Why do RPGs have rules?

[FormerlyHemlock]

I think the way things are likely to go in DW is more specific. So, if you have a high STR you probably want to Hack & Slash, and with a high DEX you probably want to Volley, as a general rule. A high CON character can probably handle Defend more readily (as they're tougher). More armor can be advantageous, but can also clearly cause you issues. Beyond that, advantages and disadvantages are much more likely to play out in terms of danger avoided or not. If you get the drop on your opponent, then you can unleash damage on them without even needing to make a move (IE the enemy is helpless, just damage them). If OTOH you foolishly find yourself needing to advance against a prepared opponent, then you probably need to Defy Danger just to get near them. Frankly 'cover' and such are not concepts that are specifically covered by some sort of modifier. They could come into play via the explanation of a DD check "I go prone, the arrows miss" or in terms of 'hold' gained through a Discern Realities check "what is useful here to me?" or Spout Lore "It is advantageous to seek cover!" etc. Notice these are much more focused on what the character DOES vs simply the nature/geometry of the situation.

It's not completely clear but to me that sounds like "no, taking actions to set things up and shift probability curves in your favor is not a thing in Dungeon World." If so that's an example of the cost you pay in lost detail.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

If you're looking at Dungeon World to do this you're looking completely in the wrong direction. It doesn't play at this level tactically at all.

The entire mindset evidenced in the quoted post is polar opposite of the intent of DW.

Yeah, that's what I suspected. Thanks for confirming.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It's not completely clear but to me that sounds like "no, taking actions to set things up and shift probability curves in your favor is not a thing in Dungeon World." If so that's an example of the cost you pay in lost detail.

As I said in my note to @innerdude there isn't necessarily a fixed 'reality' where all the details are set. So, maybe the GM describes a bunch of terrain when he frames the scene in which combat is happening. OTOH a player could now say Discern Realities, what here is useful to me? Or even push it a bit further and Spout Lore "What do I know about the value of that pillar on the left as hard cover?" (making up said pillar on the spot).

My point is, it isn't a set piece, You would get an advantage by acting on those moves, and you could also get tactical advantages by means of playing out the fiction in ways that work for you, like by hiding and attacking with surprise, or maybe using fire. There's tons of ways. A LOT of tactics aren't even mechanical at all, like focusing fire on a certain enemy. There's plenty of scope for tactics.

 

[Maxperson]

You are totally missing the point. Nobody said goblins were not as 'realistic' as orcs, we question why it is possible to even posit that one is MORE realistic than the other.

Has anyone even done that? I don't recall seeing someone say that orcs are more realistic than goblins. There could be in-fiction circumstances that dictate one is more realistic than the other, such as the party wandering through a large orc territory and no goblins are anywhere nearby, but absent that sort circumstance, they are equally plausible.

Beyond that, even if one IS more realistic (we'll ignore whether realism is even a cogent idea here) the GM is the one who determined all the factors that he then evaluated to make that determination, so it is still just an arbitrary ruling!

You can't call it arbitrary, because you cannot possibly know if the DM picked one on a whim(arbitrary) or had a reason for it. Absent that certainty, you're belittling what simulationist DMs do by calling it arbitrary. Someone really running a simulationist game has reasons for everything he's doing, so nothing is arbitrary.

 

[Maxperson]

What makes that world more realistic?

The closer the game holds to reality(and nobody is expecting the game to mirror reality), the more realistic it is. There isn't a person alive who has every circumstance they encounter meet some sort of personal dramatic need. Games that are all about meeting dramatic needs, while fun for those who play they, are inherently less realistic on that aspect of RPGing than simulationist games where sometimes a dramatic need is met, and sometimes it's something else.

 

[clearstream]

What makes that world more realistic?

For me the intuition is that the real world contains events and objects that give no regard to my involvement or interest in them; that don't follow a dramatic pattern. How I feel about those things, whether I would or would not they were as they are, whether they rise action toward a climax, does not impinge on them.

I wouldn't say it was necessarily the case that a game world constructed around dramatic needs couldn't be more realistic in respects than some other game world. Still it would be less realistic to the extent that it lacks truths that are independent of the characters.

This is in a sense to do with feelings about what "real" means. I won't dive into that... you're probably aware of some of the predominant takes on it. Only summarise by saying that what I take @Maxperson to be getting at is that there would be world-truths that are independent of or external to character-related dramatic needs.

