Why do RPGs have rules?

[clearstream]

Simulationist play relies upon procedures of play, and techniques deployed by participants, that generate outcomes by reference to internal cause. Those internal causes might be understood to be the movement of physical objects through small regions of space - these are the "kinetic" causes that are represented in the combat systems of RPGs like RM or RQ; or might be understood to be thematically-laden considerations like Dragonlance's "three laws" or D&D's alignment framework; or might be understood to be some set of social and political process the GM has worked out ahead of time, which perhaps would reveal theme when all laid out, as is common in many "event"-based modules.

However the internal causes are understood, the procedures and techniques of play that are adopted will ensure that outcomes are generated by reference to them.

On first reading I missed that your last (quite a good post) also lays out an argument supporting Eero Tuovinen's observations.

Put without adornment, "internal causes are king" is on the side of methods, i.e. that "outcomes are generated by reference to them." Simulationism is not done for the sake of making internal causes king.

The purposes or agenda of simulationism is (or is in the neighbourhood of) Tuovinen's proposed

"to experience a subject matter in a way that results in elevated appreciation and understanding".

I put more weight on "appreciation" than "understanding" in that sentence, taking the former to have emotive or immersive qualities, and because I feel that "the sort of scholarly understanding of Exploration" (as one poster put it) implied by "understanding", is not every simulationist's cup of tea. A respondent to Tuovinen characterised "the "less overt nature of Sim satisfaction" as "In the case of Subjective Experience/Immersion it’s largely internal". Tuovinen identifies its two facets: the internal experience (how I feel when I am doing simulationism well) and the internal change (the realisations that I will keep with me.)

Tuovinen is finally addressing purposes, not methods. Edwards produced a useful analysis of simulationism from the perspective of a person who had no empathy with it: in a sort of - naming your enemy - project. Notwithstanding, simulationism and narrativism are found to be not necessarily in conflict. When I play Bushido and experience how I feel when a higher-ranked character forces me to do something dishonourable (both the forcing and the dishonour are covered by mechanics) well, isn't that readily related to dramatic themes? Another example of what you called attention to (Dwarven Greed, Elven Grief, Samurai Honour). RuneQuest contains an abundance of similarly dramatic themes embodied in world, world-laws, and rules. (RQ literally has heroquests!)

A potential source of conflicts that deserves further examination, may be those cases where a group is forced to choose between a player's authorship in accord with dramatic themes that matter to them, and internal causes that matter to the world. I think that simulationism can't give up prioritising the latter.

 

[Manbearcat]

My hot take then, is that so long as there aren't any non-dramatic internal causes that could come into conflict, or so long as the frequency or character of conflicts is such that the group are satisfied with how they play out, then why not? It seems like there really must be a this vista of narrativist simulationism. Perhaps the true El-Dorado (says a feverish explorer, waving a recently discovered map.)

Is there anything like that in the domain? You've called attention to BW. I wonder about Stonetop? I haven't yet played it, but I am reading it with great interest. Perhaps wrongly (given the caveat I just made) elements trigger a RuneQuest-y feeling in me. @Manbearcat might be able to say something about this.

Are you asking if the engine of Stonetop's Narrativism yields "players and GM inextricably index internal causality as the primary filter for the situation framing > player move decision-space navigation > GM consequence-space navigation?" Or are you asking "does the indexing of Narrativism in the course of the play loop not disrupt managing a coinciding stability of internal causality (put another way; do they sufficiently play nice together)?"

The answer to the first is trivially "no." And, it seems to me, that this is sufficient for Simulationism-oriented players to beg out.

The answer to the second is "yes." But, as above, that "yes" is irrelevant once "no" has been answered to the above for actual Simulaitionsm-oriented players.

 

[clearstream]

Are you asking if the engine of Stonetop's Narrativism yields "players and GM inextricably index internal causality as the primary filter for the situation framing > player move decision-space navigation > GM consequence-space navigation?" Or are you asking "does the indexing of Narrativism in the course of the play loop not disrupt managing a coinciding stability of internal causality (put another way; do they sufficiently play nice together)?"

The answer to the first is trivially "no." And, it seems to me, that this is sufficient for Simulationism-oriented players to beg out.

The answer to the second is "yes." But, as above, that "yes" is irrelevant once "no" has been answered to the above for actual Simulaitionsm-oriented players.

Emphatically the second. However...

