Why do RPGs have rules?

[Lanefan]

How is it jarring that characters try to do the things they want, and then related events happen to them?

Wouldn't it be far more jarring to have endlessly unrelated adventures constantly happening to the same group of people?

If the players, in-character, proactively seek out these adventures then sure, having them find adventures isn't particularly jarring.

But when either of the following occurs, it is jarring:

--- the adventures found just coincidentally happen to be tailored to a specific character, every time (not necessarily always the same character)
--- the players in-character do not look for adventures but adventures always seem to find them anyway.

The first one is key: coincidence is fine if it happens once in a blue moon. When it happens at a frequency far beyond what random chance would reasonably allow, it's gone from coincidence to (the bad type of) contrivance.

From whose perspective? I'm assuming you mean from the GM's, but maybe I'm wrong.

players' perspective.

From the players' perspective, if something is established in the game, then it's simply true. The reason behind it may or may not ever be known to them. So if that's the case, then is it actually important that there be a specific reason decided ahead of time?

Yes.

Why? Because while "something ... established in the game [is] simply true" is - I think - agreed by all of us, many players want to know (or at least be able to then or later learn in-character) the setting-based causal path explaining why it is true and how it is true, so they can a) determine whether they can rely on it still being true if-when the same thing happens again in play and b) extrapolate from that how-and-why to better inform themselves of other truths in the setting before they arise in play. In short: precedent.

And because players often want to learn those hows and whys (and IMO they have a right to try), and further because this is the sort of thing where a GM could really seriously mess up their whole game by trying to wing these answers in the moment and getting it wrong, the GM IMO needs to have at least the kernel of that rationale nailed down well ahead of time.

 

[Maxperson]

I've had that on my mind lately, too. I'm wondering if there are different kinds of immersion

Immersion in world
Immersion in character
Immersion in problem

Speaking for myself, I do not differentiate between those at all. If I'm immersed in the world, I am also immersed in character and if there is a fictional problem, I'm immersed in that as well. I can't be immersed in the character and not also the world, and vise versa.

I suppose I could as a player be immersed in a problem, since sometimes I tend to hyper focus on one thing, but that's not what we are talking about.

 

[Maxperson]

Regarding simulationism, I'm not of the opinion that the internal cause needs to be pre-established.

Consider a novel fantastical situation, not covered by experience up to now. It doesn't map to anything in the group's reference set, and they don't have any pre-existing theory for how things should go. They accordingly sketch the first inklings of a novel theory... so long as that theory goes on to be used wherever this until-now-novel fantastical situation arises, it fits with the simulationist principle.

I almost agree. The initial instance would not be simulationist as it is not simulating anything at that point. If you then go on to consistently use it in the same way, the latter instances would be simulationist.

The pre-establishment needs to be there, but it doesn't have to be pre-established outside of play.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

What narratives aren't contrived?

It's impossible for me to believe that you aren't familiar with the concept of narrative contrivance.

In fact I gave an example of justified contrivance (IMO) in the post you quoted: introducing a character in a contrived way in order to prevent a new player from having to sit and do nothing for an excessively long time.

"After killing the trolls, you journey onward until you hear the sounds of someone nearby shouting for help in a deep voice, and find someone who's been buried up to the neck in sand and smeared with honey for fire ants to find! This is Bruno the Minotaur. He asks to join your quest in gratitude for your aid, and you agree, but if asked how he got there he just shrugs and mutters something about a poker game. Bruno, do you have anything to say before we continue onwards?"

Contrived? Yes. Everybody at the table knows perfectly well that that wouldn't be happening if Bob, Bruno's player, hadn't showed up to learn how to play dungeons and dragons tonight.

 

[clearstream]

To put a discussion of simulationism aside (maybe it should be moved to another thread?), I have this theory that I've jokingly called it Super Theory of Super Everything, and I keep postponing putting it to paper.

So.

There's an infinite set E, that contains everything, everything, Super Everything possible in a roleplaying game, from defeating princesses to rescuing dragons to finding love to getting shot in the face to randomly dying from complications of teeth cavities. If you can think of it, it is included in E.

