Monte Cook on what rules are for

[am181d]

I disagree. I think they are saying, in large part, exactly the same thing.

If we agree to play by the same set of written rules, we have already done some large percentage of our negotiation up front, before we sit down to play.

The "basis of the shared reality" is merely those things we have already negotiated (implicitly or explicitly) so that we all agree they are generally true, and can use them instead of negotiating every little thing.

And thus the two viewpoints come together as one, rather seamlessly.

This. The rules are a framework that influence roleplaying. The rules exist before the roleplay begins and are invoked throughout. How is this (a) self-contradictory? (b) controversial? (c) interesting?

 

[P1NBACK]

This. The rules are a framework that influence roleplaying. The rules exist before the roleplay begins and are invoked throughout. How is this (a) self-contradictory? (b) controversial? (c) interesting?

The rules are only used if we, the roleplayers, agree to use them. Therefore: negotiation.

At any moment, we can throw out a rule, choose to change one, violate them, etc. all in agreement and with the consensus at the table.

Does that mean we stop roleplaying?

No.

Rule are not roleplaying. The stuff we do is roleplaying.

Our moment-to-moment assent as roleplayers trumps our "pre-agreed upon" set of rules and distribution of authority.

 

[JamesonCourage]

This is very strong stuff, and I'm curious as to whether you mean it literally.

For example, in your game, suppose (i) it is already established that a PC is not gagged, is not in an airless environment, has not had his/her throat ripped out, etc, and (ii) the player of that PC says "I say XYZ". Does the player really need the GM's permission before that statement becomes true in the fiction?

In a way. The player won't ask permission, but just because he says it, it doesn't mean his character gets to say it. That is, if a PC says "I say XYZ" and there's nothing stopping him, then he says it. However, if I know that something will stop him, whether it's him noticing something, someone ready to stop him by attacking or cutting him off, etc., then the PC does not get to say that unhindered (or possibly at all).

It's not based on "I say XYZ. Okay?" That's not what I said. I just said that I determine if that's true or not. They can (and do) say, "XYZ" (they don't say "I say" first the huge majority of the time), and most of the time there's no problem. At no point is there a "I attempt to say XYZ" unless the circumstances overtly call for it.

Or suppose that (i) it is already established that the PC has a sword in hand, that there is an orc a few feet away from him/her, etc, and (ii) the player says "I swing my sword at the orc". Does the player really need the GM's permission before that attempted attack becomes part of the fiction?

Yes, but it's the same scenario. Most of the time, it's "I swing my sword at the orc" and then it's an attack roll. However, just because a player says as much, it doesn't mean it happens. And, I suspect this is true of 4e, too. Any interrupt action can stop the attack, or a readied action, or sometimes spotting something. For example, it might be:
Player: "I turn and attack the orc on my right."
GM: "Roll Spot."
Player: "Okay... 22."
GM: "When you turn your attention to this specific orc, you notice the hidden marking of the allied thief guild on the orc's forearm."
Player: "Hmm, but he's attacking. Then again, we know that someone in this very group we're fighting can cast Dominate. Either he's enchanted, or he's a traitor, but either way I want him alive. I'll deal nonlethal damage."
GM: "You take a..."
Player: "Penalty to my attacks, yeah, I know. I'll attack anyways."
GM: "Go ahead and roll."

I doubt this situation is far off from 4e (not necessarily your group, but 4e). Thus, unless I say it's true, it doesn't happen.

I think most games, and most game tables, anticipate that the players have a degree of authority over at least some aspects of the fiction very intimately related to their own PCs (as in the examples I've given above, and perhaps others as well - eg the patterns of the stitching on the boots my PC starts with, or the style in which my PC's hair is cut).

Yep, this is generally true. However, if a player is acting in a very lighthearted way, and I say, "you're in a bad mood," he will almost certainly ask why. I might tell him a reason, or I might say, "you just are". Either way, I know why (and it's almost certainly magical in nature). PC mood is very intimate to a player, so I try not to override things like that.

