Why do RPGs have rules?

[pemerton]

JRRT's views about 'sub-creation" are not separable from his broader theological commitments.

In The Road to Middle Earth, Shippey also discusses JRRT's (in my opinion related) view that certain words/sentences can be "understood" even by those who have no knowledge of the language in which they are stated (eg because it is a language that JRRT invented): this is part of Shippey's account of why JRRT included untranslated Elvish in LotR.

These views about human creation, and human comprehension, have no relevance that I can see to the idea of "simulationism" as an approach to, and perhaps a bundle of associated techniques for, RPGing. JRRT as far as I know didn't even know about RPGing, and was not writing manuals for how it should or might be done.

 

[clearstream]

JRRT's views about 'sub-creation" are not separable from his broader theological commitments.

Can you say how you see such inseparability (accepted ad arguendo) contradicting my contention?

In The Road to Middle Earth, Shippey also discusses JRRT's (in my opinion related) view that certain words/sentences can be "understood" even by those who have no knowledge of the language in which they are stated (eg because it is a language that JRRT invented): this is part of Shippey's account of why JRRT included untranslated Elvish in LotR.

That's an intriguing viewpoint! It does feel true to me that one can project meaning onto novel "words". I expect context (the whole text that the words appear within) and tone (conveyed in text by letter shape and implied vocalisation) provide important clues for doing so.

These views about human creation, and human comprehension, have no relevance that I can see to the idea of "simulationism" as an approach to, and perhaps a bundle of associated techniques for, RPGing. JRRT as far as I know didn't even know about RPGing, and was not writing manuals for how it should or might be done.

It doesn't matter to Edwards' essay on narrativism that Lajos Egri died before RPG was born, nor does it matter here that Tolkien wasn't thinking of RPG when he wrote. Well, just so long as one is comfortable with a broader contention that games are addressable by narratology. I think they are.

There are distinctive ludic features that matter, so "statement" can be read too strongly. Stronger than I intended. I don't mean that Tolkien had in mind RPG and simulationism, but that he wrote something that anticipates, is adjacent to, indicates the direction of, or suggests, a principle that matters to common modes of simulationism.

 

[robertsconley]

Tolkien adds a constraint. The author has said it, and they are in accord with the laws of that world. I suspect that amounts to saying that any proposed new facts must be in accord and not discord with existing facts. Seeing as any laws of that world are just those that the author has themselves constructed, or adopted in through some process (such as choosing a game text.) A clear statement of a simulationist principle: by Tolkien.

However, keep in mind this principle doesn't imply "grounded in reality" rather it implies "grounded in how the world is described". Tolkien chooses a particular blend of how our world works and fantastical elements to create Middle Earth. And his stories and novels were very good at keeping consistent with that blend even as some of his ideas morphed over time.

Others have a different take and thus a different mix.

 

[robertsconley]

These views about human creation, and human comprehension, have no relevance that I can see to the idea of "simulationism" as an approach to, and perhaps a bundle of associated techniques for, RPGing. JRRT as far as I know didn't even know about RPGing, and was not writing manuals for how it should or might be done.

No but he was talking about worldbuilding including touching on how that impacts how his characters act in his stories. The difference between what he does as an author and what we do as tabletop referee is that a campaign is in how it unfolds. It is not scripted by author(s). Rather it is a result of the players' choices as their characters and how those choices interact with the setting of the campaign.

 

[pemerton]

No but he was talking about worldbuilding including touching on how that impacts how his characters act in his stories. The difference between what he does as an author and what we do as tabletop referee is that a campaign is in how it unfolds. It is not scripted by author(s). Rather it is a result of the players' choices as their characters and how those choices interact with the setting of the campaign.

(1) "Worldbuilding" is not the exclusive province of "simulationist" RPGing. HeroWars/Quest would be an obvious counterexample. In my view so is 4e D&D.

(2) In the context of RPGing, JRRT's remarks would be as apposite to players and their role in authorship as it would be to GMs. And given that he is talking about literary creation in general, it would be as apposite to "narrativist" as to "simulationist" RPGing.

It doesn't matter to Edwards' essay on narrativism that Lajos Egri died before RPG was born

Edwards relies upon Egri for one thing - his definition of premise. And he also asserts "I think that any reliable means of story-writing, in any medium, conforms to Egri's principles." What distinguishes (say) the play of the DragonLance modules from (say) the play of HeroWars/Quest is not that one involves premise and the other doesn't - both do - but that they use different techniques of establishing and addressing premise (DL relies on GM pre-authorship and subsequent control over the events of the fiction; HW/Q relies on collectively establishing the premise and then the interplay of GM scene-framing and player action-declaration).

