What Do You Think Of As "Modern TTRPG Mechanics"?

[Crimson Longinus]

Not when I use it. I'm quite happy to take Suits' definition:

I don't think that by that definition RPGS are games. A lot of things commonly considered games would not be games.

I don't really hold with the notion of "non-Suitsian" games, I just think a lot of people use "game" very loosely to indicate a great many forms of play that are not ultimately games.

And I think that definitions that ignore how the word is actually are used are very unhelpful.

 

[Fenris-77]

Upthread, @Pedantic mentioned Suits's account of what is a game:

To play a game is to attempt to achieve a specific state of affairs, using only means permitted by rules, where the rules prohibit use of more efficient in favour of less efficient means, and where the rules are accepted just because they make possible such activity.​

Even a freeform, mechanics-less RPG fits this account, assuming that it allocates distinct GM(esque) and player(esque) participant roles. Because the most efficient means for generating a fiction about the doings of some protagonists is for someone to tell that story. Achieving that same state of affairs - ie creation of a fiction about the doings of some protagonists - via the distribution of participant roles, and corresponding formal or informal constraints on what, and how, each participant can add to the fiction - is adopting less efficient means. And those means are permitted by the rules (be they formal or informal rules), And the rules are accepted because they make the fun activity of freeform RPGing possible.

Hmm. There's a lot of good stuff going on there. I'm not sure that the rules make RPG play possible in quite the same way that the rules of chess make playing chess possible. I'm also not quite sold on the movement there from more to less efficient for RPG play, which I completely grant in the case of boardgames.

I would think that maximally efficient RP(G) play (in the way efficiency is used above) would be something like FKR where the only rules constraining what is possible are the presence of the GM and the shared logic of the setting. But even there I have doubts. I think that FKR might be maximally efficient when the shared setting is something quite close to the real world, by which I mean that the shared setting is already present (because it's the real world). But if we posit a complex fantasy or sci-fi setting is that still the case? I suspect not. I think the extent to which the setting deviates from some version of the real world the more and more 'efficient' additional rules become at helping to free the conversation from endless debate about how this or that works. Participants read (or 'load') these additional setting elements, which are layered over their basic human understanding of how the rest of the world works (basic physics, human interaction etc). That new layered understanding forms the basis of their interaction with the setting.

Your account assumes, from the beginning, that the goal of RPG play is indeed to tell a story, a position from which you depart to discuss more and less efficient ways of doing so. But if telling a story is not, in fact, granted as the core 'thing' that RPGs do then your whole apparatus falls apart.

I think that it is somewhat plain that the rules are doing some key work but perhaps not that they allow play per se. I think they make play easier in many cases, so I might say they scaffold play, but I don't think they make it possible as such. The other thing the rules do is funnel or shape play in various ways - constraints that usually supposed to make a particular play experience more immediate (things like theme, and some takes on genre) This account stumbles a bit if the FKR example is take as the core of what RPGs are, but again, I don't think that's accurate (especially in terms of the 'game' bit).

All that said, I do agree that the rules serve to constrain the way that the players engage with the imaginary setting, but I think that with RPGs the restraints actually enhance creativity and vividness rather than curtailing it. That's the point where wouldn't call it less efficient because I think RPG play inspires creativity rather than limiting it and I'm much happier with creativity at the center of an account of RPGs than I am efficiency.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So, in any RPG I've ever played, there will be long stretches of gameplay where the rules are not used. Yet RPG is still being played. Thus it is apparent that rules are not required for playing a RPG being possible. To me me this conclusion is obvious and irrefutable.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Not to my mind. The story is created in the telling/writing/filming/whatever process, because IMO stories need some degree of pointed organization in order to be stories. Your play therefore created the chain of situations that become a story afterwards through the process above.

Not what I mean by story. Series of evens is a story. It might not necessarily be a good story, but a story nevertheless. But we are already in a boring semantic quagmire with "game," so perhaps best to not start another one. But when I say RPGs are crating stories, I mean they are creating series of (hopefully interesting) events, not that the participants (necessarily) think in terms of "story creation" such as drama, narrative, pacing etc (though they certainly could.) But I don't think we have a massive difference in opinion regarding what is actually going on in RPG play, beyond semantics and perhaps some emphasis.

 

[Fenris-77]

Not what I mean by story. Series of evens is a story. It might not necessarily be a good story, but story nevertheless. But we are already in a boring semantic quagmire with "game," so perhaps best to not start another one. But when I say RPGs are crating stories, I meant they are creating series of (hopefully interesting) events, not that the participants (necessarily) think in terms of "story creation" such as drama, narrative pacing etc (though they certainly could.) But I don't think we have a massive difference in opinion regarding what is actually going on in RPG play, beyond semantics and perhaps some emphasis.