Additionally, I've known all but one of the players for 13+ years, so I have a good grasp on what sets their PCs off most of the time, so I can say, "you're in a bad mood" with some certainty that they'll agree. If the player asks, "why?" and I say, "because you got food poisoning from that chef you've been trying to get rid of that's in a relationship with your love interest" I assume it's good enough for some players (but not for others). If, however, he says, "I'm probably a little annoyed, but my mood is fine," I might be surprised, but I'll let it go; that player knows the PC better than I do.

As far as hair styles and such go, I try to communicate generally different clothes styles, hair styles, etc. of each region, nation, or social status on the map (that is, if players are interested, or if it's dramatically abnormal or otherwise important). In my current game, you can have different amounts of status mechanically with your PC, and only the nobility are assumed to be tall, strong, attractive looking by default, due to the dietary habits, breeding, and the like. So, when one PC who was low Status said he was 5'11", I said, "that's probably too tall for your status. The average is closer to 5'4", but you theoretically be that tall. It'd just be pretty rare." He changed his height to 5'3" and we moved on (this is the player I've known for about two months now).

At any rate, yes, things get cleared before they happen in-game. That same player has two eyes of a different color once before, and when I noticed it was on his sheet, I told him to change it (there's a way to note such abnormalities mechanically, and he didn't take it). He asked if he could swap to get that mechanical "benefit", and I let him. I wouldn't've if he didn't swap out for it, though.

However, as I've mentioned, it's not, "can I have blue eyes? Can I have short brown hair? Can I say, "die, orc!"? Can I attack the orc?" It's almost exclusively "I do X", or the player saying "YZ" in-character. And, it's probably assumed true unless there's a reason to doubt it. But that doesn't mean it is by default. As always, play what you like

It's hard to know what Monte means when he says "shared reality".

I think he (and Vincent) are missing out - or perhaps just not stating - another element of RPG rules: they assign different values to different choices. That's how you build a game, I guess.

I think people are too focused on these statements (or at least Monte's). I think Monte was throwing out a summary, and is getting gaming philosophy back at him. I can't say for Vincent.

That's roleplaying, sure. You don't need rules to roleplay: "Imagine you are your garbageman" doesn't seem like a rule to me. That's where the game part comes in:

"Imagine you are your garbageman who has a limited amount of time to pick up garbage. If you go over that amount of time, you lose your job. If you don't pick up garbage from this route over here, you lose your job. If you don't pick up garbage from this route over here, no one cares. The more garbage you pick up, the greater chance there is that you will get a bump in pay. Here's the map; what do you do?"

Yep, no disagreements with this line of thought.

"No Bob, your fighter doesn't attack the monster, instead he wets his pants, drops his magic sword, and runs for the hills."

Now imagine that in a (dark ages) Call of Cthulhu game.

I've not played CoC, but I assume this would be fine in-game? No idea, really.

Think about the rules that make the DM's role different from the player's. Are those rules there to model stuff in the game world?

Considering I follow the rules they do when it comes to modeling the game world, yes. I mean, I have other things I do that are highly divorced from the rules, but so do the players. I don't use an exception-based design for my game. I don't build monsters or NPCs different than PCs do (though I do get to sum mine up within seconds or minutes, where they don't get to).

When it comes to actual rules of interacting within the game, the PCs and NPCs are even. Yes, I can say, "this guy is hit die 16!" and the PCs can't. However, there's no rules hardwired into the game telling me not to do that, or that I can't, or that I shouldn't.

If you're trying to say that some rules model the game world, and other rules help give a common ground to everyone at the table, then I agree, as that's what I said. If you're saying that it also involves something else, what did you have in mind? I'm open to more options. I'm just summing up here, anyways. As always, play what you like

 

[JamesonCourage]

A lot of the 'permission' has to do with the situation, but I absolutely agree with JamesonCourage on this.

That said, in an rpg, the one place that the dm MUST NOT go (IMHO) is into the area of the player's volition without a strong in-game reason. It's okay to dominate or charm a pc, but the dm should never tell a pc "You do X" or "You won't do Y".

