Why do RPGs have rules?

[Maxperson]

Could people do more to indicate which posts they’re responding to? In a very fast moving thread, posts like the ones directly above this one are unnecessarily cryptic. Thank you.

In addition to what @pemerton said, if you log out and look at the page, you can see the hidden posts so that you can gain the context of the response that is missing the quote from the person who blocked you. That allows you to respond to the poster that does not have you blocked in a way that makes sense.

Edit: Made my reply clearer.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't know what you have in mind here.

Think about things like keeping the map and key secret from the players (such that, say, players should not read the module in advance of play). Setting up dungeon levels (no red dragon in the first room of the first level). Designing traps and tricks so that they are detectable or otherwise fair, rather than arbitrary.

There are a host of things that a new D&D player/GM needs to learn. Moldvay Basic spells all of this out.

I simply meant there isn't one definitive way to approach it. I agree players need some guidance, but not every game will be centered on dungeons for example, some might even avoid them, but when dungeons are in play, there are different ways to map, key, plan, handle considerations like fairness, lethality, etc. I think D&D benefits from some default explanation of things like dungeons, wilderness exploration, random encounter tables, etc but it is always useful when this is framed as not the only way you can play the game.

 

[Aldarc]

It is a very different approach, unfortunately with a play goal that I don't value enough to learn that approach.

Also, they literally put a list of moves on every character sheet. To me that strongly implies that, outside of free roleplay, you should be trying to do one of those things when you engage with the game's rules. The GM has a hard list of do's and don'ts. The structure is hard-coded.

Apocalypse World was (partially) written by Vincent Baker with his wife Meguey Baker's freeform roleplay preferences in mind. There is no "free roleplay" and whatever else you are distinguishing here. There is only roleplaying your character. When your character does something in the fiction that would trigger a Move, then the GM calls for it. There are General Moves and Playbook Moves. General Moves are just things like general rules that affect all characters in D&D. Playbook Moves are similar to class features in D&D.

 

[Campbell]

I simply meant there isn't one definitive way to approach it. I agree players need some guidance, but not every game will be centered on dungeons for example, some might even avoid them, but when dungeons are in play, there are different ways to map, key, plan, handle considerations like fairness, lethality, etc. I think D&D benefits from some default explanation of things like dungeons, wilderness exploration, random encounter tables, etc but it is always useful when this is framed as not the only way you can play the game.

I find your framing (hopefully unintentionally) deceptive here. We're still fundamentally talking about the same sort of structural approach to setting design, situation design, serial exploration through the setting and action resolution. We're talking about different sorts of fiction. Not really different styles of play. At least no more different than 2 games of Burning Wheel (which exhibits the same sort of diversity in the type of fiction being explored).

Fundamentally this is part and parcel of established norms and the default structure of play being treated as privileged (being described with words like organic whereas other sorts of play get derisively labeled as artificial or bespoke). Play diversity under one structure of play gets magnified to the extreme while other structures of play get treated as these cute little bespoke games which to me is the height of elitism / snobbery.

This stuff matters a great deal to me because these deceptive claims of flexibility are used to sow doubt into people like the younger version of myself to make them believe that they are just not good enough or what they want is just impossible. It's a you problem rather than a using a game that is structurally incapable of delivering the sort of experience you are looking for problem.

Types of fictional content does not a playstyle make.

 

[clearstream]

There is an extensive literature on what rules are. The literature I'm pretty familiar with goes back to Kant, but there is obviously a literature that predates that which goes back at least to Plato. And that's without having regard to literature in non-Plato influenced traditions, in which I'm less well educated and so which I am less confident to comment on.

Framing "what are rules?" as an ontological inquiry is fraught. Wittgenstein spilled much ink arguing that this is misguided, and that the proper question is something like "What does it mean for a practice to exemplify a rule?"

Some scholars think there is utility in comparing rules across domains of human activity (eg Marmor thinks games and law can both be looked at via the relationship between rules and conventions). Others have doubts.

