Why do RPGs have rules?

[Lanefan]

That’s one way to look at it.

Another would be, because these players are my friends, isn’t there something I could come up with that would appeal to us all?

I didn’t want there to be a game without them. I wanted to include the whole group.

I couldn't include "the whole group" if I tried, given as there's about 15 of us scattered (with some overlap) among various games.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Sounds like you've had it rough. I'm sorry to hear that.

Not really, I have HEARD OF people playing these endlessly long games and this and that, have really not witnessed such IRL. Seen some large and active groups (one with 200 players that I was part of at one time back in the day) but from what I can see, the percentage of games that last one year is far less than 10% and it goes down rapidly from there. I want to play systems that cater to real world TTRPG play, not unicorn games that barely exist in reality. I'm sure 10 people in this thread will chime in and recount the epic length and scope of their games, but IMHO that doesn't count for much, its a self-selected sample!

My guess is that the average RPG goes 12 to 20 sessions. I'm willing to believe there's a 'long tail' of longer games that adds up to a fairly decent chunk of overall game sessions played. Certainly long games should get their due, but so should more intense and less extended ones, and they really got short shrift for a LOT of years!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I've never had anyone I'd categorize as a bad GM. I think I've seen... and performed... some bad GMing. But I think a lot of that is because what I'd consider bad GMing now was actually a primary mode of play, supported by actual products and sources of GMing advice.

I think a big part of it is also my tastes have changed, and also the amount of time I can devote to gaming. I used to be a full on world builder where I'd spend a lot of my free time crafting settings and scenarios, which required a lot of work. As I've gotten older, I'm less able to do so, and I also had a couple of instances where what I was doing didn't suit all my players, and there was conflict... and I realized that the amount of effort I put into the game kind of made my argument stronger by default... but that wasn't really fair. Basically, I was annoyed that my level of effort wasn't always appreciated, and I realized that it also wasn't necessary. I had a game kind of fall apart because of this, and it was eye opening. And I don't expect most trad minded folks here would view anything I did as bad GMing... but I think it was problematic.

The amount of work was simply not needed, and all the time I'd spent on it was lost... and I realized that if that was anyone's fault, it was mine. I chose to spend all that time and effort. And so I decided not to do that anymore.

I changed the way I GMed. This was around the time 5e first came out, so I started with that. But before long, I had very similar concerns coming up... and so I looked beyond D&D and other familiar games, and learned about all kinds of games that were doing things in a way that suited me and which still allowed many of the things that I like.

I don't think that my shift in game style had much to do with anyone else's GMing, it was much more about my own.

I agree, I simply found that there was a lot of stuff that couldn't be done using trad methods and over time, as I streamlined my approach to GMing, I just found that it was actually possible to do some really genuinely different and more interesting stuff, AND save a lot of time!

I mean, beyond just never seeing anything like the sort of unicorn trad games that people report here, which also leads me to conclude that trad probably isn't ideal for a lot of more casual gamers, its just very inefficient of GM time, and only works for a narrow range of possible interesting games. Maybe its great when it manages to really catch fire, but I think that is a lot less common than most people think. OTOH AP-type/module play is inherently trad, and that probably IS like 80% of all games in existence, so its a nuanced picture.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Not quite universal. Some simply run what they want and see who is willing to show.

Though if you have a minimum-number-of-practical-players thing, or play somewhere you don't control, that has its limits.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Not really, I have HEARD OF people playing these endlessly long games and this and that, have really not witnessed such IRL. Seen some large and active groups (one with 200 players that I was part of at one time back in the day) but from what I can see, the percentage of games that last one year is far less than 10% and it goes down rapidly from there. I want to play systems that cater to real world TTRPG play, not unicorn games that barely exist in reality. I'm sure 10 people in this thread will chime in and recount the epic length and scope of their games, but IMHO that doesn't count for much, its a self-selected sample!

While multi-year games don't seem to be typical--and I'm not sure ever were--the existence of Advanture Paths suggests that year or a bit over long games are not that atypical even if you haven't hit them yourself.

Edit: I see you acknowledged this yourself in the next message.

My guess is that the average RPG goes 12 to 20 sessions. I'm willing to believe there's a 'long tail' of longer games that adds up to a fairly decent chunk of overall game sessions played. Certainly long games should get their due, but so should more intense and less extended ones, and they really got short shrift for a LOT of years!

