Why do RPGs have rules?

[Maxperson]

Here are two scenarios.

1) The PCs leave town, traveling to the north and run into goblins.
2) The PCs leave town, traveling to the north and run into the tribe of orcs that killed the ranger’s family.

Which is more realistic?

First, there's no way to tell. Are the PCs in example 2 across the continent from where the ranger's family was killed? If so, then it would be less realistic than encountering goblins local to the area that they are in.

Second, that's only one example, so even if both are equally realistic it completely misses the point of what I said. I'll quote it again.

"There isn't a person alive who has every circumstance they encounter meet some sort of personal dramatic need."

So if the PCs leave town and run into the tribe that killed the ranger's family, that can easily be as realistic as the goblins. However, if they then continue on and run into a caravan where the wizard recognizes a guard from his master's tower who disappeared on the night he was assassinated, then continuing on run into a hermit who happens to know the recipe for a potion that might cure the fighter's sister of the magical disease she is suffering, and on and on, it quickly becomes highly unrealistic.

I don't enjoy those sorts of games. If you do, that's awesome. Having fun is the important part of RPG gaming.

 

[hawkeyefan]

First, there's no way to tell. Are the PCs in example 2 across the continent from where the ranger's family was killed? If so, then it would be less realistic than encountering goblins local to the area that they are in.

Second, that's only one example, so even if both are equally realistic it completely misses the point of what I said. I'll quote it again.

Right, this is why actual examples from play are always better than these incomplete "what ifs" that come up in these discussions.

We definitely don't have enough information to know what would make more sense in the fiction. But that's beside the point.... the point is that all of it is constructed.

"There isn't a person alive who has every circumstance they encounter meet some sort of personal dramatic need."

So what?

Not in every game, but certainly in many, PCs are not typical folks. Crazy crap happens to them and around them at all times.

So if the PCs leave town and run into the tribe that killed the ranger's family, that can easily be as realistic as the goblins. However, if they then continue on and run into a caravan where the wizard recognizes a guard from his master's tower who disappeared on the night he was assassinated, then continuing on run into a hermit who happens to know the recipe for a potion that might cure the fighter's sister of the magical disease she is suffering, and on and on, it quickly becomes highly unrealistic.

I think your take here relies on a pretty traditional gaming viewpoint. Where things continually happen to the characters. They're not carving their own way... they're just wandering from one unconnected thing to another. And in the past you've vehemently asserted that your players have agency.

"No, no... you don't find the fantastic thing you're looking for... you find this totally unrelated fantastic thing!"

The idea that this is more realistic is bonkers.

I don't enjoy those sorts of games. If you do, that's awesome. Having fun is the important part of RPG gaming.

Sure. Just drop the realistic argument because it's totally misguided.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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.

...take +1 forward when acting upon that information.

... DW is very, very tag-intensive (as a lot of indie games are). Range relationships are governed by tags...

... 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).

Thanks. I think that answers my question about using sensible actions to shift probability curves in your favor: it probably would involve "taking a +N forward" to some subset of possible actions governed by tags. E.g. luring enemies into quicksand to impose an Immobile tag, and then using your enormous hammer (which gets a +1 vs. Immobile targets) to smash them.

I appreciate your generosity with your time and expertise in writing that post, @Manbearcat. Thank you.

 

[loverdrive]

I'd say "dramatic needs" is a misnomer in this discussion.

Creating things for the purposes of them being interesting is also decidedly non-sim, while being unbothered with the characters.

Consider this hypothetical game:

World is composed of hexes, about 1-mile in diagonal. When you lead the way into an unexplored hex, decide: do you want to learn about something new or to test an existing hypothesis about something known and roll +Exploration. On a miss, you get the opposite. You are not the main character, things just are the way they are. On a hit, you get what you want, and on 10+ you can also narrow the result even further: "I feel the stench of Dark Arts", "Huh, I've never seen this symbol before...", etc.

