Why do RPGs have rules?

[FormerlyHemlock]

By neglect or foul intent, the result is the same.

Oh, okay, I guess I misunderstood that paragraph.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think the entire post was trying to create the "steel chair effect" and you could have let the actual poster say what they meant if they didn't mean what I took from it instead of white knighting but here we are.

I explained what I took the post to be about. It's not an attempt to white knight. Notice how I simply explained my understanding of the post in an attempt to offer another take than yours, and didn't feel the need to attribute you with some motive (like pearl-clutchery, for instance). You've now attributed two motivations to me... snark and white knighting... needlessly.

Let's move on from this nonsense.

I think simulation drives what's happening at the table so I don't really understand your first question. Is an agenda ever more important than what's actually happening during play.

Right. Is fidelity to simulation more important than the play experience? Is the decision to place such importance on it... to place it on a pedestal... sometimes a negative?

It's not a trick question, just a question.

I think it's always possible to make mistakes so yes I think an aesthetic choice could ne mistakenly attributed to simulation though I think most people would be aware when they choose something they find aesthetically pleasing over what would be a more accurate simulation of the outcome.

I've seen plenty of comments in this thread that would demonstrate otherwise.

Again, I think there's plausibility involved... what is reasonably likely to happen, what makes sense based on what we know... that kind of thing. But as has been mentioned, I don't know of any games that don't attempt to be plausible, except perhaps for games that lean into that idea (@pemerton mentioned Toon and Over the Edge as possible examples; there may be others). The range of what's plausible will vary wildly from game to game and according to preference. My game of The 13th Fleet was absurd at times, and pushed plausibility to its limits. Compared to my game of Spire, which although it contained crazy supernatural elements, was at its core about very understandable concepts and emotions.

And you mention choice here, too, which I think is interesting. When it comes to RPGs, what role does choice play in simulation? Should it be removed? Limited? Applied only at certain times or in certain ways?

Let me flip this question to you... how does a GM who wants to play in a no-myth style make sure his own biases and desires, even subconsciously, don't direct the fiction and trajectory of play toward his own desired direction and outcome even though he is claiming there is no pre-structured plot and they are all playing to find out. Couldn't those off the cuff answers, difficulties, NPC actions and so on all be directed by his own desired outcome... even if he honestly thought he wasn't pre-constructing plot?

I think there's a difference between having some desires, and making sure those desires come about. I absolutely incorporate ideas I think will be interesting into my games. However, I don't force outcomes. Nothing's precious. That was a big hurdle for me as a GM.

It does take some discipline. Most such games offer strong advice in the form of principles of GMing and/or playing, so that can really help. Beyond that, the mechanics themselves lend themselves to disclaiming outcomes. Player facing rules and processes, player empowerment to affect the outcome.

Things as simple as static success results and GMs never rolling can accomplish quite a bit. Also PC traits that are meant to be focal to play... if you're not challenging one or more of those in some way, it's likely clear to everyone that you're not really focused on what you should be focused on.

As you say, mistakes are always possible, but I can think of many games that have a lot more checks against them than others.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

No. No they're not utterly gamist. Like RPGs, traps contain elements of multiple game methods. The rules themselves are gamist. But a pit trap is simulating.........................a pit trap. It simulates it by 1) being an open pit, 2) causing you to fall(simulating gravity) when you fall prey to one, and 3) taking damage at the end of the fall(simulating damage from a fall). And the narrative is the PC falls into the pit due to X.

Just about every RPG ever made has some combination of narativist, gamist and simulationist portions. Whether a given game is gamist, simulationist or narativist depends on the primary focus since like the traps above, it will contain all three elements.

I've said, at the margin of where plausible meets highly direct limited local effects simulation is at it's most plausible. So sure, your imaginary model of a pit can be understood in terms of pitlike factors. A reasonable player can be expected to think that falling in will be harmful in proportion to depth, but going much beyond this is going to be quite fraught. How hard is it to climb out?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Let me flip this question to you... how does a GM who wants to play in a no-myth style make sure his own biases and desires, even subconsciously, don't direct the fiction and trajectory of play toward his own desired direction and outcome even though he is claiming there is no pre-structured plot and they are all playing to find out. Couldn't those off the cuff answers, difficulties, NPC actions and so on all be directed by his own desired outcome... even if he honestly thought he wasn't pre-constructing plot?

Absolutely, in DW for instance there's extremely explicit instructions for the GM, reinforced several times, designed to help prevent that. The actual process of how the game plays helps prevent it. The players have the explicit power to prevent some aspects of this. And, finally, the GM is granted power to author a lot of stuff, which actually can help, especially since it mostly happens at the table in front of the players.