Here's a rule of law from the Australian Criminal Code: "A person commits an offence if the person engages in a terrorist act. Penalty: Imprisonment for life."

Here's a rule of law from the Victorian Crimes Act: "A person must not, without lawful excuse, intentionally cause serious injury to another
person in circumstances of gross violence. Penalty: Level 3 imprisonment (20 years maximum)."

Each of these two rules has a different syntax: the first is a conditional definition of a particular offence. The second is a statement of a prohibition. Neither instantiates the general form you have suggested, of extrapolating a consequence from a description. (One could insist that your form is the general one, and that these rules really have the logical form you've set out. That would require argument.)

Nor does either of these rules rest upon the rule/norm contrast you have deployed. The second, at least, seems amenable to analysis by reference to Finnis's account of the precisifying function of some legal rules. More generally, what the "ontology" of these rules are is something that is hotly debated among (inter alia) legal positivists and anti-positivists. And of course there are also scholars who argue that those "ontological" debates are meaningless or pointless.

In any event, I don't think we need to engage in these sorts of arguments - about the nature of rules; their general form, syntax and sense; their ontology or "grounding"; etc - in order to talk about RPGing.

If one reads the OP as asking Why do players of RPGs deploy normative standards for their play - which is a voluntary activity - beyond sheer socially-negotiated agreement, one will have understood the question fine and be in a position to address it.

It should be clear that I am looking at TTRPG rules. Rules generally would be far too broad a question for me, and as you say there has been much thought on that already. In my defense, this is a thread on TTRPG in a forum dedicated to TTRPGs.

I share doubts about comparing rules across domains. Although I would hold that TTRPG is a sub-domain of games, notwithstanding arguments raised earlier in the thread. Perhaps rules can't really be compared across sub-domains, as others above have opined.

 

[clearstream]

If one reads the OP as asking Why do players of RPGs deploy normative standards for their play - which is a voluntary activity - beyond sheer socially-negotiated agreement, one will have understood the question fine and be in a position to address it.

That question, taken as the focus of your OP, was the one that by my lights I grabbed hold of by suggesting a working definition for TTRPG rules.

TTRPG rules supersede pre-existing norms and extend beyond them.

That forcefulness (that superseding of what might otherwise be normal) is what Baker's use for them is relying upon. It's not enough to say the standards are normative - if that's all we wanted to do we don't need rules. It's that a rule once followed will oblige us to do what we do not want to do, including things that we hadn't thought to do up to the moment we grasped the rule.

My contention is that rules go beyond the normative to the prescriptive or enforceable*. Not "you ought to do something like this" but "do this". Normative standards is too broad because they lack forcefulness. We're interested here only in those normative standards that have the force of rules.

The why question contains an implied what? What's possible? Baker seems to say that of all the possible things we could do with the force of rules, we should do the unwanted and unwelcome. Seeing as there are many other possible things we could do with the force of rules, this is as you said just a matter of aesthetic preference.

Forcefulness is a big deal. In TTRPG we also need rules to extend beyond the normal. To say what happens in cases where we otherwise have no normative standard to deploy.** What we do with that is also down to aesthetic preference.

Being about aesthetic preferences, the why question becomes subjective; anyone answering it here will be met with other voices either endorsing or decrying their preferences. For example, I can say that subjectively, I would extend the force of rules to answering what the weather is today in an imaginary Bronze Age world where magic and gods are real. Some might endorse that, others decry it. Either way, it's absolutely true that answering questions of that sort can be a why of using rules for me as a player.

I therefore suggested or if you like re-emphasised an objective answer to your question. We use TTRPG rules for their forcefulness and capacity to extend. That's why.


*One could say that for standards to be normative entails that those standards be prescriptive or enforceable. I take it that it is possible for a standard to be normative without being prescriptive or enforceable. Either way, emphasis rightly remains on forcefulness.

**Deploying a standard could include fabricating one. I take it that it does not, but if so then emphasis rightly remains on the capacity to extend.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I find the attitude rather elitist (even if unintended) and can't stop myself from firing back.

