Why do RPGs have rules?

[pemerton]

I think @Manbearcat's post just upthread covers most of what I would want to say in reply.

When players sit down for some earnest sim-play of RQ, they're there for the subject. What is important to their PC is their siting and acting within subject, exploring in directions they're curious about (including emotionally curious). In a sense, each player choice can be framed as a question. One that every RuneQuest character should have in mind is "can I become a Rune hero?" which for the player translates to "what does it mean to become a Rune hero?". That's put plainly in introductory text to the 2nd edition (1979)

7th edition (2018) expands upon the core exploration

I think the world and cultures of Glorantha are all part of subject, all worthy of exploration. Although the magical relationship of person to god is central, players might just want to find out "what it's like to live in a bronze-age citadel, such as Dykene." Wherever the focus falls, the approach is almost always more playful than academic.

Such interests make the bolded text up to the comma inaccurate. GM is assiduously sensitive to how important each action is to the player characters.

The bolded text up to the comma is the following:

RQ is a game premised on "neutral" GMing. The resolution of a declared action is not sensitive to how important it is to, or how emotionally laden it is for, a PC (or their player).​

That point is made with reference to RQ as discussed by Ron Edwards in 2003, and contrasted with HeroWars/Quest. Nothing in the post I'm replying to contradicts it. Another quote from Ron Edwards, intended to illustrate an orientation towards simulationism rather than narrativism, makes the same point:

A weapon does precisely the same damage range regardless of the emotional relationship between wielder and target. (True for RuneQuest, not true for Hero Wars)​

You quote the following from a GM of a more recent version of RQ:

I began by just having them walking through Apple Lane and seeing a sign advertising the need for a group of heroquesters to protect local cattle. This was a good opportunity to emphasize some culture of Glorantha and I had them make some culture and homeland rolls. The fruits of these rolls were gaining some reasons as to why their characters would want to take risks to protect cows. I tied these reasons to their passions as well, particularly loyalty and devotion to temples. This provided a further opportunity to talk about passions and augmentation.

I portrayed Heortarl as written in the text, being a bit overeager towards heroquesting. I went and had him express marriage interest in one of the Adventurers as a way to introduce the "forwardness" of Glorantha social custom. My players did a great job of playing off of what I was doing. I was able to include in the information that Heortarl is designed to give the players about ignorance of the ruins, as well as setting up the Orlevings as an antagonist.​

Nothing here contradicts what Edwards says and what I have reiterated. The players do not author the goals and aspirations for their PCs - rather, the GM tells the players what these are by reference to the setting (ie "neutral extrapolation") - I had the make some culture and homeland rolls. The fruits of these rolls were gaining some reasons <to declare actions>. And My players did a great job of playing off of what I was doing. One could hardly have clearer instances of (to quote myself) The GM, in framing and in narrating consequences, [being] expected to extrapolate from the fiction.

You also quote the rulebook itself telling the players what their goals and aspirations for their PCs should be.

Having had a quick look at this wiki, Passions in contemporary versions of RQ seem very similar to Pendragon passions. These are well-understood as a simulationist technique. They illustrate Edwards point that

In Simulationist play, morality cannot be imposed by the player or, except as the representative of the imagined world, by the GM. Theme is already part of the cosmos; it's not produced by metagame decisions. Morality, when it's involved, is "how it is" in the game-world, and even its shifts occur along defined, engine-driven parameters.​

Here is the text from that rules wiki that makes the point:

Passions define an adventurer’s beliefs, inspire them, and can be used to augment abilities. The gamemaster may call for a Passion roll, or the player may suggest one. Remember that the gamemaster has the final word when attempting to use a Passion for inspiration. . . .

Passions may be gained during play. Plenty of opportunities are given to gain enemies, lovers, rivalries, and loyalties. When something significant occurs, the gamemaster or player may suggest that a Passion has been created. If both agree, the player and gamemaster then determine the starting value, usually 60%.​

We see that morality and theme, as represented and engendered by passions, are "how it is" in the game-world (ie these are rated properties of the PC) and cannot be imposed or invoked by the player unless the GM, "as the representative of the imagined world", agrees.

Edwards also discusses Pendragon expressly:

one can care about and enjoy complex issues, changing protagonists, and themes in both sorts of play, Narrativism and Simulationism. The difference lies in the point and contributions of literal instances of play; its operation and social feedback. . . .

Consider the behavioral parameters of a knight player-character in The Riddle of Steel and in Pendragon. This one's a little trickier for a couple of reasons, first because Pendragon has two sets of behavioral rules, and second because both games permit a character's behavioral profile to change.

1) The Pendragon knight includes a set of paired, dichotomous Traits (e.g. Worldly / Chaste) which are scored numerically, and which change scores inversely. They are used either (a) as behavior-establishers (roll vs. Cruel to see whether you behead the churl for his rudeness) or (b) as record-keepers for player-driven behavior (you beheaded him? Check Cruel, which increases its chance to raise its score later). The Riddle of Steel knight has no equivalent system to (a); all character behavior is driven by the player. Its Spiritual Attributes, however, do rise and fall with character behavior much as Pendragon's (b).

2) The Pendragon knight also may develop one or more Passions, which are expressed in the form of a fixed set of bonus dice for actions that support that Passion. These are established through play and may increase, although not decrease; different Passions may conflict within a single character. The Riddle of Steel's Spiritual Attributes (Drive, Destiny, Passion, Faith, Luck, and Conscience) act as bonus dice much as in Pendragon Passions but (a) may be individually eliminated and substituted with another Spiritual Attribute by the player with very little restriction, and (b) are intimately connected to the most significant character-improvement mechanic.

