Why do RPGs have rules?

[Bedrockgames]

(1) "Worldbuilding" is not the exclusive province of "simulationist" RPGing. HeroWars/Quest would be an obvious counterexample. In my view so is 4e D&D.

I don't think anyone has made this claim, at least neither me nor Rob have. I mentioned Hillfolk many times and that maintains a consistency in the setting even though players are introducing elements of it and the focus of play is drama. I also wouldn't personally label my style simulationist (I don't really buy into a three part division of styles) but given that many in this thread would consider it such, I think part of what I often do is place a heavy priority on the importance of world building (but placing great importance on it doesn't mean it isn't important in other styles of play)

 

[Bedrockgames]

(2) In the context of RPGing, JRRT's remarks would be as apposite to players and their role in authorship as it would be to GMs. And given that he is talking about literary creation in general, it would be as apposite to "narrativist" as to "simulationist" RPGing.

I don't necessarily disagree with this. Players authoring setting content is a potential dividing line among styles but I don't think anything about what Tolkien says means players couldn't also be actively involved in this process. He wasn't really thinking of RPGs so I doubt he had any parameters like that in mind (just like how when you look at a lot of early RPGs they are not thinking in terms of modern style divisions and theory). I do think JRR Tolkien clearly has a lot of resonance with people who like stuff like sandbox and the kinds of games Rob and I are talking about, because he has so much to say on world building. But it isn't like we have exclusive interest in his ideas. Lots of styles can learn from Tolkien if his words resonate with them

 

[Bedrockgames]

On the worldbuilding front. When I was a kid one of my favorite books was the Encyclopedia of Imaginary Places (I may have the title slightly wrong as I am going by memory). World building is probably one of the things I most like about fantasy, science fiction and RPGs. So I say the more the merrier. When I read a science fiction novel for example one of the things I am most attuned to is the world building (the thing that excited me about Ring World wasn't the story, it was the biology and culture of the different alien species, the idea of ring world itself, etc). But then I am someone who often enjoys the prologue of a movie more than the actual movie itself (I like the parts of a movie where we get to know characters and hang out with them, where we experience the 'world' being established). If people in other styles also value world building and setting consistency, and want to have engaging conversations about them, I am all for that (whether the world building is happening mostly prior to play by the GM or improvised during play by any of the other players or through a variety of tools, tables, etc). I think it is one of the most interesting aspects of RPGs and worth examining on its own.

 

[gban007]

Could in narrativism, dramatic concerns take precedence over internal cause? From what I've experienced and read testimony toward, I believe that they can, in cases where they conflict. Consistency can take second place to drama.

It strikes me that JRRT's method may be better categorised as technique (rather than principle - if the latter implies to you an exclusive connection.) It's thus a technique that strongly matters in simulationism, and can - but does not always matter as strongly - in other modes. So long as we're saying system matters, it ought to be defensible to claim that a technique has higher priority for some purposes than others.



This then from "On Fairy Stories" emphasises consistency, and implies that authors should have in mind "the laws of that world". JRRT attributes an effectiveness to doing so for driving immersion.

I note resistance to simulationism making any sole claim to consistency and immersion: Reconsidered as a technique, that's not at stake. Rather those things receive priority in simulationism to serve specific purposes. So I'm not currently reading your comment on structure verus reasons to amount to a refutation of "system matters".

Finally reemphasising that I don't take JRRT's technique to necessitate sole or prior authorship. Tolkien would not have had in mind TTRPG, but his words can speak to authors whether they be players in audience=author mode or authorial=GM.

I think it is ironic when talking about consistency, given the Lord of the Rings led to a fairly major retcon of the Hobbit, one of the things that makes the first edition of the Hobbit so valuable.

I just don't see Tolkien's statement as a lead in to simulationism, I can see it as a lead into immersion, that people believe in the world they are in, as it accords to the laws. It doesn't preclude, say, an author deciding that a character that was taken as a reliable first person narrator was in fact lying for a section for a period of time, or changing mind on how Orcs came into being for instance

But putting aside those examples, if the author is true to what came before, all it means he is simulating as such, is a world where one authority figure can determine what happens, he could easily have decided that elves could fly by flapping their arms and without using magic, and as long as consistent, would follow his statement, but would you really consider that simulationist?