 

[Maxperson]

I've said, at the margin of where plausible meets highly direct limited local effects simulation is at it's most plausible. So sure, your imaginary model of a pit can be understood in terms of pitlike factors. A reasonable player can be expected to think that falling in will be harmful in proportion to depth, but going much beyond this is going to be quite fraught. How hard is it to climb out?

You're implying that you need to model something 100% or it isn't a simulation, because if you don't have to model it 100%, it wouldn't matter how hard it is to climb out. Not that there wouldn't be a DC for that in any case, so climbing out is also modeled into the pit trap.

That it models a pit to any extent makes it a simulation in the context that RPG uses the term.

 

[Imaro]

Absolutely, in DW for instance there's extremely explicit instructions for the GM, reinforced several times, designed to help prevent that. The actual process of how the game plays helps prevent it. The players have the explicit power to prevent some aspects of this. And, finally, the GM is granted power to author a lot of stuff, which actually can help, especially since it mostly happens at the table in front of the players.

Can you give specific examples of the things you're citing? Also how would the players know if something is authored at the table vs. beforehand and just presented at the table as if it were?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Repeating a non sequitur doesn't make it more true. That last bit of your post relies on the non sequitur--and here you're adding another fallacy in the form of a false dichotomy! Since when does not being a one-in-a-million Army Ranger make me someone who has "no knowledge at all about traps, aside from some completely contrived notions stemming from TV"?

I assure you, my knowledge is more than zero, and I don't think that makes me special. Is your knowledge really zero on this subject? How can you genuinely know nothing at all about e.g. clotheslining a runner or rider in the dark, or at the head of a staircase; or setting up a deadfall; or preplacing a crossbow? I don't know 100% and it's fine if you don't know 100%, but you're claiming that 999,999 people in a million have 0% knowledge. Think it over for thirty seconds and tell me if you still believe what you wrote.

Taking one's best guess is absolutely a valid way to GM and doesn't require injecting another agenda. Again, I'm not claiming that doing so is inherently virtuous! I'm just refuting the idea that it's impossible!

Nope! I'm old enough and wise enough to know that all of these things require some considerations and technique of which I have never mastered. While I can certainly IMAGINE that it might be possible to create a trip line that set of a crossbow, actually creating such a device? I assure you none of us are going to think of even some of the most basic aspects of this. I know from long ago experience as a youth and boyscout that making deadfalls, pit traps, snares, etc. is WAY harder and requires a good bit more exact work and experience than you think. Maybe you or I could string a line to trip someone, though I suspect it would be pretty easy to detect unless there were circumstances like darkness, etc. Still, I don't have a good handle on HOW hard it would be to detect. So, I'm not super confident I can accurately parameterize these things, no. Can I depict them plausibly enough to say "Yeah, we can pretend it will work that way without anyone facepalming." OK, sure. Again, as I keep pointing out, at this very simple level, if you want to bend the definition of 'simulate' a bit, you can call "there is a pit trap, its 10' deep and you will take 1d6 damage if you fall in." a simulation. I probably would not call it that, but whatever.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Nope! I'm old enough and wise enough to know that all of these things require some considerations and technique of which I have never mastered. While I can certainly IMAGINE that it might be possible to create a trip line that set of a crossbow, actually creating such a device? I assure you none of us are going to think of even some of the most basic aspects of this. I know from long ago experience as a youth and boyscout that making deadfalls, pit traps, snares, etc. is WAY harder and requires a good bit more exact work and experience than you think. Maybe you or I could string a line to trip someone, though I suspect it would be pretty easy to detect unless there were circumstances like darkness, etc. Still, I don't have a good handle on HOW hard it would be to detect. So, I'm not super confident I can accurately parameterize these things, no. Can I depict them plausibly enough to say "Yeah, we can pretend it will work that way without anyone facepalming." OK, sure. Again, as I keep pointing out, at this very simple level, if you want to bend the definition of 'simulate' a bit, you can call "there is a pit trap, its 10' deep and you will take 1d6 damage if you fall in." a simulation. I probably would not call it that, but whatever.

Okay, then I guess you have three choices when you GM: extrapolate based on rulebooks instead of FKR-style, determine randomly (e.g. DC = d20+prof), or choose based on some other agenda like sexual attraction or dramatism.

I have four choices: reasonable guess, rulebook extrapolation, arbitrary randomness, sexual attraction/dramatism/etc.

Neither of us is forced to decide based on sexual attraction/dramatism/etc.

 

[aramis erak]

What would it look like to choose something that doesn't fit a chain of imagined causality?

Literally, from a play of Blood & Honor:

A person pops through a hidden hatch and attacks the daimyō.
Winner determines if he hits and why...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Can you give specific examples of the things you're citing? Also how would the players know if something is authored at the table vs. beforehand and just presented at the table as if it were?