One way for such truths to exist is for a non-player referee to adopt them from a game text, another way is they architect them, another could be they run through a procedure for generating them. This last is interesting to me - and of course has appeared in many "sim" games - because it makes some truths independent of every single person at the table. I'm also interested in setups where truths external to one player are just those controlled by another player.

Anyway, whether I've explained it successfully above or not, I have in mind a definition of "real", and that definition requires that for a world fact to be a realistic fact from the point of view of a character it must be external to and capable of being disinterested in that character. I'm agnostic on how those external facts are produced and controlled. As I imply above, some "realistic" facts could well be ones driving dramatic play: the emergence of dramatic moments in uncaring worlds is often described as a specific joy of these modes of play.

 

[clearstream]

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.

Is it right then that what you would agree with would be

1. describe a setting
2. describe some characters
3. describe some circumstances
4. describe what characters do
5. adjudicate those descriptions; loop to #3

That is, stripping out any assumptions about who is doing what? (It's missing the metagame arc, which either is or isn't distinctive of RPG depending on how you define it.)

 

[clearstream]

The closer the game holds to reality(and nobody is expecting the game to mirror reality), the more realistic it is. There isn't a person alive who has every circumstance they encounter meet some sort of personal dramatic need. Games that are all about meeting dramatic needs, while fun for those who play they, are inherently less realistic on that aspect of RPGing than simulationist games where sometimes a dramatic need is met, and sometimes it's something else.

Per my email just above, I feel there are two definitions of "real" in play here.

Under one definition the real it encompasses the sets of those facts that map to our experiences and knowledge of the actual Earth in the actual Universe, i.e. the one that we as players, referees etc (and not our characters) live in. That is what is often meant by simulation, for example to simulate a bronze age economy is to map it to what we know about say the historical Mediterranean bronze age economies on Earth.

Another definition of real is the metaphysical. I won't characterise that as having any simple definition, but for the purposes at hand I believe it includes that real facts be facts that are external to and independent of the person or simulated person perceiving or impacted by those facts. The real facts are not dependent on the person or simulated person. They can stand alone. They stand even where never perceived and never impacting the person or simulated person.

 

[innerdude]

Because the game is not a dichotomy of meet a dramatic need or don't. Important dramatic things can happen to the PCs sometimes and not others, as befits a more realistic world where everything encountered doesn't have to meet a dramatic need.

Sure. Of course. It doesn't HAVE to meet a dramatic need.

But what's the arbitrary line between "unrealistic" and "realistic"? Can only 10% of the GM's preauthored content meet a dramatic need to still be considered realistic? 20%?

My experience with "trad sim" historically hits the Pareto principle dead on --- "80% of the fun happens in 20% of the gameplay." I want both of those numbers to be higher and as equal as possible.

As a player I am BORED OUT OF MY MIND waiting for character dramatic needs to be addressed in play by "trad sim" GM-ing. The "trad sim" GM ethos of excising character dramatic need from play is unnecessary and lessens the fun, especially if "realism" is the only criteria for doing so.

I'd bet the trad GMs represented here could triple the amount of "character dramatic need" content in their games and see zero change in their players' perception of "how realistic the game world is."

But none of them will do it. Even if I triple-dog-dare them (no erasies, no takebacks).

 

[innerdude]

Has anyone even done that? I don't recall seeing someone say that orcs are more realistic than goblins. There could be in-fiction circumstances that dictate one is more realistic than the other, such as the party wandering through a large orc territory and no goblins are anywhere nearby, but absent that sort circumstance, they are equally plausible.

You can't call it arbitrary, because you cannot possibly know if the DM picked one on a whim(arbitrary) or had a reason for it. Absent that certainty, you're belittling what simulationist DMs do by calling it arbitrary. Someone really running a simulationist game has reasons for everything he's doing, so nothing is arbitrary.

Wrong.

The thing that I finally grasped about "trad sim" GM-ing is that literally all of it is arbitrary.

Whatever reasons the GM chooses for inserting one bit of fiction or another is only based on some other bits of fiction the GM made up yesterday.

Or last week. Or 20 years ago when (s)he created the campaign world.

But somehow the fact it was made up 20 years ago somehow makes it less arbitrary than making it up 20 seconds ago . . . .

 

[clearstream]

Wrong.