To make it clear, I'm not suggesting that shorter campaigns are inferior, just that I'm not sold they're more typical. Among other things I wouldn't be surprised that your experience in more recent times is colored by playing a lot more games that are low-prep; if someone is doing significant baseline prep work, they're probably uninterested in running it for just 12 sessions in most cases.

 

[robertsconley]

This process describes a pretty narrow slice of the full gamut of RPGing.

Then what it is do you do differently?

As as follow up how do you find my approach narrow? What does it not consider?

 

[hawkeyefan]

Corollary: your choice of gaming styles is limited by your choice of players.

I have the same issue.

To some extent, certainly. I’ve been able to propose new games to my group and they’ve taken to them quite well. I think all the years as the primary GM earned me some good will and some trust. And the players are generally open minded, creative folks… so that helps.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

While multi-year games don't seem to be typical--and I'm not sure ever were--the existence of Advanture Paths suggests that year or a bit over long games are not that atypical even if you haven't hit them yourself.

Edit: I see you acknowledged this yourself in the next message.



To make it clear, I'm not suggesting that shorter campaigns are inferior, just that I'm not sold they're more typical. Among other things I wouldn't be surprised that your experience in more recent times is colored by playing a lot more games that are low-prep; if someone is doing significant baseline prep work, they're probably uninterested in running it for just 12 sessions in most cases.

Hmmmm, lets see... So, we're on session 5 of the latest game I'm a player in, and the one before that ran something like 30 sessions, roughly, almost a year. That was BitD and it definitely had run its course though. Surely we COULD have done something like an "after the PCs rode off into the sunset" or something if we'd wanted an 'endless' continuity. I think its quite possible to do that with narrativist games, you will just have 'resets' now and then, probably.

I ran a HoML game before that, which didn't go long, it was mostly sorting through the new version's mechanics a bit, and RL got in people's way. 10 sessions? Certainly would have been happy to have it go more.

Played in 2 5e campaigns before that, both went around a year, roughly, maybe a bit more. Again, probably 30-40 sessions each, but neither got past around 12th level. RL again, lol. Honestly I would say, especially the 2nd of the 5e games, was actually pretty good, maybe verging more on neo-trad than really trad, lol. Kind of a mix really. But the GM has also run Dungeon World, so kind of knows her stuff on that score.

I think IMHO most narrative games can easily sustain 30 sessions or more. The three 4e campaigns I ran all ran for quite a lot, especially the first one, which was probably the longest game I've ever run, at around 4 years. That was mostly pretty low myth play, though being done on Maptool and being 4e I did have to prep quite a few battle maps!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Then what it is do you do differently?

As as follow up how do you find my approach narrow? What does it not consider?

There's nothing wrong with the approach, it is simply only one of a fairly wide range of 'process of play' possibilities. A mild example of a variation on that would be something like Dungeon World, where your Step 1 doesn't happen, the game is 'zero myth' (or at least low myth, arguably). According to the rules of DW the first thing that happens is the table convenes, creates characters. During that process the GM asks questions, the players give answers, and construct backstory/bonds/alignment/etc. of their PCs. The GM then describes an opening scene which relates in some way to these dramatic concerns which the players have voiced.

So the loop 2-5 proceeds from there, but note that the GM has no 'notes' to draw from, they describes scenes, and when the players describe what they do in response, the GM can make 'soft' moves, things that are generally not 'irreversible', unless a player ignores some opening and leaves the GM a path to make a 'hard' move, one that hurts! If a player describes an action that matches a character move (sort of like a power or class feature in D&D) then the rule for that happens, dice are usually rolled, and some mix of what the player said and what the GM gets to say (especially on a bad roll) happens.

Once a scene is played out, the GM will describe a new scene that follows from it, usually with some new obstacle in the way of one of the characters getting what they are after.

GMs can also invent 'fronts' (but only after the first session) which are 'canned' dangers they can put forth as their soft moves. So the GM could invent an 'orc tribe' that will 'invade', and give warning of that as a "doom", a move that portends trouble ahead.

So, in some sense its not THAT different from 'trad' play, but the PURPOSE of the GM's actions is rather different. Another key difference is the GM is not allowed to simply declare actions that the players describe as simply failing because something like "my map says there are no orcs in those hills." Well, if the player rolls well enough, then there may well be orcs there!

 

[Lanefan]

Not really, I have HEARD OF people playing these endlessly long games and this and that, have really not witnessed such IRL. Seen some large and active groups (one with 200 players that I was part of at one time back in the day) but from what I can see, the percentage of games that last one year is far less than 10% and it goes down rapidly from there. I want to play systems that cater to real world TTRPG play, not unicorn games that barely exist in reality.