 

[clearstream]

But putting aside those examples, if the author is true to what came before, all it means he is simulating as such, is a world where one authority figure can determine what happens,

What rules out a group of authors collaborating in accord with world-laws that they all accept? I could even imagine complex forms where each author works in accord with a list of laws, only some of which are shared.

For example (capital means the full set of laws, lowercase means partial) -

Author A works to laws(Abcd)
B works to (aB)
C works to (Cd)
D works to (abcD)

Versus the more obvious -

Author Q works to laws(Z)
R works to (Z)
S works to (Z)
...

Or the traditional -

Author G works to laws(G)

he could easily have decided that elves could fly by flapping their arms and without using magic, and as long as consistent, would follow his statement, but would you really consider that simulationist?

What would rule it out?

The question might be more whether that sort of law leads sim-motivated participants to -

experience a subject matter in a way that results in elevated appreciation and understanding.

Where

The Shared Imagined Space is utilized for intensely detailed perspectives

Depending on whether Eero Tuovinen's take seems right to you.

 

[gban007]

What would rule it out?

The question might be more whether that sort of law leads sim-motivated participants to -

I don't know, at this point it just feels like it becomes a catch all, if Tolkien's statement is in support of simulationism, then anything can be classified as simulationist, including Permerton's examples of his PBtA play.

E.g. that lightning strike one that seemed to cause debate whether simulationist or narrativist - if in the game it hadn't previously been shown that lightning strikes (whether magically triggered or not) can't destroy half a house, then there is no law as such being broken, just a new law being introduced, so it is simulationist.

Whereas I tend to view simulationist as having some sort of goal to measure by - e.g. if Tolkien's world is a purely fantasy setting, where normal physics don't apply, then the non-magical flying elf is fine. If Tolkien's world is supposed to be a historical view of earth and creatures are supposed to act like earth creatures except where magical causes are in play, then the flying elf isn't fine.

Thus it comes down to - if you think Tolkien's statement is in support of simulation, then what is the simulation of? And the only context in the sentence suggests it is simulating a world where some all powerful authority figure can enact whatever it wants - and I'm trying to make this separate to the author, as an author writing anything he wants isn't simulating something, he would have some goal in mind that we can measure against if simulating or not. Thus the only goal that seemed to be able to measure towards to say his statement is in support of simulating, is that he is simulating a world where an all powerful figure (perhaps Illuvatar) can make anything he wants happen, bound only (and loosely it appears) by consistency.

I can imagine an RPG where everything is decided by dice rolls referring to tables, but the tables are detailed enough to make it a good simulation of a particular setting / time period, vs something that is purely DM authored, and DM is consistent to anything that has happened before but otherwise just makes it all up on the fly and can come up with many weird and wonderful occurrences, and wouldn't be simulating anything.

 

[clearstream]

I don't know, at this point it just feels like it becomes a catch all, if Tolkien's statement is in support of simulationism, then anything can be classified as simulationist, including Permerton's examples of his PBtA play.

Reconsidering Tolkien as describing a technique and its effects, then it can be seen as having particular value toward simulationist purposes, without having to see that in an exclusive light.

So Tolkien is I think advocating consistency, but not just with whatever happened before, but with world laws. What is meant by "laws"? Well, that is left rather undefined. Generally speaking, I think laws constrain not just the case at hand, but go on to constrain future cases so that if we know the world-law, we know what sorts of things can or can't happen in our game world. They give an overarching coherence: not just that elves fly because they fly, but elves fly because of some world-law that accounts for flight in every case that falls under it.

Maybe a world in which elves flies feels a bit ridiculous to me? I don't take Tolkien to be saying that all world-laws are created equally. They're necessary (or it might be better to say extremely valuable) but that needn't make me think they are sufficient.

E.g. that lightning strike one that seemed to cause debate whether simulationist or narrativist - if in the game it hadn't previously been shown that lightning strikes (whether magically triggered or not) can't destroy half a house, then there is no law as such being broken, just a new law being introduced, so it is simulationist.

I take this to be where Tolkien's observation of the effects of consistency with world-laws matters. Certainly I can "discover" my world-laws as I go (and probably can't avoid that to some extent). But what happens at that moment of discovery, when there is still no world-law in place? Then I can't rely (in that instance) on consistency with the not-yet-formed world-law, producing the complaints raised in the thread.