The thing that I finally grasped about "trad sim" GM-ing is that literally all of it is arbitrary.

Whatever reasons the GM chooses for inserting one bit of fiction or another is only based on some other bits of fiction the GM made up yesterday.

Or last week. Or 20 years ago when (s)he created the campaign world.

But somehow the fact it was made up 20 years ago somehow makes it less arbitrary than making it up 20 seconds ago . . . .

This puts in mind another definition of "real" which is something like - it fits with some naturalistic theory held by the perceiver. That is, the theory used to test an imagined fact for arbitrariness versus non-arbitrariness.

I'm not sure if that is what you mean here, as I don't see the significance of the source of imaginary facts to the arbitrariness of those facts. I've run through three definitions of real: 1) mapping to sets of real-world facts, 2) externality to imagined characters, and 3) fits a naturalistic theory.

It doesn't seem right to me to add 4) was not made up by GM. Or anything of that ilk. One might not prefer it, but I don't see how that matters to the question of realism.

 

[Lanefan]

That would be a pretty diabolical, calculated, and unsuccessful scheme given that the vast majority of creators in the hobby are just publishing passion projects.

I'm not talking about the passion-project types, I'm talking about the big players - WotC, Paizo, a few others.

Forever campaigns are just an antiquated concept, and a lot of newer games are responding to the notion ...

If it's all they're exposed to then obviously that's what will draw the response.

that not everyone wants to play in a single genre and/or setting for decades, and that they want to be part of narratives that are truly player-focused, not players experiencing someone's intricate (and endless) worldbuilding.

It's ok to not be interested in what the majority of designers are doing, but it's not like it's a mystery or conspiracy. Again, there'll always be rules out there that let you adventure for decades for diminishing xp returns.

Diminishing xp returns?

 

[Lanefan]

Right. Because D&D’s known for its minimal output.



Nah. It’s a bunch of different games. Which is fine. Length of campaign doesn’t translate to quality of campaign.

There might not be a direct translation but IMO there's at least some correlation between length and quality, in that a longer campaign is more likely to entail deeper and richer interaction with the other characters (as they come and go) along with the setting and its elements; if for no other reason than people tend not to begrudge the time these things take.

 

[innerdude]

This puts in mind another definition of "real" which is something like - it fits with some naturalistic theory held by the perceiver. That is, the theory used to test an imagined fact for arbitrariness versus non-arbitrariness.

I'm not sure if that is what you mean here, as I don't see the significance of the source of imaginary facts to the arbitrariness of those facts. I've run through three definitions of real: 1) mapping to sets of real-world facts, 2) externality to imagined characters, and 3) fits a naturalistic theory.

It doesn't seem right to me to add 4) was not made up by GM. Or anything of that ilk. One might not prefer it, but I don't see how that matters to the question of realism.

It's completely unrelated to realism, as @AbdulAlhazred and @pemerton have pointed out.

It's the notion that because a GM's processes for introducing fiction include 1, 2, and 3, it means they can pretend that the fiction is no longer arbitrary--i.e., it's no longer "make believe" but something else.

That the fiction is somehow categorically transformed into some other non-fictional ur-reality. That there is now a "purity of gamestate" or "living world" or "externality of the game reality" that exists in its own dimension, has become its own objective, observable thing.

That the arbitrariness of all past "makings up" is now gone.

It's an insidious notion, that fiction made up 10 weeks or 10 years ago --- but never shared with anyone who is now being brought into that fiction via play --- naturally and forever assumes primacy, no matter if it serves no interest of the game other than perceived "realness".

When it's still nothing more than the composite of all the GM's "made up stuff", regardless of how long ago the "making up", plus whatever inputs the players have had upon it.

*Edit --- 5 years ago I would have been arguing the exact opposite point. I would have denied the arbitrariness of "sim" GM-ing. I would have vehemently argued that GM decisions based on adherence to "naturalism" and "the living world" and "the exigent externalities" are of a different nature/design/character than just "making stuff up." That "maintaining realism" and "fidelity to the game world" are categorically different from "GM fiction authoring."

 

[aramis erak]

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!

Note that 20-23 sessions is about half a year assuming time off for major holidays.
Most of my campaigns run 10-25 sessions. Only a few crossed 35... but those ran for over a year.

