Why do RPGs have rules?

Thomas Shey

Legend
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.

I think there's at least some notable differences when outcomes are framed before the dice are rolled there. In other words, even if I'm having to make up outcomes out of whole cloth, if I say (using something like BRP result categories as an example) "On a fumble A will happen, on a failure B will happen, on a success C will happen, on a special, D will happen, and on a crit E will happen" I've permitted more output space than if all I had was success/failure to work with. If I do it afterwards, as you say, its much less clear.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Thomas Shey

Legend
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.

As I've noted elsewhere, you can very much see this in how Chill 3e handled its die rolls. There are four possible results in it, and while none of them entirely bring things to a halt, you very much would prefer a crit to a fumble.
 

andreszarta

Adventurer
I think there's at least some notable differences when outcomes are framed before the dice are rolled there. In other words, even if I'm having to make up outcomes out of whole cloth, if I say (using something like BRP result categories as an example) "On a fumble A will happen, on a failure B will happen, on a success C will happen, on a special, D will happen, and on a crit E will happen" I've permitted more output space than if all I had was success/failure to work with. If I do it afterwards, as you say, its much less clear.
Yup! With you 100%. No disagreement there. Not saying the outcomes outloud before the roll vs framing them before produces notable differences in gameplay.

The expansion of the output space, though, like does it really dramatically change the play experience? Originally I was responding to this idea:
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?

Isn't an expansion of the output space something more than just "purely fictional differences", specially when, at the end of the day, the GM retains the control of where story can and can't go? I argue that it doesn't.
 

clearstream

(He, Him)
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 think so. One of the general learnings from fiction-first is that ideally there is momentum between system and fiction. While that's a common consequence of RPG rules, the DMG 242 rules reinforce and nuance it. And there is a valuable additional DMG 237 step of applying consequences resolution.

The table I index from is modified yet further with a view to ease of use in play (I find the sliding thresholds for the DMG 242 rules harder to apply at a glance)

Check
Result
Nat. 20​
Critical hit​
Result ≥ DC​
Success​
Nat. 10-19 and Result ≥ DC
Success with Complication
Result < DC​
Setback​
Nat. 1​
Critical miss​

I prefer using the nat. 10-19 because
  • It doesn't slide - you're always looking for the same numbers on the d20 so it becomes a reflex
  • To me it makes sense that if you need a high number to succeed (i.e. you're less skilled or it's more difficult) the only way to get what you want might be to accept a complication
  • It has a friendly interaction with advantage/disadvantage
 
Last edited:

hawkeyefan

Legend

It seems very much like it to me. Plenty of folks, yourself included, have tons of experience with D&D and similar games. You have less with other types of games. This is neither good nor bad, it simply is. It was the same situation for me not all that long ago. In some ways, it still is... there are plenty of games I'm not familiar with.

It can be challenging to talk about other types of games, or RPGs in general, when everything gets funneled back to D&D and similar games, as if that's a default setting for all RPGs.

I get that it can serve as common ground since just about everyone knows how those games work, but it gets treated as the default expectation even when it should not.

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

Are these the same folks who say "Rule Zero is always in effect"?

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's a section called Changing The Game that begins on page 229.

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?

I don't think it's a knock to say that any given game will only allow for so much variety, even when changed. At least, while still remaining recognizable as itself. I think @Campbell 's point was more that D&D is no more capable of such flexibility than many other games.

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.

I think a better way to look at it is not that you don't want to trigger moves, but that triggering a move always carries a risk to it, so you have to keep that in mind. Something is going to happen when a move is made... things will change.
 

niklinna

have a snickers
Or not. And I'm not going to name names. It's pretty apparent which are the One True Wayers and which are not.
Oh I bet know this one! The folks who aren't One True Wayers must be the ones who play a wide variety of games in a wide variety of styles, enjoy each for what they offer, cogently articulate the qualities & differences of those games and styles based on actual play experience, and don't complain ad nauseam about feeling attacked when other people share excitement—or even just information—about unfamiliar games and play styles.
 

clearstream

(He, Him)
Isn't an expansion of the output space something more than just "purely fictional differences", specially when, at the end of the day, the GM retains the control of where story can and can't go? I argue that it doesn't.
That old chestnut. The simple and accurate answer is - just GM in a principled way. You're allowed to respect the fictional position and follow the rules. Referring to the D&D game text, you're allowed to give weight to the PHB 185 text. And so on.
 

