Why do RPGs have rules?

[AbdulAlhazred]

If one is playing by the letter of the RAW, agreed. In practice, however...

They can and do affect the fiction state, in some games directly, in others less so.

Note that not all HP based games are as "Go... Go... Dead!" as the pre-3E D&D, nor even as much as 3.x/4.x/5.x with "Go... Go... Bleeding but Go... Dying... Dead"

Twilight 2000 4e (Year Zero Dice Step), PC's have single digit HP, and weapons typically do 2+excess successes (ExS) with 1+ExS to 3+ExS being typical for man portable firearms and melee weapons. The amount post armor (usually 1 point over base, sometimes 2 or 3 over) determines if a critical is applied. If HP are zeroed, a critical is applied. If both happen as a single attack, roll twice and take the worse crit. Further, at 0, one goes down.

One of the PCs, SSgt Morton, on the mend from a 5 HP hit that also caused a brain hemorrhage. The mechanics for crits directly placed two elements into the fiction: he's not mentally as clear as he normally is, and he needed food, water, and rest. (Prerequisites to get the HP back.)

He was jumped on watch by a couple traitorous NPCs. He had gotten all 5 HP back, but still suffers the major Int & Emp penalties. When he'd been jumped, he had taken 2 of his 5 HP again... and it majorly shaped his choices, as the player knew Morton's one good hit from dying. The HP and armor mechanics and combat procedures took my narration, "SGT Toebel charges you with a fixed bayonet" and added the following narrative elements: That he hit, but hit the arm. That it was a minor wound (no crit), and that SSgt Morton was still conscious and did not have to flee.

Took less time to resolve it than it took for me to type it up (~10 min typing, about 3.5 min to resolve).

I thought the rest of the post you are responding to adequately addressed this. Representations such as hit points can then feed other rules and/or dictate that certain things should be asserted in the fiction. Since my example was only hit points, a D&D mechanism, I didn't try to describe all the other possible variations of 'harm systems' as it wasn't germane to my point. In any case, I agree that there are many such variations and they often have a more direct and concrete linkage to fiction.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The original (but seldom credited) author, Lizzie Maggie, of The Landlord's Game (later published as Monopoly unlawfully by Darrow) was intended to be a teaching tool about the evils of landlords.
This is well documented and very accessible history. This portion of your post does NOT come across as a well educated guess, but to me as complete lack of rigor. (A 10 sec google search can find a half dozen matching histories noting Maggie's intent and mods.
Also, the original was set in Arden Delaware, not Atlantic City.

And how does this have anything to do with my point? Obviously the author DID concern herself GENERALLY with the concepts of property ownership, development, and finance! This is exactly as I pointed out in my post, which is about the centrality of certain core concepts and processes to game design, and its relationship to individual rules. Your response seems entirely irrelevant. Please address the arguments being made, this isn't a history or rhetoric class.

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:
Some of you seem to want to talk about posters rather than RPGs and their rules.

This is apt to become a problem, as you say less and less complimentary things about posters. Please do not become comfortable with the idea that not naming specific people somehow will be adequate protection.

 

[Aldarc]

This is a video from Ben Milton (Questing Beast) who is an OSR enthusiast. What I find interesting here is how he is advocating the use of rules, namely a rolled die to "put pressure on the PCs" and make sure that something always happens. This is one of the staunchest giants of OSR advocating for something that is honestly not that far removed from how some story games operate, albeit here for self-professed purposes of challenge-based simulation.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This is a video from Ben Milton (Questing Beast) who is an OSR enthusiast. What I find interesting here is how he is advocating the use of rules, namely a rolled die to "put pressure on the PCs" and make sure that something always happens. This is one of the staunchest giants of OSR advocating for something that is honestly not that far removed from how some story games operate, albeit here for self-professed purposes of challenge-based simulation.

That’s a big factor that the OSR and narrative games have in common… adherence to rules and processes in a principled manner. The shift away from the GM as the primary storyteller.

 

[andreszarta]

Following up on @Aldarc 's impulse to expose how this whole rules thing manifests in other play styles, let me also share something I ran into yesterday when reading LotFP:

What is that third paragraph saying if not exposing a challenge-based perspective of the question of how we as players can go about inviting the unwelcome and the unwanted in our game?

Now, perhaps unwelcome and unwanted are not the best words to express this phenomenon. We need to keep in mind that Vincent uses those two because he's talking about collaborative thematic storytelling where unwelcome and unwanted refer the kind of tough material we as players do want our characters to confront such that their moral statements have weight. We would reject them, yet we are also compelled to not do so for the sake of the agenda we are chasing and our agreement to abide by the rules, and doing so is exhilarating.