There's an infinite set S that contains everything possible in a particular system. Let's suppose there's an event o, o ∈ S, but o ∉ E. So, the system allows for a thing that is not possible in roleplaying game. Yeah, impossible, so S⊂E, or, in other words, a system cannot grant you any more freedom that you already have, only take it away. Chat calls it Loverdrive Theorem, and I am egotistical enough to accept such name.

Why do RPGs have rules then?

There's a subset G of E, that includes everything that you know you do want. Things that you are excited about. You can just, like, have those things. Introduce them directly, will them into existence: that's how ERP works. You don't need no rules for that, but it is possible for G\S to exist, things that you do want, but are not possible within the system. In mathematic terms, such scenario is called "this sucks on ice", and if G⊂S, it's called "woohoo, we have the bare minimum, who cares?".

Why do RPGs have rules then?

There's a subset B of E, things that you don't want. You also can, like, just not have those things, will them out of existence: that's how ERP works. But, unlike G, there's a good scenario. When B⊄S, when the system doesn't allow for things you don't want, great! You don't have to worry about them and can pursue G without a care in the world.

Why do RPGs have the rules then? To exclude B. To remove a need to care about #### you don't want so you can chase the high of G. Seek for a G-spot, if you will.

That's an intriguing propositon. There may be an implied assumption that E is a countable infinity that could confound it. I'm not sure.

Consider counting toward E in intervals of S. As each S is added - for example as S' is added to the end of the infinite series - E expands if any constitutive rules in S expand what is possible. That implies that I can't count toward E in intervals of S. I think it means E is uncountable.

The subset G is then dependent on the S that expands E to include the possibilities you want. It would mean that RPGs need rules both for the reason you describe in your conclusion, and for the reason that you can't define what's in E without S.

 

[pemerton]

Isn't @loverdrive's E uncountable for this reason: that I can imagine RPGing a mathematician, that there is no limit to the numbers I can imagine that mathematician reasoning about, and that the number of such numbers is uncountable?

EDIT: Maybe even more straightforward, I can imagine someone taking measurements, and those measurements could yield any value at all on a real number line.

 

[clearstream]

Isn't @loverdrive's E uncountable for this reason: that I can imagine RPGing a mathematician, that there is no limit to the numbers I can imagine that mathematician reasoning about, and that the number of such numbers is uncountable?

Uncountable is a type of infinity. It's not the same as a countable infinity, that can indeed have countless members.

 

[pemerton]

Uncountable is a type of infinity. It's not the same as a countable infinity, that can indeed have countless members.

My understanding is that the set of all real numbers is uncountable (cf the the set of natural or of rational numbers).

So a set of imaginable events in which any real number can figure would, presumably, likewise be uncountable, as it would have the cardinality of the reals (wouldn't it?).

 

[Maxperson]

That's an intriguing propositon. There may be an implied assumption that E is a countable infinity that could confound it. I'm not sure.

Consider counting toward E in intervals of S. As each S is added - for example as S' is added to the end of the infinite series - E expands if any constitutive rules in S expand what is possible. That implies that I can't count toward E in intervals of S. I think it means E is uncountable.

The subset G is then dependent on the S that expands E to include the possibilities you want. It would mean that RPGs need rules both for the reason you describe in your conclusion, and for the reason that you can't define what's in E without S.

I'm not a mathematician, but I'm having a really hard time with, "There's an infinite set S that contains everything possible in a particular system." Once you add a rule to a system, you are bounding it. The more rules you have, the tighter it is bound. I find it hard to believe that in a bounded system that there are still infinite things that you can do with it. An uncountably(in the sense that we can't think of everything it can do) high number of things, sure. Infinite? I'm not so sure.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Uncountable is a type of infinity. It's not the same as a countable infinity, that can indeed have countless members.

To be uncountable a set must have a cardinal number larger than that of the set of natural numbers. We'd have to establish this for E in order to know, but I am not sure E has a well defined generator. Since S seems to not have one either I am not sure we can really say much here... Still I'm not a terribly good mathematician!