Why do RPGs have rules?

[Maxperson]

Here are two scenarios.

1) The PCs leave town, traveling to the north and run into goblins.
2) The PCs leave town, traveling to the north and run into the tribe of orcs that killed the ranger’s family.

Which is more realistic?

First, there's no way to tell. Are the PCs in example 2 across the continent from where the ranger's family was killed? If so, then it would be less realistic than encountering goblins local to the area that they are in.

Second, that's only one example, so even if both are equally realistic it completely misses the point of what I said. I'll quote it again.

"There isn't a person alive who has every circumstance they encounter meet some sort of personal dramatic need."

So if the PCs leave town and run into the tribe that killed the ranger's family, that can easily be as realistic as the goblins. However, if they then continue on and run into a caravan where the wizard recognizes a guard from his master's tower who disappeared on the night he was assassinated, then continuing on run into a hermit who happens to know the recipe for a potion that might cure the fighter's sister of the magical disease she is suffering, and on and on, it quickly becomes highly unrealistic.

I don't enjoy those sorts of games. If you do, that's awesome. Having fun is the important part of RPG gaming.

 

[hawkeyefan]

First, there's no way to tell. Are the PCs in example 2 across the continent from where the ranger's family was killed? If so, then it would be less realistic than encountering goblins local to the area that they are in.

Second, that's only one example, so even if both are equally realistic it completely misses the point of what I said. I'll quote it again.

Right, this is why actual examples from play are always better than these incomplete "what ifs" that come up in these discussions.

We definitely don't have enough information to know what would make more sense in the fiction. But that's beside the point.... the point is that all of it is constructed.

"There isn't a person alive who has every circumstance they encounter meet some sort of personal dramatic need."

So what?

Not in every game, but certainly in many, PCs are not typical folks. Crazy crap happens to them and around them at all times.

So if the PCs leave town and run into the tribe that killed the ranger's family, that can easily be as realistic as the goblins. However, if they then continue on and run into a caravan where the wizard recognizes a guard from his master's tower who disappeared on the night he was assassinated, then continuing on run into a hermit who happens to know the recipe for a potion that might cure the fighter's sister of the magical disease she is suffering, and on and on, it quickly becomes highly unrealistic.

I think your take here relies on a pretty traditional gaming viewpoint. Where things continually happen to the characters. They're not carving their own way... they're just wandering from one unconnected thing to another. And in the past you've vehemently asserted that your players have agency.

"No, no... you don't find the fantastic thing you're looking for... you find this totally unrelated fantastic thing!"

The idea that this is more realistic is bonkers.

I don't enjoy those sorts of games. If you do, that's awesome. Having fun is the important part of RPG gaming.

Sure. Just drop the realistic argument because it's totally misguided.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Ok, I figured I'd do a quick post on this to try to clarify how the tactical decision-space of Dungeon World works. There is a substantial Gamist element of Dungeon World if the GM and players know what they're doing, its just somewhat (though not totally) different than in standard D&D.

...take +1 forward when acting upon that information.

... DW is very, very tag-intensive (as a lot of indie games are). Range relationships are governed by tags...

... There are several currencies to manage from Gear currencies (like Ammo 2 and Adventuring Gear 4 and Rations 3), to basic move currencies (like spend Hold when you Defend to do defend-ey stuff), to playbook currencies (embedded in playbook moves).

Thanks. I think that answers my question about using sensible actions to shift probability curves in your favor: it probably would involve "taking a +N forward" to some subset of possible actions governed by tags. E.g. luring enemies into quicksand to impose an Immobile tag, and then using your enormous hammer (which gets a +1 vs. Immobile targets) to smash them.

I appreciate your generosity with your time and expertise in writing that post, @Manbearcat. Thank you.

 

[loverdrive]

I'd say "dramatic needs" is a misnomer in this discussion.

Creating things for the purposes of them being interesting is also decidedly non-sim, while being unbothered with the characters.

Consider this hypothetical game:

World is composed of hexes, about 1-mile in diagonal. When you lead the way into an unexplored hex, decide: do you want to learn about something new or to test an existing hypothesis about something known and roll +Exploration. On a miss, you get the opposite. You are not the main character, things just are the way they are. On a hit, you get what you want, and on 10+ you can also narrow the result even further: "I feel the stench of Dark Arts", "Huh, I've never seen this symbol before...", etc.