I suggest that both games include the concept that personal passion is a concrete effectiveness-increase mechanic, but that Pendragon does so in a "fixed-path-upwards" fashion (when the knight's passions are involved), whereas The Riddle of Steel does so under the sole helm of the player's thematic interests of the moment. Furthermore, the latter game directly rewards the player for doing so. . . .

a character in Narrativist play is by definition a thematic time-bomb, whereas, for a character in Simulationist play, the bomb is either . . . present in a state of near-constant detonation (the Pendragon knight, using Passions), or its detonation is integrated into the in-game behavioral resolution system in a "tracked" fashion (the Pendragon knight, using the dichotomous traits). Therefore, when you-as-player get proactive about an emotional thematic issue, poof, you're out of Sim. Whereas enjoying the in-game system activity of a thematic issue is perfectly do-able in Sim, without that proactivity being necessary.​

The comparison to TRoS can be complemented by noting its similarity to Burning Wheel or even Torchbearer: the player is permitted to choose their Belief ("under the sole helm of the player's thematic interest of the moment'), and to choose how they express their Belief (including via Embodiment in BW, or Mouldbreaker in either system). It's no coincidence that the Forewood to more recent versions of BW is written by Jake Norwood, designer of TRoS.

Even when a passion is in play, the GM in Pendragon or RQ is neutral: for instance, all the consequences of a Passion being used in play are set out on the Inspiration Effect Table:

Result​	Inspiration Effect​
Critical Success:​	One ability of the player’s choice temporarily receives a +50% bonus.​
Special Success:​	One ability of the player’s choice temporarily receives a +30% bonus.​
Failure:​	Subtract –10% from all further rolls made for the duration of the situation that brought on the state.​
Fumble:​	Immediately reduce the Passion by –1D10% and fall into despair, incapable of doing anything more than running away or hiding. Despair lasts for a few minutes or a few days, determined by the gamemaster.​

And in the quote from the RQ GM, we see the GM identifying passions as reasons for the players to declare certain actions ("internal cause is king" - here, the internal cause being the emotional state of the PC).

Whereas in BW the GM, in framing, is expected to challenge the Belief(s) a player has authored for their PC, and in narration of consequences for failure is expected to double down on those challenges. But the GM is not identifying or expected to have any say over what would count as a reason for a PC. That is entirely in the player's hands. Again to quote Edwards,

a "player" in a Narrativist role-playing context necessarily makes the thematic choices for a given player-character. Even if this role switches around from person to person (as in Universalis), it's always sacrosanct in the moment of decision. "GMing," then, for this sort of play, is all about facilitating another person's ability to do this.​

The quote from the RQ GM reinforces the point that Edwards makes and that my posts have been reiterating. It doesn't contradict it.

the concern isn't really how emotionally laden it is for the player character

I didn't say that it was. I talked about the relationship of the GM's duties to a particular feature of the players' decision-making, that is, the selection of goals or aspirations for their PC.

Parallel advice would be entirely appropriate in RuneQuest, taking into account the differing purposes of play. If one of your relationships is your wife in the village, the GM is supposed to use this to create situations in play. What obligations might marriage entail in the Gloranthan subculture that play is situated in? That's at the heart of sand box GMing: explore your subject in the directions your players have chosen. I want to be clear though, that it's not the specific goal to dramatically engage with problematic features of human existence.

You present this as a point of disagreement, but it is quite consistent with what I posted, especially when we recognise that the advice is "parallel" only in the sense that (i) it pertains to the same subject matter (ie PC relationships) while (ii) being different.

Furthermore, the RQ GM is not obliged to use the PC's wife as an element in problems or circumstances faced by the PC (Luke Crane, in the BW rulebook, is using "situation" synonymously with Ron Edwards's use: "a problem or circumstance faced by the character"). For instance, in RQ play it would be quite legitimate for the vampyr to be pursuing some other NPC, and for the PC's wife to figure solely as a source of comfort or respite. The exploration of Gloranthan marriage practices need not be put under pressure as it would be in HeroWars/Quest.

The difference is in the allowing of what counts as important. In no surprise to anyone who has read our exchange to this point, I will say that we can't tie the label to just one take on what's important, unless we narrow it to "just our label for that play in which X is important to PCs" which to me only works from the perspective of some preferences, in the way they are of interest to one mode of play. The label then just implies that we're playing in that mode.

<snip>

Possibly this doesn't give enough evidence on the responding side, but if this care in feeding interests in subject is pursued faithfully I'd expect that to fall in line. If the player characters decide to grasp hold of some of that forwardness, then that sets our direction for play. Righteous sim-GMing must be sensitive to player character engagement with subject; which will amount to players saying what's important to them... what they are curious about, want to stress, get involved with, gather up.

The generic notion of importance is one that you have introduced, not me. Likewise "player character engagement with the subject".

What I posted was this:

The neutrality in question is - as these examples show - primarily neutrality (or, if your prefer, disinterest) as to what the players want for their PCs. It extends to neutrality as to what NPCs want - eg in the neutral approach, this should be worked out by extrapolation from established fiction, by rolling on a chart or whatever. Whereas in (say) HQ or BW, as the example I just quoted shows, the GM is to work out what NPCs want by brining that into deliberate relationship with what the players want for their PCs.​

It may be that you have misread "disinterest" as "uninterest". The disinterest is manifest in the operation of the Inspiration Effect Table, which takes the whole matter out of the hands of the participants and hands it to the system ("the imagined cosmos in action").

That table, together with the passages you quoted from the RQ GM, all reiterate the points that I have made about the contrast between the simulationist and the narrativist approach to GMing. They do not contradict it one iota!

 

[clearstream]

By contrast to Story Now GMing, the vast majority of content in these games is GM-led, not player-led. The GM devises the premise of the game and sites the protagonism via what:

(i) they "pre-load" (that phrasing!) the setting with...

(ii) what they load their encounter tables or events tables with and how they mathematically devise the distribution of such events when rolled...

(iia) what conditions they decide triggers encounter or events table rolls

(iib) whether they decide encounter/events tables results should be ignored and subbed with an alternative, GM-chosen response or re-rolled

(iic) whether their procedure for any of the above is stable and predictable or whether its malleable and unpredictable whereby the GM decides on variance within triggers/results etc,,,

(iii) what they decide players know and can act upon vs what they don't know and is therefore degenerate metagaming...

(iv) what they outright decide happens with their abundance of unconstrained authority over "yes," "no", and "when to roll the dice"...