Similarly, whatever JRRT has to say about setting-creation would likewise be applicable in any medium. And would be just as relevant to the creation of setting by participants in narrativist play as to creation of setting by participants in simulationist play.

he wrote something that anticipates, is adjacent to, indicates the direction of, or suggests, a principle that matters to common modes of simulationism.

For the reasons I have stated in this post, I very strongly disagree. The difference between simulationism and narrativism is not content, nor the internal logic and structure of setting, but the mode whereby, and the reasons for which, the participants establish the shared fiction.

 

[clearstream]

For the reasons I have stated in this post, I very strongly disagree. The difference between simulationism and narrativism is not content, nor the internal logic and structure of setting, but the mode whereby, and the reasons for which, the participants establish the shared fiction.

Could in narrativism, dramatic concerns take precedence over internal cause? From what I've experienced and read testimony toward, I believe that they can, in cases where they conflict. Consistency can take second place to drama.

It strikes me that JRRT's method may be better categorised as technique (rather than principle - if the latter implies to you an exclusive connection.) It's thus a technique that strongly matters in simulationism, and can - but does not always matter as strongly - in other modes. So long as we're saying system matters, it ought to be defensible to claim that a technique has higher priority for some purposes than others.

"What really happens is that the story-maker proves a successful "sub-creator." He makes a Secondary World which your mind can enter. Inside it, what he relates is "true:" it accords with the laws of that world. You therefore believe it, while you are, as it were, inside."

This then from "On Fairy Stories" emphasises consistency, and implies that authors should have in mind "the laws of that world". JRRT attributes an effectiveness to doing so for driving immersion.

I note resistance to simulationism making any sole claim to consistency and immersion: Reconsidered as a technique, that's not at stake. Rather those things receive priority in simulationism to serve specific purposes. So I'm not currently reading your comment on structure verus reasons to amount to a refutation of "system matters".

Finally reemphasising that I don't take JRRT's technique to necessitate sole or prior authorship. Tolkien would not have had in mind TTRPG, but his words can speak to authors whether they be players in audience=author mode or authorial=GM.

 

[aramis erak]

(1) "Worldbuilding" is not the exclusive province of "simulationist" RPGing. HeroWars/Quest would be an obvious counterexample. In my view so is 4e D&D.

Major understatement there, Pemerton. It's not even exclusive to RPGs, nor games...
The worldbuilding of Tolkien, Wells, Herbert, Burroughs, the Pinis, Roddenberry, Niven, Asimov, Carter, Moorcock, and Lovecraft are why their names are well known - of them, only Wells was noted as an avid gamer. (See also Little Wars, Wells' minis wargaming ruleset.)

World building has been instrumental in the success of a number of tabletop games as well... Warhammer, Warhammer: 40k, Issac Asimov's Star Trader, Car Wars¹, Ogre/GEV, Star Fleet Battles², Starfire³, Heavy Gear⁴, Jovian Chronicles⁴, Battletech⁵, Renegade Legion⁵...

And let us not forget the huge variety of computer franchises with various surrealities in their settings...

(2) In the context of RPGing, JRRT's remarks would be as apposite to players and their role in authorship as it would be to GMs. And given that he is talking about literary creation in general, it would be as apposite to "narrativist" as to "simulationist" RPGing.

Edwards relies upon Egri for one thing - his definition of premise. And he also asserts "I think that any reliable means of story-writing, in any medium, conforms to Egri's principles." What distinguishes (say) the play of the DragonLance modules from (say) the play of HeroWars/Quest is not that one involves premise and the other doesn't - both do - but that they use different techniques of establishing and addressing premise (DL relies on GM pre-authorship and subsequent control over the events of the fiction; HW/Q relies on collectively establishing the premise and then the interplay of GM scene-framing and player action-declaration).

Similarly, whatever JRRT has to say about setting-creation would likewise be applicable in any medium. And would be just as relevant to the creation of setting by participants in narrativist play as to creation of setting by participants in simulationist play.

Disagree/nitpick - The professor's techniques often dip into "too focused upon the details" for good use at table. In reading the Narnia series, certain chapters show really significant impact of this... as essentially, Tolkien was semi-editing Narnia while Lewis was influencing LotR... and Narnia in those chapters bogs down in details. Post-Tolkien-influence Lewis works are much less detailed, and even more theological.

For the reasons I have stated in this post, I very strongly disagree. The difference between simulationism and narrativism is not content, nor the internal logic and structure of setting, but the mode whereby, and the reasons for which, the participants establish the shared fiction.

agreed.