It preserves the uncaring feeling of the sword, while ensuring that things will be interesting.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I think your take here relies on a pretty traditional gaming viewpoint. Where things continually happen to the characters. They're not carving their own way... they're just wandering from one unconnected thing to another. And in the past you've vehemently asserted that your players have agency.

"No, no... you don't find the fantastic thing you're looking for... you find this totally unrelated fantastic thing!"

The idea that this is more realistic is bonkers.

If I'm understanding your point correctly, the point in bold is key. I'll attempt to paraphrase, and you can tell me if I'm misunderstanding your point:

"It's only unrealistic if you insist on playing out every minute of each character's life. If you instead skip over all of the irrelevant goblin encounters (by assuming that the players avoided, successfully negotiated with, or killed them all) and jump straight to several weeks later to when they catch up to the orcs, that's not necessarily unrealistic, and it's a lot more interesting for the players and GM."

 

[hawkeyefan]

If I'm understanding your point correctly, the point in bold is key. I'll attempt to paraphrase, and you can tell me if I'm misunderstanding your point:

"It's only unrealistic if you insist on playing out every minute of each character's life. If you instead skip over all of the irrelevant goblin encounters (by assuming that the players avoided, successfully negotiated with, or killed them all) and jump straight to several weeks later to when they catch up to the orcs, that's not necessarily unrealistic, and it's a lot more interesting for the players and GM."

That’s one part of it, absolutely.

But the point I was really trying to make was about how active the players are in driving the focus of play. Do they pursue specific goals? Do they make things happen? Or do things just happen to them?

Looking at it another way… let’s assume the characters are going to have a series of adventures. Seems a safe assumption for characters in an RPG. What makes more sense? That those adventures would have connections to the characters? That in pursuing their goals they actually do things related to their goals? Or, alternatively, unrelated remarkable things just continue to happen to them? That wherever they go, totally unrelated to them, momentous things continue to happen?

I think the former makes more sense than the latter. But I recognize that as my preference. Neither is more realistic. Both could conceivably happen. So I think it’s better to evaluate these things in ways other than “realism”. Better to evaluate it in some concrete way beyond the fiction. How do they compare as processes of play?

Also, the idea of dramatic needs doesn’t need to be so specific as “finding the orcs that murdered my family” and that kind of thing. GMs are able to construct scenarios that seem unrelated to characters historically, but which speak to their morals or outlooks in some way.

 

[robertsconley]

Is it right then that what you would agree with would be

1. describe a setting
2. describe some characters
3. describe some circumstances
4. describe what characters do
5. adjudicate those descriptions; loop to #3

That is, stripping out any assumptions about who is doing what? (It's missing the metagame arc, which either is or isn't distinctive of RPG depending on how you define it.)

As a general description of all RPGs sure. To be clear when I say all RPG I means anything that focuses on player playing individual characters. This includes computer RPGs, LARPS and so on.

My assumption is that the focus of this thread was on tabletop RPGs, the subcategory that started with the release of OD&D in 1974. That the OP by @pemerton was about why you need to have rules for tabletop RPGs. Hence why I included what I feel is the central mechanic that all tabletop RPGs share. One of the defining characteristics of tabletop is the role of the human referee.

Two things set RPGs apart with they first popped up in the 70s. The use of the human referee and the assumption that unlike wargames and boardgame, anything that the character could do in a setting could be an attempt whether there was a rule to cover it or not.

This is why OD&D, Classic Traveller, and others emphasized coming up with rulings when the players wanted to do something as their character that wasn't covered by the system.

My thesis has been criticized by @pemerton and others for not accounting for group consensus. And my basic reply was that referees can choose to delegate this if they want. But I admit that basically a sidestep of the larger issue which is what if steps 1 to 5 didn't involve a human referee at all. What if it they all were handled by a set of mechanics based on group consensus? Well like CRPG and LARP that would be a distinct form of Roleplaying different than what I call tabletop roleplaying.

But to be clear hybrids are the norm, not the exception. So if a system mixes group consensus, group mechanics, and a human referee then likely it is a tabletop Roleplaying like D&D, Traveller, and so on. There is a reason why the authors of Blades in Dark, Dungeon World, Fate, etc. created a special referee role as part of the system rather than jettisoning it altogether. Namely, like more traditional systems the author found that having a referee to handle certain aspects of the system and setting makes the campaign more fun and doable in the time one has for a hobby.

So what you wrote is fine as a general summary of what all RPGs share. But what I wrote originally is a summary of what all tabletop RPGs share.

