Why do RPGs have rules?

[Guest 85555]

I just don't think this speaks to any of the differences between the sort of RPGing that @robertsconley is describing and (say) my RPGing.

but I don’t think Rob or I have been trying address your play style and whether it is any different. We are just describing how play and saying this is a style, this is how we often do it (in response to characterizations of the style that feel a bit like a straw man to us). I don’t see it as a zero sun game though

 

[pemerton]

It is about creating the feel of a world that exists external to the players and has an internal consistency and believability to it.

This suggests consideration of topics like: to what extent is the GM bound by their prep? how "fast" is play expected to go? how are players expected to prompt the GM to reveal their prep? etc.

These seem like important topics for the "simulationist" approach.

 

[Guest 85555]

This suggests consideration of topics like: to what extent is the GM bound by their prep? how "fast" is play expected to go? how are players expected to prompt the GM to reveal their prep? etc.

These seem like important topics for the "simulationist" approach.

We have had this conversation before but reducing it to an issue of prep misses the pint, which us giving the players s Living world to interact with m. That is always going to overuse any strict adherence to procedure

 

[robertsconley]

It is about creating the feel of a world that exists external to the players and has an internal consistency and believability to it.

The objective test of whether you got this right is whether a person that is knowledgeable of the genre, time period, or setting and can apply that knowledge successfully to help them roleplay their character.

For example that one game you ran where I could use what little I knew of Wuxia to roleplay the character you handed me successfully. Last fall at Shirecon, I had a couple of hardcore Harn players show up for a convention game of my Deceits of the Russet Lord adventure and they jumped in right away with the roleplaying. And in the games I ran for you, Adam, and the rest of the group, you all were knowledgable about Middle Earth, and Medieval life enough that you were able to hop right in yourself for the games I ran (one AiME, and the other Deceits of the Russet Lord).

 

[pemerton]

We have had this conversation before but reducing it to an issue of prep misses the pint, which us giving the players s Living world to interact with m. That is always going to overuse any strict adherence to procedure

Just to pick up on one of the things I mentioned - how "fast" is play expected to go? That seems pretty important for the players to have a "living world" to interact with.

It's a bit crude to put it mathematically, but suppose that interacting with an element requires knowing N things about the element itself, plus R things about that elements relationship to other elements. What is the rate at which players learn things in play? And what is the rate at which the GM changes the truths about the element itself, and the element's relationship to other elements? If those two rates aren't calibrated in some fashion, either (i) the world becomes too static, or (ii) the players never get to engage with the world, but become mere spectators.

 

[Campbell]

At the end of the day settings have to be designed and scenarios have to be designed. They do not spring up whole cloth from the ether. You need a starting point to extrapolate from and there are real world reasons why settings/scenarios/characters are designed in the way they are for functional play of any type. From my perspective whether we start with the setting, characters or situation that starting point is equally contrived. The nature of those contrivances will lead to very different playstyles and will feel more real in some ways and less real in others.

Part of my personal frustration is when the act of design is glossed over, when the creative act behind it is disclaimed, in what feels like an effort to treat one sort of play as the default natural way of playing. Also to undercut any actual discussion of technique.

 

[robertsconley]

We have had this conversation before but reducing it to an issue of prep misses the pint, which us giving the players s Living world to interact with m. That is always going to overuse any strict adherence to procedure

I emphasize first-person roleplaying, which means most of the time things happen at the speed of how fast social interactions go. It is not uncommon for the in-game time to only advance by a day for a session. This occurs when the players are in a situation where there is a bunch of stuff to do throughout the day and it takes up the entire session. I will abstract what I can like buying stuff when asked. But sometimes the players have people to see and things to do that day.

 

[Guest 85555]

Just to pick up on one of the things I mentioned - how "fast" is play expected to go? That seems pretty important for the players to have a "living world" to interact with.

It's a bit crude to put it mathematically, but suppose that interacting with an element requires knowing N things about the element itself, plus R things about that elements relationship to other elements. What is the rate at which players learn things in play? And what is the rate at which the GM changes the truths about the element itself, and the element's relationship to other elements? If those two rates aren't calibrated in some fashion, either (i) the world becomes too static, or (ii) the players never get to engage with the world, but become mere spectators.

I can only speak for myself, but I have never been very big on speed. I like systems that move quickly, but I am happy to stop and explain things or let players ask questions.

 

[Guest 85555]

Part of my personal frustration is when the act of design is glossed over, when the creative act behind it is disclaimed, in what feels like an effort to treat one sort of play as the default natural way of playing. Also to undercut any actual discussion of technique.

To be clear here, I am just defending the existence and feel of the style in question, I am not saying it is the default style of play, the best style of play. I am also not saying it is the only style I engage in. We are largely talking about more sandbox, living world style games here in this topic, but I also run monster of the week adventures, which are much more structured and I wouldn't say my aim is anything approaching 'simulation' as it is being used in this thread. In those types of scenarios I do value player agency but there is also 'an adventure' that is planned. And last year I ran a 90s style 2E Ravenloft campaign. It was short but my aim there was to go back to that 90s, story driven style and expose my players to one of the old adventure anthologies.

 

[Guest 85555]

What is the rate at which players learn things in play? And what is the rate at which the GM changes the truths about the element itself, and the element's relationship to other elements? If those two rates aren't calibrated in some fashion, either (i) the world becomes too static, or (ii) the players never get to engage with the world, but become mere spectators.

Beyond speed these are things that are important to balance in a living world. The reason for terms like living world, world in motion etc, is to avoid the world feeling too static. At the same time you want it to function like a believable place. And they aren't meant to be spectators. I can say in my games the players are very active in shaping where things go and how things unfold. I don't believe any of them feel like spectators. Again a lot of this comes down not to just ideas about keeping the world believable but in fairness, in trust, in the GM being open with the players about how these kinds of decisions are being made (and I find that to be helpful conversations about that between the sessions or even during are a great opportunity to get feedback). Probably 50% of my games are run in a manner like me and Rob are discussing (with me probably leaning much more into genre and drama). But I am not married to a gaming philosophy when I run a table, I am there to make sure people are engaged, getting what they want out of play, and that the campaign is functioning and can last over a long period of time. So I will often throw in a wide variety of techniques outside the standard of what Rob and I are talking about if I feel it is helpful or fits what the group wants. Like I can't stand adventure paths. But I have had instances where it was clear a few of the players really wanted to be sent on an adventure path and made one for them. I am not going to ruin peoples enjoyment over something like a gaming philosophy (any school of thought or way of looking at gaming I adopt should be in service to making the game better, not something that becomes a straight jacket).

That said the players in those 50% of my games, they are often players who really want this sense of a world outside themselves. One reason I am open about tracking NPC movement is a player asked me how I was managing that because a session felt particularly real to him in terms of contending with NPCs who were trying to reach the same destination and get an object before they did. When I told him what I did he was very satisfied and said he liked how it created a sense of the world being this real and external thing.

Being fair to the players is I think a really huge part of getting this style to work (and not making it just about your creation). You do have a creative role in that you need to produce setting content, NPCs, gameable stuff, but it isn't about where you want all those things to go. It is I think very important to, as Rob says, let the players trash the setting. It is also important to take a let the dice fall where they may mentality.