Umbran

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

Mod Note:
It is also pretty clear who is choosing to pay insufficient attention to moderator warnings to the thread.

I will err on the side of the less severe, and repeat myself once. Please stop dismissing people instead of addressing their points. If you aren't up for that, you aren't up for further discussion in the thread. I hope that's clear.
 

clearstream

(He, Him)
Are these the same folks who say "Rule Zero is always in effect"?
I see this as a red herring. We established above (or was it elsewhere) that all participants have a preexisting capacity to form and modify rules (and of course, to ignore them). So everyone at the table has the nuclear option. Why don't they use it?
 

Imaro

Legend
You said:


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:
  • Yes...
  • 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.

Point 1: I'm not assuming that something NEEDS to be moved forward... I'm assuming that some non-zero number of GM's will use illusionism to move something forward (whether needed or not) this cuts down on that inclination...

Point 2: If the GM is determining this, he can have an auto-success happen... so this is incorrect since the assumption is that some amount of uncertainty has been determined by the GM

Point 3: Yes... Being able to do something, choosing to do something, or always doing something are all different things. You are conflating the first with the last.

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?

Well first they aren't maintained... they aren't even true. But more importantly you can't both maintain everything you listed in the paragraph above and those points be true at the same time... that's my point. By accepting that house rule and all abiding by it in the game, the nature of play has changed.

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?

There isn't any illusionism being preformed... there can't be if we are transparent with the option we picked and all abide by it.
 

clearstream

(He, Him)
I think there's at least some notable differences when outcomes are framed before the dice are rolled there. In other words, even if I'm having to make up outcomes out of whole cloth, if I say (using something like BRP result categories as an example) "On a fumble A will happen, on a failure B will happen, on a success C will happen, on a special, D will happen, and on a crit E will happen" I've permitted more output space than if all I had was success/failure to work with. If I do it afterwards, as you say, its much less clear.
I find that one doesn't even need to fully articulate the outcomes. They don't need to be locked down on every detail. There just needs to be enough in place that the eventual narration is well constrained.
 

clearstream

(He, Him)
As I've noted elsewhere, you can very much see this in how Chill 3e handled its die rolls. There are four possible results in it, and while none of them entirely bring things to a halt, you very much would prefer a crit to a fumble.
On the bringing to a halt, to me one design choice is whether one wants to retain fail without setbacks. A benefit is that a player can attempt things where the cost of failure is simply not achieving the thing, rather than invoking additional badness. (Punished for trying.) On the other hand, fail without setbacks can feel static: it only obliquely drives momentum to fiction. Not necessarily in a bad way - for instance it can put it back on players to switch plans.

Anyway, I wondered what you take is on that?
 

pemerton

Legend
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.
This seems to imply there could be no first RPG - but there was! And there's no reason in purely abstract principle why it couldn't have been AW!

Furthermore, as Baker puts it in AW, "Apocalypse World divvies the conversation up in a strict and pretty traditional way." He is not overriding pre-existing expectations ("tradition"). He is affirming them![

You're focused on who gets to say what. Baker seems to be saying that's not his main concern when designing rules.
No he doesn't! It's his sole focus.

And on your account we would be bound to view saying who says what - that assignment alone - as unwelcome or unwanted.
No. You're ignoring the what in the phrase who gets to say what.

I mean, I stated a rule of AW. Here it is again:

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.​

I've underlined the parts of that rule that set out the who. And I've italicised the bits that constrain the what. Players are under no other constraints as to content, beyond a general one to cohere in what they say with the already-established fiction. The GM is of course under a wide range of constraints when it comes to exercising the permissions and fulfilling the obligations that pertain to their introduction of new shared fiction.