Hope that makes sense.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

That’s one part of it, absolutely.

But the point I was really trying to make was about how active the players are in driving the focus of play. Do they pursue specific goals? Do they make things happen? Or do things just happen to them?

Looking at it another way… let’s assume the characters are going to have a series of adventures. Seems a safe assumption for characters in an RPG. What makes more sense? That those adventures would have connections to the characters? That in pursuing their goals they actually do things related to their goals? Or, alternatively, unrelated remarkable things just continue to happen to them? That wherever they go, totally unrelated to them, momentous things continue to happen?

I think the former makes more sense than the latter. But I recognize that as my preference. Neither is more realistic. Both could conceivably happen. So I think it’s better to evaluate these things in ways other than “realism”. Better to evaluate it in some concrete way beyond the fiction. How do they compare as processes of play?

Also, the idea of dramatic needs doesn’t need to be so specific as “finding the orcs that murdered my family” and that kind of thing. GMs are able to construct scenarios that seem unrelated to characters historically, but which speak to their morals or outlooks in some way.

I would say that even if players are being proactive, if you're not skipping over uninteresting aspects of their lives it challenges willing suspension of disbelief for everything that they experience to be dramatically relevant. The zooming out or skipping over part (i.e. control of pacing) is mandatory IMO for resolving the tension between realism and drama.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I would say that even if players are being proactive, if you're not skipping over uninteresting aspects of their lives it challenges willing suspension of disbelief for everything that they experience to be dramatically relevant. The zooming out or skipping over part (i.e. control of pacing) is mandatory IMO for resolving the tension between realism and drama.

I think there's plenty of skipping of boring stuff in every game. Even in D&D, when it comes to travel, typically there's a process like rolling to see if there is an encounter of some sort every X time period, and if there's no encounter, then you gloss over all of it with a bit of descriptive narration.

But again, I don't see the meaningful difference between something interesting happening that's related to dramatic needs and something interesting happening that's not. Either way, something interesting is happening. So, what makes them distinct? One is related to the players' goals or their characters' themes, and the other is not.

The only reason to have them not relate to the players' goals or characters' themes is because you don't want them to.

Let's look at it another way. If the players are being proactive, then they're pursuing specific things. Those things and related events happening would seem to be the natural conclusion of that starting point, no? If they aren't proactive, then things are still going to happen to them because it's a game and we all want stuff to happen. Wherever they go, they run into significant events, unrelated to their own agenda.

So, the argument about realism seems to me to boil down to saying that (A) unrelated remarkable events continually happen to the same group of people all the time is somehow more realistic or sensible than (B) related events continually happen to the same group of people all the time. That's a really weak argument.

So let's set aside the appeal to realism. What is the difference?

The most obvious, to me, is that (A) is more about the GM dictating what happens, and (B) is more about the players dictating what happens. Realism is just the excuse GMs use for pushing for (A).

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I think there's plenty of skipping of boring stuff in every game. Even in D&D, when it comes to travel, typically there's a process like rolling to see if there is an encounter of some sort every X time period, and if there's no encounter, then you gloss over all of it with a bit of descriptive narration.

But again, I don't see the meaningful difference between something interesting happening that's related to dramatic needs and something interesting happening that's not. Either way, something interesting is happening. So, what makes them distinct? One is related to the players' goals or their characters' themes, and the other is not.

The only reason to have them not relate to the players' goals or characters' themes is because you don't want them to.

Let's look at it another way. If the players are being proactive, then they're pursuing specific things. Those things and related events happening would seem to be the natural conclusion of that starting point, no? If they aren't proactive, then things are still going to happen to them because it's a game and we all want stuff to happen. Wherever they go, they run into significant events, unrelated to their own agenda.

So, the argument about realism seems to me to boil down to saying that (A) unrelated remarkable events continually happen to the same group of people all the time is somehow more realistic or sensible than (B) related events continually happen to the same group of people all the time. That's a really weak argument.

So let's set aside the appeal to realism. What is the difference?

The most obvious, to me, is that (A) is more about the GM dictating what happens, and (B) is more about the players dictating what happens. Realism is just the excuse GMs use for pushing for (A).

You're pushing a false dichotomy here (A vs. B but really there's a C) and using it to unilaterally discard realism as a concern, without agreement from @Maxperson or myself. All you're doing here is rendering yourself incapable of hearing what he or I is saying.

You're jumping to incorrect conclusions.