Why do RPGs have rules?

[GrimCo]

I didn't read all 250+ pages, but i'll give my take on the subject, and in all probability, multiple people already said the same.

First thing is, G part of RPG stands for game. Games have rules. Rules give direction and constrains on how the game is played, what you can and can't do, depending on the games, rules define win and lose conditions. In rpgs, rules mostly exist for conflict resolution arbitrage ( take dnd, most rules are around combat, both directly and indirectly, and what is combat than conflict resolution). They are there to prevent those childhood arguments like " I hit you! No you didn't! Yes I did!" when we were playing pretend. It also constrains characters we crate so they are power wise on more or less equal footing. It's not really fun to play if one player makes Joe the farmer and other player makes Doctor Manhattan.

 

[clearstream]

There is no definite list! Every game is unique. No one list is inherently more correct than others, nor is there some 'core set' as far as I can determine which is required to define an RPG, unless we also include "it's a game" and "people role play characters in it" which actually is really vague and doesn't feel like principles to me.

Yes. In fact my contention leans on the premise that the set principles() is vast or limitless.

As for 'ultralight', I don't know what that means. RPGs have varying amounts of rules. You could make some arbitrary line and say "if the text is shorter than this, it is 'ultralight'" if you wish... I think you had better ask Vince or someone about what principles he claims for his freeform play. I think it's definitional that they're not written down, and thus may not be subject to being cataloged, though the quotes in that blog do appear to mention some things that I would include if I made a list.

Me neither, it's not clearly defined anywhere. Is it a page count? Is Cthulhu Dark ultralight, or is it just a TTRPG game text? What about Messerspiel. Still, I observe (and have heard designers articulate) an intent to write a "one-page-RPG", "ultra-lite-RPG", etc. We lack any agreed definition of what collection of elements would make a TTRPG "complete" and if we had one, that still might not define what to count as "ultra-light". I use it to mean a short TTRPG game text that uses few words and leaves much up to the group: it is highly selective about what it gives normative-force... leaving everything unwritten other than what the designer sees as most essential. Relying on group norms of play - often learned from other game texts - to do the rest of the work.

As I already noted above, I accept that no one here knows exactly what principles Vincent would have counted, and therefore I have established my principlesB and have provided examples. When I speak of principles going forward, I am speaking of principlesB - the broad set the extends beyond what @pemerton believes Vincent claimed for freeform (which should be caveated just as you say.)

One observation is that one can simply say that any principles that would have an effect similar to a mechanic, would make the play not freeform. I have explained already how I resist that argument (on the grounds that norms with a similar effect are already in play.)

However, I think the AW and DW principles lists are at least illustrative of the kinds of things that count, at least in a certain type of play.

Agreed.

 

[clearstream]

@pemerton as an aside from our current conversation, I noticed this in The Grasshopper (Suits) today

"A game is when, although you can avoid doing something disagreeable without suffering any loss or inconvenience, you go ahead and do it anyway."​

Which immediately upon reading reminded me of remarks cited in your OP. Suits is presenting this for another reason, but it resonated.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

These comments aren't responsive to what I have written. I do not expect the GM to state unwelcome things, based on principles or otherwise.

I expect the GM to procure that players say unwelcome things. Recollect that I have positioned GM among the lusory-means. In that capacity, features of play aren't rightly characterised as welcome or unwelcome to GM: such a characterisation only makes sense from the perspective of players. My claim is double-barrelled

i. There can be principles that force the unwelcome and unwanted to be said in play. (They can be constructed, and will have the necessary normative force.)​

​

ii. They must be given their normative-force through some participant such as GM; necessitating the play to be at least procedural-freeform. I'm not strongly committed to that being GM as such, or some other arrangement.​

As to the sorts of objection I'd anticipate, that would matter. You could deny that GM can be part of lusory-means. You could argue that even as part of lusory-means, GM lacks the normative-force to make players say the unwelcome. You could be skeptical about the prospects of constructing the appropriate principles (although other of your comments seem to rule that out.) You could point out that Baker demands the unwelcome and unwanted to be from the perspective of everyone at the table, meaning I can't neatly tuck GM into lusory-means. (This interacts with my arguments in ways that I don't recollect Baker investigating. And connects with conversation elsewhere about whether GM must be counted in any sense as among the players. I can't recall anything in broader game studies expressly addressing whether TTRPG GMs are or are not to be engaged in play in the autotelic way that players are. To draw a brief analogy - to what extent do we expect FIFA Laws that can at times force results unwelcome to the footballer to be unwelcome to the referee? Usually, we assume referee to be neutral as to such outcomes. It is then open to say that GM is not quite like a referee, which I believe I conceded in another thread at some point. I would probably respond by proposing GM's are not necessarily all of one ilk.)

