Why do RPGs have rules?

[pemerton]

You know you can't speak for anyone beyond yourself as to how "Interesting" a feature of a game may or may not be.

And those issues were a major problem in play for my group when we played both AW and MotW. Someone would pick an action from the list on their Playbook (not because they had to, but because there's a clear list of delineated actions with fancy names in front of every player), and the GM would mechanically respond as appropriate. We also did this because if we didn't, there would immediately be a scramble-discussion as to what "move" the player was trying to make. Someone would inevitably try an action that didn't fit into a move in their estimation, but still required adjudication, leaving the GM scrambling to keep up. As clear as the rules in these games may be, they can still be very confusing for folks.

I don't know what RPG you were playing. But if you're describing AW or DW play, then (at least) the GM seems to have been playing wrong. If a player declares an action for their PC that does not trigger a move, then the GM doesn't need to "adjudicate". They just say what happens next.

EDIT: Having read on, I see I was well-and-truly ninja'd by @loverdrive.

 

[aramis erak]

Or comes from stuff that has come from established lore. I run the Forgotten Realms and there is a LOT of pre-established lore and stuff that has been built on that lore. Stuff built on pre-established lore ultimately comes from and is consistent with that established lore.

Max, that strains credibility... Especially given FR's 25+ years of development and multiple cataclysmic events each justifying a rules set change (post hoc change, to be pedantic), plus the TSR and 3E era WotC carelessness about canon.

D&D (esp Greyhawk and FR), Trek, and Marvel are notorious for canon inconsistencies, as is the WEG era and later SWEU, and post Disney-purchase-of-Lucasfilm SW canon universe.

So, items developed from inconsistent Lore often are inconsistent with existing lore because the canon self contradicts.

Much of the older lore is changed due to sociopolitical tolerance changes, and it is strongly implicit more such change will follow.

TLDR: one can only extrapolate with consistency if the sources to extrapolate from are consistent.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I agree with your point about hit points. Sicarts version does seem too narrow, maybe due to as @Manbearcat observed sub-domain assumptions. I would definitely count moves as mechanics. They're largely compound rules (i.e. moves can be deconstructed into a set of rules.)

Hit points are invoked by the actions by a given participant that alters them. Casting a fireball invokes your hit point total, which in turn tells us if you're down or not.

 

[pemerton]

This all makes it apparent that what you think I am saying, and what I am saying, are somewhat at odds. I am aiming to look closely at individual rules. Not procedures or mechanics made up of rules. I am not trying to say how rules ought to be deployed, I'm aiming to say what they are.

<snip>

In the above I don't mean to say that I have the right or best grasp of anything, but principally to point out that your and my concerns are very different. Mine are ontological, as I said. What are rules?

There is an extensive literature on what rules are. The literature I'm pretty familiar with goes back to Kant, but there is obviously a literature that predates that which goes back at least to Plato. And that's without having regard to literature in non-Plato influenced traditions, in which I'm less well educated and so which I am less confident to comment on.

Framing "what are rules?" as an ontological inquiry is fraught. Wittgenstein spilled much ink arguing that this is misguided, and that the proper question is something like "What does it mean for a practice to exemplify a rule?"

Some scholars think there is utility in comparing rules across domains of human activity (eg Marmor thinks games and law can both be looked at via the relationship between rules and conventions). Others have doubts.

Here's a rule of law from the Australian Criminal Code: "A person commits an offence if the person engages in a terrorist act. Penalty: Imprisonment for life."

Here's a rule of law from the Victorian Crimes Act: "A person must not, without lawful excuse, intentionally cause serious injury to another
person in circumstances of gross violence. Penalty: Level 3 imprisonment (20 years maximum)."

Each of these two rules has a different syntax: the first is a conditional definition of a particular offence. The second is a statement of a prohibition. Neither instantiates the general form you have suggested, of extrapolating a consequence from a description. (One could insist that your form is the general one, and that these rules really have the logical form you've set out. That would require argument.)

Nor does either of these rules rest upon the rule/norm contrast you have deployed. The second, at least, seems amenable to analysis by reference to Finnis's account of the precisifying function of some legal rules. More generally, what the "ontology" of these rules are is something that is hotly debated among (inter alia) legal positivists and anti-positivists. And of course there are also scholars who argue that those "ontological" debates are meaningless or pointless.