Mod Note:

Honestly, that’s problematic. Also problematic is that you seem to demand respect for your views on gameplay but do not see to reciprocally respect the gameplay views of others. It’s clichéd, but in polite discussions, respect is a 2-way street.

Let that guide your future participation in this thread and generally on this site.

 

[pemerton]

It should be clear that I am looking at TTRPG rules. Rules generally would be far too broad a question for me, and as you say there has been much thought on that already.

So, here's a rule in Apocalypse World - it is written in a way so as to speak to the MC, and so uses the second person to refer to the GM:

The players’ job is to say what their characters say and undertake to do, first and exclusively; to say what their characters think, feel and remember, also exclusively; and to answer your questions about their characters’ lives and surroundings.​

This rules establishes a normative standard for play - a set of exclusive permissions conferred on the players (to say what their PCs say, undertake to do, think, feel, and remember), and also obligations imposed on the players (to answer questions).

It doesn't take the form of description is matched to norm/rule that yield consequence. It is about conferring permissions and obligations on participants.

Here is a rule, from 4e D&D, that superficially does have that form: if a character falls into a pit, then (everything else being equal) they land prone. But the problem with that so-called rule is that it is not a rule at all! It doesn't state any normative standard. Hence, the better view is that my statement of the 4e rule is incomplete. The true 4e rule is that: if the participants agree that a character falls into a pit, then they are obliged (if everything else is equal) to agree that the character has landed prone. When stated correctly, as a normative standard, we see that this rule, too, is about conferring obligations on participants.

Like all game rules, RPG rules establish normative standards to which participants voluntarily agree to hold themselves - or, to put it another way, standards by which they voluntarily agree to be bound. Sometimes we state the rules in an elliptical fashion - eg a queen in chess can move any number of squares but the correct statement of the rule will make clear what the standard is - eg a player who is making a move in chess may move their queen any number of squares.

To reiterate: Working out the general form of RPG rules is not hard. Like other game rules, their general form is to confer permissions in respect of, or establish prohibitions on, the conduct of the participants in their capacity as players of the game.

(There is an alternative way of stating the rules of chess, in a quasi-mathematical fashion as constituting a set of possible game-states. In this form of stating them, normative standards that confer permissions instead become statements of possibility that underpin the construction of the set of possible game-states. Perhaps something like this is possible for a very simple D&D combat, or even a very simple dungeon crawl. It's not possible for a 4e skill challenge, or for the play of AW. Hence the approach to RPG rules as stating normative standards for participants is the more fundamental. Which is Vincent Baker's point when he says "So look, you! 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.")

 

[clearstream]

So, here's a rule in Apocalypse World - it is written in a way so as to speak to the MC, and so uses the second person to refer to the GM:

The players’ job is to say what their characters say and undertake to do, first and exclusively; to say what their characters think, feel and remember, also exclusively; and to answer your questions about their characters’ lives and surroundings.​

This rules establishes a normative standard for play - a set of exclusive permissions conferred on the players (to say what their PCs say, undertake to do, think, feel, and remember), and also obligations imposed on the players (to answer questions).

It doesn't take the form of description is matched to norm/rule that yield consequence. It is about conferring permissions and obligations on participants.

Are you a player (description)? Yes? Great, this is what you should go on to do. The rule tells you the consequences of being a player. It supersedes and possibly extends whatever you might think players normally do.

Here is a rule, from 4e D&D, that superficially does have that form: if a character falls into a pit, then (everything else being equal) they land prone. But the problem with that so-called rule is that it is not a rule at all! It doesn't state any normative standard. Hence, the better view is that my statement of the 4e rule is incomplete. The true 4e rule is that: if the participants agree that a character falls into a pit, then they are obliged (if everything else is equal) to agree that the character has landed prone. When stated correctly, as a normative standard, we see that this rule, too, is about conferring obligations on participants.

The normative standard is falling prone. This is made obvious by the possibility of further rules that supersede that. If by conferring obligations you mean that the rule is forceful, then we're in accord.