But even in OSR gaming, they often do sometimes manifest as the unwelcome and unwanted. For instance, this past weekend I lost one of my characters to the Tower of the Stargazer. With 3hp left and a roll of 6 on a d8 damage die, my first old school character in more than 15 years saw her demise. Puff. Just like that. What is this if not a totally unwelcome and unwanted outcome for my character, and yet I cannot stop saying this was one of my favorite highlights of the game. Love it! I want more of this.

Spoiler: Mild Spoiler

F&ck1ng mirrors!

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Or not. And I'm not going to name names. It's pretty apparent which are the One True Wayers and which are not.

 

[Campbell]

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 .

Sure. That's a different process that will have attendant impacts on play downstream. In the grand scope of RPG play it's not the sort of monumental change you are selling here though. It's fairly similar in scope to the tweaks to how resistance rolls work in the Hacking section of the Blades book.

There are absolutely some structural tweaks we see from game to game, but when we look at the core organizing principles of play it's remarkably similar from game to game. At least as similar as we see in other play models.

I am not trying to knock the diversity of games played in a trad structure here. Only saying that they are not special in their diversity of play. That other forms of play are not specialized forms of trad play. That trad play does not contain Story Now play. That it has its own stuff it's great at. What do you find controversial about this take?

 

[Aldarc]

Sure. That's a different process that will have attendant impacts on play downstream. In the grand scope of RPG play it's not the sort of monumental change you are selling here though. It's fairly similar to the tweaks to how resistance rolls work in the Hacking section of the Blades book.

There are absolutely some structural tweaks we see from game to game, but when we look at the core organizing principles of play it's remarkably similar from game to game. At least as similar as we see in other play models.

I am not trying to knock the diversity of games played in a trad structure here. Only saying that they are not special in their diversity of play. That other forms of play are not specialized forms of trad play. That trad play does not contain Story Now play. Does not contain OSR play. That it has its own stuff its great at. What do you find controversial about this take?

It's also not exactly all that different from Cortex Prime, which is a giant book of tools and options for customizing your Cortex games. Does this make Cortex Prime more flexible than D&D? I don't think that people advocating for D&D's flexibility necessarily want to put their own criteria to the test for fear of the results.

 

[Imaro]

Sure. That's a different process that will have attendant impacts on play downstream. In the grand scope of RPG play it's not the sort of monumental change you are selling here though. It's fairly similar in scope to the tweaks to how resistance rolls work in the Hacking section of the Blades book.

What pages of BitD would the hacking section be in? I have Blades but I don't remember reading that... of course it's been a while since I last looked at it.

There are absolutely some structural tweaks we see from game to game, but when we look at the core organizing principles of play it's remarkably similar from game to game. At least as similar as we see in other play models.

I am not trying to knock the diversity of games played in a trad structure here. Only saying that they are not special in their diversity of play. That other forms of play are not specialized forms of trad play. That trad play does not contain Story Now play. That it has its own stuff it's great at. What do you find controversial about this take?

I think you missed my point. What I took from your post was that you were stating that the claims of trad play being flexible (irrespective of whether non-trad games are or are not) boils down to purely fictional differences as opposed to system and process and even experience differences. In response to that I am asking how you reconcile that view with the actual process/rules/changes in a single trad like D&D that does actually change how a game is played, it's processes and what the experience of play is?

EDIT: Also I'm unsure how to take it as anything but a "knock" when you are claiming their diversity of play doesn't amount to actual diversity except in what cloth happens to be draped over them?

EDIT 2: I think there is something to be said for the fact that, non-trad games tend to rely on a strict set of principles in order to cultivate a specific experience and that deviating from these principles is considered to be playing the game incorrectly... however with most trad games there aren't strict principles used to cultivate a specific playstyle and more often than not players of those games are encouraged to make the game their own and play in whatever way makes the game fun (as opposed to correct) for them, up to and including adding some of the mechanics and procedures from non-trad games... To me this is at least a part of the perceived differences in flexibility.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I could be wrong, but I feel like maybe that is Micha's point - most character sheets list the sort of stuff you expect the character to do, and with d&d I feel that is more than just combat related, it can have skills showing what character good at and not, spells etc - if PbtA games are listing stuff you don't want to do, then perhaps it shouldn't be on the character sheet, and instead something else? speaking from ignorance here, as haven't played any PbtA type games.
I do find all this talk interesting though, and has helped me think about the way I DM games, and try to be a bit more on the 'Yes and' side (and typically I have been more like that in last few years than say 10 years ago), but it also reinforces that I don't think I'd want to run PbtA games, much like I don't like to run sandbox games anymore and fall back on published adventures in known settings, as takes a chunk of the load off that I don't have capacity for anymore - I just have to worry about how an adventure would react to what the characters do, rather than having to think up an adventure initially, and can fall back on the adventure in many places rather than having to come up with responses myself which it feels like PbtA requires - even if it does transfer some of that load to the players as well.