(v) "how that 'when to roll the dice' resolution is executed mechanically." And if their play isn't table-facing (an absolute abundance of it is not)...

(vi) whether they decide to manipulate results covertly "for the betterment of the game because this aspect of the game engine can deliver problematic (for whatever value of problematic is considered injurious to play by the GM) results and needs in-situ patching" (which is also at their discretion).

That is an enormous amount of "whatever crap they want to" period and definitely by contrast to an alternative model.

And its a feature of the style. Lets not pretend that the above isn't fundamental and that GMs and players don't consider the above a feature.

Yes, its a bug in alternative models of play, but that is just a clear, dividing line between the two (the kind of line that is a confounder to your "visible from Neptune" flag!).

Rather than respond to each of these in detail, I'll just suggest reading back through them and asking yourself which are intrinsic to and required by sim, and which are just a list of things some GMs have traditionally done that aren't that satisfying. And which have parallels in every game text (preloading playbooks with distributions of outcomes) or are down to principles that are not welded to any mode (do what system demands).

Regarding the unavoidably pejorative - "whatever crap they want to". At the heart of sim-play are constraints on what participants say next. Internal cause is king; that's not some whiney guy in a big house you listen to when you feel like it, that's the ruler who lays down the law. To the extent that play you've observing isn't respecting constraints, it's haphazard in its simulationist ambitions.

Oh no, I quite meant sterile in the "type of framing where intentionally provocative toward propagating good (like offspring) or ill (like bacteria) content is fundamentally off the table." GM framing is meant to be considerably more neutral and the systems aren't possessed of PC build flags, action resolution widgets & levers (perhaps some of them meta), and reward cycles that expect/demand active, provocative GM framing and active, direct, explosive player moves to both direct GM framing and respond to obstacles/situations/consequences to generate a positive feedback loop of engagement with and resolution of this provoked content (provoked by the system to all the participants with the game engine and the game's premise > then provoked by the players onto the GM via PC build flags and overt blank-filling and answers during conversation > then provoked by GMs in their situation/obstacle-framing > then provoked by players in their decision-tree navigation and action declarations > then provoked by GMs in their consequence management > then provoked by players or the group at large when they manage the reward cycles/reflection aspect of play > rinse: repeat).

I meant sterile. I meant neutral. I meant "not provocative." You know what you see when Simulationist/Sandbox-inclined players (all participants) get a whiff of the inverse? You get an abundance of statements like this (of which you've been exposed to this over and over on here...and if you run in any other circles or visit any other boards you see it in abundance there):

* Contrivance.

* Unsatisfying to immersion perspectives (priorities)

* Cliche'

* Violation of internal causality (because of a conception that "what is onscreen" must follow some kind of frequency of "sterile x 9" + "provocative x 1" lest it be degenerate from a causality perspective)

* All fun/cool/action all the time = No fun/cool/action

Somewhere near the outset of this particular excursion, I used contrasts like "the old road to sim" and "the new road to sim" and I said that

Much discourse on simulationism seems to me to take it to be static. A mode of play that has more or less always been with us and is available only for historical analysis. We can say something about what it is or was, but nothing about what it can be. Whether or not that is true for others: I take simulationism to be as vital and capable of evolution as gamism and narrativism.

I've been observing play and assessing what I'm observing. Sure there is some of what you describe. I don't like it particularly, but it's there. I also see some of what I describe. But let's say you indeed do find yourself in a desert, then read my words as a manifesto signposting the way to water. I'll draw attention to a couple of lessons of particular importance

1. The ludic-duality (player as simultaneously audience and author). Leveraging this reveals sim-utility in game texts like Ironsworn and (I feel morally certain) Stonetop. It fuels worldbuilder-RPG, and suggests sim games that haven't been designed yet
2. The substantial deconstruction and reconstruction of GM authority. Of course, this was driven by nar, for which it was imperative. None of what has been learned needs to go ignored by sim, and nothing intrinsic to sim necessitates ignoring it. When a group sit down for sim-play, they experience a sim-parallel to "tell me where to punch and I punch there": as players and GM work collaboratively. (Anyone who doesn't think so should ask themselves why not? Especially if they are finding working collaboratively satisfying in other modes of play.) When @robertsconley talks about going where his players lead, I'm seeing this - whether self-reflectively intended or no - in action. (Likely I take it further than he does!)

The refutations to my manifesto that I'm looking for will show me that something about sim makes it inevitable that what I say cannot pave the path of the righteous. No one has shown that. Which brings us back to this, where you started

There can be no doubt about this [my skepticism of stable boundaries]. From the very first time I interacted with you through this conversation, this has been abundantly clear.

In committing to a fixed identity for sim, folk risk allowing outdated constructs to smother a vivid and enduring mode of play. Sim delivers on some of the most fundamental urges of roleplaying - exploration and immersion. (Maven alert: they're not private to sim, and there are other urges.) Through well-constrained, collaborative play, participants achieve elevated appreciation (including emotional) and understanding.

 

[Manbearcat]

Ok. Here is something to chew on @clearstream . Game of Stonetop with a player who has absorbed a Sim-Immersionist meta and brings these priors and disposition into every game they play...including this Stonetop game.

* Very little play is breezy Free Play. Its Expedition/Adventure phase where they go into the wild, possibly journeying to an steading, to confront a systemitized Danger or pursue systemitized Opportunity for Stonetop (or a specific PC) followed by a Homefront phase which features a Threat specific to a PC or generally to Stonetop and perhaps the stray room to breathe to pursue completion/progression toward a Make a Plan (an Opportunity) box.

I'm not neutral in framing at virtually any point. I'm threatening things/people they care about or I'm presenting obstacles to opportunities they're pursuing. I'm pitting one PC's Instinct against another PC's Instinct when I can.

The setting is not the protagonist that gets revealed through player exploring, probing, touring. The players don't get to reveal the setting's dramatic needs as the main course at their leisure and then take on these setting dramatic needs as their own by way of "getting in on the action of hooks/bread-crumbs/a constellation of (intersecting or discrete) side quests" or adopting allegiances that give the PCs a reason to rally to a setting goal.

