Why do RPGs have rules?

[pemerton]

Retrofitted backstory as in said backstory is generated only after the thing (here, Excalibur) appears in play? OK, I'll buy that.

But if the backstory is generated by the GM when Excalibur is placed in the setting to begin with, long before the sword ever appears in play, how is that a retrofit? Even more so if elements of that backstory arise in play before the sword is found?

Because the decision is first taken to have a genre element - Swords of Power, boy kings, demon wolves, adventurer protagonists, etc - and then backstory is written to make all these things fit.

 

[pemerton]

Which is very similar to the conceit of professions in reality. If someone collapses on an airplane you're gonna hear "Is there a doctor on board?" pretty fast. In almost any building there's signs to the effect of "In case of fire, exit immediately. Do not attempt to extinguish the fire yourself". If you lock yourself out of your own house (or, more commonly, car) and don't feel like smashing your way in, you're going to call a locksmith. And so on.

Classes are no more a "conceit" than is the real-life concept of leaving certain tasks to the trained professionals.

I know a guy who has a PhD in rheology, has helped design and implement large-scale engineering solutions for extracting the last dregs of oil from deep wells, and is also an impressive amateur marathon runner and a member of his local snow rescue group.

I present this example because it's an especially clear one.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.)

I am not being misleading. I definitely see them and experience them as thought experiments. That doesn't mean you aren't inventing things. I don't see how these are mutually exclusive. A thought experiment is simply establishing a key element in a setting and thinking through how it might pan out if the world were real. It is just one way of creating a world. Some people don't do that. I just don't see how I am being misleading in my characterization of how I sometimes approach world building and running campaigns.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

Again the goal isn't pure realism. It is to create the feel of inhabiting a real world. So for many people in this style, having players do that, creates too much overlap between the player and the setting. In a game like Hillfolk this is something players can do, and I think it works. I don't think it is a solution for every game and campaign. With a lot of the groups I play with they are more into the former style. One thing I will do though is have conversations with my players about setting details if someone in the group knows more about me than a topic or has something they can add that will help me flesh it out in the moment (for instance if I have a player who is a carpenter and they hire someone to build a shack, I am going to ask him what kinds of supplies would be needed and how long it would take given the amount of man power available). I like doing that sort of thing and I don't feel it breaks too much from play. Some people feel differently.

 

[Bedrockgames]

For instance, I've read this:
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?

I think Rob clarified already what he meant by basing it on medieval villages. I will let him address this, but I do want to say I remember from Rob's running for the scenario (and keep in mind it is an adventure in a setting for which he has further material), the thing that leapt out me was it all felt very manorial and connected with Feudalism. I remember the church being important but I don't know if it got into the details you are looking for here. In terms of history, I think the way this tends to pan out isn't that we incoporate everything at the expert level so that a Medieval scholar would buy into the setting, but you bring in certain elements. Sometimes you focus on different things too depending on what you are really interested in. As an example when I did Ogre Gate, I was especially interested in the imperial exam system and the bureaucracy and so I tried to bring that to the best of my ability to the setting (and again no one here is saying it has to be expert level: I am trained in history and I miss things or get things wrong all the time because history is really complicated if you get into the details). But there were things I wasn't as interested in incorporating (either due to a lack of interest, a lack of relevance, a sense that they wouldn't connect with players, etc). Plus this isn't historical gaming, this is fantasy gaming inspired by history (those are different).

Something like what you are pointing to (how medieval people lived under a completely different paradigm in terms of religion---these were people of faith in a way that is leaps and bounds beyond what we mean when we apply 'people of faith' to folks today), isn't necessarily going to be ported in. You port in what you think will work and what you think will make sense for your players. For example I was deeply interested in Song Dynasty mercantilism and read a lot on it so that it was shaping how I put adventures together. But I had a terrible time understanding and sifting through research on Song Dynasty economics. At the end of the day I said "screw it" and used modern market prices and assumptions about buying goods. That is not realistic at all if you are going for accuracy, but it is an area I felt the trade off wasn't worth the effort (I find getting players to think in terms of ancient economies is incredibly difficult as well so it is one of those things where I would rather they focus on other cultural aspects of the setting).

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.

I don't recall Rob describing that scenario as a thought experiment. I could be wrong but I think I have been the one using that term. And I think he clarified the medieval villages thing in a later post.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

To be clear, I don't view this as a necessity at all. I think every GM has to find their own style and approach and for some deep world building will be great, for others it will be pointless. And it can even vary across settings. When I run some modes of fantasy, yes I want the deep worldbuilding, when I run something more like Ravenloft I actually prefer using the material very early in the settings run before it established so much lore (I just find for the surreal kind of horror it is aiming for, too much lore didn't work for me), with a game like Hillfolk I am content to have most of the lore and world building happen during play.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

I agree with the sentiment that RPGs are a different medium and enjoyed in different ways from novels or films. But certain things can cross over and world building is one I think shines particularly well in RPGs (particularly since a writer has control of the characters and world building can be much more narrow, whereas in a game setting, you need to be able to adapt to whatever the players try to do). But that doesn't mean world building is the only way to do it

 

[pemerton]

A thought experiment is simply establishing a key element in a setting and thinking through how it might pan out if the world were real.

Well, by "thought experiment" I normally understand not just invention, but thinking that is disciplined by some standard of adequacy - be that mathematics, or logic, or known empirical processes, etc.

Otherwise it just becomes a synonym for imagining.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Well, by "thought experiment" I normally understand not just invention, but thinking that is disciplined by some standard of adequacy - be that mathematics, or logic, or known empirical processes, etc.

Otherwise it just becomes a synonym for imagining.

I think of it it as seriously considering a hypothetical. I.E. okay elves live forever except through a violent death, what are the cultural implications of that. Like a counterfactual. That is a distinct way to world build, versus just deciding how it is you want elven culture to be. Both are entirely fine. Both can produce good, bad and mediocre results. I find it more satisfying when worlds are constructed this way (at least in many cases).

 

[pemerton]

I think of it it as seriously considering a hypothetical. I.E. okay elves live forever except through a violent death, what are the cultural implications of that. Like a counterfactual. That is a distinct way to world build, versus just deciding how it is you want elven culture to be. Both are entirely fine. Both can produce good, bad and mediocre results. I find it more satisfying when worlds are constructed this way (at least in many cases).

My view is that, unless the person posing the hypothetical has fairly good knowledge of multiple cultures, and their orientations towards death, the two approaches you describe are not very different.