Why do RPGs have rules?

[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.

I'm certain this game exist already and I'm going to look for it.

In the meantime:
There are three Blades-like phases:

1. Exploration
2. Downtime
3. Pathfinding

each session is played in this order, regardless of the events of the previous one: treat each session as a standalone episode — characters find themselves in an exciting situation, deal with it, and find new mysteries.

In Exploration phase, the usual stuff happens. You've played it before: GM frames a scene, players say what their characters do, something happens.

In Downtime phase, characters rest, clench their vices and do long-term things. If you are sleeping on a cold stone floor somewhere deep in Agartha, you can't go into an extravagant casino, but you can remember that time you did with a smile on your face.

In Pathfinding phase, one of the players comes up with a premise for the next episode and places where it will happen on the map.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

What's the C?

 

[niklinna]

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.

Yes, I think the initial responses to your question were a bit off the mark. Dungeon World (as any PbtA game) has stats, forward, hold, etc., all of which you use at a very basic level to shift probability curves—as long as it's well-grounded in the fiction. A friend phrased this as "part of player skill is navigating the fiction so you can use stats that give (ideally your best) bonuses". This family of games always come from that perspective: think of the fiction first, and then map it onto mechanics*. So setup moves are totally a thing. (And Stonetop, descended from Dungeon World, even has advantage!)

* But sure, I'll totally cop as a player to thinking in terms of mechanics in my head before finding a fictional justification for it! I'm even guilty of saying things like, "I Seek Insight", naming a formal move, when the rulebooks pointedly discourage doing so. Could be something for me to work on. Even so, these are games after all, so it's no sin to seek advantages however they are encoded.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

What's the C?

A) unrelated remarkable events continually happen to the same group of people all the time (your wording)

B) related events continually happen to the same group of people all the time (also yours)

C) unrelated remarkable events often happen if they go to the places where remarkable events happen (Wild West or equivalent)

D) unrelated remarkable events occasionally happen to them, and the GM skips over times when nothing remarkable is happening

E) remarkable things rarely happen to or around the players, but it doesn't matter because they are proactively doing remarkable things (planning and executing heists or con games, hunting down Most Wanted criminals, participating in ongoing wars as special operations personnel)

There's probably an F, G, H...

 

[hawkeyefan]

A) unrelated remarkable events continually happen to the same group of people all the time (your wording)

B) related events continually happen to the same group of people all the time (also yours)

Keeping the above quoted for reference.

C) unrelated remarkable events often happen if they go to the places where remarkable events happen (Wild West or equivalent)

What brings them to such a place? Wouldn’t it be (A) or (B)?

D) unrelated remarkable events occasionally happen to them, and the GM skips over times when nothing remarkable is happening

I see this as (A).

E) remarkable things rarely happen to or around the players, but it doesn't matter because they are proactively doing remarkable things (planning and executing heists or con games, hunting down Most Wanted criminals, participating in ongoing wars as special operations personnel)

I view this as (B).

EDITED: I had my A and B mixed up. I've corrected that.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Yes, I think the initial responses to your question were a bit off the mark. Dungeon World (as any PbtA game) has stats, forward, hold, etc., all of which you use at a very basic level to shift probability curves—as long as it's well-grounded in the fiction. A friend phrased this as "part of player skill is navigating the fiction so you can use stats that give (ideally your best) bonuses". This family of games always come from that perspective: think of the fiction first, and then map it onto mechanics*. So setup moves are totally a thing. (And Stonetop, descended from Dungeon World, even has advantage!)

* But sure, I'll totally cop as a player to thinking in terms of mechanics in my head before finding a fictional justification for it! I'm even guilty of saying things like, "I Seek Insight", naming a formal move, when the rulebooks pointedly discourage doing so. Could be something for me to work on. Even so, these are games after all, so it's no sin to seek advantages however they are encoded.

This emphasis on "as long as it's grounded in the fiction" seems unremarkable to me except in contrast with systems like D&D 5E (and I think also 4E and maybe 3E, but not AD&D) that have a lot of abstract resources like Second Wind and Channel Divinity.

In systems like GURPS, Shadowrun, AD&D, etc., everything you do is "grounded in the fiction" to such an extent that you don't even wind up talking about "the fiction" and mapping the fiction to mechanics. It's just: if you go to cut his arm off, roll dice, and if he doesn't parry/block/dodge and you do enough damage, the arm comes off. The whole gameworld is "the fiction." (Yes, even Vancian magic, if you've read Mazirian the Magician.)

It's interesting to hear that Dungeon World lines up with GURPS in some respects because they have very different reputations.

 

[clearstream]

Yes. It sometimes comes across as 'my gameworld is real; yours is just a shallow facade'.

One question is - why would it be important to you that your gameworld is or is not real, if that is not your priority for play?

