My Attempt to Define RPG's - RPG's aren't actually Games

[Maxperson]

They're part of the game. And prescriptive.

So are the rules for building PCs (determine these six stats; choose race; choose class; calculate various bonuses; etc).

So are the rules for resolving ability/skill checks and saving throws.

Optional rules aren't thereby non-prescriptive. If you opt to use the optional flanking rules, then those rules prescribe a certain circumstance in which advantage is gained - and advantage is itself a prescriptive rule (roll two dice, keep the best). Neither the flanking rule nor the advantage rule describes anything.

I could say that the rules of chess "just describes ways to set up the pieces and move then" - but that wouldn't show the rules of chess are not prescriptive.

I think there's an argument that the notion of descriptive rule set is incoherent - that the whole idea of a rule is to prescribe a norm or mode of conduct. But without going that far, the rules of RPGs are clearly prescriptive in all sorts of ways.

Gygax's PHB, p 7:

As a role player, you become Falstaff the fighter. . . . You act out the game as this character . . . You interact with your fellow role players, not as Jim and Bob and Mary who work at the office together, but as Falstaff the fighter, Angore the cleric, and Filmar, the mistress of magic! . . . [O]ne player must serve as the Dungeon Master, the shpaer of the fantasy milieu, the "world" in which all actions will take place. The other participants become adventuerers by creating characters to explore the fantastic world and face all of its challenges . . . By successfully meeting the challenges posed, they gain experience and move upwards in power . . .​

From the 5e Basic PDF, p 2:

In the Dungeons & Dragons game, each player creates an adventurer (also called a character) and teams up with other adventurers (played by friends). . . . One player, however, takes on the role of the Dungeon Master (DM), the game’s lead storyteller and referee. The DM creates adventures for the characters, who navigate its hazards and decide which paths to explore. . . . Each monster defeated, each adventure completed, and each treasure recovered not only adds to the continuing story, but also earns the adventurers new capabilities. This increase in power is reflected by an adventurer’s level.​

These are instructions on how to play the game: "You become . . .", "You act out . . .", "You interact . . . not as . . . but as. . .", "one player must serve as . . .", "By successfully meeting posed, they gain . . .", "each player creates . . . and teams up with . . .", "One player . . . takes on the role of . . .", "The DM creates . . .", "This increase in power is reflected . . ." - these are all prescriptions.

So again with you only giving half the 1e story. Sure he talks like that, but every time Gygax talks like that, he also says things like, "The game is yours..." and "The rules answer to you..." and "If it doesn't work, change it..." and much more that not only are not prescriptions, but actively trump any prescription you can point out. Prescriptive is subservient in Gygax's game to descriptive. That has carried on through every edition made.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], the quote from Mearls was "RPGs are distinct in tabletop gaming (and maybe in all of gaming) for being descriptive, as opposed to prescriptive, rules sets, and a lot of bad/misguided design comes from forgetting that."

I've pointed to the fact that the rules sets do, in fact, contain clear prescriptions as to how to play the game. (Which is hardly surprising. Every other rulebook every published does that too.)

The fact that they might also contain passages saying "You're free to make up your own rules" is neither here nor there. People have been making up variant games for as long as they've been making up games (eg my girls learn various silly chess variants at their chess club). But those don't suddenly turn the rulebooks from being prescriptive to descriptive. Descriptive of what? The only "rules" I know of that are descriptive are scientific laws, which (in some cases, at least) purport to describe actual realworld processes.

But what are RPG rules supposed to be descriptive of? You become Falstaff the fighter isn't a description of something - it's an instruction of how to play the game. These rules are only guidelines, go nut if it works for you! isn't a description of anything either - it's the (unnecessary) granting of a permission. (Unnecessary because there is nothing to stop someone going nuts with a game they've bought, even if the permission is not expressly granted.) Granting a permission isn't describing anything - in fact it belongs to the same sort of speech act category as prescribing a method or giving an instruction! (Msy, must, ought, should - all are modal verbs.)

 

[Maxperson]

I've pointed to the fact that the rules sets do, in fact, contain clear prescriptions as to how to play the game. (Which is hardly surprising. Every other rulebook every published does that too.)

The fact that they might also contain passages saying "You're free to make up your own rules" is neither here nor there. People have been making up variant games for as long as they've been making up games (eg my girls learn various silly chess variants at their chess club). But those don't suddenly turn the rulebooks from being prescriptive to descriptive. Descriptive of what? The only "rules" I know of that are descriptive are scientific laws, which (in some cases, at least) purport to describe actual realworld processes.

Not only is it not "neither here not there," it's absolutely everything. If you don't have to follow a rule and can just do whatever you want, the rule is not actually prescriptive.