 

[pemerton]

That question, taken as the focus of your OP, was the one that by my lights I grabbed hold of by suggesting a working definition for TTRPG rules.

TTRPG rules supersede pre-existing norms and extend beyond them.

<snip>

In TTRPG we also need rules to extend beyond the normal. To say what happens in cases where we otherwise have no normative standard to deploy.

This is not a working definition for TTRPG rules.

For instance, there is no normal, and no pre-existing norm, in the context of shared fiction creation, about who gets to say what happens when Derrik falls into a pit, or when Marie opens her brain to the psychic maelstrom.

That forcefulness (that superseding of what might otherwise be normal) is what Baker's use for them is relying upon. It's not enough to say the standards are normative - if that's all we wanted to do we don't need rules. It's that a rule once followed will oblige us to do what we do not want to do, including things that we hadn't thought to do up to the moment we grasped the rule.

My contention is that rules go beyond the normative to the prescriptive or enforceable*. Not "you ought to do something like this" but "do this".

Your last sentence presupposes some interesting difference between a modal operator - you ought to do such-and-such - and an imperative - do such-and-such. There is an extensive literature on the semantics and pragmatics of both sorts of locution. It is very interesting, but tells us absolutely ZERO about RPGing.

As for the posited contrast between "standards that are normative" and "rules" - there is no such contrast. A rule is a normative standard. (See eg Hart's extensive discussion in The Concept of Law.) And of course one standard (though contentious) analysis of the imperative speech act is that it presupposes a type of authority (ie normative) relation obtaining between speaker and addressee, such that the former is entitled (another normative notion!) to command the latter!

Normative standards is too broad because they lack forcefulness.

Really? Thou shat not kill! lacks forcefulness? The rules I quoted from the Australian statute books lack forcefulness?

Baker seems to say that of all the possible things we could do with the force of rules, we should do the unwanted and unwelcome.

No, this is not what he says.

He says that, in a voluntary activity aimed at the collective creation, sustaining and development of a shared fiction, the only reason to introduce rules rather than simply to just proceed by way of social negotiation is because rules permit the introduction of the unwanted and unwelcome. Because anything else - ie anything that is neither unwanted nor unwelcome - can be introduced into the fiction by sheer cooperation.

That is not a statement about what anyone should do with rules. It is a statement about why people have a reason to erect a system of rules
in this voluntary, cooperative activity.

I can say that subjectively, I would extend the force of rules to answering what the weather is today in an imaginary Bronze Age world where magic and gods are real. Some might endorse that, others decry it. Either way, it's absolutely true that answering questions of that sort can be a why of using rules for me as a player.

It's telling, to me at least, that the rule you hint at, about rolling on a random weather table, does not take your mooted form. It doesn't say anything about "norms" or "extending norms" or "descriptions leading via rules to consequences."

Rather, it directs a game participant how to establish some shared fiction, namely, by carrying out the mechanical procedure of rolling some dice and then correlating the result of that roll with an entry on a table. It establishes a normative standard which must be satisfied if someone's statement about what the weather is is to be accepted as part of the shared fiction.

 

[pemerton]

Are you a player (description)? Yes? Great, this is what you should go on to do. The rule tells you the consequences of being a player. It supersedes whatever you might think players normally do.

There is no "what I think players normally do". I mean, do they normally deal cards, pick up the dice and throw them through the rafters, drink until they get drunk and fall under the table, or something else?

Furthermore, what does the AW rule tell a player to go on to do? Answer: nothing, other than answering questions. Yet that is only part of the rule. The other part of the rule is not obligation-imposing but permission-conferring.

 

[clearstream]

For instance, there is no normal, and no pre-existing norm, in the context of shared fiction creation, about who gets to say what happens when Derrik falls into a pit, or when Marie opens her brain to the psychic maelstrom.

Exactly, although it makes me think you have not caught the implication of "extend".

You're focused on who gets to say what. Baker seems to be saying that's not his main concern when designing rules. But in any case, who gets to say what can be codified in rules addressing rules, or just in the rule. Both strategies are seen in game texts. And on your account we would be bound to view saying who says what - that assignment alone - as unwelcome or unwanted.