The thing is, once it's your turn, you have your sword out and the orc is within reach, you (generally) already have permission to attack. You've satisfied all the conditions necessary, and the dm runs his game by a set of rules that give you that permission to attack. On the other hand, if you want to fly 100' and fire your blaster rifle at the fleeing bad guy but you're playing a non-flying dude with a sword, then no, you don't have permission- the rules say you can neither fly nor do you have the blaster rifle you want. It's the in between places that need a more explicit dm's permission: What if you're near a ballista? Can you fire that at the fleeing guy? Does it take more than one action, more than one person, is it loaded, is it broken? You have no way of determining that without asking the dm.

This exactly captures the feel of what I was trying to say. I can't XP, but it's right on with what I meant.

 

[LostSoul]

If you're trying to say that some rules model the game world, and other rules help give a common ground to everyone at the table, then I agree, as that's what I said.

Pretty much, yeah. I think it's important to think of rules (all rules? maybe) in both ways instead of just one.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Pretty much, yeah. I think it's important to think of rules (all rules? maybe) in both ways instead of just one.

I agree, but can't XP. As always, play what you like

 

[howandwhy99]

Pemerton, Baker is very much in the postmodern camp of game design and other positions are moderately and even radically different to what you quoted.

This isn't to say somehow he is wrong, only that the scope of games possible under the viewpoint he is expressing is self limiting. There are other kinds of games, other opinions, other people who prefer other points of view.

To pick it apart some. First he defines role playing is a negotiation rather than a learning process as most schools define it. Puzzle games, which don't include negotiation, are often cast as essentially tyrannical in this moral view. But puzzle games focus on discovery rather than or over improvisation. The mechanics are hidden and treated as code, a kind of rule like when we talk of the rules of the universe. The proverbial physics or game engine of an RPG.

Again, this isn't to say that postmodern game design is somehow wrong. It's more to the fact that other opinions like postnarrative are not to be excluded. The last sentence you quoted instead points to a rather absolutist position.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I don't deny that the game needs rules. But is the purpose of the rules to form the basis of the shared reality among the participants?

How are they not?

I say "Lets play cops and robbers, I am a robber and you are the cop!" and I have set up rules that form the basis of a "shared reality" between you and I. I don't think "shared reality" is the best term when really the concept is more that the rules define the game.

If I don't say that I am a robber and you are a cop, and I just say "Lets play cops and robbers!", we don't yet really have a game. We've got a proposal.

Games are defined by rules. It is what they are at a most basic level.

But puzzle games focus on discovery rather than or over improvisation.

Portal would have words with you.

Roleplaying is negotiated imagination. In order for any thing to be true in game, all the participants in the game ... have to understand and assent to it. When you're roleplaying, what you're doing is a) suggesting things that might be true in the game and then b) negotiating with the other participants to determine whether they're actually true or not...

...."I'm a robber, you're a cop!", followed by "OK!" is negotiating the rules of the game by defining the roles, sure. And in as much as those are our imaginary roles, that is negotiated imagination. Nothing yet contradicts what Monte has said.

Mechanics might model the stuff of the game world, that's another topic, but they don't exist to do so. They exist to ease and constrain real-world social negotiation between the players at the table. That's their sole and crucial function.

Sort of? I wouldn't say that is their function as much as I would say that is their effect. It's a necessary effect for a game (when viewed at a very meta-level), but their function is to create an enjoyable game. If maybe you want to be the robber and I say "I'm the robber, you're the cop!", then the rules need to change, and we need to agree to a different "shared reality," or else the rules aren't functioning very well, since the game isn't enjoyable for you.

Part of the process of creating an enjoyable game is to define a shared world through the negotiation of its bounds. Or, to make it less heady and more clear: "I'm the robber, you're the cop!", and you agreeing means that we are playing a role-playing game in which that is true, and we will act as if that is true.

 

[pemerton]

Rather, I'd say that's just an example of taking something rather arbitrary ("save vs. poison") and making it something more systematic (Fortitude save) without having a significant effect on whether the game itself is more simulationist. You could argue, I suppose, for that very narrow mechanic, that it is, but you'd be hard pressed I think to make the claim that that was a trend throuhout the game overall. Hit points, for example, remain hit points, and what that means when you take a hit that doesn't kill you in narrative terms is still very much more a question of player style than of anything else.

