is an exception.

If you're looking at Dungeon World to do this you're looking completely in the wrong direction. It doesn't play at this level tactically at all.

The entire mindset evidenced in the quoted post is polar opposite of the intent of DW.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

If you're looking at Dungeon World to do this you're looking completely in the wrong direction. It doesn't play at this level tactically at all.

The entire mindset evidenced in the quoted post is polar opposite of the intent of DW.

I think it would be more correct to point out that THE FICTION IS NOT ESTABLISHED until the participants establish it. It would be impossible to take advantage of terrain, because you would first have to establish it! That is you CAN do that, but the focus is on establishment and explication as it relates to success or failure of the character's goals, not analysis of tactical situations.

 

[pemerton]

This is wrong. Realistic means anything that could realistically happen at that juncture. Just because the DM decided does not prevent it from being realistic.

But at that juncture, the PC could meet Orcs. The reason they meet Goblins isn't because that's what's realistic. As per @Micah Sweet's post upthread, it's because that's what the GM prepped:

Because its all set up ahead of time. I don't decide in the moment that the orcs are in whatever direction tbe PC decides to go. I decide where the orcs are, provide access to information that can lead the PC to the orcs, but run based on whatever is in the direction the PC actually decides to go. If that's to the orcs, great! If that's to the goblins, great! It's up to them where they go, but its up to me before they make that decision what is in that direction.

There is nothing about the GM prepping Orcs to the north, Goblins to the south (or whatever it might be) which is more realistic than any other possible arrangement.

EDIT: Ninja'd by AbdulAlhazred:

Nobody said goblins were not as 'realistic' as orcs, we question why it is possible to even posit that one is MORE realistic than the other. Beyond that, even if one IS more realistic (we'll ignore whether realism is even a cogent idea here) the GM is the one who determined all the factors that he then evaluated to make that determination, so it is still just an arbitrary ruling! Sim GM cannot escape responsibility, they invented ALL the 'facts' which are then weighed!

Right. The reason the PC of the player who envisaged vengeance on the Orcs ends up fighting Goblins is because of decisions the GM made. Not because it's unrealistic for the PC to encounter the Orcs.

 

[pemerton]

Because the game is not a dichotomy of meet a dramatic need or don't. Important dramatic things can happen to the PCs sometimes and not others, as befits a more realistic world where everything encountered doesn't have to meet a dramatic need.

What makes that world more realistic?