But what are RPG rules supposed to be descriptive of? You become Falstaff the fighter isn't a description of something - it's an instruction of how to play the game. These rules are only guidelines, go nut if it works for you! isn't a description of anything either - it's the (unnecessary) granting of a permission. (Unnecessary because there is nothing to stop someone going nuts with a game they've bought, even if the permission is not expressly granted.) Granting a permission isn't describing anything - in fact it belongs to the same sort of speech act category as prescribing a method or giving an instruction! (Msy, must, ought, should - all are modal verbs.)

The rules describe the many ways that you can play the game and design the game world. That's all that they do. Not one rule in the book is mandatory(prescriptive).

 

[pemerton]

Not only is it not "neither here not there," it's absolutely everything. If you don't have to follow a rule and can just do whatever you want, the rule is not actually prescriptive.

By that measure, no game anywhere has a prescriptive rule.

The rules describe the many ways that you can play the game and design the game world.

A book about chess can describe the many ways to play chess, set up the board, assign the moves to pieces, etc.

That doesn't meant the the rules aren't prescriptive. They're not descriptions of anything.

It's not as if there's some activity, chess, independent of the game rules, that we can set out to describe. Nor is there some activity, playing D&D, that is independent of the rules set out in those books. I mean, if I decide that the most fun way to use my AD&D books is for me and my friends to all sit around reciting our favourite passages, that's fine and dandy, but we're not playing D&D.

To come at it another way: a recipe doesn't cease to be prescriptive because it says "add salt to taste" or offers two different procedures for melting the butter (say, in a microwave or on a stove-top).

The presence of options and guidelines is not unique to RPGs as a category of rules, nor as a category of games. And frankly I don't think that's what Mearls is trying to get at.

Having had a quick look at the tweets in reply (and noticing that someone else also brings up the combat rules issue!), I think there are two things he has in mind: either (i) RPG rules are about the creation of game elements rather than the resolution of game play; or (ii) RPG rules are at best guidelines for <insert something here - maybe "reslolution"?>.

Also, Mearls most recent tweet at the time I'm posting is:

Start your campaign by forcing the players to tell you how the characters want to change the world. That’s your campaign. Now, put people in their way. Those are the NPCs you are playing. Your campaign is ready to roll.​

That's prescription! (It also comes straight from indie/"story now" school of design.)

 

[Maxperson]

I was hoping you'd go here. You even used the example I was hoping you'd pick. Chess.

By that measure, no game anywhere has a prescriptive rule.

Not at all true. The difference is that roleplaying games build in the ability to change the rules. That means that there is no one true way to play D&D. There are hundreds, if not thousands of ways to play D&D.

A book about chess can describe the many ways to play chess, set up the board, assign the moves to pieces, etc.

Unlike roleplaying games, chess does not build in the ability to change the rules. That means there is in fact one true way to play chess. If you aren't playing chess the prescribed way, you are playing a chess variant, not chess. Those other ways simply describe chess variants for when you don't want to play chess.

Start your campaign by forcing the players to tell you how the characters want to change the world. That’s your campaign. Now, put people in their way. Those are the NPCs you are playing. Your campaign is ready to roll.​

That's prescription! (It also comes straight from indie/"story now" school of design.)

And like Gygax, Mearls built into the rules that "precribed rules" are not really prescribed. He's also clearly, from the context, just giving advice on how to build a campaign, not attempting to prescribe how to do it. Context is your friend.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], what do you think is the difference between "advice" and "prescription" in the context of a voluntary leisure activity?

 

[Maxperson]

[MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], what do you think is the difference between "advice" and "prescription" in the context of a voluntary leisure activity?

"Voluntary leisure activity" only matters in whether or not you play a game, not whether or not the rules of said game are prescribed or not. If you decide to voluntarily engage in the leisure activity of chess, you must adhere to all of the rules exactly. If you don't, you are not playing chess, but are instead playing a chess variant. Those can be fun, by the way. I love the 4 way, chaos, and blind variants. If, however, the game just gives a bunch of advice as most RPGs do, the "rules" are not prescribed, no matter what language is used in them. The game itself removes the prescribed nature of the "rules" by building into the game not only the ability, but advice that you should change the "rules" and make the game your own.

There's one true way to play chess. There is not one true way to play D&D.

 

[pemerton]

"Voluntary leisure activity" only matters in whether or not you play a game, not whether or not the rules of said game are prescribed or not. If you decide to voluntarily engage in the leisure activity of chess, you must adhere to all of the rules exactly. If you don't, you are not playing chess, but are instead playing a chess variant.

That's not true. Kids who play chess will often not use en passant, or even castling. That doesn't mean they're not playing chess. Or to put it another way: the boundary between "chess" and "chess variant" is nowhere near as tight as you suggest. I've played cards with people who allowed reviewing the previously-played tricks. That's a house rule that (personally) I think undermines the fun of the game (which includes following the play), but they were still playing five hundred.