And therein lies the death spiral: if systems don't cater to long-running games then games are less likely to run long, meaning systems become even less likely to cater to them because there'd fewer of them, and down we go.

My guess is that the average RPG goes 12 to 20 sessions. I'm willing to believe there's a 'long tail' of longer games that adds up to a fairly decent chunk of overall game sessions played. Certainly long games should get their due, but so should more intense and less extended ones, and they really got short shrift for a LOT of years!

Would this be a good place to mention that my current game hit session 1000 last week?

 

[robertsconley]

There's nothing wrong with the approach, it is simply only one of a fairly wide range of 'process of play' possibilities. A mild example of a variation on that would be something like Dungeon World, where your Step 1 doesn't happen, the game is 'zero myth' (or at least low myth, arguably). According to the rules of DW the first thing that happens is the table convenes, creates characters. During that process the GM asks questions, the players give answers, and construct backstory/bonds/alignment/etc. of their PCs.

I stated that the campaign begins when the Referee describes the setting. This step along with the others are meant to be to read as encompassing a broad scope of possibilities.

It could a single person who is meant to be the referee creating the setting and describing it.

Or the referee of the campaign decide to delegate the creation of setting by making it a group decision. Even use a game that the group plays to develop the setting.

Or the setting be the result of a decision to adopt something that is premade. This decision could again be made by an individual or the referee delegating it to the group as a whole.

Or it can be the result of deciding to adopt a rule set that has a distinct setting woven into it like Dungeon World. Dungeon World is not zero myth. It has assumptions about about the settings it will be used for.

In all cases for a tabletop roleplaying the setting of the campaign is determined prior to the creation of characters. Because it is impossible to make character without the context a setting provides.

And to be clear the setting description doesn’t have to be complete, it only has to be enough to enable the creation of characters. Which Dungeon World does it’s opening chapters and in the aides it’s provides for character creation.

Step 2 the process of character is likewise expansive. It could be a player sitting down with a rulebook and following the character creation procedure.

The GM then describes an opening scene which relates in some way to these dramatic concerns which the players have voiced.

Which is step three.

So the loop 2-5 proceeds from there, but note that the GM has no 'notes' to draw from, they describes scenes, and when the players describe what they do in response, the GM can make 'soft' moves, things that are generally not 'irreversible', unless a player ignores some opening and leaves the GM a path to make a 'hard' move, one that hurts! If a player describes an action that matches a character move (sort of like a power or class feature in D&D) then the rule for that happens, dice are usually rolled, and some mix of what the player said and what the GM gets to say (especially on a bad roll) happens.

Once a scene is played out, the GM will describe a new scene that follows from it, usually with some new obstacle in the way of one of the characters getting what they are after.

GMs can also invent 'fronts' (but only after the first session) which are 'canned' dangers they can put forth as their soft moves. So the GM could invent an 'orc tribe' that will 'invade', and give warning of that as a "doom", a move that portends trouble ahead.

So, in some sense its not THAT different from 'trad' play, but the PURPOSE of the GM's actions is rather different. Another key difference is the GM is not allowed to simply declare actions that the players describe as simply failing because something like "my map says there are no orcs in those hills." Well, if the player rolls well enough, then there may well be orcs there!

I am familiar with the above having read and played Dungeon World. My view is that by adopting Dungeon World the referee is choosing to delegate the creation of the setting. On one hand by agreeing to let the players create new setting elements while the campaign unfolds. On the other hand by choosing to use Dungeon World with it strong setting assumptions that are baked into its mechanics.

The overall process flows as I described it except there a lot more intermingling of the roles. There are still specific circumstances in which the characters find themselves. The players still decide what they do as their character. Their actions are adjudicated by a cooperative process. And the new circumstance are described which in Dunegon World is still one of the primary responsibilities of the referee as outlined starting on page 160.

 

[pemerton]

Because of the central mechanic that defines an RPG where

1. The referee describes a setting
2. The players describe some character they want to play in the setting.
3. The referee describes the circumstances in which the characters find themselves.
4. The players describe what they do as their characters.
5. The referee adjudicates what the players do as their characters and then loops back to #3.

Steps 3 and 5 repeats until the session or campaign ends.

This process describes a pretty narrow slice of the full gamut of RPGing.

