Why do RPGs have rules?

[Maxperson]

RPG rules, on the other hand, and as Baker is keenly aware of, have no similar "coercive" or "compulsory" character. The operate as rules purely if voluntarily adopted. This is the Lumpley Principle, and I think that Baker is correct to see it as a fundamental consideration in RPG design.

What of peer pressure? How many players have been compelled to follow an RPG rule because the DM and other friends do? Clearly that doesn't happen all of the time, and probably not even most of the time, but it does happen at least some of the time.

 

[clearstream]

Ah, yes. G. The whipping boy of N and S enthusiasts and while all are agendas are equal, G is the most BadWrongFun of all.

That made me think of a fourth category of RPG play that necessitates rules

4. The subversively creative, where participants desire to work creatively within the game's limits, including subversively and with inventive interpretations of the rules.

Griefing falls into this, but so do some strands of optimisation and benign departures from the ordinarily anticipated play. The general idea is that the constrained freedom of play within rules is employed in ways that are often far from - or ignore completely - what designers intended. In Suits' framing I would describe it as accepting the lusory means, but adopting deviant prelusory goals.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That made me think of a fourth category of RPG play that necessitates rules

4. The subversively creative, where participants desire to work creatively within the game's limits, including subversively and with inventive interpretations of the rules.

Griefing falls into this, but so do some strands of optimisation and benign departures from the ordinarily anticipated play. The general idea is that the constrained freedom of play within rules is employed in ways that are often far from - or ignore completely - what designers intended. In Suits' framing I would describe it as accepting the lusory means, but adopting deviant prelusory goals.

In practice, its still gamism. Its just gamism that has decided that the game they're playing is not the one the designer thought they would be (or they're chasing a gamist preference in a system that doesn't really want them to).

 

[Lanefan]

Yes, the 'G' in GNS...

Not necessarily.

You can have a competitively robust game or playstyle that's still more or less full-on simulation. What gets sacrificed in some cases is the notion of co-operative play; something that would seem agnostic to the G-N-S triangle.

 

[Lanefan]

That made me think of a fourth category of RPG play that necessitates rules

4. The subversively creative, where participants desire to work creatively within the game's limits, including subversively and with inventive interpretations of the rules.

Griefing falls into this, but so do some strands of optimisation and benign departures from the ordinarily anticipated play. The general idea is that the constrained freedom of play within rules is employed in ways that are often far from - or ignore completely - what designers intended. In Suits' framing I would describe it as accepting the lusory means, but adopting deviant prelusory goals.

In other words, there need to be rules for the participants to try to exploit.

Yeah, that sounds familiar....

 

[Thomas Shey]

Not necessarily.

You can have a competitively robust game or playstyle that's still more or less full-on simulation. What gets sacrificed in some cases is the notion of co-operative play; something that would seem agnostic to the G-N-S triangle.

Depends how the game element is constructed. Trying to be successful in the game elements in PF2e or D&D4e without cooperation is exceedingly unlikely to go well.

 

[Thomas Shey]

In other words, there need to be rules for the participants to try to exploit.

Yeah, that sounds familiar....

Not necessarily. Sometimes they just have figured out they need to play the GM.

 

[Aldarc]

Not necessarily. Sometimes they just have figured out they need to play the GM.

Isn't that FKR?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Not necessarily.

You can have a competitively robust game or playstyle that's still more or less full-on simulation. What gets sacrificed in some cases is the notion of co-operative play; something that would seem agnostic to the G-N-S triangle.

Well, there's no guarantee that there will be anything requiring skill there, and I would argue that sim is generally not rigorous enough, though if you're willing to restrict play to a purely mechanics based sim .. but that doesn't sound like an RPG to me.

I guess you can have a performative sort of competition though, who's able to RP the best superhero or something, and that can fall under various flavors of GNS sim.

 

[clearstream]

In practice, its still gamism. Its just gamism that has decided that the game they're playing is not the one the designer thought they would be (or they're chasing a gamist preference in a system that doesn't really want them to).

The setting aside of competitive integrity, that is sportsmanship, and prioritising creativity over competition, pull it away from the competitive side of gamism. But I do see what you mean. Multiple urges get bundled up into the trifolds.