S/Z: On the Difficulties of RPG Theory & Criticism

[generic]

Ahh, well yes and no. The GM can monkey around with things all he likes prior to a campaign, and has a limited amount of agency to change minor things at the table sometimes, and only then by table fiat. He does not have the authority to use or ignore rules as he sees fit during play. Once you start playing the rules harden from suggestions into, you know, rules.

Well, I mean, unless they don't. At my table, I obey the 'rules', but you don't have to. At what point are you no longer playing D&D?

 

[Fenris-77]

Well, I mean, unless they don't. At my table, I obey the 'rules', but you don't have to. At what point are you no longer playing D&D?

When you're playing BitD and get to sit at the back of the bus with the cool kids?

 

[practicalm]

I would think it would be a given that the first goal of play is for one's PC to survive. (or, in the case of systems like CoC, survive and remain functional for as long as possible)

In games where PC death is off the table then either other loss conditions will replace it (loss of wealth, or status, or health, or whatever) or the game will be in win-only mode - and given the definitions we've seen so far, would win-only mode even still count as a 'game'?

I think it is very narrow focused to say PCs first goal is to survive. There are many cases where it makes good character narrative sense to have the character die to further a cause. Heck that's even a real life win condition for some people.
The player's goal is to have fun and maybe tell a story. Character death may be part of both of those as win conditions for the player.

 

[Umbran]

However, the DM/GM is free to alter any and all rules. Therefore, the rules in the book are only guidelines.

And, here sits a reason to stick with "structured play". The difference between "rule" and "guideline" is a semantic difference we may not have to worry about for the moment. So long as the play is still, by and large, structured, we're okay to call it a game, for now.

Once you start playing the rules harden from suggestions into, you know, rules.

That's a matter for the social contract of the table. Exactly how much freedom the GM has to change things depends on how much of that alteration the players will accept.

 

[Aldarc]

Woah there champ, slow your roll. RPGs do indeed have rules, that's part of what puts the G in RPG. They don't have game ending loss conditions though. Those two facts aren't related.

I believe that several TTRPGs, such as Band of Blades, does have a game-ending loss condition.

 

[Fenris-77]

That's a matter for the social contract of the table. Exactly how much freedom the GM has to change things depends on how much of that alteration the players will accept.

The freedom provided by the social contract at the table generally doesn't include significant rules changes during play. I'm talking about core rules stuff here, like the way AC works or whatever. With smaller stuff, or changing stuff related to plot and whatnot it's a different story. Your point is valid though, whatever the players will accept is how it is.

I believe that several TTRPGs, such as Band of Blades, does have a game-ending loss condition.

Some do, sure, but TTRPGs generally do not, which was my point.

 

[Beleriphon]

The freedom provided by the social contract at the table generally doesn't include significant rules changes during play. I'm talking about core rules stuff here, like the way AC works or whatever. With smaller stuff, or changing stuff related to plot and whatnot it's a different story. Your point is valid though, whatever the players will accept is how it is.

I'd agree here. Even if one assumes a game group changes the rules of a specific set theying using (say AC to damage reduction for D&D) then they're using a stable rule, even if it is different than the one original ruleset provides. If it doesn't work then it gets changed again and becomes stable into whatever it is changed to.

The specific definitions provided by a written ruleset in a published book don't preclude group making changes to how they use those rules, ignoring them, or changing them. However, I would suggest the generally applicable concept here that rules are stable until the group decides they don't like the status quo provided and make a change.

I think there's an interesting process here. How do you define how stable a rule is in an RPG? Does the referee player chnage it on a whim, it is as a group, is it present and then accept by the whole?

 

[Lanefan]

I think there's an interesting process here. How do you define how stable a rule is in an RPG? Does the referee player chnage it on a whim, it is as a group, is it present and then accept by the whole?

I'm not sure there's a blanket answer for that; it'd depend greatly on the magnitude of the rule(s) in question. It'd also depend on whether the to-be-changed rule had already affected play in some way.

For example: there's currently no PCs in my game higher than 10th level. If I-as-DM decide one day that I'm not happy with the level progression from 12th upwards and tweak the tables, chances are nobody's going to care. (in fact, chances are nobody's going to notice unless I point it out).

Minor changes e.g. changing the range on a spell from 15' per level to 10' (or 20') per level are usually no problem; and often such changes are reacting to some loophole or error discovered during play anyway.

The other extreme is when one wants to change something big that's already embedded in the game. My current example is Nature Clerics (Druids, close enough) who in my system have proven to have too much going for them at higher levels. I want to rein them in but there's no way in hell that those players who have Nature Cleric PCs are going to agree; couple that with the introduction of significant inconsistency and the end result is I'm stuck with what I've got for this campaign.

Major overhauls to basic stuff always and only happen between campaigns. Example: next campaign break I want to re-do armour from top to bottom. No way I can do this mid-flight in an existing campaign.

 

[Beleriphon]

I'm not sure there's a blanket answer for that; it'd depend greatly on the magnitude of the rule(s) in question. It'd also depend on whether the to-be-changed rule had already affected play in some way.

Nor do i, but I think there are ways to describe in broad terms what is going on with each of the below examples you provide.

For example: there's currently no PCs in my game higher than 10th level. If I-as-DM decide one day that I'm not happy with the level progression from 12th upwards and tweak the tables, chances are nobody's going to care. (in fact, chances are nobody's going to notice unless I point it out).

Minor changes e.g. changing the range on a spell from 15' per level to 10' (or 20') per level are usually no problem; and often such changes are reacting to some loophole or error discovered during play anyway.

The other extreme is when one wants to change something big that's already embedded in the game. My current example is Nature Clerics (Druids, close enough) who in my system have proven to have too much going for them at higher levels. I want to rein them in but there's no way in hell that those players who have Nature Cleric PCs are going to agree; couple that with the introduction of significant inconsistency and the end result is I'm stuck with what I've got for this campaign.

Major overhauls to basic stuff always and only happen between campaigns. Example: next campaign break I want to re-do armour from top to bottom. No way I can do this mid-flight in an existing campaign.

I think you've got a minor change in the first two, because they are largely immaterial to the way the game is playing, other than having to rejigger expectations going foward since they are usually reactionary.

The second example is an impossible change, it invalidates how a player is playing the game altogether.

The last one I would consider a core change, it affects the expectations such that you have to start the game the change in effect otherwise nobody will remember how it works.

 

[Hussar]

You would consider a fairly minor change to the range of a spell to be an impossible change?