Why do RPGs have rules?

[clearstream]

I have an old wargame 'Ceasar at Alesia'. Its a recreation of Ceasar's famous battle. The game starts precisely 'in media res', at the moment of greatest danger for Ceasar when his army has been trapped in a donut shaped vice between the besieged town of Alesia and a very large relieving force. At this point his legions accomplished a series of feats at arms virtually unparalleled in history. The events leading up to this situation are, however not particularly interesting from a military standpoint. The question at hand is, at the moment of greatest danger, can you either manage your forces so as to defeat a much larger force while held in a terrible tactical situation, or can you marshal the Gaulish forces so as to foil the Roman battle plan?

That's a good point. The situation in "Ceasar at Alesia" is I would guess balanced, but it is also one of an already-framed tension. Presumably the players are committed to PvP. As I noted above, I would primarily put emphasis on reevaluating techniques from linear media in the light of games as games. Player agency is characteristic of games and so I note it as potentially in conflict with in media res, which has a story in mind. As other posters have outlined, it looks like there may be ways around that.

One thought here is that if we think of RPG as a game containing games (as was briefly discussed above) then the selection of which game is being played at any moment is an exercise of agency. In the "Ceasar at Alesia" example, I think we are considering play that has commenced after the moment when that game has been selected out of other available games. In media res might seem to deny players agency over choice of game - whether to play "Ceasar at Alesia" or some other game. In immersionism, I want to leave those other games on the table for players to choose.

 

[clearstream]

It doesn't even matter. There's a much more profound problem with the notion of 'simulation' beyond a very surface level of 'establishment of plausibility' (and I'd say for anything that isn't pretty small scale even plausibility is just 'sounds good'). The reason for this is the sheer thinness of the actual formulation of the world in question. In principle you COULD work out the outcomes of basically almost everything in the real world, unless it hinges in some extreme way on very small factors that simply aren't tractable mathematically (IE did it rain on the 35 day of the war or not).

I see this in a different way, closer to @FormerlyHemlock. Formally, simulations are always incomplete. That's both a pragmatic reality and fundamental to their usefulness. Generally one aims for a less expensive (informationally smaller, efficient to run, etc) model with sufficient fidelity on essentials to be useful.

Thinness of the formulation of the world is not at issue for simulation. Incompleteness is expected. It is also of concern how well it helps us with the tasks we want to perform at the price we are able to pay.

 

[Andvari]

One thing I've noticed is that whenever there's a ruleset made for an RPG, that RPG also exists. For example, there are rules for AD&D. But then there's actually a game called AD&D! I'm starting to think this isn't a coincidence. So perhaps the question is... why do rules have RPGs?

 

[Autumnal]

. Is writing a story an appropriate goal for play?

It honestly depends what we mean by story. If we’re thinking of things laid down in prose, on film, etc, then no, gaming sucks for that. At the very best we get a first draft, and assuming we’re not Jack Kerouac or someone else who venerates unedited prose, that’s the easy part. We have to go outside game play for editing and revisions.

On the other hand, there is a kind of creation that gaming is a lot alike, and there’s even a very good movie about it. Vanya On 42nd St. is a film record of a real group of actors who rehearsed an Anton Chekhov playing and performed it only for themselves and an invited audience.

I don’t know how common that is I’m theater, but it’s not uncommon in classical music. Chamber groups - quartets and such - work together on music they want to master and reap the reward of a private success. In gaming we don’t get rehearsals, of course, but the idea of gaming as a kind of theater we make with each other for each other is one I like a lot.

 

[loverdrive]

The concern you have seems to be not about the scene, but the forcing of the scene. Is the scene possible in world simulation? Yes? Does the scene get forced? No. I'm not following why that is an obstacle beyond that the scene emerges differently.

Perhaps you are focused on the possibility that the scene does not emerge at all? It is true that it might not. What I had in mind in my earlier response was whether the scene could emerge in immersionist play? I believe that it can. It's typically not at issue in immersionist play if a given scene emerges.

To reiterate this branch of our conversation:

I mentioned how I don't see a grand difference between starting from a vision of a dramatic scene and starting from a vision of cool gameplay, and how both seem to contradict the idea of world simulation, as both require forcing the scene.

That's why assertion that they are not at odds made me pause.

In some respects this is a gamist concern: do we commence Chess in media res of the King about to fall? While that might be dramatic, it would defeat the enjoyment of Chess. It seems focused on the narrative at the expense of the game. Games as games often start at moments of tranquility, where forces and tensions are balanced. Players then decide the direction of play. That moment might be against a backdrop of turmoil, but as regards the players options they are open. Again, the problem is largely with "have".

Eh? I'm not particularly knowledgeable about chess, but I know that chess études, where the state is already way past the neutral game, are a thing. And they are done for the same reason: to enforce an already interesting position.