Deciding whether to paint a car red or blue is (as best I'm aware) an utterly trivial decision from the engineering point of view, and matters only to sales and marketing. Working out why a RPG needs rules, and what rules it should have, is not trivial at all. It's fundamental to RPG design.

The problem is that RPG design varies by several goals...
... and it's not one unified playspace.
As can be clearly seen by looking at the differences between, Yourself, me, Loverdrive, and robertsconley... Amongst us, at least a century of experience gaming... and yet fundamental divides in approach and playerspace.

The fundamental purpose of rules is to define the playspace in some way to encourage fun, creative and in-genre play. The exact balance point is a matter of taste, and that means there can be no concrete definition of which is more important...

The closer the game holds to reality(and nobody is expecting the game to mirror reality), the more realistic it is. There isn't a person alive who has every circumstance they encounter meet some sort of personal dramatic need. Games that are all about meeting dramatic needs, while fun for those who play they, are inherently less realistic on that aspect of RPGing than simulationist games where sometimes a dramatic need is met, and sometimes it's something else.

Realism as a focus of play is often overrated by it's fans.
It's lead to many designers substituting gamist things for supposed realism and, for many, simply rendering play slow and table-heavy.

 

[Manbearcat]

It's not completely clear but to me that sounds like "no, taking actions to set things up and shift probability curves in your favor is not a thing in Dungeon World." If so that's an example of the cost you pay in lost detail.

Ok, I figured I'd do a quick post on this to try to clarify how the tactical decision-space of Dungeon World works. There is a substantial Gamist element of Dungeon World if the GM and players know what they're doing, its just somewhat (though not totally) different than in standard D&D.

So here are some concepts I'm going to throw out into a big pile to kind of let you onboard and attempt to integrate and operationalize in your mind. In Dungeon World & Derivatives:

* Some of the challenge is "playing the fiction" to (a) open up your prospective move-space such that the permissible moves available to you are both thematically relevant (therefore earning xp) while (b) also being gamestate potent.

* One element of gamestate potency is an outgrowth of your allocated ability modifiers + your playbook moves + synergies with other PCs or the situation that can be marshaled. So lets say you're a Fighter who has a +2 Wisdom and maybe a move that gives you +1 to Discern Realities (Perception in D&D parlance). You should be aggressively risking things going awry (a GM making a move that changes the situation adversely on a 6-) and making Discern Realities moves when going into battle and in mid-battle. You're a trained warrior with an incredible cognitive loop earned by years in the crucible of martial conflict. You see everything. In DW that means "make Discern Realities moves to get at least a 7-9," ask your question about the unfolding situation or person (you read situations or persons) and take +1 forward when acting upon that information. Now use that to Defy Danger to close the gap when the enemy has a range tag advantage on you (you're fighting a Giant with a huge maul and Reach range and you're armed with a Sword of only Close range...you're going to have to Defy Danger to get inside and Hack & Slash or I'm making a hard move against you; dealing the giant's damage and whatever tags go with that like Forceful or Messy....bad stuff...).

* Another element of gamestate potency is breadth of competency. DW characters have enormous baked-in breadth of capability because the basic engine makes it so (via the core play loop + principles, the potency of basic moves, the potency of Inventory, the potency of playbooks). You can absolutely amplify this both at (i) the PC build stage, (ii) the "playing the fiction" (in-situ) stage, the use Inventory/Gear cleverly. Combine these three skillfully/aggressively and you will see better or worse results in terms of the trajectory of the gamestate : fiction relationship.

* As mentioned above, DW is very, very tag-intensive (as a lot of indie games are). Range relationships are governed by tags so that fictional relationships are governed by them. Gear has tags. Moves (PCs and monsters) have tags. These create new fiction, new gamestate advantages, or new gamestate obstacles to overcome. Deft GMing employs these skillfully just like deft playing does.

* There are several currencies to manage from Gear currencies (like Ammo 2 and Adventuring Gear 4 and Rations 3), to basic move currencies (like spend Hold when you Defend to do defend-ey stuff), to playbook currencies (embedded in playbook moves).

* But you dont' just need to play skillfully. You also need to thread the thematic needle by playing "Bond-forward" and "Alignment (these are statements of belief and creed etc)-forward" and "Discovery-forward." Aggressively pursuing these dramatic needs and bringing them into play will earn you xp and advancement. So its not one axis of "best move" that you're indexing when you make moves in DW. Its a few ones that make up a matrix.

