The "I Didn't Comment in Another Thread" Thread

[overgeeked]

Go ahead, but you'll eventually have to settle on rules of some sort, and by their very nature as rules they're going to make some things sub-optimal and/or simply not allowed. Plus, at some point you have to settle on rules that won't change, at least for the duration of a given session/adventure/campaign, etc. Unless you like role-playing Calvinball, I mean.

Every time I’ve seen someone say this they inevitably don’t actually know what Calvinball actually is.

Your first sentence strikes me as a restatement of my original point. Adjudication means some things have to be restricted, disallowed, or otherwise ruled out. Plus, you kind of need rules beyond task resolution, i.e. determining what characters are capable of in the first place.

There's a reason why so many RPGs don't simply ditch rules and say "use your imagination." Paradoxical as it may seem, limits encourage creativity.

They can, sometimes. More often they arbitrarily limit your imagination and options. Like say, make a PC who’s bad at combat for D&D 5E.

The "play" part of it requires rules and boundaries in order to facilitate. By all means, go ahead and play as a great wyrm dragon while everyone else is playing as a low-level human. But even presuming you have the rules on hand to adjudicate what such a character can do (as a PC), see how much fun that is for everyone else; we've had how many threads here about the martial/caster disparity? Play as a dragon in a party of humans, and you'll see a much greater disparity.

Rules and restrictions are what turns "play" into an actual game.

Yep. You need some rules. But you don’t need all that. “Roll 2d6, high roll wins” is more than enough.

 

[CleverNickName]

What if I told you there isn't a "wrong" way to play, but there are dozens of "right" ways?

 

[Alzrius]

Every time I’ve seen someone say this they inevitably don’t actually know what Calvinball actually is.

Well then, here's a public service from me to them (aka "what imaginative play without set rules looks like"):

They can, sometimes. More often they arbitrarily limit your imagination and options. Like say, make a PC who’s bad at combat for D&D 5E.

The term "arbitrary" is another term that a lot of people seem to be misusing. In my experience, rules in TTRPGs are "arbitrary" only in the sense that someone made an initial decision about how to structure the game/world, which isn't really a failing; when it comes to fantasy, some decisions have to be made somewhere. What's more important is that it's then integrated into an internally-consistent whole, which will necessarily rule some things out and make other things less than ideal. Even then, those aren't bad things, because what's not allowable, or not very good, further helps to define what is.

Yep. You need some rules. But you don’t need all that. “Roll 2d6, high roll wins” is more than enough.

Leaving aside that "need" is a pointless term when discussing recreational activities of any kind, task resolution based entirely on chance is still a limiter, since it denotes that there's no point in engaging in any in-character activities to try and swing the odds in your favor (which strikes me as another example as to how a lack of rules makes things less satisfying), which you'd think would be important in an RPG.

 

[Deset Gled]

I gotta admit, there’s a number of key word, hot button phrases that make me just tune out the post. This is one of them.

Lusory, agency, and trad are my current keywords that indicate a text has more jargon than it has value.

Immersion, "story now", negotiation, and constraint are red flags.

 

[Bedrockgames]

... trad ...

This one has really gotten me confused of late

 

[overgeeked]

Well then, here's a public service from me to them (aka "what imaginative play without set rules looks like"):

And despite posting the original comic strip you still manage to get it wrong. Calvinball is not “no set rules” it’s where the rules arbitrarily change at the whim of Calvin. That’s a distinction that makes a world of difference. The implication being that the rules arbitrarily change at the referee’s whim…which is not how rules light or FKR or free-form or any other “lighter than you’d personally like” games work. Doesn’t matter how many times you say it, it’s still not Calvinball.

The term "arbitrary" is another term that a lot of people seem to be misusing. In my experience, rules in TTRPGs are "arbitrary" only in the sense that someone made an initial decision about how to structure the game/world, which isn't really a failing; when it comes to fantasy, some decisions have to be made somewhere.

So why does that have to be some designer in an office somewhere else instead of the person sitting across from you? Why does it have to be months or years before you sit down to play instead of as you sit down to play?

