Why do RPGs have rules?

[pemerton]

Are you a player (description)? Yes? Great, this is what you should go on to do. The rule tells you the consequences of being a player. It supersedes whatever you might think players normally do.

There is no "what I think players normally do". I mean, do they normally deal cards, pick up the dice and throw them through the rafters, drink until they get drunk and fall under the table, or something else?

Furthermore, what does the AW rule tell a player to go on to do? Answer: nothing, other than answering questions. Yet that is only part of the rule. The other part of the rule is not obligation-imposing but permission-conferring.

 

[clearstream]

For instance, there is no normal, and no pre-existing norm, in the context of shared fiction creation, about who gets to say what happens when Derrik falls into a pit, or when Marie opens her brain to the psychic maelstrom.

Exactly, although it makes me think you have not caught the implication of "extend".

You're focused on who gets to say what. Baker seems to be saying that's not his main concern when designing rules. But in any case, who gets to say what can be codified in rules addressing rules, or just in the rule. Both strategies are seen in game texts. And on your account we would be bound to view saying who says what - that assignment alone - as unwelcome or unwanted.

 

[clearstream]

There is no "what I think players normally do". I mean, do they normally deal cards, pick up the dice and throw them through the rafters, drink until they get drunk and fall under the table, or something else?

In which case, it extends. But to me Baker wrote that to override other ideas of what players do, not because he thought readers would come to it with a tabula rasa. It was necessary to state in order to override and perhaps extend pre-existing norms.

It's probably enough to add that conferring permissions is a consequence; noting that the rule implies a curtailment of permissions for other parties (via "exclusively").

 

[clearstream]

As for the posited contrast between "standards that are normative" and "rules" - there is no such contrast. A rule is a normative standard. (See eg Hart's extensive discussion in The Concept of Law.) And of course one standard (though contentious) analysis of the imperative speech act is that it presupposes a type of authority (ie normative) relation obtaining between speaker and addressee, such that the former is entitled (another normative notion!) to command the latter!

Really? Thou shat not kill! lacks forcefulness? The rules I quoted from the Australian statute books lack forcefulness?

Think rather of normative standards that lack forcefulness.

If you can find none, then I would accept that standards that are normative by your lights are rules.

 

[Manbearcat]

...where you're taking what (in most cases) things I would see as procedural guidelines and giving them hard-rule status.

What is the difference between hard-rule status and soft-rule status you're envisioning here? Because the way it seems to me, in Lanefanian D&D (given your testimonials and excerpts it looks like Hickman Revolution meets some Gygaxian conceits and tropes), all play proceeds under the overarching proviso of Rule 0. So there doesn't need to be any distinguishing between guidelines or rules (hard or soft or anywhere in between). You have "one rule to rule them all." If that rule says "you're in" ("you" here might be a mechanic, or a procedure, or an action declaration, or an outcome of play, or a principle that undergirds either of the former)...then "you're in." If that rule says "GTFO"...then "GTFO."

But that is a particular organizational structure (all other aspects of play are provisional pending the approval of the "one rule to rule them all") of a particular game, not TTRPGs in general. I mean, if you want to say "in Lanefanian D&D (and those that play similarly) there is only one hard-rule and everything else is a provisional guideline contingent upon the yay/nay of the one hard-rule", then...sure? I mean I don't see the necessity even in your case because even those provisional guidelines, as you want to call them, still inform and direct play if they're approved. Once they're approved, why does it matter if we call them rules then vs guidelines? Is this kind of a recursive "because letting them graduate from guidelines to rules makes it sound like they're not still subordinate to Rule 0...like they can't be vetoed at a later date or in a particular moment that strikes the GM as veto-worthy." Like it defangs rule 0 and may slippery slope to GM Disempowerment or something?

If so, that just feels needlessly rhetorical (what happens at your game and at D&D tables like it happens at those tables...there is no need for some exception to a philosophical superstructure like "rules are the collection of stuff that informs and direct play...except in the case when another rule allows someone a discretional veto over them...then they're just provisional guidelines") and calling out a novel interpretation of a game-specific exception doesn't seem particularly helpful when discussing all TTRPGs.

For this, I'd more define it that game mechanics are what's used to abstract those things which cannot be free-roleplayed, regardless of what happens to the gamestate as a result of their use.