Notes:
¹: Car Wars, between initial Deluxe to but excluding 5th ed, is an RPG and a minis wargame
²: While it starts with the tech of Classic Trek (TOS/TAS), it diverges from there, and is one of the more detailed settings out there
³: 1st to 3rd eds were heavily scenario based, with a compelling backstory, and with optional campaign rules. 4th onward are almost pure campaign rules focused, with no clear setting.
⁴: The editions I have are explicitly minis wargames, hex and counter wargames, and role playing games - in a single ruleset. There is a scale rule, allowing integrations.
⁵: FASA released the wargames first, and added RPGs later; Battletech's still in print as are two RPGs built on its setting. In fact, there are many scales for Battletech... Grand stategy (Succession Wars), Planetary Strategy (Battleforce 2), Orbital supertactical (Aerospace/Battlespace), aerospace tactical (Aerotech, Rules of Warfare), ground supertactical (Battleforce, Battleforce 2), ground tactical vehicular (Battletech/Citytech/Rules of Warfare), character scale tactical (Battletroops), personal scale tactical & RPG (Mechwarrior, in 5 editions). Renegade Legion had Supertactical space (Leviathan), Tactical Space (Interceptor), Tactical armored ground (Centurion), and personal/RPG (Legionnaire).

 

[clearstream]

Just to tidy up a few side-matters.

(1) "Worldbuilding" is not the exclusive province of "simulationist" RPGing. HeroWars/Quest would be an obvious counterexample. In my view so is 4e D&D.

Agreed. I consciously avoided saying that it is. How it is approached and what is prioritised, can be dissimilar. (Or else one ends up saying that system turns out not to matter.)

(2) In the context of RPGing, JRRT's remarks would be as apposite to players and their role in authorship as it would be to GMs. And given that he is talking about literary creation in general, it would be as apposite to "narrativist" as to "simulationist" RPGing.

I intentionally remained silent as to which authors are being thought of: I have laid out elsewhere my appreciation of player=authors. Whomever are authors, they can avail of JRRT's technique. Including in doing sim, to which it is very applicable.

Edwards relies upon Egri for one thing - his definition of premise. And he also asserts "I think that any reliable means of story-writing, in any medium, conforms to Egri's principles." What distinguishes (say) the play of the DragonLance modules from (say) the play of HeroWars/Quest is not that one involves premise and the other doesn't - both do - but that they use different techniques of establishing and addressing premise (DL relies on GM pre-authorship and subsequent control over the events of the fiction; HW/Q relies on collectively establishing the premise and then the interplay of GM scene-framing and player action-declaration).

Similarly, whatever JRRT has to say about setting-creation would likewise be applicable in any medium. And would be just as relevant to the creation of setting by participants in narrativist play as to creation of setting by participants in simulationist play.

It sounds like we are in agreement that JRRT's words can have meaning for RPG whether or not he was thinking of RPG when he wrote them. I was making no detailed claim as to the extent or consequences of Edwards's reliance on Egri. Drawing the analogy thus far and no further.

 

[clearstream]

Major understatement there, Pemerton. It's not even exclusive to RPGs, nor games...
The worldbuilding of Tolkien, Wells, Herbert, Burroughs, the Pinis, Roddenberry, Niven, Asimov, Carter, Moorcock, and Lovecraft are why their names are well known - of them, only Wells was noted as an avid gamer. (See also Little Wars, Wells' minis wargaming ruleset.)

World building has been instrumental in the success of a number of tabletop games as well... Warhammer, Warhammer: 40k, Issac Asimov's Star Trader, Car Wars¹, Ogre/GEV, Star Fleet Battles², Starfire³, Heavy Gear⁴, Jovian Chronicles⁴, Battletech⁵, Renegade Legion⁵...

And let us not forget the huge variety of computer franchises with various surrealities in their settings...

Again, I do not say that it is. Perhaps raising it here is just in resistance to the possibility that simulationists are saying that things that are important to them are private to them. Did anyone in the chain coming out of my #2470 say that world-building was exclusive to sim?

 

[Fenris-77]

I think people are may be missing the hermeneutic nature of the endeavor here. We are 'reading' or critiquing texts and questions of authorial intent based on a set of somewhat shaky interpretive tools. This not a science or better yet math where one gets to enjoy stable definitions and strict and obvious indexes to right and wrong. This isn't targeted at anyone in particular, but more at the general notion found here that time and effort should be spend on 'proving' things rather than engaging in interesting and profitable dialectic.