And it's not as if RPGs are unique in having loose rules. Part of the rules of a card game might include "shuffle the deck", but what counts as a permissible method of shuffling, and as sufficient shuffling, is left up to the table. This is analogous to "season to taste" in a recipe.

And you still haven't said what you think RPG rules are describing. Page 3 of the Basic PDF has a heading "How to Play", under which are found instructions - "The DM describes the environment. . . . The players describe what they want to do. . . . The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions." That is not a description of anything - it's a prescription (rules, advice, guidelines - take your pick, they're all modes of prescription) for how to play the game.

And page 71 has a heading "Attack Rolls", which is followed by this:

When you make an attack, your attack roll determines whether the attack hits or misses. To make an attack roll, roll a d20 and add the appropriate modifiers.​

That states a rule. The second sentence even uses two imperative verb to do so. (I've bolded it in the quote.)

What are you suggesting it is a description of?

 

[Sadras]

That's not true. Kids who play chess will often not use en passant, or even castling.

And why do you believe they do not use en passant or castling?

 

[pemerton]

And why do you believe they do not use en passant or castling?

Because they're among the more complex of the rules for chess, and hence when you're teaching children you build up the complexity. (That seems very obvious, and so maybe not what you were asking for? Sorry if I've missed your point.)

I've also played with adults who described themsevels as knowing how to play chess, but weren't familiar with those rules, because their grasp of the game never really got beyond that childhood level.

But I don't see what it adds to our metaphysical understanding of the universe to insist that such people are actually not playing chess, but rather chess variant X. Attempting to individuate games at that level of specificity goes contrary to ordinary usage, and seems to have little payoff in return.

And in the context of Mearls' quote, I don't think it is at all what he was pointing to. In saying that RPG rules are not prescriptive, I don't think he's pointing to the existence of option, which other games have, nor guidelines,which other games - epsecially waragmes - also have. (I thnk much of the stuff about guidelines and the like that [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] is pointing to as distinctive of D&D as an RPG can be found in the Chainmail rules, and those are wargame rules, not RPG rules.)

I think what Mearls is pointing to, or trying to, is something about the interaction between (i) action resolution, (ii) the use of mechanical devices to establish or convey the nature of fictional elements, and (iii) the shared fiction. This is what most of those who replied to his tweet seemed to pick up on, based on my quick skim through them; and it would make sense, as the interaction between mechanics and fiction is part of what is fundamental to a RPG. (PCs as playing pieces is the other principal thing.)

But I'm having trouble working out exactly what he had in mind in part because I think that, whatever it is, the prescription/description distinction won't be very apt for trying to capture it.

Another possibility that just occurred to me is that he may mean that RPGs establish rules to govern moves, but don't tell the participants what the goal of making those moves is. (Contrast, say, chess, which sets a goal - defend your king and secure checkmate; or bridge, where the goal is to bid your hand well and then win tricks.)

As it happens I also disagree with that - eg I think the rulesets for D&D do set goals for the game participants (for instance, as per the quotes from Gygax's RPG I posted upthread). But I think my view on that matter is a minority one - there does seem to be a widespread view that you can take a RPG mechanical ruleset and apply it in pursuit of whatever play goal you want.

I guess there are also some chess players who don't really play to win but just move the pieces around the board, occasionally making captures, in order to "see what happens - but I think they would almost uniformally be judged poor chess players, whereas in the RPG case the failure to connect resolution methods to play goals is not treated - at least by a good number of RPGers - as a marker of bad play.

EDIT: I went back to the Basic PDF to see if it sets out goals of play, and found this on p 2:

The Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game is about storytelling in worlds of swords and sorcery. . . .

Unlike a game of make-believe, D&D gives structure to the stories, a way of determining the consequences of the adventurers’ action. . . .

There’s no winning and losing in the Dungeons & Dragons game - at least, not the way those terms are usually understood. Together, the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils. Sometimes an adventurer might come to a grisly end, torn apart by ferocious monsters or done in by a nefarious villain. Even so, the other adventurers can search for powerful magic to revive their fallen comrade, or the player might choose to create a new character to carry on. The group might fail to complete an adventure successfully, but if everyone had a good time and created a memorable story, they all win.​

This actually does seem to prescribe a goal of pay (have a good time by creating a memorable fantasy story), and also suggests a prescriptive role for the rest of the rules (the give structure to the stories we are trying to have a good time creating). But I wouldn't be surprised - given traditional ways of making sense of RPG rulebooks - if Mearls in his tweet is regarding this as essentially fluff or padding rather than a genuine statement of the goals of the game.