The game mechanics are abstractions or one particular form of negotiated imagination. But they don't do the heavy lifting of abstracting or negotiating. The game mechanics happen in meat space. They happen around the table. Someone rolls dice, references a table, announces a target number, draws or plays a card, spends a currency, subtracts a total, crosses off a piece of inventory, ticks a clock, pulls from a Jenga tower. Whatever.

The negotiation of what happens and abstraction onto the imagined space is conferred to us around the table. Someone (in your form of D&D, that is typically or nearly universally the GM) either outright says what happens next within the constraints, boundaries, duties afforded to them by the ruleset or they resolve what happens now by referencing, and possibly interpreting or extrapolating (TBD pending system generally or game tech specifically), the collision of game text + present imagined space and possibly some prepped material, mapping how that collision gives rise to a change of state in the fiction: game interface.

 

[AnotherGuy]

At the outset @Manbearcat thanks for your original and follow-up post!
You have genuinely given me much to think about and how to ensure I place the game part of the RPG in the foreground for my players, but more importantly for my own satisfaction for, ironically, the game.

I'm going to start with this as it engages with your top statement below; "story-weaving is my strength."

So the question above is about my statement "I just never think about the overall shape of the fiction."

So there are two locations that I can cite where I have some care for the shape of the fiction:

* At the level of situation where there are conflict resolution mechanics which mediate gamestate/win & loss and attendant rising action/climax. It borders on the impossible (and would be irresponsible) to not have care for the shape of the fiction there. So D&D combat, Dogs in the Vineyard, D&D 4e, Cortex+, BW/MG/TB, Blades in the Dark etc.

* System-based breakpoints or phases like Mouse Guard's Winter, Torchbearer's Respite, D&D 4e's Heroic/Paragon/Epic, My Life With Master's Endgame Confrontation with the Master, The Between's Dawn/Day/Dusk/Night/The Unscene/Threat Confrontation, Blades Info Gathering/Score/Downtime, or Stonetop's Seasons. Again, here the game imposes a structure upon play to be observed and resolved.

But focus on situation and observance/resolution of structural phases are quite different than what I'm calling the overall shape of the fiction. Not thinking about the overall shape of the fiction means lack of overarching curation, lack of metaplot imperatives or imposition, lack of story-weaving. It means letting the throughline of play emerge from play fundamentals + focus on situation & character + observance of system inputs (which includes structural phases or whatever). Whatever story emerges from that process will be what it is.

I should also note that I'm separating overall shape of the fiction from the continuity and integrity of what has been established through play. That latter is an input that must always be observed/respected for downstream situation-framing, consequence-handling, and any/all game layer interactions.

This was well explained and it all makes sense to me and I'm 100% in agreement.

Alright (alright, alright).

So I'll just be straight-forward. The type of GM curation/story-weaving/big reveal that you're depicting above entail a form of GM content-authority that doesn't play well with both my answer to your question above and what I discussed in the prior post you responded (very well) to. A statement like "the player doesn't know his character is suffering from PTSD after <situation resolution>" isn't a statement that would ever be made. You're quite correct that there is extreme (complete?) tension between keeping the game part of the RPG foregrounded and transparent and GM inserting extra-system narrative dynamics (whether it be at the character level or situation level or setting level) that require veiling in order to facilitate Big GM Reveal TM.

A few random thoughts:

* I'm working under the assumption that this is D&D 5e, yes? I'm assuming that this "Marilith conflict-driven PTSD" wasn't an outgrowth of a post-conflict Saving Throw?

* I'm assuming the PTSD isn't a (lets call it) GM-facing or veiled mechanical widget that has an input to action resolution in which the player isn't aware of?

Your first assumption is correct. The PTSD was a hard-move by me for what would otherwise have been PC death if I had used the 5e rules strictly. I had narrated the attacks from the Marilith being synchronised i.e. even though there were lots of attack rolls that I had to make, I treated it as one attack, so the character dropped into unconsciousness instead of death.
With the second assumption I'm not sure I'm understanding you correctly, but I had not informed the player of the hard-move. Yet. We are playing this weekend. The discussion of the Flaw/Trait in your (1) below will make it known.