Given I am a sim player
And given that the game world's internal causes are dramatically themed
Then I can index those causes as my primary filter for situation framing
In order to play sufficiently nicely with nar

That comes at no cost to nar except where sim-commitments thwart individual nar-choices that would contravene those causes.* So is that then a deal-breaker? Purists on either side are bound to hit irreconcilable conflicts? (What proportion of players are purists?)


*I'd like to contrast "inextricably index internal causality" with "indexing of Narrativism in the course of the play loop". Player-authors can just as readily bind themselves to doing one over the other, so this isn't about GM or no-GM. Conflict arises in cases where whomever is authoring must choose between internal causes or narrativism. The choices in question must be those that are going to be inconsistent with internal causality (do not play nicely with it). In those cases, prioritising nar means accepting inconsistency. These cases aren't inevitable: dramatically-themed internal causes might well reduce them. The text I re-quoted might be outlining an expectation that they are less evitable for sim-players. If so, why? Shouldn't a nar-player just as inextricably index narrativism even if it breaks consistency with internal causes? The answer lies in "sufficiently" which is surely available to adherents of both modes... unless they are purists.

 

[Manbearcat]

Emphatically the second. However...

Given I am a sim player
And given that the game world's internal causes are dramatically themed
Then I can index those causes as my primary filter for situation framing
In order to play sufficiently nicely with nar

That comes at no cost to nar except where sim-commitments thwart individual-choices that would contravene those causes.* So is that then a deal-breaker? Purists on either side are bound to hit irreconcilable conflicts? (What proportion of players are purists?)


*Giving priority to sim-commitments guarantees it comes at no cost to sim.

I don't know that you're a Purist For System Simulationist (per the essay). Given my historical exposure to your thoughts on play, I suspect that you're likely a High Concept Simulationist (per the essay) or lean toward the Neotrad classification of the Seven Cultures of Play essay.

You can't resolve the mismatch of PFS and N by simply diluting the primacy of Purist For System Simulationism "internal causality-propelled system yielding the experiential quality of exploratory play of setting" as the apex input to play or Narrativism's apex input of "ruthlessly address premise and resolve the rest as you go (retroactively if need be)." You can't resolve the mismatch by toggling/drifting. That doesn't resolve the issue of how those agendas and their machinery clash in the process of play (both the cognitive orientation of the participants and the way the game engine's hew to that). It just puts the GM in the driver's seat of resolving it via system-overwriting "say"...which is a rebuke to the interests of both PFS and N players.

Actual Purist For System Simulationists won't have it. Nor will GDS Simulationists if it harms their challenge-based priorities (who, it appears to me, want their Sim because it indexes and enables a certain brand of Gamist priorities). Its like trying to resolve casual vs hardcore players in video games or MtG (etc) and the lament over the game-trajectory-impacting dynamics of an emergent meta (how that meta feeds back, or doesn't, into downstream designer tuning and content decisions).

It seems to me that you're likely a High Concept Simulationist who is good with GM authority sufficient to dilute system's say (or possibly having so much fundamental GM say in the play loop that the starting position is "diluted system's say") or "discretionally toggle/drift in order to curate play sufficiently to produce desired outputs/arcs/genre emulation" (which this last bit is the apex priority of play). That won't make PFS or N players happy.

Stonetop and DW can surely satisfy a strain of HCS players because they can massage a particular interpretation of integrated textual analysis (muting certain key aspects of the text while taking a sentence here or there to mean a certain thing) to achieve the desired effect of high GM authority over play such that they're meant to discretionally dilute/toggle/drift in order to curate play sufficiently to produce desired outputs/arcs/genre emulation.

That is all I have to say on the matter (and all the time I have).

 

[clearstream]

I don't know that you're a Purist For System Simulationist (per the essay). Given my historical exposure to your thoughts on play, I suspect that you're likely a High Concept Simulationist (per the essay) or lean toward the Neotrad classification of the Seven Cultures of Play essay.

Possibly the "I" in "Given I am a Sim player" can be interpreted as meaning literally me. What I intended was "Given P is a sim-player". Let's please keep the conversation about the subject, and not the interlocuters.

You can't resolve the mismatch of PFS and N by simply diluting the primacy of Purist For System Simulationism "internal causality-propelled system yielding the experiential quality of exploratory play of setting" as the apex input to play or Narrativism's apex input of "ruthlessly address premise and resolve the rest as you go (retroactively if need be)."

So I queried this because as written, sim-procedures were "inextricably" followed while nar-procedures were able to avoid disruption. Missing context is provided by "ruthlessly".