Another argument I am entertaining is to say that what characterises freeform is that players are not forced to say anything in particular. Thus, such principles as have the effect - whether via GM or not - of compelling players to say unwelcome things, remove the play from counting as freeform. If so, I'd split FKR along the same lines - i.e. into freeform-FKR (procedural freeform) and non-freeform-FKR (principled in the way that forces players to say the unwelcome and unwanted.)

Technically, I am leaning on an assumption that freeform play follows norms. You can read examples of the sorts of expectations I'm talking about, or if you play much freeform you'll know exactly what I mean. Reifying or putting in place a norm as a principle is thus a smaller step than it might appear. To some extent, this goes against Baker's idea that freeform must exclude mediating cues: I'm implying that they're present, just not written. See also my edit to my post just above.

Honestly, I look at all of this from an operational and practical perspective. GMs are typically used as a source of obstacles and consequences. Mediated cues serve to let the GM inject consequences at arm's length. This avoids weak sauce outcomes. Yes, ideally principled play obviates the need, but I find that these external means are highly useful in a practical sense. They also allow for the injection of uncertainty and other useful traits. I think, frankly that this would be the benefit of something like Messerspiel as well, and even Baker's FF play descriptions talk about informally defined mechanics of a similar type. Even if they're optional in theory, or plastic in form, they serve a very similar purpose.

Anyway I think this particular line has basically fallen into a terminological black hole. Tie back to practice.

 

[clearstream]

even Baker's FF play descriptions talk about informally defined mechanics of a similar type.

Which play descriptions of freeform are you thinking of?

 

[clearstream]

Reflecting on what others have posted, I see that it might not be clear why considering principles and normative-force matters in relation to the OP. To my reading, the remarks cited there imply a claim that only rules have the force to compel the unwelcome and unwanted. Thus it becomes salient to question not just what is compelled (the unwelcome and unwanted), but how it compels (how it obtains sufficient normative-force).

One route is to count unwritten rules along with written. Perhaps one could say something like - only designed or intentionally adopted rules - written or otherwise - will have sufficient normative-force to compel the unwelcome and unwanted. (Commitments are needed here around whether "rules" means "mediating cues / mechanics", or just any kind of rule including procedural?)

Hence my exploration of principles, which are often unwritten and in any event are distinct from rules forming mechanics. Can principles have the needed normative-force? In essence, I ask why should rules and rules alone be needed to compel the unwelcome and unwanted? What is it about rules that ensures it, where other strategies fail? Is it just that they crystallise the particulars of the unwanted so that we know what sort of thing to say? Or is it as @AbdulAlhazred suggests, that they put consequences at arms length... a form of social prophylactic. Or is it (or is it also) as I suggest, that they are by habit conceded sufficient normative-force to compel... even to compel the unwanted?

One could say all three, with each necessary but no one sufficient. Even so, what excludes achieving the same thing via principles?

 

[clearstream]

Honestly, I look at all of this from an operational and practical perspective. GMs are typically used as a source of obstacles and consequences. Mediated cues serve to let the GM inject consequences at arm's length. This avoids weak sauce outcomes. Yes, ideally principled play obviates the need, but I find that these external means are highly useful in a practical sense. They also allow for the injection of uncertainty and other useful traits.

Tie back to practice.

(Emphasis mine.) Tied back to practice, what has been bugging me is that FF play I have witnessed and heard described by people I respect, has been strong sauce. It sometimes transpires that play runs aground upon "forcing an unwelcome outcome into play just because a participant wanted it to happen, rather than because 'that's what would happen'." (Paraphrasing a description of FF play someone recently shared with me. Another example is linked from that blog post.) It's not bringing the unwelcome and unwanted into play exactly that is the problem, but that it lacks guard rails: the group risks going off the tracks. And the self-moderation you see in response - even where trust is sustained - can make the play unsatisfying (weak sauce.)

I think your observation that "ideally principled play obviates the need" is right. Rules aren't necessary to force the unwelcome and unwanted. Principled FF including procedural such as FKR is observably in practice capable of it. But rules are "highly useful" toward that ends.

 

[Campbell]

Vincent Baker's unwelcome is the thing none of us would choose but is still compelling. It's also conflict-sustaining. It's all about resolving some basic issues that tend to rear their head in freeform play - mainly that when we all like (or at least feel for) each other's characters there is a tendency towards compromise and away from conflict. That's where VB places the role of system - sustaining conflict and introducing the unwelcome (in a world where we all like and feel for one another [and want good things for the characters]).