This again argues for seeing Tolkien as describing a technique and its effects. As @pemerton reminds us - simulationism is an agenda or purpose, not the internal logic or structure of the setting. System continues to matter: Tolkien's technique is one that matters to simulationism... it helps achieve it. As a technique, it can be implemented poorly or well, it might not be needed in all cases, and other techniques might aid and abet it. None of that rules it out as a technique of simulationism. And this is like saying that alliteration is a technique of poetry: that doesn't rule out its use in prose.

Whereas I tend to view simulationist as having some sort of goal to measure by - e.g. if Tolkien's world is a purely fantasy setting, where normal physics don't apply, then the non-magical flying elf is fine. If Tolkien's world is supposed to be a historical view of earth and creatures are supposed to act like earth creatures except where magical causes are in play, then the flying elf isn't fine.

Elsewhere I have argued that a basic principle of simulationism is that world facts are established in view of some reference. Tolkien is suggesting that world-laws can supply such a reference. Such world-laws will be incomplete. Rather there will be some set of world-laws that make the authored world distinct (such as those arising from theological commitments) while much else will use the real-world and perhaps some set of pre-existing texts as references. So in the absence of a world-law saying wingless humanoids can fly, we'll rely on norms established in view of our real-world. But perhaps if we had a canon of Scandinavian myths in which elves normally flew, we'd be comfortable with their flying.

Thus it comes down to - if you think Tolkien's statement is in support of simulation, then what is the simulation of? And the only context in the sentence suggests it is simulating a world where some all powerful authority figure can enact whatever it wants - and I'm trying to make this separate to the author, as an author writing anything he wants isn't simulating something, he would have some goal in mind that we can measure against if simulating or not. Thus the only goal that seemed to be able to measure towards to say his statement is in support of simulating, is that he is simulating a world where an all powerful figure (perhaps Illuvatar) can make anything he wants happen, bound only (and loosely it appears) by consistency.

Game worlds are authored either directly or indirectly. That needn't be by some all powerful authority figure. Were there such a figure, world-laws could do a good job of constraining what they say. Having established such laws, they ought not to go on to say anything that breaches them. Or if they do, then they are setting aside Tolkien's technique.

I can imagine an RPG where everything is decided by dice rolls referring to tables, but the tables are detailed enough to make it a good simulation of a particular setting / time period, vs something that is purely DM authored, and DM is consistent to anything that has happened before but otherwise just makes it all up on the fly and can come up with many weird and wonderful occurrences, and wouldn't be simulating anything.

I think you implicitly answer your own doubt there. You're drawing attention to the incompleteness of the world-laws. Can you point to any TTRPG game text that says everything necessary and sufficient to cause participants to say things that make sense?

That doesn't doom the project. I just say that the world is like our own except that it has such-and-such set of world-laws, and except that anything implied by some reference canonical texts is taken prima-facie to be factual. I necessarily - in all TTRPGs - rely on a bunch of pre-existing capabilities and norms.

One of the hestitations folk have with simulationism is the idea of "simulating" a reality that comes into existence through ludic authorship. We're finding out what that reality is like. All this says is that "simulationism" as a label in TTRPG has a different meaning than it has as a label in other contexts: Edwards pointed that out years ago.

 

[gban007]

Reconsidering Tolkien as describing a technique and its effects, then it can be seen as having particular value toward simulationist purposes, without having to see that in an exclusive light.




I take this to be where Tolkien's observation of the effects of consistency with world-laws matters. Certainly I can "discover" my world-laws as I go (and probably can't avoid that to some extent). But what happens at that moment of discovery, when there is still no world-law in place? Then I can't rely (in that instance) on consistency with the not-yet-formed world-law, producing the complaints raised in the thread.

I just fundamentally disagree that Tolkien is describing a technique, what he is describing it appears is what all authors describing new worlds are striving for - to make a world as such that a reader is swept into, feels immersed in, rather than feeling that just reading something. It isn't a technique, but a goal, and the goal isn't simulationism but striving for immersion.