Yeah speaking of DW specifically, the GM can plot up fronts to his hearts content, though too many and too much detail is probably not a good idea.

In terms of what is on your character sheet, in theory it's better to avoid moves in a sort of game sense, but then you're going to not get XP easily. Also you're softballing play, and the GM will surely make you choose at some point, do your thing or pay the price. Honestly if a 5e wizard avoided magic totally it would be some pretty odd play. I bet the GM will push you there too.

Overall character abilities are not really that different.

 

[andreszarta]

think you missed my point. What I took from your post was that you were stating that the claims of trad play being flexible (irrespective of whether non-trad games are or are not) boils down to purely fictional differences as opposed to system and process and even experience differences. In response to that I am asking how you reconcile that view with the actual process/rules/changes in a single trad like D&D that does actually change how a game is played, it's processes and what the experience of play is?

Do you find that moving from binary task resolution to tiered task resolution actually changes how that game is played? Like, qualitatively, is the game really that different? I bring this up because (and specially when these particular point revives a famous discussion from decades ago) in most 5e tables we see online and in play reports, GM fiat is still what often determines the outcome of the conflicts these task resolution mechanisms address.

 

[Imaro]

Do you find that moving from binary task resolution to tiered task resolution actually changes how that game is played? Like, qualitatively, is the game really that different? I bring this up because (and specially when these particular point revives a famous discussion from decades ago) in most 5e tables we see online and in play reports, GM fiat is still what often determines the outcome of the conflicts these task resolution mechanisms address.

Yes I do... and do most 5e tables use these rules?

EDIT: To expound more, I think that adding nuance to the level of success vs having a binary outcome allows for a more flexible process and a lessening of the need for GM Deus-ex-Machina. When there's only do it or fail there can be a greater incentive for the GM to manipulate things either behind the scenes or directly in order to keep things moving forward. Things like levels of succe3ss and success at a cost allow the mechanics to offer up options beyond hard stop or resounding success as well as giving the GM and players multiple options to build their fiction from.

 

[andreszarta]

Yes I do... and do most 5e tables use these rules?

Please elaborate. How is the experience different?

Success with a cost? Sure, I think it's seen frequently as part of the "OC style play" that is primarily based in character concept affirmation which quite a popular way to play 5e these days. Do they outright SAY "We are playing with this optional rule"? Most likely they don't say it, but they still do it.

 

[Imaro]

Please elaborate. How is the experience different?

Success with a cost? Sure, I think it's seen frequently as part of the "OC style play" that is primarily based in character concept affirmation which quite a popular way to play 5e these days. Do they outright SAY "We are playing with this optional rule"? Most likely they don't say it, but they still do it.

Please see my edit above. Yeah I'm not going to assume that they are actually using that since it could just as easily be GM fiat. How do you tell the difference if the rules aren't declared and known by all participants of the game?

 

[andreszarta]

Cross-post, I didn't see your reply before I sent mine.

EDIT: To expound more, I think that adding nuance to the level of success vs having a binary outcome allows for a more flexible process and a lessening of the need for GM Deus-ex-Machina. When there's only do it or fail there can be a greater incentive for the GM to manipulate things either behind the scenes or directly in order to keep things moving forward. Things like levels of success and success at a cost allow the mechanics to offer up options beyond hard stop or resounding success.

Notice that in both cases you are still relying on the GM to adjudicate the result, and you still have a particular story thing that "needs to be moved forward" by someone. The nuance, you propose, is that the partial result may lessen the forcefulness of a GM's declaration after the roll.

How is that, substantially, a different experience of play? The rule merely changes how a given outcome gets determined, and acts only inside only one of the participants heads!

 

[Micah Sweet]

What pages of BitD would the hacking section be in? I have Blades but I don't remember reading that... of course it's been a while since I last looked at it.



