Why do RPGs have rules?

[Aldarc]

I get that... sorry! I just think it's apt as a comparison to RPGs. Imagine reading The Silmarillion if there was no Lord of the Rings.

I have a much easier and more enjoyable time re-reading The Silmarillion (and The Hobbit) than I do re-reading Lord of the Rings.

 

[pemerton]

Indeed, you must fail in order to advance!

Though this isn't true in BW. BW cares about the difficulty of the obstacle relative to your ability, not on whether you succeed or fail against it.

 

[niklinna]

Nope. This is the point where you crossed a dangerous line with me.

You beat me to it.

 

[niklinna]

Though this isn't true in BW. BW cares about the difficulty of the obstacle relative to your ability, not on whether you succeed or fail against it.

Oh that's interesting. I thought that whole family of games had the "rack up passes/fails to bump the skill" thing going on.

 

[pemerton]

Oh that's interesting. I thought that whole family of games had the "rack up passes/fails to bump the skill" thing going on.

In BW, one function is to create an incentive not to always want to roll the biggest pool of dice you could possibly put together. Which is how the system handles help, FoRKs (augments via similiar/related skills), advantages etc, rather than relying on GM shut-downs in the way some other systems do.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Sure but my point is that is just one thing that comes up in a campaign among many things. My experience has been whether you are doing tons of prep and world building, or very little (both of which are perfectly workable options), once the campaign gets going the real work is tracking everything that comes up (for example you need to be able to quickly recall what arrangements were made with that mercahnt's guild months ago, or what happened to this or that NPC after a given adventure....it just all adds up to a lot of note keeping).

Sure. I’m not saying to not track things during play. I think the difficulty involved will depend on many factors. I would say one of those is how much you’ve determined ahead of time. That’s more to remember and more to potentially track, etc.

Again I would never say you are wrong to not be into the world building side, or that you wrong that it isn't worth the effort for you. But I think there is a lot of subjectivity here that comes down to how people think, what inspires them, what sorts of information they feel is helpful before hand. For a lot of GMs world building is fun, but it is also important in that it really does lay the foundations for them to help make decisions later on, to extrapolate, etc. That isn't for everyone, I just think if we are giving this a value in terms of the results it yields for some it will be a 2 but for others it will be a 10. As with anything if it isn't yielding results, I think not doing it is the way to go. I just don't think this is a universal experience.

Of course not! I’m sharing my thoughts on it. I will say that there is a tendency in this hobby to overstate the importance of worldbuilding at that scale. The view that it’s a necessity. I see that put forth a lot and I think it’s a misconception… especially for someone new to GMing.

On LOTR. I am not a massive fan. And I get there is a debate over how much Tolkien planned in advance or developed over time, and what the exact blend of that was. But one thing I appreciate about Lord of the Rings when I read it is the sense of depth the world has. And Tolkien isn't the only one. There is a long tradition of world building in science fiction and fantasy. Even Howard put thought into the Hyborean Age (he was also making up a ton as he went a long but he had some interesting reasons for setting it in prehistory and the world he presents feels very alive). But these are people writing short stories and books so they are going to have more opportunity and more reason to revise, to see two things that actually go together in a meaningful way that they didn't originally intend add that in after the fact. A good science fiction writer knows how to do both. Even outside fantasy world building is pretty standard. Most writers aren't simply making it up as they go, they have a plan and they have thought about their characters, their character's histories, etc. Some do it more than others. But it isn't as if all screen play writing or all fiction writing doesn't rely on some amount of world building and planning.

Yeah, but authors of fiction benefit from editing and second drafts and revision and all manner of things that aren’t really available to the typical GM. And the end result… a game played with others… is something enjoyed in a way that’s different than the way we enjoy a novel.

Fair enough. I am not into the Simlarillion so I can't really say in this particular case. But I think a lot of readers and a lot of players in this thread are making the assertion that you can often tell when something like that has a solid foundation and there is more beneath the surface. That can be important not just in science fiction, fantasy, RPGs but in good writing in general. It isn't required in every genre. But I find those kind of details are useful.

What’s interesting too is the overlap with the people who say that don’t have any concerns about story in their games and those who feel the need for heavy worldbuilding.

I suppose it gets labeled as “backinfo” rather than “backstory”?

 

[hawkeyefan]

I have a much easier and more enjoyable time re-reading The Silmarillion (and The Hobbit) than I do re-reading Lord of the Rings.

There are parts of the Silmarillion that are solid. My criticism is probably overly harsh for the purpose of the comparison, and also a product of the patchwork nature of the work.

 

[pemerton]

The Silmarillion is terrible.

I'm with @Aldarc and @niklinna in having a different opinion.

But @Aldarc's point about authorship is correct - JRRT started writing these stories around the time of the Great War, and then kept rewriting and redrafting, and integrating new elements. The Silmarillion is not a fixed backstory from which the events of the LotR are extrapolated via a process of rational deduction!

I take what I learned about a medieval village and ask what would happen if it existed in a world where monsters roam the wilderness and magic is real and then go from there

I tend to see settings as though experiments.