In any event, I don't think we need to engage in these sorts of arguments - about the nature of rules; their general form, syntax and sense; their ontology or "grounding"; etc - in order to talk about RPGing.

If one reads the OP as asking Why do players of RPGs deploy normative standards for their play - which is a voluntary activity - beyond sheer socially-negotiated agreement, one will have understood the question fine and be in a position to address it.

 

[pemerton]

Maybe I should, but I find it very hard not to see these posts as arrogant. As long as you're not hurting anyone, no one's way to play is better than anyone else's play beyond the personal level

Who is asserting anything about whether your play is good or bad?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't know what RPG you were playing. But if you're describing AW or DW play, then (at least) the GM seems to have been playing wrong. If a player declares an action for their PC that does not trigger a move, then the GM doesn't need to "adjudicate". They just say what happens next.

EDIT: Having read on, I see I was well-and-truly ninja'd by @loverdrive.

See, to me it is very easy to play wrong with storygames. That's a big part of the problem. The rules don't seem particularly open to interpretation.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Who is asserting anything about whether your play is good or bad?

I explained the vibe I get from storygame fans (a couple of times) upthread. It may not be intended, but that's how it comes off to me.

 

[aramis erak]

This doesn't strike me as correct. Hit points are a mechanic, but they are not 'invoked' by anyone.

If one is playing by the letter of the RAW, agreed. In practice, however...

They simply serve as a mechanical part of the game, an objectively recorded concrete fact asserted in the real world about the state of the game, separate from the fiction.

They can and do affect the fiction state, in some games directly, in others less so.

Note that not all HP based games are as "Go... Go... Dead!" as the pre-3E D&D, nor even as much as 3.x/4.x/5.x with "Go... Go... Bleeding but Go... Dying... Dead"

Twilight 2000 4e (Year Zero Dice Step), PC's have single digit HP, and weapons typically do 2+excess successes (ExS) with 1+ExS to 3+ExS being typical for man portable firearms and melee weapons. The amount post armor (usually 1 point over base, sometimes 2 or 3 over) determines if a critical is applied. If HP are zeroed, a critical is applied. If both happen as a single attack, roll twice and take the worse crit. Further, at 0, one goes down.

One of the PCs, SSgt Morton, on the mend from a 5 HP hit that also caused a brain hemorrhage. The mechanics for crits directly placed two elements into the fiction: he's not mentally as clear as he normally is, and he needed food, water, and rest. (Prerequisites to get the HP back.)

He was jumped on watch by a couple traitorous NPCs. He had gotten all 5 HP back, but still suffers the major Int & Emp penalties. When he'd been jumped, he had taken 2 of his 5 HP again... and it majorly shaped his choices, as the player knew Morton's one good hit from dying. The HP and armor mechanics and combat procedures took my narration, "SGT Toebel charges you with a fixed bayonet" and added the following narrative elements: That he hit, but hit the arm. That it was a minor wound (no crit), and that SSgt Morton was still conscious and did not have to flee.

Took less time to resolve it than it took for me to type it up (~10 min typing, about 3.5 min to resolve).

 

[aramis erak]

That is, and here I'm making an educated guess, Monopoly was designed around the core concept of building up and developing assets in a competitive milieu of limited funding and uncertain but calculable cost/benefit ratios. Yes, the author undoubtedly also had details in mind, like the board representing Atlantic City and such from the start, but that's secondary to the core idea of buying property, development, and (mis)fortune all interacting

The original (but seldom credited) author, Lizzie Maggie, of The Landlord's Game (later published as Monopoly unlawfully by Darrow) was intended to be a teaching tool about the evils of landlords.
This is well documented and very accessible history. This portion of your post does NOT come across as a well educated guess, but to me as complete lack of rigor. (A 10 sec google search can find a half dozen matching histories noting Maggie's intent and mods.
Also, the original was set in Arden Delaware, not Atlantic City.

 

[pemerton]

See, to me it is very easy to play wrong with storygames. That's a big part of the problem. The rules don't seem particularly open to interpretation.

This seems like saying that it's easy to play wrong with AD&D, because one might not be sure about how to map or key a dungeon, or how to adjudicate the play of the dungeon. I mean, maybe that's true, but both Moldvay and Gygax provide worked examples (for what it's worth, I think that Moldvay's is a better teaching text).

Apocalypse World is full of examples, and explanation. It's not arcane!