Let's talk about "plot", "story", and "play to find out."

[TwoSix]

Because it's not binary, and I think you know that. It's a spectrum. The rules are just as important for play as roleplay, but the exact desired proportion for active play at the table will I think understandably vary from player to player.

Do you really think the people arguing for less in-your-face rules interaction as a player at the table actually want no rules at all? Are they just kidding themselves in your opinion?

Let me quibble a bit (although I actually more agree with you on this topic.)

Games with detailed, exception-based rules (I'm thinking of D&D spells here as a specific example) exist to establish concepts within the fictional setting that grant the setting its own authority, a presence that exists outside the desires of both players and GM. Even if they're rarely referenced (like a host of spells are rarely to never used in play), they exist as a framework to establish what does happen when they are evoked, outside of the current desires of the participants. They exist to act as a check on "narrative contrivance", which my current thesis is the real bane of those who are interested in simulationist-style play.

Much like owning an encyclopedia (which was a printed out version of Wikipedia for you youngsters), it's something you rarely reference, and you won't use 99% of it, but you're glad it's complete and authoritative when you do.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Let me quibble a bit (although I actually more agree with you on this topic.)

Games with detailed, exception-based rules (I'm thinking of D&D spells here as a specific example) exist to establish concepts within the fictional setting that grant the setting its own authority, a presence that exists outside the desires of both players and GM. Even if they're rarely referenced (like a host of spells are rarely to never used in play), they exist as a framework to establish what does happen when they are evoked, outside of the current desires of the participants. They exist to act as a check on "narrative contrivance", which my current thesis is the real bane of those who are interested in simulationist-style play.

Much like an owning an encyclopedia (which was a printed out version of Wikipedia for you youngsters), it's something you rarely reference, and you won't use 99% of it, but you're glad it's complete and authoritative when you do.

I don't see those bits of setting lore and rules as a bane to simulation. Rather, they are facts that inform you about the setting, facts that model parts of that setting in exactly the way I want mechanics to model the world.

It's not a narrative contrivance. It's a truth about the setting. And as the GM, I can make my setting with or without those truths, and make my own. And I want to make those decisions when worldbuilding, which means the options have to be there.

 

[TwoSix]

I don't see those bits of setting lore and rules as a bane to simulation. Rather, they are facts that inform you about the setting, facts that model parts of that setting in exactly the way I want mechanics to model the world.

It's not a narrative contrivance. It's a truth about the setting. And as the GM, I can make my setting with or without those truths, and make my own. And I want to make those decisions when worldbuilding, which means the options have to be there.

I think you're misreading my post. I'm saying the rules exist to check "narrative contrivance".

Transferring authority to the setting via rules (most especially rules that model diegetic elements) is the check on GMs and players creating new narrative elements based on what's currently compelling. Creating new narrative "just because" that wasn't properly generated is what sim players usually object to.

Edit: For clarity, by "sim players" I mean players who are currently pursuing sim goals in their current game. I don't want to propagate a narrative that players are always grouped into certain playstyle buckets.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think you're misreading my post. I'm saying the rules exist to check "narrative contrivance".

Transferring authority to the setting via rules (most especially rules that model diegetic elements) is the check on GMs and players creating new narrative elements based on what's currently compelling. Creating new narrative "just because" that wasn't properly generated is what sim players usually object to.

Edit: For clarity, by "sim players" I mean players who are currently pursuing sim goals in their current game. I don't want to propagate a narrative that players are always grouped into certain playstyle buckets.

Ok, that makes sense, and I do agree with that. Sorry about being confused.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I think you're misreading my post. I'm saying the rules exist to check "narrative contrivance".

Transferring authority to the setting via rules (most especially rules that model diegetic elements) is the check on GMs and players creating new narrative elements based on what's currently compelling. Creating new narrative "just because" that wasn't properly generated is what sim players usually object to.

Right, exactly. And as GM I like to have such scaffolding. As a GM I already decide a ton of things, and such structures are one way to limit the GM and make things less fiaty and more predictable to the players.

Like for example in my D&D I assume that most powerful NPCs roughly follow limitations of the classes and I also have rough mental guidelines what levels mean in a sense that how common and exceptional high level NPCs are. So when for example I need to ex tempore answer whether the local priest NPC can cast such and such spell, I have actually something concrete to go by. And when the characters were exploring a certain mystery, they could use their knowledge of whether certain spell was a wizard spell to sus out who was the culprit.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Because it's not binary, and I think you know that. It's a spectrum. The rules are just as important for play as roleplay, but the exact desired proportion for active play at the table will I think understandably vary from player to player.

Do you really think the people arguing for less in-your-face rules interaction as a player at the table actually want no rules at all? Are they just kidding themselves in your opinion?

Well, I responded to the general desire for the rules to get out of the way “whenever possible”. So I asked the question I asked because in freeform, the rules are nearly entirely out of the way.

I was asking to see what the response to that might be. Which I haven’t heard from @Lanefan yet, but you’ve shared your thoughts… which seems to acknowledge that rules are there to provide structure to things… scaffolding to support what we’re doing.

So the rules are necessary, they provide an essential structure to things. So getting out of the way seems counter-productive in some ways.

What makes a rule “in your face”? I’m not sure what that would be based on what folks have said regarding this topic. There are lots of mechanics that seem incredibly in your face and game oriented to me that others accept as necessary, but which are not in fact necessary.

I don’t think people are fooling themselves about what they like… but I sometimes think they’re not sure why they like what they like. Or why one rule seems in your face but another doesn’t.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, I responded to the general desire for the rules to get out of the way “whenever possible”. So I asked the question I asked because in freeform, the rules are nearly entirely out of the way.

I was asking to see what the response to that might be. Which I haven’t heard from @Lanefan yet, but you’ve shared your thoughts… which seems to acknowledge that rules are there to provide structure to things… scaffolding to support what we’re doing.

So the rules are necessary, they provide an essential structure to things. So getting out of the way seems counter-productive in some ways.

What makes a rule “in your face”? I’m not sure what that would be based on what folks have said regarding this topic. There are lots of mechanics that seem incredibly in your face and game oriented to me that others accept as necessary, but which are not in fact necessary.

I don’t think people are fooling themselves about what they like… but I sometimes think they’re not sure why they like what they like. Or why one rule seems in your face but another doesn’t.

They're not sure why, IMO, because it's a preference. People feel good about things they like, and bad about things they don't. But feeling that some rules are "in-your-face" and others aren't is obviously subjective.

 

[Fenris-77]

They're not sure why, IMO, because it's a preference. People feel good about things they like, and bad about things they don't. But feeling that some rules are "in-your-face" and others aren't is obviously subjective.

Yup, this is why conversations about immersion always flounder in the shallows of opinion.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yup, this is why conversations about immersion always flounder in the shallows of opinion.

Yup. But being subjective doesn't make the issue any less important to the player, and thus to the table.

 

[Fenris-77]

Yup. But being subjective doesn't make the issue any less important to the player, and thus to the table.

No but it makes it pretty bloody useless to try and get consensus on. It is what it is.