"“What really happens is that the story-maker proves a successful ‘sub-creator’. He makes a Secondary World which your mind can enter. Inside it, what he relates is ‘true’: it accords with the laws of that world. You therefore believe it, while you are, as it were, inside. "

Where is the technique there? As an author he has to create the laws of that world, where is the technique to make people believe in them? The only piece that seems to be a technique at all is 'inside it, what he relates is true' - which reinforces to my mind my prior point, that the author of the lightning destroying the house related it, so it must be true.

His statement doesn't address your point there where you say there is that moment of discovery - as an author he would have met that moment of discovery many times, and had to "discover" the world-laws as he went, and he doesn't describe the technique for how he addressed that.
As a reader we don't see that process, we get the outcome, and accept it unless we see something that triggers disbelief, and I think he does well with his writing to make a great story that doesn't trigger disbelief / maintains suspension of disbelief and immersion, but some authors who strive for the same thing fail, and not through not meeting his statement, they likely strived for the same thing, but failed, as there was no technique outlined for them to successfully follow.

 

[pemerton]

Could in narrativism, dramatic concerns take precedence over internal cause? From what I've experienced and read testimony toward, I believe that they can, in cases where they conflict. Consistency can take second place to drama.

This isn't my experience. I don't know what examples you have in mind - if you've shared one (or some) I apologise that I don't recall it/them.

It strikes me that JRRT's method may be better categorised as technique (rather than principle - if the latter implies to you an exclusive connection.) It's thus a technique that strongly matters in simulationism, and can - but does not always matter as strongly - in other modes.

<snip>

This then from "On Fairy Stories" emphasises consistency, and implies that authors should have in mind "the laws of that world". JRRT attributes an effectiveness to doing so for driving immersion.

What you quote JRRT as writing is "What really happens is that the story-maker proves a successful "sub-creator." He makes a Secondary World which your mind can enter. Inside it, what he relates is "true:" it accords with the laws of that world. You therefore believe it, while you are, as it were, inside."

This does not assert, nor even imply, that the author should have in mind the laws of that world. It's quite consistent, for instance, with the view - which seems to me to have been JRRT's view - that careful, sincere creation will manifest laws of which the the author is not even aware. Shippey discusses examples of this in JRRT's own work and reflection on his own work.

The idea that careful, sincere creation will manifest laws follows from further, ultimately theological, beliefs about the nature of humans and their relationship to and place in "creation".

I have argued that a basic principle of simulationism is that world facts are established in view of some reference. Tolkien is suggesting that world-laws can supply such a reference.

The passage you've quoted doesn't suggest this. It suggests that a successful story-maker creates a "secondary", imagined world that accords with its own laws. But he says nothing about where the laws come from, nor what (if anything) their role is in creation.

I entirely agree with @gban007 that JRRT is describing a goal, not a technique. And as @gban007 has posted, and as Shippey talks about, JRRT's own methods of authorship did not consist in first imagining laws, than deriving their consequences. He used a whole variety of techniques, including reflecting on the etymology of words (real or imagined) and constructing worlds and their laws to explain those etymological musings. In some cases, as the musings changed, so did the imagined world and its laws.

I'm not currently reading your comment on structure verus reasons to amount to a refutation of "system matters".

I don't know why you would.

What distinguishes simulaionism from (say) narrativism/"story now" is not that it produces, or aims to produce, consistent fiction whereas narrativism does not. It's that it treats internal cause as king - that is to say, it relies on no other principle to determine what happens next in the shared fiction.

 

[pemerton]

I do think JRR Tolkien clearly has a lot of resonance with people who like stuff like sandbox and the kinds of games Rob and I are talking about, because he has so much to say on world building.

JRRT has a lot of resonance with me too. He is a great expositor of romantic/reactionary fantasy (cf REH-esque "modernist" fantasy). The elements of his imagined world are carefully developed to serve thematic purposes, and to reinforce his core ideas and concerns.

Why does Middle Earth, and its human and Elven society, exist for thousands of years with a constant technological level (swords, spears, coats of mail, etc) that broadly reflects Northern and Western Europe of around the eleventh or twelfth century? Yet in some cases - eg the Shire - also seems to involve production of material goods, particularly clothes and food, at a level closer to that of the early nineteenth century? Why do we know nothing of Elven or Numenorean mathematics, although they built structures like Orthanc and the White Tower?

These questions are all easily answered, but the answers bring us back to the thematic core of JRRT's work, not any notion of "world laws" and trying to extrapolate their consequences.