 

[loverdrive]

Aside: on quantum ogres and disregarding of player agency.

The chief reason why I love Apocalypse World is because it drowns PCs in trouble; it doesn't matter what you do, you will experience hardship and there's no move you can possibly make (pun intended, I guess) to escape. If you do everything in your power to remove a threat from the picture, something else will arise to be a thorn in your side. If you don't, it won't.

Because hardship is a reward, not unlike how the reward for beating a level in a vidyagame is to get to play the next, even harder level.

 

[pemerton]

the idea of gaming as a kind of theater we make with each other for each other is one I like a lot.

The first person I read articulate something like this idea was Robin Laws.

Speaking for my own play and the group of friends I play with, sometimes that's not all there is to it - eg when playing Torchbearer, there's also the blind scripting in conflicts which is closer in feeling to a short round of poker.

But it's a big part of it. I wouldn't expect anyone else to be particularly interested in our raw, unpolished creations. But they're fun for us because they're ours! (And the plural here is collective, not distributed.)

 

[SubrosaGames]

One of my kids likes to play imagination games - she and her friends all pretend to be other people (often superheroes) and do exciting and interesting things.

...

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.

...

There are probably other reasons too why RPGs have rules, other things that those rules can do.

For experienced GMs, some rules are meant to be broken. As an author of an entire RPG game, we've made sure that anyone running/playing our game knows that the rules are necessary for fairness and balance of power among all callings/vocations/races and NPCs, but they are merely our suggested guidelines. The rules that we settled upon (after 15 years of game testing) and published in our rulebooks are just the ones we thought worked best with the system as a whole. To drive this home, we've included certain HARD CORE rules that GMs can include for their players. These Hard Core rules make GMing a little more challenging but also give the Players a heightened game play experience. But the game runs fine and swiftly without them (when I run the game, I include most of the HC rules, but then again, I wrote the game, so they are second nature to me, lol).

Example: In the game, a person can Travel (using a spell) to any place s/he's seen at least once. But a HC rule would be to require an Accuracy roll unless a memorized slot was used for that destination. This places more "balance" on the game, such that a Player just can't be a genius and basically remember every single location they've ever seen well enough to Travel there. But at the same time, the HC Rule is optional (as is any other rule) if the GM doesn't want to have to bother with that level of scrutiny in the game. But no matter what, the GM must, MUST, remain consistent as to the rules s/he is GMing by.

Incidentally, that particular Travel HC Rule originated in my mind when running Planescape (oh, about 25 years ago). People needed to have BEEN to the Plane (or Dimension) they wanted to return to, I believe the rules were at the time -- ugh it's been too long. But I wanted the Players to have a little more freedom for their missteps (so to speak), so as long as they've seen the Plane (as in a Divination bowl), they could go there. Or something like that. But I know I changed some rule in Planescape regarding that, lol.

Anyway, bottom line: Why Rules?: [1] They define the game system (and some systems ARE better than others); [2] they attempt to establish a baseline of FAIRNESS between players, and also for the GM's personalities; [3] they are ultimately necessary for an inexperienced GM, but mere (if strong) suggestions for the most experienced Storytellers/GMs.

Finally, (if anyone's read this far, lol -- I try to keep it entertaining), I'd like to opine that not all rule changes in newer and newer editions are for the best. One of the reasons we wrote and published our own game was because D&D started watering down the rules (obviously targeting a younger, less experienced in Role-Play, audience). In the latest editions, you can have a character in 30 seconds and rejoin the battle, replacing the character you just lost. Well, that's great for hack 'n slash. But we older RPG'ers very much more enjoy the development over time of a Character (PC) with the challenge of making them Great (in spite of their flaws and challenges), and so we like to put some time (at least an hour!) into our character generation, tweaking everything we can, bringing food to the GM to bribe him/her for that extra 5% on the roll for Royalty or Ambidextrous traits, har har. And then, once we've poured parts of our souls into the character (alternate selves, to be sure), we set out to make them legendary heroes with GREAT stories.

 

[Autumnal]

The first person I read articulate something like this idea was Robin Laws.

I didn’t learn about the whole concept from him, but he broadened my awareness of it.

Speaking for my own play and the group of friends I play with, sometimes that's not all there is to it - eg when playing Torchbearer, there's also the blind scripting in conflicts which is closer in feeling to a short round of poker.

But it's a big part of it. I wouldn't expect anyone else to be particularly interested in our raw, unpolished creations. But they're fun for us because they're ours! (And the plural here is collective, not distributed.)

Absolutely. “We made this” is a great feeling in a lot of contexts.

 

[SubrosaGames]

So ONE thing we can conclude is that rules are inherently advisory...

I agree , and a good GM should know/remember what things s/he changed, and perhaps be a stickler for standardized rules if preparing players for Tournaments. There's no "well we play it this way" in Tournaments. Whining will not win the day.