 

[clearstream]

There is no "what I think players normally do". I mean, do they normally deal cards, pick up the dice and throw them through the rafters, drink until they get drunk and fall under the table, or something else?

In which case, it extends. But to me Baker wrote that to override other ideas of what players do, not because he thought readers would come to it with a tabula rasa. It was necessary to state in order to override and perhaps extend pre-existing norms.

It's probably enough to add that conferring permissions is a consequence; noting that the rule implies a curtailment of permissions for other parties (via "exclusively").

 

[clearstream]

As for the posited contrast between "standards that are normative" and "rules" - there is no such contrast. A rule is a normative standard. (See eg Hart's extensive discussion in The Concept of Law.) And of course one standard (though contentious) analysis of the imperative speech act is that it presupposes a type of authority (ie normative) relation obtaining between speaker and addressee, such that the former is entitled (another normative notion!) to command the latter!

Really? Thou shat not kill! lacks forcefulness? The rules I quoted from the Australian statute books lack forcefulness?

Think rather of normative standards that lack forcefulness.

If you can find none, then I would accept that standards that are normative by your lights are rules.

 

[Manbearcat]

...where you're taking what (in most cases) things I would see as procedural guidelines and giving them hard-rule status.

What is the difference between hard-rule status and soft-rule status you're envisioning here? Because the way it seems to me, in Lanefanian D&D (given your testimonials and excerpts it looks like Hickman Revolution meets some Gygaxian conceits and tropes), all play proceeds under the overarching proviso of Rule 0. So there doesn't need to be any distinguishing between guidelines or rules (hard or soft or anywhere in between). You have "one rule to rule them all." If that rule says "you're in" ("you" here might be a mechanic, or a procedure, or an action declaration, or an outcome of play, or a principle that undergirds either of the former)...then "you're in." If that rule says "GTFO"...then "GTFO."

But that is a particular organizational structure (all other aspects of play are provisional pending the approval of the "one rule to rule them all") of a particular game, not TTRPGs in general. I mean, if you want to say "in Lanefanian D&D (and those that play similarly) there is only one hard-rule and everything else is a provisional guideline contingent upon the yay/nay of the one hard-rule", then...sure? I mean I don't see the necessity even in your case because even those provisional guidelines, as you want to call them, still inform and direct play if they're approved. Once they're approved, why does it matter if we call them rules then vs guidelines? Is this kind of a recursive "because letting them graduate from guidelines to rules makes it sound like they're not still subordinate to Rule 0...like they can't be vetoed at a later date or in a particular moment that strikes the GM as veto-worthy." Like it defangs rule 0 and may slippery slope to GM Disempowerment or something?

If so, that just feels needlessly rhetorical (what happens at your game and at D&D tables like it happens at those tables...there is no need for some exception to a philosophical superstructure like "rules are the collection of stuff that informs and direct play...except in the case when another rule allows someone a discretional veto over them...then they're just provisional guidelines") and calling out a novel interpretation of a game-specific exception doesn't seem particularly helpful when discussing all TTRPGs.

For this, I'd more define it that game mechanics are what's used to abstract those things which cannot be free-roleplayed, regardless of what happens to the gamestate as a result of their use.

The game mechanics are abstractions or one particular form of negotiated imagination. But they don't do the heavy lifting of abstracting or negotiating. The game mechanics happen in meat space. They happen around the table. Someone rolls dice, references a table, announces a target number, draws or plays a card, spends a currency, subtracts a total, crosses off a piece of inventory, ticks a clock, pulls from a Jenga tower. Whatever.

The negotiation of what happens and abstraction onto the imagined space is conferred to us around the table. Someone (in your form of D&D, that is typically or nearly universally the GM) either outright says what happens next within the constraints, boundaries, duties afforded to them by the ruleset or they resolve what happens now by referencing, and possibly interpreting or extrapolating (TBD pending system generally or game tech specifically), the collision of game text + present imagined space and possibly some prepped material, mapping how that collision gives rise to a change of state in the fiction: game interface.