Then what it is do you do differently?

As as follow up how do you find my approach narrow? What does it not consider?

I described it as narrow because it describes just one way of doing RPGing.

For instance, perhaps the players establish the setting. Or perhaps all the participants do so together. Perhaps setting is emergent upon action declarations. Or perhaps there is no setting established beyond what is inherent in the game itself (Traveller can be approached like this. So can Prince Valiant and Cthulhu Dark.)

Alternatively, the focus may be on situation rather than setting, and again the players might play the key role here. And when it comes the the circumstances in which the characters find themselves, maybe the referee has the key role here, or maybe someone else does - eg a successful Circles check in BW lets the player describe the circumstance (ie as one in which their PC meets the person they were hoping to meet). Classic Traveller Streetwise (1977 edition) is similar to this.

Not all declared actions involve GM adjudication. Eg in Marvel Heroic RP and variants, sometimes the player can spend a "plot point" to establish a resource; in Prince Valiant sometimes a player can spend a Storyteller Certificate and narrate a desired effect.

The authority structure you set out in your post doesn't describe a good chunk of the RPGing I've done over the past decade.

Dungeon World is not zero myth. It has assumptions about about the settings it will be used for.

In all cases for a tabletop roleplaying the setting of the campaign is determined prior to the creation of characters. Because it is impossible to make character without the context a setting provides.

This statement does not entail "the referee describes a setting". It also uses "genre" as equivalent to setting.

I've started Burning Wheel games in which the players build their PCs, establish relationships and reputations and the like, and then the setting has flowed from that.

I've started Cthulhu Dark games in which we all agree on a place and time (eg Boston between the wars).

These are not examples of "the referee describes a setting".

 

[Grendel_Khan]

And therein lies the death spiral: if systems don't cater to long-running games then games are less likely to run long, meaning systems become even less likely to cater to them because there'd fewer of them, and down we go.

This is not an actual problem. There'll always be some version of D&D, GURPS, etc. that can work for the small number of players who want endless campaigns. The notion that every game should be all things to all people is how we get watered-down designs that don't do anything particularly well.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

And therein lies the death spiral: if systems don't cater to long-running games then games are less likely to run long, meaning systems become even less likely to cater to them because there'd fewer of them, and down we go.

I strongly doubt you have much to worry about. Heck, you can still buy 1e and 2e books new on Amazon, lol. Well, they are not cheap anymore like they were 10 years ago, but there's a metric boatload of trad games out there, they're going nowhere.

Would this be a good place to mention that my current game hit session 1000 last week?

As I say, I think there's a huge self-selection in a forum like this. After playing with quite a few groups etc. for many years I have still to meet a GM who has done that. YOU probably haven't met one! (I mean, mirrors aside, lol). There's a long tail out there, but the idea that RPGs, generally speaking, should be designed to cater to that seems odd to me, when it is such a small part of the hobby. The real 'death spiral' in my book is that a few super enthusiast people who WOULD run 1000 session game end up as the loudest voices in the room, and then all the people who are like "wait, I just want a 10 episode series..." leave the hobby because it doesn't really cater to them. Wash, rinse, repeat.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I stated that the campaign begins when the Referee describes the setting. This step along with the others are meant to be to read as encompassing a broad scope of possibilities.

It could a single person who is meant to be the referee creating the setting and describing it.

Or the referee of the campaign decide to delegate the creation of setting by making it a group decision. Even use a game that the group plays to develop the setting.

Still, when you say "or the referee of the campaign decide" it sounds a lot like a traditional model of RPG play where there's a GM who considers themselves a 'game boss' and decides how to do this stuff.

Or the setting be the result of a decision to adopt something that is premade. This decision could again be made by an individual or the referee delegating it to the group as a whole.

Or it can be the result of deciding to adopt a rule set that has a distinct setting woven into it like Dungeon World. Dungeon World is not zero myth. It has assumptions about about the settings it will be used for.

I would call Dungeon World 'zero myth', there is no FICTION that is prearranged and determines whether or not play can proceed in a specific direction. Yes, there's genre, and that includes a bunch of D&D-esque monsters, etc. There's a vast difference between that and D&D, where the GM or a module author makes up ALL of the fiction, and it is completely binding on the characters.

In all cases for a tabletop roleplaying the setting of the campaign is determined prior to the creation of characters. Because it is impossible to make character without the context a setting provides.