* Good GMing in DW means foregrounding stakes and creating dynamic suites of consequences for players to deal with and choose from as fiction + moves create an ever-resolving situation. Get a 7-9 on a Defy Danger to grab your buddy (a Follower, say) before he falls into a crevasse? Ok, you've got their arm by the cuff, but in the effort your ever-important coin purse (laden with coin to loadout supplies/provision in the next town and pay your Follower debts) is coming untied from your belt and is going to be lost to the gloom below if you don't do something. You can hear the crack of ice and you see the snaking fissure slowly coming your way at 30 paces (Near range) which is a prior established danger. The Frost Giant in the distance (Far range...you've got some time) toward you is going to cause a complete failure of the ice shelf to swallow you when they eventually get here. You've got a few immediate dangers pressing upon you (the looming coin purse and the snaking fissure) and one well down the road (the Frost Giant)...but you've got your buddy but the cuff and one hand firmly clasping the ice shelf to stabilizing you up top. What do you?

---

This is the sort of play this produces. The decisions you make index and create both a dynamic fiction and an attendant dynamic gamestate (a gamestate that is governed by a lot of converging game engine stuff as above).

---

EDIT: When you really start to understand the huge diversity of the Gamism element of various PBtA games, you’ll be able to look at a new game like 1000 Arrows and contrast it with Dungeon World and immediately ascertain the “low G” of 1KA vs the much higher G of Dungeon World (this isn’t a hit on 1KA…its a really great Narrativist engine).

 

[clearstream]

It's completely unrelated to realism, as @AbdulAlhazred and @pemerton have pointed out.

It's the notion that because a GM's processes for introducing fiction include 1, 2, and 3, it means they can pretend that the fiction is no longer arbitrary--i.e., it's no longer "make believe" but something else.

Oh right. I agree, It's all make believe. The choice of those processes is part of prioritising a playful purpose somewhat different from the dramatic. Where the success of that specific playful purpose is connected with the success of the GM's application of those processes. I've called it above the "uncaring world". That is part of what the feeling should be.

That the fiction is somehow categorically transformed into some other non-fictional ur-reality. That there is now a "purity of gamestate" or "living world" or "externality of the game reality" that exists in its own dimension, has become its own objective, observable thing.

Well, it is "external" or "objective" to the extent that it is not reliant upon the characters. For the mode of play there does need to be some process by which facts about the world are not established by characters; excepting those facts that reside in the characters or are brought about by actions they take.

An example of the difference in GM-centric versions of that mode is that a player could make it a fact that their character has brown eyes and they could make it a fact that there is no longer a solitary tree growing on One Tree Hill - by cutting that tree down - but they could not make it a fact that there existed said hill unless they had powers that enabled them to take a "make hill" action. They can't make centaurs appear on One Tree Hill by taking an action to look for them. Players or rules can just as well pick up the GM-centric lifting here.

It's an insidious notion, that fiction made up 10 weeks or 10 years ago --- but never shared with anyone who is now being brought into that fiction via play --- naturally and forever assumes primacy, no matter if it serves no interest of the game other than perceived "realness".

Why insidious? Other than a preference that it not be that way? I'm not arguing the merits of that.

 

[innerdude]

And look, I get it, if you're a hardcore sim GM, it's a HARD LESSON.

As much as I romanticized my world building, and the grandeur of the Forgotten Realms or Golarion or Eberron or Azeroth, I had to come to grips with the fact that what I was doing as a GM was not categorically different than the fictional puppet world of Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood.

And I didn't like that notion AT ALL. I fought it like crazy.

My game worlds felt so much more important, epic, aspirational, and profound to me than the world of puppet Lady Elaine Fairchild.

But the fact that we imbue meaning --- deep, powerful, resonant meaning --- into fiction doesn't change fiction into something else.

There is no "living world". It's just "makings up" based upon rationalizations, justifications, and extrapolations of other "makings up."

 

[innerdude]

Why insidious? Other than a preference that it not be that way? I'm not arguing the merits of that.

It's insidious because it's an orthodoxy that brooks no argument.

It dismisses any attempts to examine or question it.

It denies counter-factual explanations at the ground level as being anything other than degenerate, inferior types of roleplaying generally.

 

[soviet]

Yes. It sometimes comes across as 'my gameworld is real; yours is just a shallow facade'.