Why do RPGs have rules?

[Aldarc]

I was thinking about this today in relation to FKR. Some ultra-light game texts focus on the assignment of authority. MAR Barker's Perfected is an example

cringe

 

[clearstream]

cringe

Good point. I will restrict myself to examples like Messerspiel, Cthulhu Dark and Landshut in future. The argument stands apart from that.

 

[clearstream]

The problem with those systems is they don't really address questions of who gets to decide what. There may be a dice mechanic in Messerspiel but what does it get used to decide, when, and who authors that fiction? I mean, you can go read BitD and sort of extrapolate, but these things aren't in any sense complete playable games in and of themselves. Not without a huge amount of negotiation and/or convention. I've run things like PACE which are similar, and yes it can easily work, but the one fairly substantive PACE-based game I ran was with extremely experienced players and involved a large amount of up front establishing of the precise genre conventions and whatnot, even down to everyone agreeing on what the NPCs were, etc. before play. Even so we had to make some adjustments based on experience, and if I was to write all that stuff down I'd end up with easily 100 pages of rules and material.

Frankly if I was going to run that exact game again, I'd just go pick up a copy of a Narrativist rules set designed for the specific genre, of which several exist, and use it.

You may find this blog post interesting to read. In essence, the principles by which FKRs are run are typically not embodied in the ultralight rules. The questions you raised are addressed, but they are not addressed in writing.

It's common for folk to ask how to play an ultralight, and honestly that's somewhat missing the point. The text is not intended to tell you exactly how you should play. It's not intended to be a complete game... it requires extra work.

Narrativist rules may or may not come anywhere near the purposes of a group formed to pursue play by ultralight rules. My criticism is not about the completeness of those rules, but what is included in them (however incomplete that should be.)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

You may find this blog post interesting to read. In essence, the principles by which FKRs are run are typically not embodied in the ultralight rules. The questions you raised are addressed, but they are not addressed in writing.

It's common for folk to ask how to play an ultralight, and honestly that's somewhat missing the point. The text is not intended to tell you exactly how you should play. It's not intended to be a complete game... it requires extra work.

Narrativist rules may or may not come anywhere near the purposes of a group formed to pursue play by ultralight rules. My criticism is not about the completeness of those rules, but what is included in them (however incomplete that should be.)

They're not addressed AT ALL. You must be initiated into the club and taught the rules. Its a thing, I don't want to put it down, but you can't 'publish' these games, and to say "I play Messerspiel" is essentially an empty statement, as there's no such game.

But my point is there is effectively nothing included in them. Sure, Messerspiel documents a way to possibly roll some dice. Given that this could be used for basically any purpose whatsoever that involves the concept of a character and a story its basically saying nothing in game terms at all. I guess it says "maybe you should roll dice sometimes" but that's it.

I guess my position is that there comes a point where the rules are so incomplete that they aren't even rules anymore and nothing can be said about them. I'd contrast this with PACE, which has JUST a bit more to it, a way of defining character attributes and a (fairly simple but complete) structure for posing and resolving conflicts using those attributes. It has a LOT more of the character of a game, and I think it would be fair to say "We're playing PACE" although that still covers a lot of ground.

 

[clearstream]

They're not addressed AT ALL. You must be initiated into the club and taught the rules. Its a thing, I don't want to put it down, but you can't 'publish' these games, and to say "I play Messerspiel" is essentially an empty statement, as there's no such game.

But my point is there is effectively nothing included in them. Sure, Messerspiel documents a way to possibly roll some dice. Given that this could be used for basically any purpose whatsoever that involves the concept of a character and a story its basically saying nothing in game terms at all. I guess it says "maybe you should roll dice sometimes" but that's it.

You might recall that I place game-as-artifact into the category of tools. The text is never the game: that only emerges in play. Rather it is a tool with which the game may be fabricated. Your objections are I believe answered in reflection on that framing.

That's not to say you ought to prefer ultralight rules. And I agree that many contemporary examples are deficient... but that is not because they are incomplete.