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").
Anyway, why do RPGs have rules? In a nutshell, here is a proposed partial answer*


Each candidate description must be matched to a norm/rule that will explicitly state or imply its consequences. (Explicitly state more often for change to system; imply more often for change to fiction.) Along the D -> N/R -> C chain are a number of tasks -
  1. Supply a candidate description
  2. Match that description to a norm/rule
  3. Read off the norm/rule the explicitly stated consequences, or propose fitting consequences
  4. If more than one consequence is possible, select one
2. is not always a trivial task. Unless a description exactly matches a game text there is room for ambiguity. The AW game text calls attention to this (p10 in the 2nd edition.) D&D gives DM the job of matching descriptions to rules.

3. can get pretty nuanced. PbtA moves are compound rules that do a good job of directing toward the system and fiction consequences connected with any description that matched the move. D&D spells in most cases spell out the exact consequence. D&D skills on the other hand define scopes of effect that often imply a wide range of possible consequences. Again, D&D gives DM the job of fitting consequences.

In many games 4. is down to a dice roll that selects between some or all of - progress, progress+complication, no-progress, and no-progress+badness. The word "progress" shouldn't be read too literally here. Candidate descriptions are usually supplied with an ends in mind ("I climb the wall"... to get to the top. "I swing my mace"... to deal damage to the squirrel.) Progress generally means toward that ends.
So just to be clear, you're now telling us that this post - which uses the phrases "description" and "consequence", and talks about a "matching" problem with ambiguity in the gam text, and gives as illustrations PbtA player-side moves and rolling dice to determin degree of success - is also talking about rules like "If you are a player, you are permitted to say this thing about your character."

That rules has no "matching" problem (there is no problem working out who is a player). The consequence is not a "fitting" one (I had taken "fitting" to mean something like "fits with the established fiction", consistent with your own extended history of posting about "saying what follows".)

And under this reading, D -> N/R -> C is nothing but a candidate statement of the general form of all rules: they are normative standards (what you call "consequences read off from the rule") that apply to certain people in certain circumstances (what you call "descriptions").

Think rather of normative standards that lack forcefulness.
Such as? Like the suggestion on the AD&D character sheet that you might want to draw a picture of your PC?
 
Last edited:

pemerton

Legend
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.
I don't know what you've got in mind, here, as far as Gygax and Arneson's D&D, Gygax's DMG, or Moldvay Basic, are concerned.

I'm not really the biggest fan of the phrase "one true way", but each of the rulesets I've mentioned gives clear instructions to the GM on how to do their job.
 

pemerton

Legend
On the bringing to a halt, to me one design choice is whether one wants to retain fail without setbacks. A benefit is that a player can attempt things where the cost of failure is simply not achieving the thing, rather than invoking additional badness. (Punished for trying.) On the other hand, fail without setbacks can feel static: it only obliquely drives momentum to fiction. Not necessarily in a bad way - for instance it can put it back on players to switch plans.

Anyway, I wondered what you take is on that?
What does this look like, stated using the language of rules for RPGing rather than by way of reification of the purely imaginary?

A player can attempt a thing, where the cost of failure is simply not achieving the thing.

Given the context of the discussion, "a thing" here seems to mean a thing the player declares that their PC tries to do. Failure seems to have a dual meaning: it means the player attempts to throw a certain number or higher on the dice, and doesn't (maybe in some games it's a dice pool or card draw or whatever instead, but the same idea of win/lose applies); it also means in the fiction, the PC doesn't succeed in the thing they try to do.

The phrase "invoking additional badness" which is glossed as "being punished" or "suffering setbacks" is presented impersonally, but presumably the person in question who would narrate the fiction that counts as "badness", "punishment" or "setbacks" would be the GM.