It preserves the uncaring feeling of the sword, while ensuring that things will be interesting.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I think your take here relies on a pretty traditional gaming viewpoint. Where things continually happen to the characters. They're not carving their own way... they're just wandering from one unconnected thing to another. And in the past you've vehemently asserted that your players have agency.

"No, no... you don't find the fantastic thing you're looking for... you find this totally unrelated fantastic thing!"

The idea that this is more realistic is bonkers.

If I'm understanding your point correctly, the point in bold is key. I'll attempt to paraphrase, and you can tell me if I'm misunderstanding your point:

"It's only unrealistic if you insist on playing out every minute of each character's life. If you instead skip over all of the irrelevant goblin encounters (by assuming that the players avoided, successfully negotiated with, or killed them all) and jump straight to several weeks later to when they catch up to the orcs, that's not necessarily unrealistic, and it's a lot more interesting for the players and GM."

 

[hawkeyefan]

If I'm understanding your point correctly, the point in bold is key. I'll attempt to paraphrase, and you can tell me if I'm misunderstanding your point:

"It's only unrealistic if you insist on playing out every minute of each character's life. If you instead skip over all of the irrelevant goblin encounters (by assuming that the players avoided, successfully negotiated with, or killed them all) and jump straight to several weeks later to when they catch up to the orcs, that's not necessarily unrealistic, and it's a lot more interesting for the players and GM."

That’s one part of it, absolutely.

But the point I was really trying to make was about how active the players are in driving the focus of play. Do they pursue specific goals? Do they make things happen? Or do things just happen to them?

Looking at it another way… let’s assume the characters are going to have a series of adventures. Seems a safe assumption for characters in an RPG. What makes more sense? That those adventures would have connections to the characters? That in pursuing their goals they actually do things related to their goals? Or, alternatively, unrelated remarkable things just continue to happen to them? That wherever they go, totally unrelated to them, momentous things continue to happen?

I think the former makes more sense than the latter. But I recognize that as my preference. Neither is more realistic. Both could conceivably happen. So I think it’s better to evaluate these things in ways other than “realism”. Better to evaluate it in some concrete way beyond the fiction. How do they compare as processes of play?

Also, the idea of dramatic needs doesn’t need to be so specific as “finding the orcs that murdered my family” and that kind of thing. GMs are able to construct scenarios that seem unrelated to characters historically, but which speak to their morals or outlooks in some way.

 

[robertsconley]

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.)

As a general description of all RPGs sure. To be clear when I say all RPG I means anything that focuses on player playing individual characters. This includes computer RPGs, LARPS and so on.

My assumption is that the focus of this thread was on tabletop RPGs, the subcategory that started with the release of OD&D in 1974. That the OP by @pemerton was about why you need to have rules for tabletop RPGs. Hence why I included what I feel is the central mechanic that all tabletop RPGs share. One of the defining characteristics of tabletop is the role of the human referee.

Two things set RPGs apart with they first popped up in the 70s. The use of the human referee and the assumption that unlike wargames and boardgame, anything that the character could do in a setting could be an attempt whether there was a rule to cover it or not.

This is why OD&D, Classic Traveller, and others emphasized coming up with rulings when the players wanted to do something as their character that wasn't covered by the system.

My thesis has been criticized by @pemerton and others for not accounting for group consensus. And my basic reply was that referees can choose to delegate this if they want. But I admit that basically a sidestep of the larger issue which is what if steps 1 to 5 didn't involve a human referee at all. What if it they all were handled by a set of mechanics based on group consensus? Well like CRPG and LARP that would be a distinct form of Roleplaying different than what I call tabletop roleplaying.

But to be clear hybrids are the norm, not the exception. So if a system mixes group consensus, group mechanics, and a human referee then likely it is a tabletop Roleplaying like D&D, Traveller, and so on. There is a reason why the authors of Blades in Dark, Dungeon World, Fate, etc. created a special referee role as part of the system rather than jettisoning it altogether. Namely, like more traditional systems the author found that having a referee to handle certain aspects of the system and setting makes the campaign more fun and doable in the time one has for a hobby.

