Ovinomancer
No flips for you!
So, there's a lot going on here, and I think a few things might help organize the discussion.
Rule systems essentially do three things: they assign authority, they provide incentives and constraints, and they operationalize play.
Authority refers to who has the ability to make the final decision in an area of play. That this is the final decision is important, because even if you run a game where you encourage players to add things and often run with it, if you retain the final say, you still have the authority in this area. To give an example in 5e, the GM retains the authority in almost every area of the game outside of action declaration by the player and, initial game constraints not withstanding, character build choices. This is a reason D&D is often referred to as a GM-centered game, because the GM retains almost all authorities over the ficiton.
Incentives and constraints refers to how the game rules create expectations and rewards for play. This affects authority in that the game rules may set up expectations of play that constrain authority in some ways or incentivize a focus on an area of play. Looking at constraints, take 3.x, for instance. While the GM retained the authority over much of the game, the rules set up and incentive structure that the GM would employ the rules as written (or at least only deviate slightly) in how encounters were balanced or monsters built, etc. 4e carried this even further with the constraints on how encounters and monsters were to be constructed. Constrains place the expectation of a limitation on authority. Incentives, on the other hand, reward play in some areas which leads to focus in those areas. D&D, again, incentives combat by structuring most of the reward system on combat outcomes. This also serves to limit authority in that the game strongly encourages certain themes as a focus which then channels expected authorities to generate fiction along those themes.
Finally, operationalization -- what rules exist and how they act to resolve questions in the fiction. This works with incentives and constraints to direct how play occurs. To again go back to 5e, combat has a lot of operationalization for combat -- there are details rules for resolving combats, how to move, how to attack, how to deal damage, how to avoid damage, etc. The combat rules in 5e are robust and drive to determine outcomes.. What isn't operationalized well in 5e is social interaction. This is an area where there are scant rules that aren't robust and don't drive to outcomes.
To pause here, the above aren't criticisms of any game system, 5e in particular. It's a critical analysis, yes, but 5e is a solid game even if it doesn't check all of the boxes above. No game does.
So, to use this to discuss the current topic of social engagements in 5e: 5e had strong authority for GMs to determine the outcomes of the fiction for social engagements, weak to no incentives or constraints in the rules structure for social engagement, and weak operationalization of social engagements. This means that it's up to the GM, and that bears out in the discussion being had on the issue. There are those that say that social engagements in 5e are a matter of freeform roleplaying, with the GM determining outcome. This is well within the authority, incentive, constraint, and operationalizations of 5e. Also, there's discussion of creating houserules for social engagement. This would be adding operationalization and incentives and constraints because they aren't robust in 5e as written. The discussion bears out that 5e lacks a robust social engagement framework in the rules, else we'd be seeing discussion of how to use the rules to create social engagements -- something that rarely happens outside of narrow circumstances.
And, that's okay. It's perfectly fine that 5e doesn't do these things. It seems preferable to many that the social engagement arena is left to the devices of the GM. Likewise, it's not preferable to others.
Rule systems essentially do three things: they assign authority, they provide incentives and constraints, and they operationalize play.
Authority refers to who has the ability to make the final decision in an area of play. That this is the final decision is important, because even if you run a game where you encourage players to add things and often run with it, if you retain the final say, you still have the authority in this area. To give an example in 5e, the GM retains the authority in almost every area of the game outside of action declaration by the player and, initial game constraints not withstanding, character build choices. This is a reason D&D is often referred to as a GM-centered game, because the GM retains almost all authorities over the ficiton.
Incentives and constraints refers to how the game rules create expectations and rewards for play. This affects authority in that the game rules may set up expectations of play that constrain authority in some ways or incentivize a focus on an area of play. Looking at constraints, take 3.x, for instance. While the GM retained the authority over much of the game, the rules set up and incentive structure that the GM would employ the rules as written (or at least only deviate slightly) in how encounters were balanced or monsters built, etc. 4e carried this even further with the constraints on how encounters and monsters were to be constructed. Constrains place the expectation of a limitation on authority. Incentives, on the other hand, reward play in some areas which leads to focus in those areas. D&D, again, incentives combat by structuring most of the reward system on combat outcomes. This also serves to limit authority in that the game strongly encourages certain themes as a focus which then channels expected authorities to generate fiction along those themes.
Finally, operationalization -- what rules exist and how they act to resolve questions in the fiction. This works with incentives and constraints to direct how play occurs. To again go back to 5e, combat has a lot of operationalization for combat -- there are details rules for resolving combats, how to move, how to attack, how to deal damage, how to avoid damage, etc. The combat rules in 5e are robust and drive to determine outcomes.. What isn't operationalized well in 5e is social interaction. This is an area where there are scant rules that aren't robust and don't drive to outcomes.
To pause here, the above aren't criticisms of any game system, 5e in particular. It's a critical analysis, yes, but 5e is a solid game even if it doesn't check all of the boxes above. No game does.
So, to use this to discuss the current topic of social engagements in 5e: 5e had strong authority for GMs to determine the outcomes of the fiction for social engagements, weak to no incentives or constraints in the rules structure for social engagement, and weak operationalization of social engagements. This means that it's up to the GM, and that bears out in the discussion being had on the issue. There are those that say that social engagements in 5e are a matter of freeform roleplaying, with the GM determining outcome. This is well within the authority, incentive, constraint, and operationalizations of 5e. Also, there's discussion of creating houserules for social engagement. This would be adding operationalization and incentives and constraints because they aren't robust in 5e as written. The discussion bears out that 5e lacks a robust social engagement framework in the rules, else we'd be seeing discussion of how to use the rules to create social engagements -- something that rarely happens outside of narrow circumstances.
And, that's okay. It's perfectly fine that 5e doesn't do these things. It seems preferable to many that the social engagement arena is left to the devices of the GM. Likewise, it's not preferable to others.