 

[AnotherGuy]

At the outset @Manbearcat thanks for your original and follow-up post!
You have genuinely given me much to think about and how to ensure I place the game part of the RPG in the foreground for my players, but more importantly for my own satisfaction for, ironically, the game.

I'm going to start with this as it engages with your top statement below; "story-weaving is my strength."

So the question above is about my statement "I just never think about the overall shape of the fiction."

So there are two locations that I can cite where I have some care for the shape of the fiction:

* At the level of situation where there are conflict resolution mechanics which mediate gamestate/win & loss and attendant rising action/climax. It borders on the impossible (and would be irresponsible) to not have care for the shape of the fiction there. So D&D combat, Dogs in the Vineyard, D&D 4e, Cortex+, BW/MG/TB, Blades in the Dark etc.

* System-based breakpoints or phases like Mouse Guard's Winter, Torchbearer's Respite, D&D 4e's Heroic/Paragon/Epic, My Life With Master's Endgame Confrontation with the Master, The Between's Dawn/Day/Dusk/Night/The Unscene/Threat Confrontation, Blades Info Gathering/Score/Downtime, or Stonetop's Seasons. Again, here the game imposes a structure upon play to be observed and resolved.

But focus on situation and observance/resolution of structural phases are quite different than what I'm calling the overall shape of the fiction. Not thinking about the overall shape of the fiction means lack of overarching curation, lack of metaplot imperatives or imposition, lack of story-weaving. It means letting the throughline of play emerge from play fundamentals + focus on situation & character + observance of system inputs (which includes structural phases or whatever). Whatever story emerges from that process will be what it is.

I should also note that I'm separating overall shape of the fiction from the continuity and integrity of what has been established through play. That latter is an input that must always be observed/respected for downstream situation-framing, consequence-handling, and any/all game layer interactions.

This was well explained and it all makes sense to me and I'm 100% in agreement.

Alright (alright, alright).

So I'll just be straight-forward. The type of GM curation/story-weaving/big reveal that you're depicting above entail a form of GM content-authority that doesn't play well with both my answer to your question above and what I discussed in the prior post you responded (very well) to. A statement like "the player doesn't know his character is suffering from PTSD after <situation resolution>" isn't a statement that would ever be made. You're quite correct that there is extreme (complete?) tension between keeping the game part of the RPG foregrounded and transparent and GM inserting extra-system narrative dynamics (whether it be at the character level or situation level or setting level) that require veiling in order to facilitate Big GM Reveal TM.

A few random thoughts:

* I'm working under the assumption that this is D&D 5e, yes? I'm assuming that this "Marilith conflict-driven PTSD" wasn't an outgrowth of a post-conflict Saving Throw?

* I'm assuming the PTSD isn't a (lets call it) GM-facing or veiled mechanical widget that has an input to action resolution in which the player isn't aware of?

Your first assumption is correct. The PTSD was a hard-move by me for what would otherwise have been PC death if I had used the 5e rules strictly. I had narrated the attacks from the Marilith being synchronised i.e. even though there were lots of attack rolls that I had to make, I treated it as one attack, so the character dropped into unconsciousness instead of death.
With the second assumption I'm not sure I'm understanding you correctly, but I had not informed the player of the hard-move. Yet. We are playing this weekend. The discussion of the Flaw/Trait in your (1) below will make it known.

* If all true, my concern with this dynamic is two-fold. The first is that (a) its just relegated to background color (no mechanical engagement that interestingly impacts the player's experience of their decision-space) and (b) , following from and relating to (a), only the GM may be in on the secret because the nature of the color is obfuscated to such a degree that both the experience of the PTSD and the impact of the reveal on the player is muted or isn't as potent as hoped for.

Now (b) following from and relating to (a) above is an outgrowth of a few things; (i) the autobiographical cognitive space of the participants (how does various forms of technique and overall play impact the idiosyncratic immersion of the individual participants) and (ii) the GM's ability to do the thing (which includes a lot of little things that need to add up to the overall experience and finality of the thing).