I guess my position is that there comes a point where the rules are so incomplete that they aren't even rules anymore and nothing can be said about them. I'd contrast this with PACE, which has JUST a bit more to it, a way of defining character attributes and a (fairly simple but complete) structure for posing and resolving conflicts using those attributes. It has a LOT more of the character of a game, and I think it would be fair to say "We're playing PACE" although that still covers a lot of ground.

I find ultralight rules easy to compare and critique, so I do not find that "nothing can be said about them"!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

You might recall that I place game-as-artifact into the category of tools. The text is never the game: that only emerges in play. Rather it is a tool with which the game may be fabricated. Your objections are I believe answered in reflection on that framing.

That's not to say you ought to prefer ultralight rules. And I agree that many contemporary examples are deficient... but that is not because they are incomplete.


I find ultralight rules easy to compare and critique, so I do not find that "nothing can be said about them"!

Nothing can be said about what types of play might include their use. I won't say they will be 'played' because that is clearly not a meaningful statement.

 

[clearstream]

Nothing can be said about what types of play might include their use. I won't say they will be 'played' because that is clearly not a meaningful statement.

It's possible that you are thinking about content rather than procedures and principles. The texture of play can be meaningfully shaped by the tools that fabricate it. I identify a lack of procedures and principles in many ultralights for compelling participants to say what they don't want to say. One could write a rule like this

If you have this d6, say something and then roll it​

On 1-2, hand this d6 to another player: what they say must include something awful happening to both your characters​

As an untested rule, the above may or may not work out. The wording might or might not result in what I want to see. There could be all kinds of problems with it. To my mind, it implies the existence of a few other rules, which are as yet unwritten. I'm picturing a text about as long as Cthulhu Dark. With all those caveats, it offers a basic procedure for compelling participants to say things they (presumably) don't want to say.

Another approach would be to lay out a few principles that govern the use of lightweight procedures. Probably the basic rule needed is a result that is going to be interpreted as compelling the unwanted and unwelcome. Not simple failure or resource depeletion, but something about the tone of what you must add to your fiction. None of this would rely on defining any content.

 

[pemerton]

You may find this blog post interesting to read.

I read it. It asserts a contrast between FKR and principled and/or procedural freeform; but it seems to me that FKR is a special case of principled and/or procedural freeform: one in which the principles and procedures centre one participant - the GM/referee - in a distinctive fashion.

The critical moment I've often observed, is how folk feel when someone says something unwelcome and unwanted without being forced to by rules.

If someone says it without being forced to, then presumably it is welcome, at least to them.

It's possible that you are thinking about content rather than procedures and principles. The texture of play can be meaningfully shaped by the tools that fabricate it. I identify a lack of procedures and principles in many ultralights for compelling participants to say what they don't want to say. One could write a rule like this

If you have this d6, say something and then roll it​

On 1-2, hand this d6 to another player: what they say must include something awful happening to both your characters​

That rule does not pertain to either principles or procedure. In the language of Baker as quoted in the blog you linked to, it is a rule that establishes a mediating cue - as it references the content of the fiction being created.

you can't 'publish' these games, and to say "I play Messerspiel" is essentially an empty statement, as there's no such game.

But my point is there is effectively nothing included in them.

<snip?

I guess my position is that there comes a point where the rules are so incomplete that they aren't even rules anymore and nothing can be said about them.

I have played Cthulhu Dark.

It has no rule for framing - it assumes that the GM will be using a classic CoC module, which dictates framing in a more-or-less "trad" fashion. (GUMSHOE scenarios could also be used, I'm sure.) I've never done this, but rather have used PbtA-ish framing principles (go where the action is; make the characters lives not boring; etc).

It has rules for rolling dice and determining degrees of success, and the possibility of failure; but no rules for when to roll the dice, nor for what success and failure amount to. When I've played it, I've used BW-ish resolution principles: say 'yes' or roll the dice; fail forward.