* If all true, my concern with this dynamic is two-fold. The first is that (a) its just relegated to background color (no mechanical engagement that interestingly impacts the player's experience of their decision-space) and (b) , following from and relating to (a), only the GM may be in on the secret because the nature of the color is obfuscated to such a degree that both the experience of the PTSD and the impact of the reveal on the player is muted or isn't as potent as hoped for.

Now (b) following from and relating to (a) above is an outgrowth of a few things; (i) the autobiographical cognitive space of the participants (how does various forms of technique and overall play impact the idiosyncratic immersion of the individual participants) and (ii) the GM's ability to do the thing (which includes a lot of little things that need to add up to the overall experience and finality of the thing).

* Here is how I might consider easing the tension of the bolded/italicized above if I was running 5e. Are you familiar with the Abyssal Corruption, Beast Transformation, and Vile Transformation mechanics in the 5e DMG? You might consider an iteration of them coupled with the Paint the Scene process of The Between. As follows:

1) Player rolls Charisma Saving Throw after conflict. On failure, the GM gives the player a new Flaw or Trait which clearly depicts the state of the character (the thematics, the mental duress, et al) and invites the player to describe the PC's cognitive orientation to the event based on that new Flaw or Trait.

2) GM can either veil the mental duress/illness Transformation mechanics or share them with the player (my guess is you would be veiling them).

3) At the next Long Rest (or whatever appropriate time), the player makes another Charisma Saving Throw (perhaps this is progressive or perhaps its the same DC as the initial). On a failure, the PC gains 1 level of Exhaustion. The GM briefly describes an object or an event in the imagined space (a flower that seems to reach to bees but never gets attention while other flowers do, an inkeep looking forlorn as they absent-mindedly mop the same area of floor to no affect for minutes) and invites the player of the character to vignette their character's thoughts on this object/event and relate it back to the events of (1).

4) Same deal as (3) except a final failed Saving Throw cements the thematic and mechanical situation which can only be resolved via Remove Curse or some mechanical + fictional process (I'm thinking Paladin's Quest move or Wizard's Ritual move in DW or Make a Plan in Stonetop where the player and GM "ask questions and use the answers" to come up with requirements/conflict resolution Win Cons and related fiction to resolve the dramatic need).


So here, if you (a) veil the overall situation/journey of the condition but (b) involve the player thematically while (c) introducing decision-space & gamestate altering consequences, you might get a result that both lets everyone experience the reveal (you included as the player is letting you in on their character's cognitive state and attendant interpretation of thematic touchstones) and it might be impactful to the player of the character (either the same but in a different way or perhaps even more impactful).

---

So those are some thoughts on your conundrum (as it pertains to what I wrote upthread) that lands nicely in the "why do RPGs have rules" area! Do with them as you will (including drop them in the dustbin asap!)!

I appreciate the effort you went to, to come up with mechanics for the situation, creatively pulling ideas from several RPG's. The Dungeon World link is not something I had seen before and it is certainly a useful resource. Really liked the way the game breaks down the Paladin's Quest move and the Wizard's Ritual move.

The inviting the player to vignette on their character's thoughts on the object/event and relate it back to the events of (1) definitely connects with your (i) the autobiographical cognitive space of the participants in your post.

So in closing I may be tweaking, but nothing will be thrown in the dustbin.
Thanks again.

 

[Maxperson]

Part of your specific frustrations probably come from an overly specific definition of trad gaming that basically corresponds to how Maxperson runs D&D. A lot of the things you consider bad faith GMing for example are the norm in the White Wolf / L5R / Shadowrun oriented trad culture I mostly originally come from (and still dip my toes into). There's a whole lot of common ways to play trad games (including fairly popular approaches to 5e) that are not accounted for in the ways you speak about trad gaming.

This doesn't actually matter. Those posters on my side of this debate who have a different view of what traditional gaming are also constantly encountering the constant misinterpretations of what traditional gaming is and the constant One True Waysim of those posters that I'm referring to. This isn't a "me" thing.

Edit: In fairness there are a few posters on the traditional side of things who also constantly misunderstand the No Myth side of things, but none of them engage in the One True Way behavior of the posters in question. Rarely, one of them will respond to the "If you only understood No Myth you'd see how much better it is." with a "If you only understood Traditional play you'd see how much better it is" as a method of calling attention to the One True Wasyism of that particular No Myth poster, but they don't do it often and I've never seen it posted first. Only as that method of calling out the One True Wasyism.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I find your framing (hopefully unintentionally) deceptive here. We're still fundamentally talking about the same sort of structural approach to setting design, situation design, serial exploration through the setting and action resolution. We're talking about different sorts of fiction. Not really different styles of play. At least no more different than 2 games of Burning Wheel (which exhibits the same sort of diversity in the type of fiction being explored).