You can't resolve the mismatch by toggling/drifting. That doesn't resolve the issue of how those agendas and their machinery clash in the process of play (both the cognitive orientation of the participants and the way the game engine's hew to that). It just puts the GM in the driver's seat of resolving it via system-overwriting "say"...which is a rebuke to the interests of both PFS and N players.

I don't propose to resolve it at all. My query is as to its inevitability.

Actual Purist For System Simulationists won't have it. Nor will GDS Simulationists if it harms their challenge-based priorities (who, it appears to me, want their Sim because it indexes and enables a certain brand of Gamist priorities). Its like trying to resolve casual vs hardcore players in video games or MtG (etc) and the lament over the game-trajectory-impacting dynamics of an emergent meta (how that meta feeds back, or doesn't, into downstream designer tuning and content decisions).

...GM authority sufficient to dilute system's say (or possibly having so much fundamental GM say in the play loop that the starting position is "diluted system's say") or "discretionally toggle/drift in order to curate play sufficiently to produce desired outputs/arcs/genre emulation" (which this last bit is the apex priority of play). That won't make PFS or N players happy.

So this was my original position, prior to @pemerton's latest. That consistently giving primacy to indexing internal causality is going to prove suitable for sim and unsuitable for nar, who want to ruthlessly address premise.

After reading your comments, I don't feel that the possibility of dramatically-themed internal causes changes that picture. Nar player=authors are going to ruthlessly address premise whether or not it fits with internal causes. That doesn't necessarily cause them to be disrupted, but it admits a possibility that's unacceptable to sim players. Putting the shoe on the other foot, sim play is delighted with emergent narrative, but doesn't force it. Nar play wants to force it.

That is all I have to say on the matter (and all the time I have).

That's fair. Thank you for taking the time to outline your observations.

 

[pemerton]

Can't I then be as purist as I like in giving the crown, and still hit no conflict between the modes?

Could an obstacle lie in the author=audience duality expected (by nar) for the player? Simulationism doesn't care about that: it's not against it, but it doesn't demand it. If that's true, then surely I can still find part of the Venn diagram that has things set up just as they need to be: player=authorship + dramatic internal causes.

My hot take then, is that so long as there aren't any non-dramatic internal causes that could come into conflict, or so long as the frequency or character of conflicts is such that the group are satisfied with how they play out, then why not? It seems like there really must be a this vista of narrativist simulationism. Perhaps the true El-Dorado (says a feverish explorer, waving a recently discovered map.)

I would say, roughly but I think not inaccurately, that simulationism depends upon "preloading" - whether via the resolution engine that tracks and applies internal causes (say, RM combat tables or Classic Traveller's trading tables); or via the constraints of meaning/them-injecting processes (classic D&D alignment adjudication; or Pendragon traits and passions); or via GM pre-planning of how X will cause Y (the traditional "event-based" module).

This preloading is what permits internal cause to be king at the moment of resolution.

Narrativism, as per its other label "story now", is premised on the avoidance of such pre-loading. Players get to make their choice in the moment; the GM gets to riff on that; back-and-forth.

I don't see how you can have both. No amount of sincere play of the DL modules, as those are presented, is going to yield narrativist play.

 

[pemerton]

When I play Bushido and experience how I feel when a higher-ranked character forces me to do something dishonourable (both the forcing and the dishonour are covered by mechanics) well, isn't that readily related to dramatic themes? Another example of what you called attention to (Dwarven Greed, Elven Grief, Samurai Honour).

What you describe is related to dramatic themes. But it doesn't sound like narrativist play.

From here and here:

In Simulationist play, morality cannot be imposed by the player or, except as the representative of the imagined world, by the GM. Theme is already part of the cosmos; it's not produced by metagame decisions. Morality, when it's involved, is "how it is" in the game-world, and even its shifts occur along defined, engine-driven parameters. The GM and players buy into this framework in order to play at all.

The point is that one can care about and enjoy complex issues, changing protagonists, and themes in both sorts of play, Narrativism and Simulationism. The difference lies in the point and contributions of literal instances of play; its operation and social feedback.

****

There cannot be any "the story" during Narrativist play, because to have such a thing (fixed plot or pre-agreed theme) is to remove the whole point: the creative moments of addressing the issue(s). . . .

Narrativist Premises focus on producing Theme via events during play. Theme is defined as a value-judgment or point that may be inferred from the in-game events.​

A game can be set up to "toggle" in a certain fashion: The Green Knight RPG is an interesting example, where a player has to play laregly honourably (as defined by the system and scenario) for the first three scenes, in order to be in a position to have a chance at the last scene; but then in the last scene can choose which way to go, thereby (and perhaps inconsistently, in terms of characterisation) displaying their own, preferred sense of the situation.