I agree it's not a complete game, but it's actually probably no more incomplete than 3rd ed RQ, or RM2 or RMSS: these don't really have framing rules either, and are fairly weak on when to roll the dice. RM at least is a bit more robust on consequences, even out of combat ones.

 

[clearstream]

I read it. It asserts a contrast between FKR and principled and/or procedural freeform; but it seems to me that FKR is a special case of principled and/or procedural freeform: one in which the principles and procedures centre one participant - the GM/referee - in a distinctive fashion.

Maybe, I'm not sure at this point. "Special case" may be doing too much work.

If someone says it without being forced to, then presumably it is welcome, at least to them.

Exactly. I read Baker's remarks on the limits of "vigorous creative agreement" to cover this.

That rule does not pertain to either principles or procedure. In the language of Baker as quoted in the blog you linked to, it is a rule that establishes a mediating cue - as it references the content of the fiction being created.

Agreed, and thus excluded from the definition of "freeform" altogether. I find that interesting in abstract, but more concretely - what sort of content, principle or procedure (as defined in that post) will compel the unwelcome and unwanted?

I have played Cthulhu Dark.

It has no rule for framing - it assumes that the GM will be using a classic CoC module, which dictates framing in a more-or-less "trad" fashion. (GUMSHOE scenarios could also be used, I'm sure.) I've never done this, but rather have used PbtA-ish framing principles (go where the action is; make the characters lives not boring; etc).

It has rules for rolling dice and determining degrees of success, and the possibility of failure; but no rules for when to roll the dice, nor for what success and failure amount to. When I've played it, I've used BW-ish resolution principles: say 'yes' or roll the dice; fail forward.

Cthulhu Dark's mechanics essentially follow Messerspiel, recasting the stress die as "insanity" and using that as a mediating cue. On rolling high on your insanity die, you must "roleplay your fear". Doing so moves play in the right direction for the expected content. It's a neat piece of design.

Are mediating cues required then, to compel the unwanted?

 

[pemerton]

Maybe, I'm not sure at this point. "Special case" may be doing too much work.

I don't know what you mean by this.

The following is from Vincent Baker, as quoted in the blog:

You can change people’s normal social system with content. “Your character is the captain of a space ship; mine is her first mate.”

You can change people’s normal social system with principles. “Your right to say what your character does ends at my character’s skin. You can say your character punches mine, but I get to say how it affects my character.”

You can change people’s normal social system with procedural cues. “We roll dice. If you have the highest sum, you get to say what happens.” Procedural cues tell you how to interact, without reference to the content of the fiction you’re creating.

You can change people’s normal social system with mediating cues (popularly, mechanics). “When your character does something that would expose her to danger, stop! Roll dice for her ‘I’m craven.’ If the high die is 1-3, she’s too craven to do it.”​

The blog notes that

Let’s look at that definition of Principled Freeform, or freeform that uses content (the fictional world and premise) and the laws of engagement the players agree. You may notice that it doesn’t mention a GM figure as requirement, nor for it or freeform at large. . . .

The rebellion against rulesets as primary source of play and the employment of a technology heavily associated with FKR (description and logic to figure things out) suggests association, as well as resolution procedures on the fly, but in FKR that’s the purview of the referee.​

Baker doesn't mention the GM, because he is setting out general concepts. A special case of principles is that each participants controls the fiction concerning one character except for the "GM" participant, who controls everyone and everything else. Procedural and mediating cues can also be deployed ad hoc as stipulated by the GM, in such a way as to reinforce this: eg the GM gets to say whatever they want unless another participant whose character is in the scene succeeds at a certain roll, in which case they can say only how their PC escapes/avoids whatever it is the GM is describing.

what sort of content, principle or procedure (as defined in that post) will compel the unwelcome and unwanted?

<snip>

Are mediating cues required then, to compel the unwanted?

Well, I don't see how it is going to happen otherwise. Principles and procedural cues regulate who can speak, about what. By definition, they don't compel anyone to generate any particular content.