What are the stakes of changing 'creating' there to 'participating in'? I think the lack of intentionality by the participants vis a vis 'story creation' indexes some problems as it implies that creation of the (a?) story is what's going on. I think that a series of events is just that, a series of events, which could become a story if an attempt is made to do so, if we, for example, wanted to relate or explain that series of events, but without intention it's not yet, IMO, a story. (The temptation to use a silly word like proto-story is intense here).

I would agree that we're all probably beating a pretty dead horse here, and whether we call it a story or series of events, the result of game play is what it is (which is somewhere between both and yes). The part that matters is how we take that fact and try to extend it to explain what RPG play is doing in some kind of greater or more explanatory way, and the word story has, in that role, caused not a few problems. I suspect that this is where alternatives like narrative and fiction start to creep into discussions, neither of which I find particularly useful.

 

[pemerton]

I'm not sure that the rules make RPG play possible in quite the same way that the rules of chess make playing chess possible.

Sure. They're probably not (as) constitutive of the activity. But I don't think being constituted by rules is necessary for an activity to be a game. Field sports, for instance, aren't constituted by their rules in the same manner as a "logical" game such as chess is.

I would think that maximally efficient RP(G) play (in the way efficiency is used above) would be something like FKR where the only rules constraining what is possible are the presence of the GM and the shared logic of the setting.

I think you may have misunderstood what Suits is saying. He is not talking about efficient or inefficient gameplay. He is talking about efficient or less efficient means of brining about a state of affairs - such as the arrangement of pieces on a board, the passing of a ball between two posts, a group of people all imagining an account of certain protagonists' doings, etc.

I'm also not quite sold on the movement there from more to less efficient for RPG play, which I completely grant in the case of boardgames.

Well, the most efficient means to arrange the pieces on a chess board, such that the black king is checkmated - which is the state of affairs that the player of black is aiming at - is to place them into such a position. But - as per Suits's account of a game - chess adopts a less efficient means of doing so, namely, the moving of pieces on the board, and their removal from the board, turn and turn about, in accordance with the rules.

So likewise, the most efficient means of establishing a state of affairs that is an account of the doings of certain protagonists is to author such an account. But RPGing adopts a less efficient means of doing this: namely, the allocation of participant roles that dictate what is said, and how. Even freeform RPG - if it has distinct participant roles - fits this description.

Your account assumes, from the beginning, that the goal of RPG play is indeed to tell a story

No. I assume that the goal of freefrom RPG play is to bring about a state of affairs which is a group of people all imagining the doings of certain protagonists.

 

[pemerton]

I think the lack of intentionality by the participants vis a vis 'story creation' indexes some problems as it implies that creation of the (a?) story is what's going on. I think that a series of events is just that, a series of events, which could become a story if an attempt is made to do so, if we, for example, wanted to relate or explain that series of events, but without intention it's not yet, IMO, a story.

Part of the reason for doing things in accordance with instructions or structured processes is to produce results that aren't directly intended. An example that is a bit different from RPG play, but that (I think) vividly illustrates the point, is a production line in a factory. The engineer who conceived of the production line had in mind that it would produce whatever widgets it produces; but none of the builders of the components of the production line, let alone any of the workers on the line, need to intend the product of the widgets - each of them just intends to do their bits.

Some RPGs are (at an appropriate level of abstraction) similar in their design: if the game participants adhere to their roles, as defined by the game rules and procedures, appropriately, and do what the rules and procedures tell them to do, then a story will result. Even though no participant directly intends its creation.

And for the sake of clarity: by story here I don't just mean a sequence of imagined events. I mean a story in the sense of protagonists, conflict, rising action, climax etc.

whether we call it a story or series of events, the result of game play is what it is (which is somewhere between both and yes). The part that matters is how we take that fact and try to extend it to explain what RPG play is doing in some kind of greater or more explanatory way, and the word story has, in that role, caused not a few problems. I suspect that this is where alternatives like narrative and fiction start to creep into discussions, neither of which I find particularly useful.

I would generally regard "narrative" and "story" as synonyms, at least in many contexts. Although in the context of RPGing, "narrative" also has an adjectival use - as in, pertaining to narration - that "story" doesn't.

I don't think all RPGing produces a story in any sense beyond a series of imagined events. But some RPGing does. And RPGs can be designed - and some are - to ensure that this happens non-accidentally and reliably.

As for "the fiction", I think that's fairly useful as a way of referring to the stuff that is imagined.

 

[Fenris-77]

Sure. They're probably not (as) constitutive of the activity. But I don't think being constituted by rules is necessary for an activity to be a game. Field sports, for instance, aren't constituted by their rules in the same manner as a "logical" game such as chess is.