* Here is how I might consider easing the tension of the bolded/italicized above if I was running 5e. Are you familiar with the Abyssal Corruption, Beast Transformation, and Vile Transformation mechanics in the 5e DMG? You might consider an iteration of them coupled with the Paint the Scene process of The Between. As follows:

1) Player rolls Charisma Saving Throw after conflict. On failure, the GM gives the player a new Flaw or Trait which clearly depicts the state of the character (the thematics, the mental duress, et al) and invites the player to describe the PC's cognitive orientation to the event based on that new Flaw or Trait.

2) GM can either veil the mental duress/illness Transformation mechanics or share them with the player (my guess is you would be veiling them).

3) At the next Long Rest (or whatever appropriate time), the player makes another Charisma Saving Throw (perhaps this is progressive or perhaps its the same DC as the initial). On a failure, the PC gains 1 level of Exhaustion. The GM briefly describes an object or an event in the imagined space (a flower that seems to reach to bees but never gets attention while other flowers do, an inkeep looking forlorn as they absent-mindedly mop the same area of floor to no affect for minutes) and invites the player of the character to vignette their character's thoughts on this object/event and relate it back to the events of (1).

4) Same deal as (3) except a final failed Saving Throw cements the thematic and mechanical situation which can only be resolved via Remove Curse or some mechanical + fictional process (I'm thinking Paladin's Quest move or Wizard's Ritual move in DW or Make a Plan in Stonetop where the player and GM "ask questions and use the answers" to come up with requirements/conflict resolution Win Cons and related fiction to resolve the dramatic need).


So here, if you (a) veil the overall situation/journey of the condition but (b) involve the player thematically while (c) introducing decision-space & gamestate altering consequences, you might get a result that both lets everyone experience the reveal (you included as the player is letting you in on their character's cognitive state and attendant interpretation of thematic touchstones) and it might be impactful to the player of the character (either the same but in a different way or perhaps even more impactful).

---

So those are some thoughts on your conundrum (as it pertains to what I wrote upthread) that lands nicely in the "why do RPGs have rules" area! Do with them as you will (including drop them in the dustbin asap!)!

I appreciate the effort you went to, to come up with mechanics for the situation, creatively pulling ideas from several RPG's. The Dungeon World link is not something I had seen before and it is certainly a useful resource. Really liked the way the game breaks down the Paladin's Quest move and the Wizard's Ritual move.

The inviting the player to vignette on their character's thoughts on the object/event and relate it back to the events of (1) definitely connects with your (i) the autobiographical cognitive space of the participants in your post.

So in closing I may be tweaking, but nothing will be thrown in the dustbin.
Thanks again.

 

[Maxperson]

Part of your specific frustrations probably come from an overly specific definition of trad gaming that basically corresponds to how Maxperson runs D&D. A lot of the things you consider bad faith GMing for example are the norm in the White Wolf / L5R / Shadowrun oriented trad culture I mostly originally come from (and still dip my toes into). There's a whole lot of common ways to play trad games (including fairly popular approaches to 5e) that are not accounted for in the ways you speak about trad gaming.

This doesn't actually matter. Those posters on my side of this debate who have a different view of what traditional gaming are also constantly encountering the constant misinterpretations of what traditional gaming is and the constant One True Waysim of those posters that I'm referring to. This isn't a "me" thing.

Edit: In fairness there are a few posters on the traditional side of things who also constantly misunderstand the No Myth side of things, but none of them engage in the One True Way behavior of the posters in question. Rarely, one of them will respond to the "If you only understood No Myth you'd see how much better it is." with a "If you only understood Traditional play you'd see how much better it is" as a method of calling attention to the One True Wasyism of that particular No Myth poster, but they don't do it often and I've never seen it posted first. Only as that method of calling out the One True Wasyism.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I find your framing (hopefully unintentionally) deceptive here. We're still fundamentally talking about the same sort of structural approach to setting design, situation design, serial exploration through the setting and action resolution. We're talking about different sorts of fiction. Not really different styles of play. At least no more different than 2 games of Burning Wheel (which exhibits the same sort of diversity in the type of fiction being explored).