We can sustain conflict without formal systems (and especially mechanics) but it is far more difficult and involves a lot more negotiation. My home group is currently running a play by post Vampire game in 18th century Paris during the leadup to the French Revolution. During the prelude (where our characters are all still mortals) we are playing mostly freeform. We have character sheets the Storyteller is using to evaluate fictional positioning with, but no mechanics will be invoked until we are embraced. The level of coordination involved to initiate and sustain conflicts is massive and there isn't really the sort of unwelcome VB is talking about. In fact, it would be decidedly against the grain in this initial phase where we are setting things up for the Chronicle.

I think a focus on what is theoretically possible largely misses the point anyway. Trying to depend solely on one single person to sustain conflicts in a way that feels compelling (while having to fight against their urges to push the narrative in directions that favor these characters they care for) feels incredibly fraught and far from ideal. Now if we embrace the profoundly welcome and engage in more a collaborative storytelling approach as my Vampire game does that's different, but like the point there is to have the welcome and compelling narrative that we would choose.

 

[clearstream]

Vincent Baker's unwelcome is the thing none of us would choose but is still compelling. It's also conflict-sustaining. It's all about resolving some basic issues that tend to rear their head in freeform play - mainly that when we all like (or at least feel for) each other's characters there is a tendency towards compromise and away from conflict. That's where VB places the role of system - sustaining conflict and introducing the unwelcome (in a world where we all like and feel for one another [and want good things for the characters]).

A game designer is capable of conceiving it as a choice, therefore it is possible for us to choose it. Unless we suppose that only choices made for us by others are choices none of us would choose... which is something I discussed up-thread in relation to GM as lusory-means.

We can sustain conflict without formal systems (and especially mechanics) but it is far more difficult and involves a lot more negotiation. My home group is currently running a play by post Vampire game in 18th century Paris during the leadup to the French Revolution. During the prelude (where our characters are all still mortals) we are playing mostly freeform. We have character sheets the Storyteller is using to evaluate fictional positioning with, but no mechanics will be invoked until we are embraced. The level of coordination involved to initiate and sustain conflicts is massive and there isn't really the sort of unwelcome VB is talking about. In fact, it would be decidedly against the grain in this initial phase where we are setting things up for the Chronicle.

(Emphasis mine.) Isn't this a reiteration of @AbdulAlhazred's point above?

I think a focus on what is theoretically possible largely misses the point anyway.

For my part, I'm speaking from practice, about what I witness and what has been described to me. I'm interested in understanding what I observe with a view to incorporating it with greater intentionality into future play.

Trying to depend solely on one single person to sustain conflicts in a way that feels compelling (while having to fight against their urges to push the narrative in directions that favor these characters they care for) feels incredibly fraught and far from ideal.

One can have rules that depend on a single person, and principles that don't. Why suppose one more than the other?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

(Emphasis mine.) Tied back to practice, what has been bugging me is that FF play I have witnessed and heard described by people I respect, has been strong sauce. It sometimes transpires that play runs aground upon "forcing an unwelcome outcome into play just because a participant wanted it to happen, rather than because 'that's what would happen'." (Paraphrasing a description of FF play someone recently shared with me. Another example is linked from that blog post.) It's not bringing the unwelcome and unwanted into play exactly that is the problem, but that it lacks guard rails: the group risks going off the tracks. And the self-moderation you see in response - even where trust is sustained - can make the play unsatisfying (weak sauce.)

I think your observation that "ideally principled play obviates the need" is right. Rules aren't necessary to force the unwelcome and unwanted. Principled FF including procedural such as FKR is observably in practice capable of it. But rules are "highly useful" toward that ends.

Well, what the heck does "that's what would happen" mean? These are fundamentally fantasy games, even the more 'grounded in reality' ones generally are NOT literally realistic in many respects. So, 'would' clearly is doing some other work in this phrase than it does if we apply the same test to the real world (IE if you run a climate simulation the outcomes are indicative of what WILL actually happen, or perhaps what WOULD happen given a specific scenario). In an RPG 'would' can only be something much different, like "something which satisfies us in some way." NOTE the difference between this and 'welcome' or 'unwelcome'!

But yes, the conclusion we agree on, you COULD, in theory, play a pure FF game (can it be called a game if it is entirely FF in a true sense, and not just the product of unwritten rules?) where the participants are disciplined in their contributions such that 'substantive' and thus in my experience really satisfying, play happens. I just don't think that's an observation that is at all useful in a discussion of how to write games. They clearly have rules in order to reliably achieve satisfactory play and tell us what 'would happen'.