No. From jump-street the players (through their PCs and their connection to Stonetop) are the protagonists with goals that direct play and every moment of play is fighting for these things. We don't go outside of that to explore setting dramatic needs and onboard and operationalize them and certainly not at a leisurely pace.

Is the Sim-Immersionist meta ok with this? Or do they feel like all of these threats are adversarial GMing? Do they feel immersed or besieged by causality violating contrivance and jump-cuts that abridge a particular brand of serial exploration? Do they feel excited by all the pressing threats to things they care about (through PC build, through systematized premise, through overt conversation) and the demands to act (right now) upon opportunity or do they feel the walls closing in? Do they feel that system procedures/archetecture is something to be overcome and avoided ("rolling dice and opting-in to conflict is bad risk profile analysis and a losing meta...opt out of conflict and roll dice as little as possible is the winning meta") in order to achieve their goals or do they feel like the game engine is transparently there to provide the actual game layer; honest, direct opposition to their goals so they can then overcome it, advance/evolve their character (and the setting), using that same system?

* What about when a move or a move result triggers loss of emotional or ideological volition? What about when an incentive structure asks them to actively create hardship/a foil for their character in order to get a reward?

Do they find either of these immersive, non-contrived, causality-respecting (from the version of internal locus of control that is typically put forward by players who are deploying this particular play meta).

---

These are things you'll have to confront if you want to run (actual) Stonetop for a player who is deploying this Sim-Immersionist meta. I've done it with Blades and Stonetop for multiple players over the years. One of these particular players holds my late 2e/3.x Setting Tourism, sandbox-exploration-heavy FR game that spanned 7 years as the absolute model for play (their meta which they port to every game ever worked for that particular game). They bring this exact same orientation to play in Stonetop and Blades and the entire game burns down within 3 sessions.

That pervasive reality is a kill-shot confounder to the "can't we all just get along play metas (?)" utopia you're conceiving.

EDIT - Now imagine the exact inverse of the above. Same problem, different direction of flow. Players bringing in a Stonetop player meta for play into a late 2e/3.x Setting Tourism, sandbox-exploration-heavy FR game (without the supporting systemization/premise) is going to be aspersed with "Main Character Syndrome" for expecting play to feature ethos/relations-charged characters and an endless array of obstacles to those goals and "git gud" (at using PC build and extrapolation/inference of setting causality to build a game-coherent strategy of system avoidance, conflict opt-out, resource-recharge, while overwhelming system with niche specialization in order to ration, risk model, and resource deploy toward assurance of encounter & side quest wins).

 

[pemerton]

Now imagine the exact inverse of the above. Same problem, different direction of flow. Players bringing in a Stonetop player meta for play into a late 2e/3.x Setting Tourism, sandbox-exploration-heavy FR game

You called?

an endless array of obstacles to those goals and "git gud" (at using PC build and extrapolation/inference of setting causality to build a game-coherent strategy of system avoidance, conflict opt-out, resource-recharge, while overwhelming system with niche specialization in order to ration, risk model, and resource deploy toward assurance of encounter & side quest wins).

Actually, I can do this too. It's one way to stealth your way into "narrativist" play at a mid-to-late 90s AD&D table.

 

[clearstream]

I think @Manbearcat's post just upthread covers most of what I would want to say in reply.


The bolded text up to the comma is the following:

RQ is a game premised on "neutral" GMing. The resolution of a declared action is not sensitive to how important it is to, or how emotionally laden it is for, a PC (or their player).​

That point is made with reference to RQ as discussed by Ron Edwards in 2003, and contrasted with HeroWars/Quest. Nothing in the post I'm replying to contradicts it. Another quote from Ron Edwards, intended to illustrate an orientation towards simulationism rather than narrativism, makes the same point:

A weapon does precisely the same damage range regardless of the emotional relationship between wielder and target. (True for RuneQuest, not true for Hero Wars)​

You quote the following from a GM of a more recent version of RQ:

I began by just having them walking through Apple Lane and seeing a sign advertising the need for a group of heroquesters to protect local cattle. This was a good opportunity to emphasize some culture of Glorantha and I had them make some culture and homeland rolls. The fruits of these rolls were gaining some reasons as to why their characters would want to take risks to protect cows. I tied these reasons to their passions as well, particularly loyalty and devotion to temples. This provided a further opportunity to talk about passions and augmentation.​

​

I portrayed Heortarl as written in the text, being a bit overeager towards heroquesting. I went and had him express marriage interest in one of the Adventurers as a way to introduce the "forwardness" of Glorantha social custom. My players did a great job of playing off of what I was doing. I was able to include in the information that Heortarl is designed to give the players about ignorance of the ruins, as well as setting up the Orlevings as an antagonist.​

Nothing here contradicts what Edwards says and what I have reiterated. The players do not author the goals and aspirations for their PCs - rather, the GM tells the players what these are by reference to the setting (ie "neutral extrapolation") - I had the make some culture and homeland rolls. The fruits of these rolls were gaining some reasons <to declare actions>. And My players did a great job of playing off of what I was doing. One could hardly have clearer instances of (to quote myself) The GM, in framing and in narrating consequences, [being] expected to extrapolate from the fiction.

It may be that part of the difference in our views is due to our definitions of neutral/non-neutral or disinterest/interest. Without wishing to put words in your mouth (so very open to your clarifications) to my reading your definition employs one proper subject of interest (players) and one proper form of address (dramaturgical). Thus, I am "non-neutral" and "interested" just so long as my interest is in dramaturgically correctly addressing players, and neutral or disinterested otherwise.

My definition employs a range of subjects and forms of address. Roughly, I would say that each mode of play prioritises some subset, and that to GM in a properly "interested" fashion is to bias choices, authorings and responses as fitting to that subset. Otherwise, as I have said, the labels just mean "we're playing in narrativist mode".