I think you may have misunderstood what Suits is saying. He is not talking about efficient or inefficient gameplay. He is talking about efficient or less efficient means of brining about a state of affairs - such as the arrangement of pieces on a board, the passing of a ball between two posts, a group of people all imagining an account of certain protagonists' doings, etc.

Well, the most efficient means to arrange the pieces on a chess board, such that the black king is checkmated - which is the state of affairs that the player of black is aiming at - is to place them into such a position. But - as per Suits's account of a game - chess adopts a less efficient means of doing so, namely, the moving of pieces on the board, and their removal from the board, turn and turn about, in accordance with the rules.

So likewise, the most efficient means of establishing a state of affairs that is an account of the doings of certain protagonists is to author such an account. But RPGing adopts a less efficient means of doing this: namely, the allocation of participant roles that dictate what is said, and how. Even freeform RPG - if it has distinct participant roles - fits this description.

No. I assume that the goal of freefrom RPG play is to bring about a state of affairs which is a group of people all imagining the doings of certain protagonists.

So I'll grant you the efficiency argument, but not that a move from more efficient to less efficient explains the function of RPG rules in the same way it does for chess. Mostly because I don't think efficiency as an idea carries a lot of water for the RPG example in the same way it does for chess. RPGs don't have a win condition in the same way chess does, and thus the arrangement of pieces in a winning configuration example really doesn't work very well. IMO anyway.

I think you'd have to do a lot more work to prove that even allocating roles is somehow less efficient than not having them. As far as the goal of freeform play goes I think you need to account for the setting itself in addition to the doings of certain protagonists. Exploring the setting itself (and I don't just mean physical exploration) is very much central to RPG play. The actions of the players are obviously also key, but don't really cover things like "let's find out what's behind that door" or "I wonder what the odd scientist is up to?". This is the bit I always assumed your use of "play to find out" at least in part referred to.

Let me try to explain this in a different way. I am Biff the fighter, and I'm in a dungeon room with my trusty compatriots, and there is a closed door. I declare that Biff will open the door to find out what lies beyond. The GM them narrates the new scene. Do we really think that at any point there that the thing being imagined is Biff physically opening the door, or that the picture being built in our imaginations by the GMs subsequent narration is somehow centered on the (currently inactive) player avatars? I don't think so, or at least it's not obviously the case. The GM describes the room and its contents plus atmosphere and whatever and that is what the players are imagining. This example covers lots of situation in lots of different RPGs.

I'll freely admit that there are other scenes in which the actions of the protagonist are central, but I think these are much more likely to be the result of GM adjudication after a player action declaration. You need both those kinds of 'scenes' for RPG play, I think. Usually a game moves back and forth between these two types but you don't get the second without the first. That's why I remain convinced that any account of RPG play needs to address them both.

 

[Fenris-77]

Some RPGs are (at an appropriate level of abstraction) similar in their design: if the game participants adhere to their roles, as defined by the game rules and procedures, appropriately, and do what the rules and procedures tell them to do, then a story will result. Even though no participant directly intends its creation.

And for the sake of clarity: by story here I don't just mean a sequence of imagined events. I mean a story in the sense of protagonists, conflict, rising action, climax etc.

Some. Some RPGs. Sure. But if it's only some RPGs then that story with all its features isn't central to RPG play generally, but rather an intentional product of certain RPG rule sets. I would go so far as to say that the rules sets in question are likely the ones most often labeled narrative. Not that that's a bad thing.

My question is more about what we have left when we strip away the idea of structured story as a specific desired outcome. I never said that no games do what you describe, only that many games do not, and that those games are still quite identifiable as RPGs. I'm not trying to be pedantic, I'm just interested in digging a little deeper.

 

[soviet]

It seems to me that there may be a profitable distinction to be made between:

1. We are creating story with planned direction - 'OK in the next scene Bob can meet his nemesis and then win after a close fight, but at the cost of his friendship to Jade and he gets a scar that reminds him of his past traumas'. We know what the story is going to be, at least in the very near term.

2. We are creating story without planned direction - the game is full of story-fuel or story-generating elements such as personal enmities. fragile relationships, opportunities to escalate at a cost, pyrhhic victories, psychological traumas, goals, flaws, etc, and we bash them all together to see what happens. We know a story is going to happen but we don't know what it will be.

3. We are creating story as a byproduct of other things - the characters fight monsters and explore dungeons and our focus is really on battle tactics or experiencing a fantasy world, so story isn't really on our minds. But, sure that will constitute a story of some kind I guess, and you can tell it afterwards with more intentionality if you want.

I think a lot of games that might be in box 2 get characterised as being in box 1 by people who don't really play them.