But that is not simultaneity.

We could also compare (say) Greed and Steel in BW. The need to test on Steel is not chosen by the player - it's a premise of the game that only the most brutal and cold-hearted can (say) kill their true love without a moment of hesitation. Greed can trigger a Steel check - but it is the player's choice how to respond, and in particular whether to act with I must have it. That choice is the moment at which the player manifests a "value-judgement or point that may be inferred from in-game events", and that is "produced by metagame decisions" rather than just being "'how it is' in the game-world".

The structure of Elven Grief is less stark, but in this case it is connected to the Deeds of Grief and the use of Laments. Those are the moments of player choice.

 

[clearstream]

I would say, roughly but I think not inaccurately, that simulationism depends upon "preloading" - whether via the resolution engine that tracks and applies internal causes (say, RM combat tables or Classic Traveller's trading tables); or via the constraints of meaning/them-injecting processes (classic D&D alignment adjudication; or Pendragon traits and passions); or via GM pre-planning of how X will cause Y (the traditional "event-based" module).

This preloading is what permits internal cause to be king at the moment of resolution.

I have mixed feelings on this. It's largely if not entirely true of games that folk have felt comfortable calling simulationist so far. And it makes sense that for a result to be consistent with a cause necessitates that a cause be available at the moment a result is required, to inform it.

In the lightning example, a possibility came up that a result could generate (reveal, if preferred) a cause. In this case, the group would wait to see what sorts of results came up in their play, and infer causes from them, which would go on to inform results in future circumstances. Discovering world-laws indirectly through authorship has also been discussed.

The second sorts of cases become worth entertaining once it's mooted that "internal cause is king" is about methods not purposes. Tuovinen doesn't outright say it, but he does say what he thinks the purposes of simulationism are; and they are not "making sure that internal cause is king". This is how Tuovinen puts it

Simulationist play attempts to experience a subject matter in a way that results in elevated appreciation and understanding. The Shared Imagined Space is utilized for intensely detailed perspectives that sometimes surpass the means of traditional, non-interactive mediums.

He explains that

.Speaking of the reward cycle, here’s my understanding of how Simulationism functions socially: the creative reward of Simulationism is insight, and the basic reward cycle relates to the way ideas are presented to the table and Explored for the sake of discovery. Ideally your play is efficient in that it enables you to introduce relevant material into play and massage it together with the group, seeking new insights and elevated understanding, such that your curiosity grows over the session of play. At some point you stumble upon worthwhile insight, and that’s your reward. Sometimes it’s a major breakthrough for your own understanding of the “thing”, whatever it is that the Simulationistic game is about; other times it’s slow, minor development, honing and practice. But every time it is about the thing in itself. You are joined together by the curiosity towards the subject matter.

That twice-repeated "subject matter", and introducing "relevant material"... perforce preloading?

Narrativism, as per its other label "story now", is premised on the avoidance of such pre-loading. Players get to make their choice in the moment; the GM gets to riff on that; back-and-forth.

The question on my mind is whether to call Duskvol or The Wider World of Stonetop pre-loaded? If they're not pre-loaded in the sense you mean (that closes down "choice in the moment") then it just remains to consider if they provide a subject matter? Could P develop a simulationist's interest in what it's like to be "a crew of daring scoundrels seeking their fortunes on the haunted streets of an industrial-fantasy city". Aiming for elevated appreciation and understanding. That doesn't sound all that unlikely!

Continuing, many have said that nar players are going to often enough make choices that fit with (putative) pre-loaded subject matter including world-laws (they'll resonate with Duskvol, be suitable for Stonetop, and so forth). To the extent that's true, they won't conflict with sim. The nar choices that can't fit with anything preloaded will be how premises are answered, i.e. theme.

It's worth keeping in mind that I can (and should) make the same sorts of preloading dependency claims about the necessity of premises to the ruthless addressing thereof Thus might resolve them in the same way. Again, it's not pre-loading, but what is pre-loaded that matters.

So, does appreciating and understanding necessitate pre-loading theme? If so, why?

 

[clearstream]

Purposes:
Narrativists prioritise ruthlessly addressing premises.
Simulationists prioritise elevating their appreciation and understanding of subject.

Dichotomies:
In what moments of play are these dichotomous?

Both nar and sim can pre-load, or find out in play and then conform with, all sorts of causes. What nar can't see pre-loaded is theme: how premises are answered in play. Sim either must pre-load theme (insert reasons) or has no particular position on pre-loading theme (which can wind up in the same place.)