<snip>

I think that most players would tell you that the game merely made explicit what was already implicit

My impression - and it's just from reading what people post on internet forums, not from any more systematic inquiry - is that the opinion you express here is pretty widespread. And a similar sort of outlook can be found in early discussions of saving throws (eg Roger Musson's "How to Lose Hit Points and Survive", which as far as I know was the first instance of a wound/vitality system based on CON/hp).

But if you look at what Gygax actually says about saving throws in the DMG, it's not just about an arbitrary rather than a systematic assignment of saves to effects. Gygax says that (for example) the manacled fighter's successful save vs Dragon Breath can represent finding a cleft in the rock and taking some cover within it, or can represent the manacles breaking at the last minute. The same is not true of a Reflex save in 3E - as the name itself indicates, and as is reinforced by its relationship to the DEX stat, a successful Reflex save represents some sort of dodge or other feat of evasion and agility.

And this has implications for the actual resolution of the action. Suppose a monk with the Evasion ability (it didn't have that name in AD&D, but the ability was there) successfully saves against a fireball while standing at ground zero, in a low-ceilinged room, and surrounded by orcs. The monk takes no damage; the orcs are badly burned. What happened in the fiction? In 3E, this produces the puzzle of what evasive manoeuvre the monk performed while never moving from his/her position. I've seen this issue become the subject of debate on message boards. In AD&D, though, there is no problem, because the rules don't attempt to dictate what a successful save vs a fireball means, other than the outcome. The rules oblige everyone at the table to agree that the monk is unhurt, but leave it open as to what account is to be given of how that came about. And the constraints on that account - did the monk use his/her mind powers? did the monk drop to the floor and pull an orc over him/her as a protective shield? etc - aren't themselves established by the mechanics to any very great degree.

Which is itself a rule

<snip>

I think this is what Monte is referring to with his statement about 'rules'. He's not talking about specific game rules spelled out in a handbook... he's referring to all the rules (or negotiation) that come with social convention and communication.

I have two responses to this.

First, if you're right, then the contrast I was trying to draw in the OP becomes blunted, I agree. I didn't read Monte Cook's statement in the way that you did - especially as he went on to give as an example one component of the movement mechanics - but I'm not claiming to be a mindreader!

Second, though, I still think that there is an interesting difference between the role that mechanics can play in establishing the content of the shared fiction - they can attempt to dictate it by modelling the fictional causatal processes to a greater or less extent (and this is what I took Monte to mean by talking about "rules as a basis for a shared reality"), or they can place parameters around it, by establishing certain outcomes as given, but leave it up to some other process (GM or player narrative authority, for example) to stipulate what actually happened in the fiction so as to produce that process. And I think the difference between AD&D and 3E saving throws is an example of that difference in the possible roles of mechanics.

Substitute "boundaries" for "basis" in Monte's statement, and it fits my view better.

I can agree with this, but I still want to say that there are different ways of setting boundaries.

I know it's not always helpful to use analogies, but I'll try. This one is drawn from jurisprudence. Consider a law that says "If you're unconscionable in the way you deal with other's confidential information with which you have been entrusted, you will be obliged to account to them". Now consider a law that, being motivated by the concern to hold parties to account for their unconscionable dealings with others' confidential information, establishes a technical cause of action for breach of confidence, with various elements that have to be proved, and various technical rules governing the relationship between those elements and the availability of a range of technically-defined remedies. Both laws set out to establish a civil remedy for unconscionable breaches of confidence, but it is generally accepted that they do so in very different ways, involve very different approaches to argument and adjudication, and so on.

Likewise when it comes to setting boundaries in RPG narration. I think there is a big difference between a rule which says, on a certain occasion "OK, here's the outcome. Now you guys work out what happened in the fiction to engender that outcome," and a rule which models a fictional causal process that results in that outcome. Both contribute to the setting of boundaries, but in pretty different ways.