So the rule here is something like if a player declares an action for their PC, and performs the mechanical procedure that is prescribed as the method of resolving such a declaration, and gets a losing rather than a winning outcome from that procedure, then the GM is not obliged to narrate any additional fiction beyond (perhaps) the passage of an amount of time commensurate to what the PC tried to do.

And when we say "it can put it back on the the player to switch plans", that means that the fiction continues to be unchanged (but for the passage of time) and so the player is still thinking about what to try and contribute to the same given bit of fiction.

I think it is obvious why this sort of RPGing is experienced by many participants as centring the GM's conception of the fictional situation. As the post I replied to illustrates, the most common way of describing it is by way of a reification of the GM's imagination. And when that reification is set aside and instead the actual rules and process of play are described, we can see that the player can make proposals about the fiction ("My PC tries to do such-and-such") which - once resolved - impose no obligation at all on the GM to change the fiction.

Whether this is good or bad play is a further thing, a matter of preference. In this post I'm just trying to clearly bring out some of its salient features.
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
Yup! With you 100%. No disagreement there. Not saying the outcomes outloud before the roll vs framing them before produces notable differences in gameplay.

The expansion of the output space, though, like does it really dramatically change the play experience? Originally I was responding to this idea:

Define "dramatically". Do I think it does so significantly? Yes.

Isn't an expansion of the output space something more than just "purely fictional differences", specially when, at the end of the day, the GM retains the control of where story can and can't go? I argue that it doesn't.

This requires a GM who is going to steer the result to a specific end no matter what. That's not every GM out there. As an example in the upcoming superhero session I'm going to run Saturday, there are at least three potential outcomes with non-trivial differences in state.
 

clearstream

(He, Him)
Some very good designers consider the assignment of authority to be the point of rpg design. I do not.
As a designer, it's my job to make as sure as possible that the game won't break down into moment-to-moment negotiations about raw assent despite the game's rules and the players' upfront commitment to them. But the brute assignment of authority is NOT how to accomplish that.​
When my games assign authority they do so in strict service to what I consider the real point: setting expectations and granting permission.​
*********​
if all your formal rules do is structure your group's ongoing agreement about what happens in the game, they are a) interchangeable with any other rpg rules out there, and b) probably a waste of your attention. Live negotiation and honest collaboration are almost certainly better. . . .​

You're focused on who gets to say what. Baker seems to be saying that's not his main concern when designing rules.

No he doesn't! It's his sole focus.

Can you say how assigning authority is not who gets to say what?
 

I think there's at least some notable differences when outcomes are framed before the dice are rolled there. In other words, even if I'm having to make up outcomes out of whole cloth, if I say (using something like BRP result categories as an example) "On a fumble A will happen, on a failure B will happen, on a success C will happen, on a special, D will happen, and on a crit E will happen" I've permitted more output space than if all I had was success/failure to work with. If I do it afterwards, as you say, its much less clear.
What strikes me is the contrast between task resolution and intent resolution regardless of non-binary outcome. That is, in 5e the GM adjudicates the task at hand and states what the outcome is, positive, negative, or perhaps optionally a mixed outcome. In a lot of narrative play the player describes an intent or goal, or such is manifest in the situation, and then describes how they achieve it, or part of it, while the GM describes any problems or setbacks.

I haven't seen 5e played in the latter fashion.
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
I find that one doesn't even need to fully articulate the outcomes. They don't need to be locked down on every detail. There just needs to be enough in place that the eventual narration is well constrained.

I used that example simply because it was clear. I do think unless the GM has thought through what consequences there are before the roll is made there's going to be a temptation to put his thumb on the scale; how well he'll resist that temptation various from GM to GM. Personally, I prefer that in most cases everyone know the general potential output states before it even comes up, which is one of the reasons I'm not a fan of games that put too much ad-hoc decision making in the GM's hands as a default rather than an occasional necessity.
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
First off, apologies to all if this is ground already covered - I was called in on page 81 here and am not about to go over the previous 80 to find out what I've missed... :)
What is the difference between hard-rule status and soft-rule status you're envisioning here?
A hard rule (a.k.a. an actual rule) is explicit, either allowing or disallowing (or both) something(s) specific to happen in the play of a game.