The last sentence in the piece I quoted above must therefore be seen in a new light. In sitting down for sim play, the players have invited - insisted even - that their GM create opportunities for them to engage with their subject. They are looking to GM to present facets of subject for them to play off. The example that I quoted appears to be from an early session, maybe even session one. Players should increasingly take the lead as they grasp hold of the subject. (As an aside, in traditional sim it has often been the case that GM is GMing in large part on account of their stronger grasp of subject, but there is nothing intrinsic to sim that says players can't provide this impetus. Life paths and knowledge skills, that call for player to decide or say what they know, are examples of effective mechanics.)

You also quote the rulebook itself telling the players what their goals and aspirations for their PCs should be.

Remember that it is not the goal of sim to enable players to author their protagonism. Sims goal is to enable players to engage with subject, and a properly written sim text cannot leave players in doubt as to its subject. That's why RQ has the sorts of statements it has. On the other hand, sim won't tell players what problematic problems of human existence (premises) they need to address (through their protagonism).

Having had a quick look at this wiki, Passions in contemporary versions of RQ seem very similar to Pendragon passions. These are well-understood as a simulationist technique. They illustrate Edwards point that

In Simulationist play, morality cannot be imposed by the player or, except as the representative of the imagined world, by the GM. Theme is already part of the cosmos; it's not produced by metagame decisions. Morality, when it's involved, is "how it is" in the game-world, and even its shifts occur along defined, engine-driven parameters.​

Here is the text from that rules wiki that makes the point:

Passions define an adventurer’s beliefs, inspire them, and can be used to augment abilities. The gamemaster may call for a Passion roll, or the player may suggest one. Remember that the gamemaster has the final word when attempting to use a Passion for inspiration. . . .​

​

Passions may be gained during play. Plenty of opportunities are given to gain enemies, lovers, rivalries, and loyalties. When something significant occurs, the gamemaster or player may suggest that a Passion has been created. If both agree, the player and gamemaster then determine the starting value, usually 60%.​

We see that morality and theme, as represented and engendered by passions, are "how it is" in the game-world (ie these are rated properties of the PC) and cannot be imposed or invoked by the player unless the GM, "as the representative of the imagined world", agrees.

I don't know if you also read the rules for runes, which for me make the intent clearer (or perhaps, lead me to play it as I do). The starting set of passions is largely fixed by life path - although there are key choices player makes that end up making a difference - but runes give more choice.

The player offers the game master the ability to push them in circumstances their character cares about, and when they mean it, the player asks for the augment. I see the GM agreeing as being equivalent to Torchbearer 2's rule on reaching. In earnest sim it matters that passions and runes are applied as fits subject - to elevate, not corrode, appreciation.

Whereas in BW the GM, in framing, is expected to challenge the Belief(s) a player has authored for their PC, and in narration of consequences for failure is expected to double down on those challenges. But the GM is not identifying or expected to have any say over what would count as a reason for a PC. That is entirely in the player's hands. Again to quote Edwards,

a "player" in a Narrativist role-playing context necessarily makes the thematic choices for a given player-character. Even if this role switches around from person to person (as in Universalis), it's always sacrosanct in the moment of decision. "GMing," then, for this sort of play, is all about facilitating another person's ability to do this.​

The quote from the RQ GM reinforces the point that Edwards makes and that my posts have been reiterating. It doesn't contradict it.

This section assesses sim by nar standards. From a sim perspective, the implications of the bolded sentence look disappointingly disinterested. Players and GM together have sat down to engage with subject for the sake of achieving elevated appreciation. GM is very often a deep source of subject knowledge (again, as noted above, I see no reason at all why player can't be).

To attempt a paraphrasing that might (or might well not) help explain the point. A player in a sim role-playing necessarily makes the investigative choices for a given player-character. Even if this role switches around from person to person, it's always sacrosanct in the moment of decision. "GMing," then, for this sort of play, is all about facilitating another person's ability to do this.

It might go something like this. What should sim GM never tell player? What questions to ask. What should nar GM never tell player? How premises are resolved. That's not yet quite right, but it's in the right direction.

You present this as a point of disagreement, but it is quite consistent with what I posted, especially when we recognise that the advice is "parallel" only in the sense that (i) it pertains to the same subject matter (ie PC relationships) while (ii) being different.

It's possible I have lost track of some thread of your argument. Here, I have been focusing on the topic of GM "neutrality" in a continuous line from my assertion that

Long story short, I'll argue that simulationist GMing, done powerfully, is non-neutral.

Again, apologies if I have overlooked some of your arguments.

Furthermore, the RQ GM is not obliged to use the PC's wife as an element in problems or circumstances faced by the PC (Luke Crane, in the BW rulebook, is using "situation" synonymously with Ron Edwards's use: "a problem or circumstance faced by the character"). For instance, in RQ play it would be quite legitimate for the vampyr to be pursuing some other NPC, and for the PC's wife to figure solely as a source of comfort or respite. The exploration of Gloranthan marriage practices need not be put under pressure as it would be in HeroWars/Quest.

As I have explained, by my lights sim-player necessarily makes the investigative choices for a given player-character. Of course, individual groups may have all kinds of takes on any play mode. My view is that if the goal is sim play, then GM is obliged to use the PC's wife as an element of the investigation* performed by this PC.

*This word can sound far too serious and studious. It's about getting into, finding out more about, engaging with, etc.

The generic notion of importance is one that you have introduced, not me. Likewise "player character engagement with the subject".

Adjust to read "importance" as "of interest". Per observations about our potentially differing definitions above.

What I posted was this:

The neutrality in question is - as these examples show - primarily neutrality (or, if your prefer, disinterest) as to what the players want for their PCs. It extends to neutrality as to what NPCs want - eg in the neutral approach, this should be worked out by extrapolation from established fiction, by rolling on a chart or whatever. Whereas in (say) HQ or BW, as the example I just quoted shows, the GM is to work out what NPCs want by brining that into deliberate relationship with what the players want for their PCs.​

It may be that you have misread "disinterest" as "uninterest". The disinterest is manifest in the operation of the Inspiration Effect Table, which takes the whole matter out of the hands of the participants and hands it to the system ("the imagined cosmos in action").

That table, together with the passages you quoted from the RQ GM, all reiterate the points that I have made about the contrast between the simulationist and the narrativist approach to GMing. They do not contradict it one iota!