Yeah, sure. They are oft cited, but here goes (for Dungeon World):

The most basic facts of how to play are established starting on p17, where it is explained that the game is a conversation, and that the GM first describes a scene, establishing the current fiction, and then dialog determines how the situation evolves from there, and that moves may be triggered if the situation matches their trigger conditions. We've also learned that the game is about fantastic adventures, heroes, and exploration (starting on p7).

First of all is the fact of being No Myth. The GM cannot really have some big plans of their own if they don't know much more than the players and are making things up on the spur of the moment. This is reinforced by the Agenda item "play to find out what happens" which says "So really, don't plan too hard." (p161). This page also notes that you are "working with the players to create a world that is engaging and dynamic." This, and the sections about creating fronts make clear that the world is a collaborative enterprise.

The GM's principles are listed on p162. "Make a move that follows" is a big one, your GM moves must follow from the existing fiction. "Draw maps, leave blanks." again telling us we are not a solo world designer. "Ask questions, use the answers." LITERALLY ask the players lots of questions. The examples of play ALL demonstrate this frequently, and make clear that the types of questions are not just "what do you do?" but also asking for contributions of fiction and world building. "Begin and end with the fiction" reinforces the making moves that follow idea, when you speak, you start from the fiction and end with it, thus the GM is bound to honor the fiction, his and the players.

"Your principles are your guides. Often, when it is time to make a move, you'll already have an idea of what makes sense. Consider it in light of your principles and go with it, if it fits."

Honestly though the section from p159 to p177 is just suffused with the idea of working with what is immediately in front of you, that everything in the situation is provisional, at most partially planned, and filled with potential that has not been mapped out. p170, the dungeon moves epitomize this, even if a room or hallway is on the map, when the PCs enter it you can make a move like "Present riches at a price." This is not some key where a treasure is placed, its "Oh, you entered a hallway, OK, you see some gold pieces on the floor, but the whole area smells really weird, and the walls are stained green..." or "You run into 3 orcs who seem to be coming from the opposite direction!"

p177-185 describes the first session of play: This is fairly important, as it thoroughly establishes the No Myth nature of DW, the very first thing that happens in a game/campaign is character creation, at the table, blank slate. The GM should ask questions, and answer them as well, or turn them around and let the players do so. The GM should not be a afraid to say, "I don't know." Work together to find a fantastic and interesting answer.

The GM is told that they're RESPONSIBLE for the world, and have 'a lot to say' in what lives in it. "You don't need pre-approval for everything, but making sure everyone is excited about the broad strokes of the world is a great start."

"Once everyone has their characters created you can take a deep
breath. Look back over the questions you’ve asked and answered so
far. You should have some notes that will point you towards what
the game might look like. Look at what the players have brought to
the table. Look to the ideas that’ve been stewing away in your head.
It’s time for the adventure to begin!"

The game then starts in media res, generally. Starting with a situation stemming from the player's questions and answers, the GM describes the first scene of play, usually with some PCs being in a spot of trouble.

Use what they give you,
Establish details, describe
Ask questions,
Leave blanks,
Look for interesting facts,
etc.

After this first session the GM can create fronts. "Fronts are secret tomes of GM knowledge." These are the things that will happen in the world even if the PCs are not paying attention. They're a stockpile of moves for the GM to make whenever something is needed and the players didn't supply you with some direction to go in or an immediate response to them. One of the front's dangers can show up (see above where I mentioned dungeon moves). etc. There's a lot more on fronts of course.

The whole tone is repeated admonishments to collaborate with players, to leave things open, not to define things completely, etc.

The structure of PCs is also important. They have a race and class, but in DW the character's class is a unique trait, you are THE Wizard, not just one of the wizards, you are the dude! Characters have bonds, which state a relationship to another PC, and which you can get XP for fulfilling. Bonds belong totally to the players, they decide if they are resolved for XP, and get to write any new ones they like.

Finally every character has an alignment, and an alignment move to go with it. These moves are more like beliefs or instincts than anything else, but they belong to the character and its up to the player to decide what his character's alignment is and what move goes with it. However since these ARE moves, the GM is responsible for noting that they have been triggered. Each instance is good for an XP point.

So, nowhere in DW is it stated that GMs have NO creative agenda of their own, or no power to shape the game. Its just that a game starts as a blank slate, with the only things defined being the PCs, their race, class, alignment, and bonds. Everything else is coming from questions asked and answered, usually by the players, supplemented by the GM's initial scene framing, front planning, steading creation, etc. So, actually GMs have plenty of POWER, at least as much as in most other games. However, they are told to use it mostly to bring the world to life around the PCs and in respect of what the PCs are.

Honestly, after reading Apocalypse World 2e I can see why some people say that DW actually doesn't say all this stuff very forcefully by comparison. This post is long already, though, but if you want to read a game that is EXTREMELY clear about the non-existence of any GM agenda, read AW 2e!