I've written campaign notes, thousands-of-word treatises on theological commitments of various churches I've invented, etc. I am familiar with the techniques you are describing. I just find your descriptions misleading - because these "thought experiments" are really "inventions", so why do we not use that more accurate label? (In many cases they are also "projections", but given the connotations of that word and the difficulty any given person will face identifying their own projections, "invention" seems more neutral while still capturing the gist.)

For instance, I've read this:

With my own setting, I can take various details from different regions and cultures and combine them in something original that fits the setting and medieval time period. It helps to understand why details developed in the first place in our history as some existed because of specific circumstances.


Elder Anselm is the "parish priest" of Kensla and a major community leader. If things were normal the community leadership would consist of him, the Reeve, and the Baron's bailiff. With the bailiff being the final authority except on matters of religion.

But things are not normal and the bailiff is dead. Depending on how events go, Reeve and Elder Anselm will disagree on what actions to take and this will results in complications for the party.

I attach a summary of the different events that may result from the players undertaking the adventure.

This was a reply to my remark that the setting of the adventure (Scourge of the Demon Wolf) seemed essentially atheistic. And this post reinforces that impression quite strongly. First, there's the notion that the bailiff is "the final authority except on matters of religion" - in mediaeval life there is no such distinct category as "matters of religion". One can try and contrast temporal and church government, but that is also contested to say the least (see eg the investiture controversy). Second, the summary includes this: "Meeting the Elder First: One of two likely encounters that could occur when the characters enter the village, involves going to the church first and meeting the Elder (Priest) of Mitra, Goddess of Honor and Justice." In a context in which there are murders taking place, and dead bodies of tinkers lying around, and bandits in their camp, where are the people doing penance, parading around their village bare foot repenting their sins and praying for relief, etc. More generally, where is the sense of a non-material outlook on things?

This is not to criticise the adventure, which sees a completely normal D&D-esque scenario. Just to point out that describing it as a "thought experiment" or as "based on how mediaeval villages worked" seems quite misleading.

none of that means sandboxes as we've been describing are not driven by a desire for realism

Perhaps they are driven by such a desire. But they seem to be described as if that desire has been fulfilled. They also seem to be driven by a desire for a certain sort of GM authority, which displaces the importance of realism from time-to-time, insofar as players are not permitted to add elements to, or change elements of, the setting in order to increase its realism.

The goal in this approach is a believable naturalistic world. There are lots of methods for achieving that but there isn't a set 'way to do it'. Most often yes the GM will rely on a combination random tables, extrapolation from things that have happened or been established, of notes about the setting (I think importantly though in this style you will rarely see notes about events happening or how the adventure is supposed to pan out as the idea is you are simply providing a setting for the players to explore and interact with), etc.

Though I did notice the following in the summary of Scourge of the Demon Wolf, which does suggest some ideas about events happening and how the adventure might pan out:

Sitting Down at the Kensla’s Tavern: After the characters arrival there will be an important meeting with the villagers at the tavern. This introduces the two main factions (Reeve and Elder) of the village and their issues. Introduces information about the Beggar Clan that is located in the region along with the fact that the Elder of Mitra believes they are responsible for the attacks.

Meeting Yoluf: Yoluf is a local trapper/tracker that the Reeve will introduce to the characters.

Meeting the Beggars: At some point the characters will meet the beggars and learn what they know about the attacks. This encounter could also lead to the discovery of the bandit camp if this hasn’t been found yet.

The Standoff at the Beggar Camp: It is likely that the Elder of Mitra will take matters into his own hands and rouse the village to lynch the Beggars and drive them away.

The Final Confrontation: The characters return to the Wolf Den to fight Arbela and Demon Wolf​

The fact that a crucial leadership meeting happens at a tavern also, in my view, puts further pressure on the idea that this is all based on how a mediaeval village works. I mean, to me it seems that we could replace Reeve and Elder with Sheriff and Parson, replace Beggar Camp with Itinerant Workers' Camp, replace Tavern with Saloon, not even need to change the profession of the trapper/tracker, and reset the adventure in the Wild West. I don't see anything distinctively mediaeval about this adventure at all except for the genre trappings.

Again, this is not a criticism of the adventure. But it is a claim that some of the ways that settings, adventure design etc are being described by you and @robertsconley are misleading.

 

[pemerton]

And @Bedrockgames, myself and others acknowledge that there are a lot of artistic endeavors that are successful at verisimilitude, are believable, and are consistent. However, what you are not acknowledging is that each of these including the RPGs you like accomplish this differently.

How am I not acknowledging that? I'm continually asserting it, and encouraging other posters to engage in descriptions of process - how is the shared fiction created? what role do various participants play? - rather than to talk about content as if that is illustrative or indicative of process.

 

[pemerton]

One of the nice things is that it can preserve a sense of fairness and trust in the GM

<snip>

There's the virtue you were looking for: more trust in the integrity of the setting. It's not the only way to earn trust but it's definitely a valid way to earn trust.

These seems to be accounts of how a GM can disclaim decision-making.