One closing thought (at least for this post!) is that I have said that "internal cause is king" is more on the side of technique, than purpose. That entails that it serves purpose: not dictates it. GM must foremost be interested in what players want for their PCs (i.e., in their collaborative effort to appreciate subject) and then consider internal causes as required by that. Sometimes, causes aren't involved at all: static facts are (such as The Big Rubble is right next to the city of Pavis). GM must indeed work out what NPCs want and do, by "bringing that into deliberate relationship with what the players want for their PCs." The difference is in what players want.


EDIT I have been mulling whether in each mode GMs exercise disinterest in specific ways that hand players the power to ludically pursue their creative agenda. Thus, nar GM is silent on how players resolve premises, and vocal on other things. Sim GM is silent on how players investigate subject, and vocal elsewhere. Gam perhaps silent on how players exploit system to overcome challenge, etc. The flipside being that a GM in one mode can and as appropriate should be non-neutral even where another mode would prefer neutrality.

 

[clearstream]

Ok. Here is something to chew on @clearstream . Game of Stonetop with a player who has absorbed a Sim-Immersionist meta and brings these priors and disposition into every game they play...including this Stonetop game.

* Very little play is breezy Free Play. Its Expedition/Adventure phase where they go into the wild, possibly journeying to an steading, to confront a systemitized Danger or pursue systemitized Opportunity for Stonetop (or a specific PC) followed by a Homefront phase which features a Threat specific to a PC or generally to Stonetop and perhaps the stray room to breathe to pursue completion/progression toward a Make a Plan (an Opportunity) box.

I'm not neutral in framing at virtually any point. I'm threatening things/people they care about or I'm presenting obstacles to opportunities they're pursuing. I'm pitting one PC's Instinct against another PC's Instinct when I can.

The setting is not the protagonist that gets revealed through player exploring, probing, touring. The players don't get to reveal the setting's dramatic needs as the main course at their leisure and then take on these setting dramatic needs as their own by way of "getting in on the action of hooks/bread-crumbs/a constellation of (intersecting or discrete) side quests" or adopting allegiances that give the PCs a reason to rally to a setting goal.

No. From jump-street the players (through their PCs and their connection to Stonetop) are the protagonists with goals that direct play and every moment of play is fighting for these things. We don't go outside of that to explore setting dramatic needs and onboard and operationalize them and certainly not at a leisurely pace.

Is the Sim-Immersionist meta ok with this? Or do they feel like all of these threats are adversarial GMing? Do they feel immersed or besieged by causality violating contrivance and jump-cuts that abridge a particular brand of serial exploration? Do they feel excited by all the pressing threats to things they care about (through PC build, through systematized premise, through overt conversation) and the demands to act (right now) upon opportunity or do they feel the walls closing in? Do they feel that system procedures/archetecture is something to be overcome and avoided ("rolling dice and opting-in to conflict is bad risk profile analysis and a losing meta...opt out of conflict and roll dice as little as possible is the winning meta") in order to achieve their goals or do they feel like the game engine is transparently there to provide the actual game layer; honest, direct opposition to their goals so they can then overcome it, advance/evolve their character (and the setting), using that same system?

* What about when a move or a move result triggers loss of emotional or ideological volition? What about when an incentive structure asks them to actively create hardship/a foil for their character in order to get a reward?

Do they find either of these immersive, non-contrived, causality-respecting (from the version of internal locus of control that is typically put forward by players who are deploying this particular play meta).

---

These are things you'll have to confront if you want to run (actual) Stonetop for a player who is deploying this Sim-Immersionist meta. I've done it with Blades and Stonetop for multiple players over the years. One of these particular players holds my late 2e/3.x Setting Tourism, sandbox-exploration-heavy FR game that spanned 7 years as the absolute model for play (their meta which they port to every game ever worked for that particular game). They bring this exact same orientation to play in Stonetop and Blades and the entire game burns down within 3 sessions.

That pervasive reality is a kill-shot confounder to the "can't we all just get along play metas (?)" utopia you're conceiving.

EDIT - Now imagine the exact inverse of the above. Same problem, different direction of flow. Players bringing in a Stonetop player meta for play into a late 2e/3.x Setting Tourism, sandbox-exploration-heavy FR game (without the supporting systemization/premise) is going to be aspersed with "Main Character Syndrome" for expecting play to feature ethos/relations-charged characters and an endless array of obstacles to those goals and "git gud" (at using PC build and extrapolation/inference of setting causality to build a game-coherent strategy of system avoidance, conflict opt-out, resource-recharge, while overwhelming system with niche specialization in order to ration, risk model, and resource deploy toward assurance of encounter & side quest wins).

I feel like you are showing that a group can drive a subset of purposes so hard that they drown out others, and that can likely be done for any subset. Another example that I can think of: a group solely want to play "Arena of Death" where they generate optimised characters and fight deadly encounters one after another in the eponymous arena - and nothing else! It seems very evidently possible for them to leave zero space for protagonism, story creation, investigating subject, and so on (unless the subject is the game's combat system, I guess.)

Could I run a simmy version of Stonetop, I'm certain it's possible, and will try it out when I get the books to test that hypothesis. As Eero says

As always, discussion of a game text’s creative agenda is a discussion of the perceived utility of the text; the agenda is not in the text, strictly speaking, so much as it is in how you understand it.

So, when you run Stonetop in the ways you have described, does it drown out non-nar purposes? You vividly illustrate that the answer is "Yes!" I felt I'd clearly conceded this up-thread, for example when I said

That consistently giving primacy to indexing internal causality is going to prove suitable for sim and unsuitable for nar, who want to ruthlessly address premise.

In using words like "consistently" and "ruthlessly" I meant to evoke instances of play in the region of that you describe. On the other hand, what I also said is that where nar choices fit subject, then those choices will not be jarring to sim. So far as I can see, nothing you said refutes it. There can be instances of play that are not in the region you describe.