I think you missed my point. What I took from your post was that you were stating that the claims of trad play being flexible (irrespective of whether non-trad games are or are not) boils down to purely fictional differences as opposed to system and process and even experience differences. In response to that I am asking how you reconcile that view with the actual process/rules/changes in a single trad like D&D that does actually change how a game is played, it's processes and what the experience of play is?

EDIT: Also I'm unsure how to take it as anything but a "knock" when you are claiming their diversity of play doesn't amount to actual diversity except in what cloth happens to be draped over them?

EDIT 2: I think there is something to be said for the fact that, non-trad games tend to rely on a strict set of principles in order to cultivate a specific experience and that deviating from these principles is considered to be playing the game incorrectly... however with most trad games there aren't strict principles used to cultivate a specific playstyle and more often than not players of those games are encouraged to make the game their own and play in whatever way makes the game fun (as opposed to correct) for them, up to and including adding some of the mechanics and procedures from non-trad games... To me this is at least a part of the perceived differences in flexibility.

This is the sort of thing I'm talking about. Knocking other forms of play on any criteria beyond personal preference.

 

[Imaro]

Cross-post, I didn't see your reply before I sent mine.

No worries

Notice that in both cases you are still relying on the GM to adjudicate the result, and you still have a particular story thing that "needs to be moved forward" by someone. The nuance, you propose, is that the partial result may lessen the forcefulness of a GM's declaration after the roll.

No I am relying on the GM to adjudicate whether there is uncertainty or not as well as the difficulty, no different than something like BitD or PbtA (Actually I'm not sure if PbtA has a corollary to DC's if not BitD certainly does). The result is the total rolled after all modifiers have been computed compared to the DC. The GM or player then narrates the resulting fiction based on that. At what point is the GM adjudicating the result?

How is that, substantially, a different experience of play? The rule merely changes how a given outcome gets determined, and acts only inside only one of the participants heads!

And this is the problem I have with your reasoning that GM's are using it anyway in 5e. If it's a house rule that is in use the rule should be known to GM's and players and a player should be aware that succeeding at a cost and/or gradients of success are at play and how they work. Otherwise the rule isn't being used, GM fiat is.

 

[andreszarta]

No I am relying on the GM to adjudicate whether there is uncertainty or not as well as the difficulty, no different than something like BitD or PbtA. The result is the total rolled after all modifiers have been computed compared to the DC. The GM or player then narrates the resulting fiction based on that. At what point is the GM adjudicating the result?

And this is the problem I have with your reasoning that GM's are using it anyway in 5e. If it's a house rule that is in use the rule should be known to GM's and players and a player should be aware that succeeding at a cost and/or gradients of success are at play and how they work. Otherwise the rule isn't being used, GM fiat is.

You said:

I think that adding nuance to the level of success vs having a binary outcome allows for a more flexible process and a lessening of the need for GM Deus-ex-Machina. When there's only do it or fail there can be a greater incentive for the GM to manipulate things either behind the scenes or directly in order to keep things moving forward. Things like levels of succe3ss and success at a cost allow the mechanics to offer up options beyond hard stop or resounding success.

You are saying that partial successes reduce the likelihood of a GM having to "manipulate things either behind the scenes or directly in order to keep things moving forward".

Your statement already assumes a bunch of things about gameplay namely:

• That there is a thing that needs to be moved forward.
• That the GM determines whether that thing is being moved or needs to get moving.
• That the GM may at any point chooses to or chooses not to manipulate things behind the scenes.

So, even if agree with your rebuttal about how this would get implemented, and agree to see it in its best light: Partial, but known outcomes, that we will all agree to abide by...is this expanded set of outcomes truly a substantial deviation of play style when the three things that I mentioned above are still maintained?

We have been talking about differences in rules that allow for such vast differences in play styles; those that restructure the kind of contributions that are expected of the GM.

With all that in mind, how are we expected to accept that rules that trade one narrow way of performing illusionism with a less, but still narrow, way of performing the same kind of illusionism are creating substantially different experiences of play?

 

[Thomas Shey]

It's also not exactly all that different from Cortex Prime, which is a giant book of tools and options for customizing your Cortex games. Does this make Cortex Prime more flexible than D&D? I don't think that people advocating for D&D's flexibility necessarily want to put their own criteria to the test for fear of the results.

Realizing I'm not who this is aimed at, but I'd absolutely say Cortex Prime is more flexible than D&D, and that it requires a very careful set of definitions to argue otherwise. I think that in the end you have to do a bit more work than I'm interested in to get the detail level down to what I'd want for some purposes, but that's still far less work than I'd need to do to hack D&D into an adequate tool for even more.