A missing argument is why sim needs to pre-load theme? Can sim give that up and still find ways to elevate appreciation and understanding of subject? Could finding out theme in play promote said elevation?!

 

[Manbearcat]

@clearstream

Three things:

1) I'm not sure what work your "pre-load" is supposed to be doing here, but setting content is 100 % not "Story Before" in Blades' Duskvol or Stonetop's Wider World etc. Outside of a few things that are locked in to serve as broad setting parameters for anchoring premise and establishing color, the overwhelming amount of material is mutable or contingent and employed exclusively for framing thematic conflict around the PC-built or overtly evinced interests of the players. It isn't there to serve as metaplot to hook the players, to distribute as breadcrumbs for player engagement and their delight at later reveals, to filter permissible action declarations, or to manage a prescripted continuity/chain-of-events.

These differences are vital and definitive in the bright, bold lines they draw between what they do, what the inverse does, and the sort of play it incentivizes and engenders.

2) You're kind of doing what I said above (focusing on a particular statement, and one that is rather nebulous, without integrated textual analysis of everything else). Euro said a lot of things. In that same paragraph there are a a lot of words you could be focusing on. Almost surely, the most important are "Explored for the sake of discovery" and "At some point you stumble upon worthwhile insight, and that’s your reward" and "every time it is about the thing in itself."

Put those three together and that is what Sim-priorities are and how they are differentiated from Narrativist priorities. Players in Narrativist games aren't situated (and certainly should NEVER self-orient) such that they are "exploring <Story Before metaplot or prescriptive setting> for the sake of discovery." There is no "at some point"...its instead at every moment. "Worthwhile insights <into Story Before metaplot or big reveals or prescriptive setting>" are NOT your "reward." And not only is it not "every time it is about the thing (Story Before metaplot, the model of the world's physics/backstory/cosmology, breadcrumb/hooks and their conclusions/reveals, the march of prescripted continuity, the touring of canonical/iconic material) in itself;" it is NEVER that.

3) Here is a good way to look at how a Narrativist would be oriented toward a game constructed around Cormac McCarthy's The Road vs a Simulationist. The barrier to entry for engaging with the material for a Simulationist for The Road is high. They likely become preoccupied by what the nature of the apocalypse is. What is it? Where and how did it happen? Is this a feasible model of such an apocalypse and the collapse of human civilization? Are these roving bands of creatures bereft of humanity fair models for the byproducts of such a collapse? How long has the father survived like this? Is that even possible? He doesn't look like "a prepper with a plan" and he has no supporting social network...its pretty far-fetched that he would have even survived this long let alone with such a vulnerable boy.

Etc etc etc.

A Simulationist playing a game of The Road would be interested in all of these things. They would want to explore them. They would be compelled to vet each layer of the setting according to their mental model as a barrier of entry for engaging with the material and avoiding being "jarred" or having their immersionist priorities baffled. Once they feel they've initially vetted each layer sufficiently, they'll engage with the prepped material, they'll pursue the breadcrumbs for the payoff of the various reveals...however, all the while, they'll continue the vetting process of internal causality according to their mental model of "best/most likely fit." What is "onscreen" better respect a serial orientation to temporal and spatial elements and their accounting. No zooming in and out, no hard framing, no cutting in and out such that what is "onscreen" only serves to focus on very particular content, ask and answer questions related to it, and exclude the rest.

A Narrativist game would be focused on exactly what McCarthy focused on and wouldn't waste a second of "distraction" (to Narrativist agenda) on any/all of the questions above. The embedded questions about paternal love, protecting your child from the horrors of existence while preparing them for when they have to manage on their own, and "carrying the fire" (being an exemplar to your child specifically) despite an utterly bleak backdrop of hopeless and depravity are what the game and the participants would focus on. Can you do these things? Can you exemplify these things? Can you endure physically, emotionally, ideologically despite the endless confounders against each that you face? Can you keep your son safe? Will he be prepared when you perish? Is there actually any hope...any semblance of humanity out there left? Will you hold it together long enough for it to matter?

Finally, you've been on here long enough to read very posters consistently using laments outlined by "contrived" or "continuity and canon cannot be maintained <without x or played in y way>" or "all conflict/fun all the time = no conflict/fun" or "jarring to my immersion" or "shrodinger's < >?" Those posters are expressing an exclusive Sim orientation to running or playing games (and that should be pretty clear).

---

They're two very different ways to orient toward games, to design games, to run games, to play games. They serve different appetites.