Why do RPGs have rules?

[Autumnal]

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).

Huh. That’s an interesting insight. I’d been going to say that when you’re playtesting, having one or a few groups who do this well is a great blessing, even though they are also likely to drive you to an occasional fit of homicidal rage. It’s a funnier thought to me in light of your comment.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Isn't that FKR?

One could interpret my comments here and elsewhere to lead to that conclusion.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Huh. That’s an interesting insight. I’d been going to say that when you’re playtesting, having one or a few groups who do this well is a great blessing, even though they are also likely to drive you to an occasional fit of homicidal rage. It’s a funnier thought to me in light of your comment.

I've played too many years with people who tend to pursue the game of an RPG no matter what not to see the process on occasion. And yes, I do think its somewhat helpful to have at least one group of this nature playtest a game (even a game very much not intended for it) just so you can see some of the issues a GM may well have to deal with even if its not what's intended.

 

[clearstream]

Echoing one from the OP,

5. The unpredictable, where participants want shared uncertainty about the contours of future game state, especially where they want capacity to influence its distribution.

I make this shared uncertainty because future game state can be made uncertain for one participant by means of one or more others deciding it. That can be managed by social agreement.

 

[aramis erak]

"Who gets to say what" is slightly different from "who or what decides if what was just said is now true in the fictional game state."

Consider a game where other players were authorized to make action declarations for your character.

There is an RPG where this is not uncommon, well, two using the same system... Houses of the Blooded and Blood & Honor. If they participated in the "Risk" and/or are in scene of the "Risk" is subject to having specific elements dictated by others... If players are thin-skinned about it, or some are particularly inconsiderate, it can feel pretty toxic...

But when the gestalt happens with a good group, it's magnificent.

As an aside on "who gets to say", I think narrative authority can be a pretty decent reward. For beating a mini-game. For giving an interesting hook. For something. We hand out XP and gold and loot for smart decisions, for good roleplaying, for mesmerising voices, whatever.

Why not give out narrative authority?

Because, in general, such only works well with an established group that has a fairly high level of trust... and in such groups, shared authority tends to naturally flow anyway. That's not as safe an assumption as it used to be.

 

[clearstream]

I've played too many years with people who tend to pursue the game of an RPG no matter what not to see the process on occasion. And yes, I do think its somewhat helpful to have at least one group of this nature playtest a game (even a game very much not intended for it) just so you can see some of the issues a GM may well have to deal with even if its not what's intended.

Quoting Espen Aarseth by way of Jesper Juul

"player subversions and transgressions are moments of “hope” when players see the possibility of escaping the submission that their game playing implies"

 

[Thomas Shey]

Because, in general, such only works well with an established group that has a fairly high level of trust... and in such groups, shared authority tends to naturally flow anyway. That's not as safe an assumption as it used to be.

I'm not sure it was ever a particularly safe assumption. The presumption that people are playing with people they know well with high levels of trust didn't seem all that perfectly founded at any point in the hobby, even if it does apply to a fair number of people--but "fair number of people" doesn't even necessarily map to "most people" let alone "vast majority of people".

 

[Thomas Shey]

Quoting Espen Aarseth by way of Jesper Juul

Obviously that didn't quote, but my question would always be whether its not better to get the kind of game play you want at the system choice and campaign type stage rather than trying to bend whatever you've got to it, but that requires people to both be self-aware enough to know what that is and honest and determined enough to push for it, and in some cases there's significant failures on one or both.

 

[clearstream]

Obviously that didn't quote, but my question would always be whether its not better to get the kind of game play you want at the system choice and campaign type stage rather than trying to bend whatever you've got to it, but that requires people to both be self-aware enough to know what that is and honest and determined enough to push for it, and in some cases there's significant failures on one or both.

Part of the answer is that what a game is, is constituted between the players and the game.

Hence I employ a philosophical skepticism about knowing what TTRPG is played without knowing both players and game. Players must first interpret the rules, meaning they have a part in deciding what the rules are. Then they must decide how they will use the rules. This is most obvious when there are parts of a game left unexplored by some groups, due to their prioritisation of other parts.

That doesn't rule out designing and choosing designs that are better fit to your purpose, but it does reject the idea that the game has a single identity across all groups of players. That being so, one group can find play in a game that another group doesn't see or accept.

I'm not really disagreeing with you here, just adding some nuance. The question you ask is a live one.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Part of the answer is that what a game is, is constituted between the players and the game.

Hence I employ a philosophical skepticism about knowing what TTRPG is played without knowing both players and game. Players must first interpret the rules, meaning they have a part in deciding what the rules are. Then they must decide how they will use the rules. This is most obvious when there are parts of a game left unexplored by some groups, due to their prioritisation of other parts.

That doesn't rule out designing and choosing designs that are better fit to your purpose, but it does reject the idea that the game has a single identity across all groups of players. That being so, one group can find play in a game that another group doesn't see or accept.

I'm not really disagreeing with you here, just adding some nuance. The question you ask is a live one.

Its certainly possible to have cases where the implications of genre, setting or system don't sink in until the players have been engaged with it for a time, and rather than address that they just forge on attempting to play it as the experience they thought they were getting. My experience has been that that rarely goes well.

But part of that is that I'm kind of a firm proponent of finding the tool for the job, not just making use of whatever tool you have at hand. I'm aware that with some people ease-of-general use (which can include familiarity) or willingness of people to use a system is a factor, but my own opinion is that's rarely a good enough reason to use the wrong tool. Its extremely likely to create problems, and the fact you hear about the successes is likely selection bias and the fact most people are not good at analyzing when they have problems to see what the reasons for them are.

Edit: That said, the practical realities are that you sometimes go with a substandard tool or just don't run the game you want to. But I think you should go into that with the upfront understanding there's a fair chance you'll end up on the rocks of that choice.