Well, you should play Dungeon World then! This is totally not true. I agree that genre has to be established, maybe other elements of 'color' will be as well in order to arrive at a table-wide agreement as to what sorts of ideas will shape character creation, but 'setting of the campaign' is not needed.

And to be clear the setting description doesn’t have to be complete, it only has to be enough to enable the creation of characters. Which Dungeon World does it’s opening chapters and in the aides it’s provides for character creation.

I think you are discounting fundamental differences between DW and trad RPGs here.

Step 2 the process of character is likewise expansive. It could be a player sitting down with a rulebook and following the character creation procedure.

As I said, there's no 'step 1' in DW.

Which is step three.

I am familiar with the above having read and played Dungeon World. My view is that by adopting Dungeon World the referee is choosing to delegate the creation of the setting. On one hand by agreeing to let the players create new setting elements while the campaign unfolds. On the other hand by choosing to use Dungeon World with it strong setting assumptions that are baked into its mechanics.

The overall process flows as I described it except there a lot more intermingling of the roles. There are still specific circumstances in which the characters find themselves. The players still decide what they do as their character. Their actions are adjudicated by a cooperative process. And the new circumstance are described which in Dunegon World is still one of the primary responsibilities of the referee as outlined starting on page 160.

Well, there are really profound differences between DW, played as Baker would play it, and trad D&D.

 

[robertsconley]

The real 'death spiral' in my book is that a few super enthusiast people who WOULD run 1000 session game end up as the loudest voices in the room, and then all the people who are like "wait, I just want a 10 episode series..." leave the hobby because it doesn't really cater to them. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Sure that would be a problem if when we lived an era where a publisher needed capital to make a print run, limited warehouse space at a distributor, and limited shelf space as a game store. But thanks to the changes wrought by the internet and digital technology very specific niches can be now supported efficiently and at a profit by the RPG industry even when the audience is in the hundreds and the company's staff is just one person.

The only remaining issues are legal ones surrounding copyrights and trademarks that prevent alternatives from arising if the original publisher goes down a creative path the game's hobbyists don't like. This is I why I recommend supporting publishers who release their material as open content.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Hmmmm, lets see... So, we're on session 5 of the latest game I'm a player in, and the one before that ran something like 30 sessions, roughly, almost a year. That was BitD and it definitely had run its course though. Surely we COULD have done something like an "after the PCs rode off into the sunset" or something if we'd wanted an 'endless' continuity. I think its quite possible to do that with narrativist games, you will just have 'resets' now and then, probably.

I ran a HoML game before that, which didn't go long, it was mostly sorting through the new version's mechanics a bit, and RL got in people's way. 10 sessions? Certainly would have been happy to have it go more.

Played in 2 5e campaigns before that, both went around a year, roughly, maybe a bit more. Again, probably 30-40 sessions each, but neither got past around 12th level. RL again, lol. Honestly I would say, especially the 2nd of the 5e games, was actually pretty good, maybe verging more on neo-trad than really trad, lol. Kind of a mix really. But the GM has also run Dungeon World, so kind of knows her stuff on that score.

I think IMHO most narrative games can easily sustain 30 sessions or more. The three 4e campaigns I ran all ran for quite a lot, especially the first one, which was probably the longest game I've ever run, at around 4 years. That was mostly pretty low myth play, though being done on Maptool and being 4e I did have to prep quite a few battle maps!

Just to be clear, my statement wasn't intended to be symmetrical; I have no reason to believe some low-prep games can't be run for extended periods if one is of a mind (though there may be some you're likely to exhaust the interest-space before going too long). It was mostly that I suspect people usually aren't going to want to do high-prep (especially upfront prep) on games that aren't going to have a reasonable lifespan and pay-off.

(Counter-Example: Shadow of the Demon Lord which was designed, from what I understand to run about ten adventures (though whether those are actually supposed to be one session each I'm unclear) and done.)

 

[Thomas Shey]

Would this be a good place to mention that my current game hit session 1000 last week?

Yeah, but man, there's seriously little reason to not think you're both an outlier and a fairly extreme one at that here.

 

[robertsconley]

Still, when you say "or the referee of the campaign decide" it sounds a lot like a traditional model of RPG play where there's a GM who considers themselves a 'game boss' and decides how to do this stuff.

I realize that is one of the perils of writing tersely. I had a more detailed explanation but that caused its own problems. I found writing tersely and then explaining that I am not assuming that any of the steps are handled in any particular way results in better discussion.