Fundamentally this is part and parcel of established norms and the default structure of play being treated as privileged (being described with words like organic whereas other sorts of play get derisively labeled as artificial or bespoke). Play diversity under one structure of play gets magnified to the extreme while other structures of play get treated as these cute little bespoke games which to me is the height of elitism / snobbery.

This stuff matters a great deal to me because these deceptive claims of flexibility are used to sow doubt into people like the younger version of myself to make them believe that they are just not good enough or what they want is just impossible. It's a you problem rather than a using a game that is structurally incapable of delivering the sort of experience you are looking for problem.

Types of fictional content does not a playstyle make.

My only point wasn't about any of that. It was simply that when the DMG in any edition, or any of the basic books, have provided explanations on how to run things like dungeons, which Pemerton mentioned in my post, it isn't as if there is a one true way to approach that. That the game is open to different ways of doing so, and to entirely different approaches. Now it still has core structures and rules and those may be less suited in a given edition RAW to certain approaches (which is why having other systems is so important). I wasn't saying anything about the concerns you havre mentioned here. I was just saying, Gygax and Moldvay are far from the last word on how to approach this kind of prepping, running and procedures.

 

[Imaro]

I find your framing (hopefully unintentionally) deceptive here. We're still fundamentally talking about the same sort of structural approach to setting design, situation design, serial exploration through the setting and action resolution. We're talking about different sorts of fiction. Not really different styles of play. At least no more different than 2 games of Burning Wheel (which exhibits the same sort of diversity in the type of fiction being explored).

Fundamentally this is part and parcel of established norms and the default structure of play being treated as privileged (being described with words like organic whereas other sorts of play get derisively labeled as artificial or bespoke). Play diversity under one structure of play gets magnified to the extreme while other structures of play get treated as these cute little bespoke games which to me is the height of elitism / snobbery.

This stuff matters a great deal to me because these deceptive claims of flexibility are used to sow doubt into people like the younger version of myself to make them believe that they are just not good enough or what they want is just impossible. It's a you problem rather than a using a game that is structurally incapable of delivering the sort of experience you are looking for problem.

Types of fictional content does not a playstyle make.

How do you reconcile this view with the optional rules given in something like the DMG? For example someone running a game of pure success vs. failure is following a totally different procedure and implementing different rules from someone who has decided to use the degrees of success rule or success at a cost from 5e. this is going to produce a different play experience deeper than just changing of fiction depending on which is chosen .

 

[hawkeyefan]

This doesn't actually matter. Those posters on my side of this debate who have a different view of what traditional gaming are also constantly encountering the constant misinterpretations of what traditional gaming is and the constant One True Waysim of those posters that I'm referring to. This isn't a "me" thing.

Edit: In fairness there are a few posters on the traditional side of things who also constantly misunderstand the No Myth side of things, but none of them engage in the One True Way behavior of the posters in question. Rarely, one of them will respond to the "If you only understood No Myth you'd see how much better it is." with a "If you only understood Traditional play you'd see how much better it is" as a method of calling attention to the One True Wasyism of that particular No Myth poster, but they don't do it often and I've never seen it posted first. Only as that method of calling out the One True Wasyism.

So you’re not generalizing… so which posters are you talking about? I’m reasonably certain that anyone who it may be is familiar with traditional RPGs.

My take on this is that there’s a group of people who have been doing something for so long that they’re experts at that thing. However, that thing turns out to be more narrow than they thought. But it’s hard to accept that they’re experience is not as broad as they thought.

They’ve learned that they’re not experts on Science, but only Biology… and they don’t know much about Physics or Chemistry at all.

So when introduced to the broader field, their knowledge is revealed to be much more focused than previously thought. However, they don’t adjust their approach to the conversation. Instead, they try to adjust the broader field to fit into their knowledge.

Then when this is pointed out to them, they don’t like it, and try and label it in such a way as to lay blame elsewhere.