"A king can move up to one square in any direction" is a hard rule: it allows a king to move one square and disallows it from moving any further. "Constitution 16 gives a bonus 3 hit points per character level" is a hard rule: it allows exactly that bonus and disallows any greater or lesser bonus. "A player on the attacking team may not precede the puck across the defensive team's blue line" is a hard rule: it disallows certain player positionings on the ice in certain situations.

Contrast this with "the objective of the game of hockey is to win via scoring more goals than the opposing team" which, while in the rulebook, neither specifically allows nor disallows anything. It's simply a guideline or suggestion as to how to play and not a rule at all until harder-coded into actual rules that define the win condition, define what a goal is and how it is scored, define the length of a game, and so on. And even then that guideline can still be ignored; a badly-overmatched team, for example, might take a different approach and instead of playing to try to win will instead play purely defensively, and try to lose by as small a margin as it can.

"Play to find out" falls into this same category - it neither specifically allows nor disallows anything and thus is not a rule: it's a guideline.
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."
In hockey (and most other sports), each league has its own minor variants on an otherwise fairly-consistent set of rules; but in the end the league sets the (hard-coded) rules. Chess doesn't often even have that much variability, nor do most boardgames, card games, etc.

TTRPGs, however, are a different animal. Here, while the publisher might want to play the role of the league and set the hard rules*, there's these annoying things called GMs and players who - in the fine well-established tradition of RPG rules-kitbashing - want to make the game their own by taking those hard rules and in some cases putting them through a blender. And so, the role of the "league" falls on the GM (and players, maybe) at each table; to - to some degree - set the hard rules they're willing to play by and then play the game.

And some publishers realize this, and so rather than hard-coding lots of rules they give guidelines and suggestions, backed up by a far lesser amount of hard-coded rules. These guidelines are by nature a bit fuzzy, and that fuzziness makes them harder to change to any extent without (ntentionally or otherwise) changing the underlying foundation of the game as designed.

* - worth noting that most of these hard rules are dealing with quantifications and-or abstractions of those parts of the fiction that cannot be roleplayed in meat-space.
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.
I think the above implies a far greater amount of "flaky GM whim" than I'm getting at. That said, IMO someone - be it the publisher, the GM, the table as a whole, or whoever - has to take on the role of "the league" and set the hard rules. And if all the publisher gives you is guidelines and expects them to be taken as hard rules, that doesn't seem to provide much help with the nitty-gritty of sorting those fictional abstractions; instead it shunts that responsibility on to some combination of the GM and players and asks them to figure it out for themselves.

And sure, if you've a table of agreeable not-competitive people willing to help with that figuring-out process on an ongoing basis this set-up could be great. My experience, however, is that a) some people tend to be more stubborn and-or competitive than that, and b) some - generally the more casual types - aren't willing to help with that figure-it-out process and would prefer the game do it for them.
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.
Game mechanics are usually a fairly basic input-->processing-->output sequence. Most of the time the players provide the input(1), the game does the processing(2a) and gives output(2b), and the GM interprets that output and adds it to the fiction(3).

1. Player input: Action declaration "We search the room carefully, looking for any sign the princess was ever here."
2a. Processing: (meat-space game mechanics occur e.g. rolling of dice, checking of notes, or whatever the system in use asks for)
2b. Output: (meat-space game mechanics determine a result - let's say success in this case - which must be honoured in step 3)
3. Interpretation: GM narration "Tolbert, you find a few long blonde hairs caught in the window sash that roughly match what you'd expect to be the princess'; and Jerelle, you notice a stain on the floor - could be spilled tea - that can't be more than a few days old."

This on its own doesn't seem controversial. So where's the controversy? Is it the specifics around 2a? Is it lack of honouring the result in 2b? Is it that the GM gets to do the interpretation in step 3?


--- edit - typo
 
Last edited:

Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition Starter Box

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top