I would call Dungeon World 'zero myth', there is no FICTION that is prearranged and determines whether or not play can proceed in a specific direction. Yes, there's genre, and that includes a bunch of D&D-esque monsters, etc. There's a vast difference between that and D&D, where the GM or a module author makes up ALL of the fiction, and it is completely binding on the characters.

Fiction is one of those terms that hobbyists use in many ways. You will have to clarify what you mean. However in terms of setting the initial pages outlines the different character types and their description paints a specific picture of the world the characters inhabit. The fact that it doesn't go into whether the character will be facing the Mad King of Redgate Keep versus The Evil High Priest of the Hellbridge Temple doesn't change that Baker has a very specific type of setting in mind when writing Dungeon World. This is further reinforced by the gamemaster advice given later. Dungeon World is not an RPG that lends itself to running every type of fantasy setting. But instead, focuses on a narrow range of settings that have a specific feel.

And keep in mind we are talking about Dungeon World specifically not the PbtA framework which powers other types of RPGs which deal with different settings and different genres.

Well, you should play Dungeon World then! This is totally not true. I agree that genre has to be established, maybe other elements of 'color' will be as well in order to arrive at a table-wide agreement as to what sorts of ideas will shape character creation, but 'setting of the campaign' is not needed.

Then a clarification is needed by what I am calling a setting. Again it is meant to be taken expansively not narrowly. A setting is the background of the campaign. Anything and everything that could impact how a player will roleplay a character.

The point of all roleplaying whether it is with a human referee as with tabletop RPGs, collaborative storytelling, refereed by a software algorithm, or adjudicated by the rules of a sport (LARPS), is to pretend to be a character having adventures. In order to have adventures there needs to be a place in which adventures can occur. In order for players to decide what to do as their characters there needs to be a context on which the player can make a decision. All of this forms the setting of the campaign.

What I am calling a setting is not just a list of specific details like the Sorceror Supply Shop is on Regal Street just south of the Square of the Gods in City State. It also the more general assumptions and tropes from which those details are created from. The details of Harn are grounded in the fact that it is a medieval setting with some elements of fantasy and the fantastic.

The procedure that I outlined and claim covers all tabletop RPGs works just fine if the group decides to start the campaign with just general assumptions and tropes and paint in the details later as characters are created and the campaign is played. It also works just fine with campaign where the group is sitting with the entire Glorantha corpus sitting on shelves next to the table.

Thus I stand by my point that the first thing that happens when any type of tabletop RPG campaign is run, is that a setting is defined.

I think you are discounting fundamental differences between DW and trad RPGs here.

Given what I said above, Dungeon World is an example of an RPG that starts out a campaign with a setting that is comprised of no details just assumptions and tropes.

In addition, since the first campaigns of the early 70s the process has always started with "Hey what would be fun to play?" Whether it was a decision by a single individual, the referee, throwing it out to the rest of the group. Or a group just brainstorming ideas until one is reached by consensus. Then the details are fleshed out. What Baker did with PtbA style RPGs is make this process explicit and an expected part of how PbtA style campaigns are run.

As I said, there's no 'step 1' in DW.

Step 1 happened when the group decided on using Dungeon World.

Well, there are really profound differences between DW, played as Baker would play it, and trad D&D.

To answer look at the steps I outlined and what I highlighted

1. The referee describes a setting
2. The players describe some character they want to play in the setting.
3. The referee describes the circumstances in which the characters find themselves.
4. The players describe what they do as their characters.
5. The referee adjudicates what the players do as their characters and then loops back to #3.

You (and @pemerton ) are assuming, likely based on my reputation, that all of what I highlighted are handled more or less the same way that Dungeons & Dragons and other similar RPGs campaigns are handled.

I deliberately elected not to expand on what one does to describe a setting, describe characters, describe circumstances, how player describe what they do, and how the referee adjudicate. All of these can be handled in different ways including delegating it to the consensus of the entire group. Dungeon World other PbtA RPgs represent a specific implementation of the above.

These steps I feel represent the minimum one has to do in order to run a tabletop role-playing campaign. A group wants to pretend to be characters having adventures using pen & paper this is what works. There are other broad alternatives but that means you doing something different like playing a board game, a CRPG, wargaming, LARPing, Collaborative Storytelling, and so on. Each of those are fun but have different consideration to make them work.

 

[robertsconley]

I described it as narrow because it describes just one way of doing RPGing.
(Snip)

These are not examples of "the referee describes a setting".

See my reply here.