Realism is a priority for play for some folk. Groups I have played Harnmaster with put a far greater emphasis on realism than groups I've played MotW with. It's not that MotW play punts realism, but it's normally a much higher priority for Harn.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Keeping the above quoted for reference.

What brings them to such a place? Wouldn’t it be (A) or (B)?

The existence of the Wild West might be remarkable, but it's something that happened to and among other people.

Deciding to move to the Wild West isn't something that "happens to you". Proactive, not reactive.

So clearly it cannot be A or B.

I see this as (B).

B is both continual and related, and D is neither of those things. It can't be B.

I view this as (A).

But no remarkable events are "happening to" them, so it cannot be A. And even if it were A, that would disprove your argument about A being no more realistic than B!

If I'm a Roman citizen in 100 A.D. and I go to Rome and try to kill the Emperor, interesting things are going to happen to me, but my probable crucifixion and death is not improbable or unrealistic! I can't give a modern example due to ENWorld rules (even the Roman example risks Umbran's wrath IME) but hopefully you get the gist. Making interesting things happen around you by doing interesting things does not require becoming a Weirdness Magnet the way B does.

Your words: "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."

Can you see how much your argument relies upon the false dichotomy that excludes C, D, and E from existing? You even said it yourself: "If [not E], then... [unrealistic things will happen]." You're implicitly acknowledging that E (no improbable events occurring except through player instigation) is more realistic than B (improbable coincidences related to player character's interests and themes, i.e. becoming a Personalized Weirdness Magnet).

A/B is a false dichotomy and should not be used to unilaterally dismiss realism as a genuine concern that some people have. If you do, you will never understand why people have that concern. You'll be talking to yourself about a riddle in a language you've forbidden yourself to learn.

 

[clearstream]

Upthread, the issue of Middle Earth and simulationism was raised. It seemed to be suggested that there could be a simulationist game set in Middle Earth.

Everything in Middle Earth is authored to meet some dramatic need or serve some thematic purpose.

Now it is being posited that this is "unrealistic" and hence at odd with simulationism.

I'm lost.

The mystery of Middle Earth is straightforward. In the Silmarillion and other works, and in the maps by his son, Tolkien supplied an abundance of information that fits the criteria for realism. Those can be supplemented from books such as the superb Atlas by Karen Wynn Fonstad. Tolkien undertook multiple projects in Middle Earth. Some of those projects were dramatic stories.

If a "world truth" means something the GM has made up in their notes that the players never learn about, then it's separate from play, and in my view of little interest.

That expresses your preferences in no uncertain terms. Taking Middle Earth as an example, the path of the Deeping Steam is an externally true fact regardless whether players ever go to Helms Deep. I find that delightful and in some subtle sense powerful. I accept that you do not.

If a "world truth" means something that we can imagine happening that is independent of the events the PCs participate in, then every RPG with some minimum degree of sophistication has this. Eg in my BW games there are shops, soldiers, guards, sailors, etc and its obvious that all these people have lives and families and so on that don't have any relevance to or bearing on the PCs.

I suppose it depends on whether those facts are contingent or not. If they will warp around player characters then under my account you wouldn't be prioritising that facet of realism.

If a "world truth" means something that the GM makes a focus of play that is not connected to the players' evinced concerns for their PCs, then what we're talking about in my view is not "realism" but rather who gets to decide what play is about.

Under my account, world truths are not dependent on GM. That's only one approach to managing them.

 

[robertsconley]

Realism in the sense being used for the past few post exchanges is about the setting being consistent with how the world works.

This debate over "realism" is irrelevant. What matters for RPG campaigns is consistency. That the mechanics reflect how the setting is described Particularly the descriptions of how things work when you try to do things as your character. The world described by Toon an RPG about Saturday morning cartoon is very different than the world described by Harnmaster. Yet both are known for being consistent in how their mechanics reflect their respective settings/genres.

Why is consistency important? Because player don't like it when told they have to roll a different way when the same situation comes up later in the campaign. Even in the zany world of Toon, you want to be consistent with how the world of cartoons works. Yes what happens in those cartoons is often random but it is a specific type of randomness which Toon handles well.

Players like they can leverage their knowledge of a setting in to plans that work.

And finally, this has nothing to do with the level of detail. You don't need all the detail that GURPS or Harnmaster has to run a campaign where things are consistent with how things work in the real world. A minimalist system that has a good way of abstracting how things work in a setting is fine. ANd it is fine to have systems like GUPRS and Harnmaster that do use detailed mechanics.

The test is whether a player new to the system can use their knowledge of the setting to make meaningful decisions as their character. And that after resolving whatever they are trying to do with the mechanics that afterward they go "Yes those rules make sense. If the answer is yes, then the author of the system has done their job well.