I think the practical proof of this difference is the number of calls for Come and Get It to be an attack vs Will. Because this would then mean that the mechanics explain what the ingame causal process is whereby all the assailants rush the fighter. Whereas the unerrataed version of Come and Get It (which we still play with at my table) simply specifies an outcome - the assailants end up closer to the fighter - and leaves the account in the fiction of how that happened to be sorted out some other way (eg via the genre constraint approach of HeroQuest).

When I see Monte talking about the rules as a basis for the shared reality of the gameworld, I get the "Come and Get It should be an attack vs Will vibe". As I said above in reply to DEFCON1 I may be misreading him. But I think his examples of climb mechanics tend to push in the direction of my reading.

 

[pemerton]

Yes- he has to wait for his turn if the party is on initiative

<snip>

He certainly needs to wait for his turn, so yes. What if the orc has the initiative?

I had in mind a situation of free roleplaying, rather than turn by turn initiative. But even in the latter case, I don't see that it is the GM who is in charge. I see the mechanical apparatus of the turn structure as the common property of the table.

in an rpg, the one place that the dm MUST NOT go (IMHO) is into the area of the player's volition without a strong in-game reason.

I think part of the point of the smelly chamberlain example that P1NBACK linked to upthread is that it uses this thought to undermine a presumption in favour of GM authority.

Here's the general form of the argument:

The player controls his/her PC's volition;

The volition of a rational person is intimately related to his/her perceptions of the external world;

The external world is subject to GM authority;

Therefore, the GM's exercise of authority is intimiately bound up with the volition of the PC.​

Now I've never heard of a game breaking up over an argument about an NPC's body odour, but here is a more typical example of the same phenomenon that can and does break up games:

Player: "My guy attacks him.:

GM: "Why?"

Player: "Because he's evil and I hate evil!"

GM: "But he didn't detect evil when you cast your spell."​

From here, it can be a pretty short path to a busted game. Is the GM going to override the player's authority over his/her PC's volition? Or declare the PC to be insane? Or is the GM going to give ground, and modify/retcon the broader fictional situation to make it something that the player wants to engage with rather than disrupt?

I think this blog post by V. Baker is relevant to his statement.

And, I agree with Vincent that "moment-to-moment assent" trumps any pre-agreed upon rules or authority in play.

A very interesting blog - thanks for the link!

I want to try and rephrase the distinction I drew in my OP with reference to the idea of "moment-to-moment assent" (which, if I've understood it right, seems to be a restatement of the lumpley principle).

When I see "rules as basis of shared fictional reality", and equate that in my mind to the idea of "rules modelling the fiction", I get the following impression: the game is intended to proceed by (i) getting an agreement on what mechanics will be used, and then (ii) using those mechanics to determine the content of the fiction. If moment-to-moment assent means that there is deviation from what the rules text says in respect of (ii), then some sort of drifting (perhaps very minor) has occurred.

When I think about the HeroQuest reliance upon genre constraints as an input into framing contests and narrating their resolution, I get a different impression, that the game is meant to proceed by (i) getting an agreement on what mechanics will be used, and then (ii) moment-to-moment assent on genre issues has to be achieved, and then (iii) the mechanics are to be used to settle the outcome of a contest, but (iv) moment-to-moment assent again has to be achieved on the ingame fictional process that produced that mechanically-mandated outcome.

HeroQuest seems to build in moment-to-moment assent as an aspect of the game itself being played as intended, rather than as giving rise to a possibility of drift from the game as written.

I think this can be cashed out in relation to Vincent Baker's "smelly chamberlain" example. Suppose that the game has a "NPC body odour" chart, and the GM has rolled on it for the chamberlain, and the outcome is "no noticable body odour". Then, for the players' secret plan to work, the group would have to drift the game. Whereas a game that leaves the issue of NPC body odour as a matter for genre-compliant stipulation (which is, I think, true most of the time for the fantasy RPGs that I know) then the players in the "smelly chamberlain" example aren't trying to drift the rules, but rather to tussle over authority on who is the final arbiter of genre-compliant stipulation.

Does that make any sense?