Fundamentally this is part and parcel of established norms and the default structure of play being treated as privileged (being described with words like organic whereas other sorts of play get derisively labeled as artificial or bespoke). Play diversity under one structure of play gets magnified to the extreme while other structures of play get treated as these cute little bespoke games which to me is the height of elitism / snobbery.

This stuff matters a great deal to me because these deceptive claims of flexibility are used to sow doubt into people like the younger version of myself to make them believe that they are just not good enough or what they want is just impossible. It's a you problem rather than a using a game that is structurally incapable of delivering the sort of experience you are looking for problem.

Types of fictional content does not a playstyle make.

My only point wasn't about any of that. It was simply that when the DMG in any edition, or any of the basic books, have provided explanations on how to run things like dungeons, which Pemerton mentioned in my post, it isn't as if there is a one true way to approach that. That the game is open to different ways of doing so, and to entirely different approaches. Now it still has core structures and rules and those may be less suited in a given edition RAW to certain approaches (which is why having other systems is so important). I wasn't saying anything about the concerns you havre mentioned here. I was just saying, Gygax and Moldvay are far from the last word on how to approach this kind of prepping, running and procedures.

 

[Imaro]

I find your framing (hopefully unintentionally) deceptive here. We're still fundamentally talking about the same sort of structural approach to setting design, situation design, serial exploration through the setting and action resolution. We're talking about different sorts of fiction. Not really different styles of play. At least no more different than 2 games of Burning Wheel (which exhibits the same sort of diversity in the type of fiction being explored).

Fundamentally this is part and parcel of established norms and the default structure of play being treated as privileged (being described with words like organic whereas other sorts of play get derisively labeled as artificial or bespoke). Play diversity under one structure of play gets magnified to the extreme while other structures of play get treated as these cute little bespoke games which to me is the height of elitism / snobbery.

This stuff matters a great deal to me because these deceptive claims of flexibility are used to sow doubt into people like the younger version of myself to make them believe that they are just not good enough or what they want is just impossible. It's a you problem rather than a using a game that is structurally incapable of delivering the sort of experience you are looking for problem.

Types of fictional content does not a playstyle make.

How do you reconcile this view with the optional rules given in something like the DMG? For example someone running a game of pure success vs. failure is following a totally different procedure and implementing different rules from someone who has decided to use the degrees of success rule or success at a cost from 5e. this is going to produce a different play experience deeper than just changing of fiction depending on which is chosen .

 

[hawkeyefan]

This doesn't actually matter. Those posters on my side of this debate who have a different view of what traditional gaming are also constantly encountering the constant misinterpretations of what traditional gaming is and the constant One True Waysim of those posters that I'm referring to. This isn't a "me" thing.

Edit: In fairness there are a few posters on the traditional side of things who also constantly misunderstand the No Myth side of things, but none of them engage in the One True Way behavior of the posters in question. Rarely, one of them will respond to the "If you only understood No Myth you'd see how much better it is." with a "If you only understood Traditional play you'd see how much better it is" as a method of calling attention to the One True Wasyism of that particular No Myth poster, but they don't do it often and I've never seen it posted first. Only as that method of calling out the One True Wasyism.

So you’re not generalizing… so which posters are you talking about? I’m reasonably certain that anyone who it may be is familiar with traditional RPGs.

My take on this is that there’s a group of people who have been doing something for so long that they’re experts at that thing. However, that thing turns out to be more narrow than they thought. But it’s hard to accept that they’re experience is not as broad as they thought.

They’ve learned that they’re not experts on Science, but only Biology… and they don’t know much about Physics or Chemistry at all.

So when introduced to the broader field, their knowledge is revealed to be much more focused than previously thought. However, they don’t adjust their approach to the conversation. Instead, they try to adjust the broader field to fit into their knowledge.

Then when this is pointed out to them, they don’t like it, and try and label it in such a way as to lay blame elsewhere.