The vivid case you have presented reinforces that - as I put it - "a group can drive a subset of purposes so hard that they drown out others." I'm not sure how one would show that drowning out other purposes is inevitable, given the unbounded heterogeneity of play. But I accept that a group can opt into play where it will be; and of course they might prefer the committed roleplaying that could drive.

 

[clearstream]

Ok. Here is something to chew on @clearstream . Game of Stonetop with a player who has absorbed a Sim-Immersionist meta and brings these priors and disposition into every game they play...including this Stonetop game.

Reading through your post again, I think I mistook your meaning. So I'll go through it again in more detail.

 

[clearstream]

Do they find either of these immersive, non-contrived, causality-respecting (from the version of internal locus of control that is typically put forward by players who are deploying this particular play meta).

I find this sentence hard to parse. If I understand it correctly, it characterises what is described in sentences above it as "immersive, non-contrived, casality-respecting". So I will read them in that light.

* Very little play is breezy Free Play. Its Expedition/Adventure phase where they go into the wild, possibly journeying to an steading, to confront a systemitized Danger or pursue systemitized Opportunity for Stonetop (or a specific PC) followed by a Homefront phase which features a Threat specific to a PC or generally to Stonetop and perhaps the stray room to breathe to pursue completion/progression toward a Make a Plan (an Opportunity) box.

I don't follow why you think sim play must be breezy Free Play. Threats specific to PCs or Stonetop sound ideal for investigating subject: what it's like to be "the heroes of an isolated village in a fantasy iron age"? How would we see what it is like to be heroes if there are no threats?

I'm not neutral in framing at virtually any point. I'm threatening things/people they care about or I'm presenting obstacles to opportunities they're pursuing. I'm pitting one PC's Instinct against another PC's Instinct when I can.

This sentence led me to believe you wanted to stress a hard-out nar approach, but maybe not? That heroes should have powerful instincts, and that those might clash reminds me of status and honour in Bushido. It will deliver a powerful appreciation of subject. Instincts can be used as engines for premises... but there are a myriad of ways that can be managed and played out.

The setting is not the protagonist that gets revealed through player exploring, probing, touring. The players don't get to reveal the setting's dramatic needs as the main course at their leisure and then take on these setting dramatic needs as their own by way of "getting in on the action of hooks/bread-crumbs/a constellation of (intersecting or discrete) side quests" or adopting allegiances that give the PCs a reason to rally to a setting goal.

"Touring." I've read this word or variants on it a few times in your post, so I take it that's your view of how sim should go. But I don't understand what you mean by "players don't get to reveal the setting's dramatic needs as the main course at their leisure". Sim isn't specifically pursuing dramatic needs, so that seems aligned.

No. From jump-street the players (through their PCs and their connection to Stonetop) are the protagonists with goals that direct play and every moment of play is fighting for these things. We don't go outside of that to explore setting dramatic needs and onboard and operationalize them and certainly not at a leisurely pace.

When I first read this, I took you to mean that you were wholly driving and responding to dramatic protagonism; so much so as to crowd out everything else. But I see now that the words here don't say that. Once again, I am not seeing how "a leisurely pace" is required to appreciate a subject. Rather, I see it as simply - not all groups want to rush things. They will dial pacing to suit themselves in any mode.

Is the Sim-Immersionist meta ok with this? Or do they feel like all of these threats are adversarial GMing? Do they feel immersed or besieged by causality violating contrivance and jump-cuts that abridge a particular brand of serial exploration? Do they feel excited by all the pressing threats to things they care about (through PC build, through systematized premise, through overt conversation) and the demands to act (right now) upon opportunity or do they feel the walls closing in? Do they feel that system procedures/archetecture is something to be overcome and avoided ("rolling dice and opting-in to conflict is bad risk profile analysis and a losing meta...opt out of conflict and roll dice as little as possible is the winning meta") in order to achieve their goals or do they feel like the game engine is transparently there to provide the actual game layer; honest, direct opposition to their goals so they can then overcome it, advance/evolve their character (and the setting), using that same system?

Yes, it can be ok with that. I'm assuming for the sake of argument that the bolded sentence must be read to not contradict the one I quoted at top. The contiguity or otherwise of time is just a technique, usable by sim. Our perspective on a causal chain need not be linear (there's no reason I couldn't run a sim campaign about time travellers!) Subject is in my opinion best appreciated through its change/evolution. The very concept of cause is connected with change. So none of that is automatically deal-breaking, albeit the impact will depend on how it is managed at the table.

* What about when a move or a move result triggers loss of emotional or ideological volition?

Those volitions are not specifically protected in sim play. Why would they be?

What about when an incentive structure asks them to actively create hardship/a foil for their character in order to get a reward?

To answer this, I would need a concrete example. One you believe specifically thwarts sim interests. The overall reward structure and the mechanical instances that I have so far read through aren't problematic. "Did we learn something about the Wider World or its history?" mark XP, is especially on target.

These are things you'll have to confront if you want to run (actual) Stonetop for a player who is deploying this Sim-Immersionist meta. I've done it with Blades and Stonetop for multiple players over the years. One of these particular players holds my late 2e/3.x Setting Tourism, sandbox-exploration-heavy FR game that spanned 7 years as the absolute model for play (their meta which they port to every game ever worked for that particular game). They bring this exact same orientation to play in Stonetop and Blades and the entire game burns down within 3 sessions.

It was this paragraph more than any other that led me to assume you were speaking of driving dramatic protagonism to a degree that drowned out everything else. I'm not planning to do that.

EDIT - Now imagine the exact inverse of the above. Same problem, different direction of flow. Players bringing in a Stonetop player meta for play into a late 2e/3.x Setting Tourism, sandbox-exploration-heavy FR game (without the supporting systemization/premise) is going to be aspersed with "Main Character Syndrome" for expecting play to feature ethos/relations-charged characters and an endless array of obstacles to those goals and "git gud" (at using PC build and extrapolation/inference of setting causality to build a game-coherent strategy of system avoidance, conflict opt-out, resource-recharge, while overwhelming system with niche specialization in order to ration, risk model, and resource deploy toward assurance of encounter & side quest wins).