What's more important is that it's then integrated into an internally-consistent whole, which will necessarily rule some things out and make other things less than ideal. Even then, those aren't bad things, because what's not allowable, or not very good, further helps to define what is.

None of that is dependent on rules, as in game mechanics. That can all be decided by the people at the table in the moment.

Leaving aside that "need" is a pointless term when discussing recreational activities of any kind, task resolution based entirely on chance is still a limiter, since it denotes that there's no point in engaging in any in-character activities to try and swing the odds in your favor (which strikes me as another example as to how a lack of rules makes things less satisfying), which you'd think would be important in an RPG.

As someone who regularly plays super-light or free-form or FKR games, I can tell you you’re wrong. Stacking the odds in your favor in the fiction…diegetically…always influences the roll.

But seriously, wow. Of all the things said on here “use your imagination” is the one I thought would be the least likely to get pushback. It’s honestly bizarre.

 

[Deset Gled]

This one has really gotten me confused of late

For bonus ridiculousness, there's also neo trad, modern trad, and non-trad.

Jargon all the way down.

 

[Alzrius]

And despite posting the original comic strip you still manage to get it wrong. Calvinball is not “no set rules” it’s where the rules arbitrarily change at the whim of Calvin. That’s a distinction that makes a world of difference.

"No set rules" and "the rules arbitrarily change" is a distinction without a difference. The only meaningful issue becomes when/how often the rules change, and if there's an agreement not to allow them to change within certain parameters (whether for a duration, such as "not for this entire campaign" or via a specific methodology, such as "we all vote, and there has to be unanimous agreement," etc.) then at that point you've essentially ceded the argument. Because then, what you have are set rules (which necessarily restrict and limit things), with the option to switch to what's essentially a different set of rules.

In other words, you're playing one RPG, until you switch to another.

The implication being that the rules arbitrarily change at the referee’s whim…which is not how rules light or FKR or free-form or any other “lighter than you’d personally like” games work. Doesn’t matter how many times you say it, it’s still not Calvinball.

Just because the proponents of such styles of play don't want to call it Calvinball doesn't mean it isn't. That's really the FKR version of the Rule 0 Fallacy: just because you can fix it doesn't mean it's not a problem. In this case, "fix it" just means that there's limits placed on who changes the rules/when the rules are changed/how they're changed. At which point, you're back to set rules.

Having a toolkit for designing what is essentially a game system doesn't undercut the point that some decisions have to be made about what's allowed, how things work, what's balanced, etc.

So why does that have to be some designer in an office somewhere else instead of the person sitting across from you? Why does it have to be months or years before you sit down to play instead of as you sit down to play?

You're introducing a lot of considerations that were never put down anywhere, i.e. "office," "months or years," etc. I recommend responding to what was actually posted, rather than a caricature.

You can make up rules by committee, if you find that more satisfying. But having a clearly-delineated set of guidelines for how the game functions is the endpoint that's reached. Tweaking, altering, hacking, or homebrewing after the fact doesn't really change that. The very act of having a set structure is necessarily going to rule some things out, and make other things less than ideal, and that's okay. Not having everything be on the metaphorical table is not a fail-state.

None of that is dependent on rules, as in game mechanics. That can all be decided by the people at the table in the moment.

Which are still rules, just made by committee in the moment. Once they're laid down, there's an inherent expectation that they'll be adhered to from then on out.

As someone who regularly plays super-light or free-form or FKR games, I can tell you you’re wrong. Stacking the odds in your favor in the fiction…diegetically…always influences the roll.

The only person you've proven wrong is yourself. Literally, you just posted that you can have a rule where there's an opposed 2d6 check, higher number wins. That unto itself has no diegetic modifier for actions the PC undertakes. If you want to fold that in, that's a new rule, and the expectation then modifies interaction going forward, setting limits and restricting choices in various ways. Unless of course you're "arbitrarily" deciding to change things in the middle of play so that the opposed roll now has modifiers based on the players' descriptions of things, in which case you're back to Calvinball.

 

[prabe]

 

[Alzrius]

Fair enough; this conversation isn't what this thread is for.

@overgeeked I ask that we take any further discussion of this to PMs, if you're so interested, rather than continuing it here.