Defining RPG's Take 2 - Prescriptive vs Descriptive

[Umbran]

Personally, I don't see any point in differentiating "story telling games" from RPG's since story telling games ARE RPG's.

Not necessarily, no. Specifically, there are games where you do not take on a role of one of the characters and all players have sway over all characters within the narrative. This would not be a role-playing game, but would be a story-telling game.

You see, this is a problem with making definitions - you need to consider the *entire space* within which you are making your definition.

And Sim City, while you have a great deal of freedom, is very prescriptive. You can only build what the game lets you build. You may not build anything else. Other than what the game permits me to do, there is nothing else I can do in the game.

Ah. If you are viewing it that way, then I think you'll find D&D is actually far more prescriptive than you'll want to admit, and it will thoroughly toast your proposed definition.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Umbran]

For those less legally inclined, an easier example is the ever-popular prescriptivist/descriptivist debate in language. While I am sure that you are familiar with it, pemerton, those less so would understand it as prescriptivist believe that language must follow certain rules (how language should be) and descriptivists are concerned with how language is used.

I think it might be more clear to say, a prescriptivist thinks we have rules for language that we must follow. A descriptivist feels the rules describe the language as it currently is[, and that as use changes, the rules will change.

While I (and most rational people) think this debate is largely over as language is always evolving (descriptivism) there are still some holdout pedants who demand an empty formalism.

There is a better view, IMHO. Right now, short term, if you want to be understood, you should follow the rules. Long term, it is empirically shown that languages do change, and that over generations, the rules are clearly descriptive, rather than prescriptive. The difference is a question of timescale.

But, that change should not be used as an excuse for lackadaisical structure and form. Or, as my teachers used to say, "learn to follow the rules strictly first, then *choose* when to break them for maximum effect."

 

[Umbran]

This "descriptive vs prescriptive" thing was basically incoherent when Mearls said it, and that hasn't changed.

Here's an example of a prescriptive rule:

Um, pemerton? You don't get to say what the OP meant. Really, deciding that the OP should follow *your* use of the terms is a bit on-the-nose ironic in a thread largely *about questioning definitions*.

Please, if his form does not seem coherent, rather than tell him he is wrong, ask questions probing where your differences lie, hm? I think you'll find it far more constructive.

 

[Shasarak]

But, in all RPG's, the mechanics are not prescriptive. They are descriptive. If the player chooses to do A, B or C or even X, the players then engage the mechanics in order to resolve the results of that action. Which leads to each RPG table being a very idiosyncratic collection of resolutions that are virtually impossible to replicate at another table. Because the mechanics are descriptive, player choices (whether they are a player or the DM/GM/whatever) will create a chain of events that will play out very differently at different tables.

I was just reading a John Wick rant where he was complaining about how class based RPG systems are too prescriptive for him to play. So I guess there is a spectrum of RPGs that ranges from Monopoly on one end and Lets Pretend on the other.

 

[innerdude]

In my view, all game rules are "descriptive," in that they "describe" acceptable end states.

When I consider the purpose of rules in a game, ultimately the intent is to describe (define) what is and is not an acceptable change state / state change for those playing the game.

To play chess, you accept that from any given current game state, there is a finite set of acceptable state changes that can result, based on the rules. Removing a player's queen from the chessboard is acceptable if it is captured by a knight. Simply removing an opponent's queen from the board when they aren't looking is not an acceptable state change.

Ultimately, RPGs are no different---there is always a finite limit to acceptable "change states," the difference is that for RPGs, the boundaries of that limit are the unwritten group social contract. Yes, the range of acceptable end states in an RPG is likely trillions of times greater than a game of chess, but it is still finite. Every group has a limit to the kinds and amount of state change they are willing to accept in a given instance of their game.

The difference with RPGs is that the written rules are not the only method to create "acceptable" state change within the function of the game. Consider:

Player: "I attack the orc."
GM (without consulting the combat rules or asking the player to make a single dice roll): "Okay, the orc is dead."

None of the formalized combat rules were invoked to create this state change, but as long as the group agrees this is an acceptable change state, play can proceed from that point.

One of the core, fundamental tenets of RPG play is that we accept on some level that human interposition (either from the GM or a player) can affect game state change outside of the formal, written rules. This is the heart of "Rule 0"---"Should the group agree, the Game Master may introduce state changes to the current game conditions/environment without consulting or invoking the written game rules."

In some groups, "Rule 0" is solely the domain of the GM, in others it is available to both the GM and players, with varying degrees of authority.

Assume for a minute, that one of the rules of chess was that instead of starting with the board exactly the same each time, a third-party observer would set up a unique board arrangement for each playthrough---"Wouldn't it be more fun for both of you if I rearranged the board with this challenge scenario, and see which of you comes out winner?"

Written rules of any game are just a way of expressing, "If you choose to use these rules within the described (defined) context and function, these are the acceptable change states that can/will result."

For games that are not RPGs, acceptable change states can only be generated by adherence to the written/hard-coded rules, whereas for RPGs this is definitively not the case.

That said, I think it's extremely important that an RPG's written/hard-coded rules should be viable methods to generate acceptable change states. The point of hard-coded rules in RPGs is that many people believe it is more fun to formalize certain instances where human bias should be limited in controlling the range of acceptable change states.

 

[pemerton]

I, and many others, understood immediately what Mearls was saying from a design standpoint.

Why do D&D players use 6 stats for their PCs? Because the rulebook tells them to. That's a prescription. Why do players of 5e D&D have fighters with action surge; whereas players of 3E D&D have fighters with +1 per level BAB; etc? Because the rulebooks tell them to. That's more prescription.

Would you like to elaborate on how RPG rules are interestingly different from the rules of chess, as far as prescription/description is concerned?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Hussar]

I'd point out that you folks had repeatedly told me that there is no difference between RPG's and other games during the setup phase. None whatsoever. So, things like what your class can do and what equipment you have, is all part of the set up phase and is the same as other games.

But, and maybe I wasn't clear here, I was speaking about RPG's during play. If we accept that everything that happens before play is simply "set up", then we can ignore pretty much all the things you've brought up [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]. Choosing class, stats, whatnot, that's all set up. And, you and others were pretty emphatic that that's the same in all kinds of games.

In play, however, is where the difference is seen. Players can choose actions based not on what the rules tell them to do, but based on whatever they feel they can attempt at the time. And the mechanics don't actually tell you WHAT to do. They tell you HOW to resolve that declaration from the player, up to and including, sometimes, just make something up.

 

[pemerton]

Players can choose actions based not on what the rules tell them to do, but based on whatever they feel they can attempt at the time. And the mechanics don't actually tell you WHAT to do.

The "mechanics" of chess don't tell you what to do, other than make a move. In a RPG there are permitted and prohibited moves too - eg in a typical game of D&D, a player's move can't be "The Duke of Geoff rides out from his castle to gift me a warhorse."

When you say "based on whatever they feel they can attempt at the time" you're describing a main rule for RPG play: the player's move must pertain to something done or attempted by his/her character. That's a prescription.