So then why run leisurely Setting Tourism? If faster paced, more driven play interests you more? (Is that every session?) That aside, FR is a mediocre choice of subject for sim, because it is a patchwork. 3.x was something of an optimiser's playground, which could sometimes break subject on the anvil of gamism. Stonetop is much tighter: to me it is a better subject. That's probably just down to taste!

EDIT Bottom line, I readily accept that you drive Stonetop in a way that thwarts certain purposes such as those connected with sim play. That's more or less what I took you to be illustrating on first read through (now I am not quite so sure.) But this is like my Arena of Death example. I could easily run RuneQuest in a way that forestalled sim purposes. Yet it's obviously mistaken to take that to mean that RuneQuest can't serve sim purposes!

 

[clearstream]

So why do RPGs have rules?

Some of the best answers to this question that I know come from Vincent Baker (here, here and here):

Roleplaying is negotiated imagination. In order for any thing to be true in game, all the participants in the game (players and GMs, if you've even got such things) have to understand and assent to it. When you're roleplaying, what you're doing is a) suggesting things that might be true in the game and then b) negotiating with the other participants to determine whether they're actually true or not. . . .​

​

Mechanics might model the stuff of the game world, that's another topic, but they don't exist to do so. They exist to ease and constrain real-world social negotiation between the players at the table. That's their sole and crucial function.​

​

*********​

​

Some very good designers consider the assignment of authority to be the point of rpg design. I do not.​

​

As a designer, it's my job to make as sure as possible that the game won't break down into moment-to-moment negotiations about raw assent despite the game's rules and the players' upfront commitment to them. But the brute assignment of authority is NOT how to accomplish that.​

​

When my games assign authority they do so in strict service to what I consider the real point: setting expectations and granting permission.​

​

*********​

​

if all your formal rules do is structure your group's ongoing agreement about what happens in the game, they are a) interchangeable with any other rpg rules out there, and b) probably a waste of your attention. Live negotiation and honest collaboration are almost certainly better. . . .​

​

As far as I'm concerned, the purpose of an rpg's rules is to create the unwelcome and the unwanted in the game's fiction. The reason to play by rules is because you want the unwelcome and the unwanted - you want things that no vigorous creative agreement would ever create. And it's not that you want one person's wanted, welcome vision to win out over another's - that's weak sauce. No, what you want are outcomes that upset every single person at the table. You want things that if you hadn't agreed to abide by the rules' results, you would reject.​

​

If you don't want that - and I believe you when you say you don't! - then live negotiation and honest collaboration are a) just as good as, and b) a lot more flexible and robust than, whatever formal rules you'd use otherwise.​

​

The challenge facing rpg designers is to create outcomes that every single person at the table would reject, yet are compelling enough that nobody actually does so. If your game isn't doing that, like I say it's interchangeable with the most rudimentary functional game design, and probably not as fun as good freeform.​

In summary: on this account, the function of RPG rules is to help mediate and constrain the process of agreeing on the shared fiction; and not just by assigning authority ("It's your turn now to say what happens next") but by shaping what is said so that it is surprising and even unwelcome to all participants.

I was thinking about this today in relation to FKR. Some ultra-light game texts focus on the assignment of authority. Others are procedural such as Oz Browning's Messerspiel, an ultralight RPG inspired by BitD. Others like Graham Walmsley's Cthulhu Dark, go one step further and suggest procedures (similar to Messerspiel's) and content.

Much conversation about ultralight or freeform focuses on trust, and when trust breaks down. The critical moment I've often observed, is how folk feel when someone says something unwelcome and unwanted without being forced to by rules. It takes trust and courage to manage this. So what rules may be doing is

compelling participants to say what they don't want to say (encouragement to do so), while​

​

making it so that trust is sustained despite my saying "the ogre tore your arm off" (sustaining trust)​

Baker's remarks appear to me to speak very directly to ultralight rules, and raise important questions about just how those ideally those rules are directed? In agreement with Baker, it seems insufficient to me to write ones ultralight rules solely to deal with allocation of authority. The harder question is how we say what we don't want to say?!


EDIT I have removed one example because I was reminded that the author promoted in unambiguous terms anti-semitic views.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I was thinking about this today in relation to FKR. Some ultra-light game texts focus on the assignment of authority. MAR Barker's Perfected is an example



Another angle is taken by Oz Browning's Messerspiel, an ultralight RPG inspired by BitD. In a nutshell, risky actions are resolved by rolling dice from a pool. When you're under stress, one of those is your stress die. Results on the stress die deplete your pool. These might be rightly identified as regulatory rules: do I do the thing? What does it cost? Rather than constitutive rules. (I need to reflect more on that... there could be something in it.)

Much conversation about ultralight or freeform focuses on trust, and when trust breaks down. The critical moment I've often observed, is how folk feel when someone says something unwelcome and unwanted without being forced to by rules. It takes trust and courage to manage this. So what rules may be doing is

compelling participants to say what they don't want to say (encouragement to do so), while​

​

making it so that trust is sustained despite my saying "the ogre tore your arm off" (sustaining trust)​

Baker's remarks appear to me to speak very directly to ultralight rules, and raise important questions about just how those ideally those rules are directed? In agreement with Baker, it seems insufficient to me to write ones ultralight rules solely to deal with allocation of authority. The harder question is how we say what we don't want to say?!

The problem with those systems is they don't really address questions of who gets to decide what. There may be a dice mechanic in Messerspiel but what does it get used to decide, when, and who authors that fiction? I mean, you can go read BitD and sort of extrapolate, but these things aren't in any sense complete playable games in and of themselves. Not without a huge amount of negotiation and/or convention. I've run things like PACE which are similar, and yes it can easily work, but the one fairly substantive PACE-based game I ran was with extremely experienced players and involved a large amount of up front establishing of the precise genre conventions and whatnot, even down to everyone agreeing on what the NPCs were, etc. before play. Even so we had to make some adjustments based on experience, and if I was to write all that stuff down I'd end up with easily 100 pages of rules and material.

Frankly if I was going to run that exact game again, I'd just go pick up a copy of a Narrativist rules set designed for the specific genre, of which several exist, and use it.