So what you wrote is fine as a general summary of what all RPGs share. But what I wrote originally is a summary of what all tabletop RPGs share.

Hope that makes sense.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

That’s one part of it, absolutely.

But the point I was really trying to make was about how active the players are in driving the focus of play. Do they pursue specific goals? Do they make things happen? Or do things just happen to them?

Looking at it another way… let’s assume the characters are going to have a series of adventures. Seems a safe assumption for characters in an RPG. What makes more sense? That those adventures would have connections to the characters? That in pursuing their goals they actually do things related to their goals? Or, alternatively, unrelated remarkable things just continue to happen to them? That wherever they go, totally unrelated to them, momentous things continue to happen?

I think the former makes more sense than the latter. But I recognize that as my preference. Neither is more realistic. Both could conceivably happen. So I think it’s better to evaluate these things in ways other than “realism”. Better to evaluate it in some concrete way beyond the fiction. How do they compare as processes of play?

Also, the idea of dramatic needs doesn’t need to be so specific as “finding the orcs that murdered my family” and that kind of thing. GMs are able to construct scenarios that seem unrelated to characters historically, but which speak to their morals or outlooks in some way.

I would say that even if players are being proactive, if you're not skipping over uninteresting aspects of their lives it challenges willing suspension of disbelief for everything that they experience to be dramatically relevant. The zooming out or skipping over part (i.e. control of pacing) is mandatory IMO for resolving the tension between realism and drama.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I would say that even if players are being proactive, if you're not skipping over uninteresting aspects of their lives it challenges willing suspension of disbelief for everything that they experience to be dramatically relevant. The zooming out or skipping over part (i.e. control of pacing) is mandatory IMO for resolving the tension between realism and drama.

I think there's plenty of skipping of boring stuff in every game. Even in D&D, when it comes to travel, typically there's a process like rolling to see if there is an encounter of some sort every X time period, and if there's no encounter, then you gloss over all of it with a bit of descriptive narration.

But again, I don't see the meaningful difference between something interesting happening that's related to dramatic needs and something interesting happening that's not. Either way, something interesting is happening. So, what makes them distinct? One is related to the players' goals or their characters' themes, and the other is not.

The only reason to have them not relate to the players' goals or characters' themes is because you don't want them to.

Let's look at it another way. If the players are being proactive, then they're pursuing specific things. Those things and related events happening would seem to be the natural conclusion of that starting point, no? If they aren't proactive, then things are still going to happen to them because it's a game and we all want stuff to happen. Wherever they go, they run into significant events, unrelated to their own agenda.

So, the argument about realism seems to me to boil down to saying that (A) unrelated remarkable events continually happen to the same group of people all the time is somehow more realistic or sensible than (B) related events continually happen to the same group of people all the time. That's a really weak argument.

So let's set aside the appeal to realism. What is the difference?

The most obvious, to me, is that (A) is more about the GM dictating what happens, and (B) is more about the players dictating what happens. Realism is just the excuse GMs use for pushing for (A).

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I think there's plenty of skipping of boring stuff in every game. Even in D&D, when it comes to travel, typically there's a process like rolling to see if there is an encounter of some sort every X time period, and if there's no encounter, then you gloss over all of it with a bit of descriptive narration.

But again, I don't see the meaningful difference between something interesting happening that's related to dramatic needs and something interesting happening that's not. Either way, something interesting is happening. So, what makes them distinct? One is related to the players' goals or their characters' themes, and the other is not.

The only reason to have them not relate to the players' goals or characters' themes is because you don't want them to.

Let's look at it another way. If the players are being proactive, then they're pursuing specific things. Those things and related events happening would seem to be the natural conclusion of that starting point, no? If they aren't proactive, then things are still going to happen to them because it's a game and we all want stuff to happen. Wherever they go, they run into significant events, unrelated to their own agenda.

So, the argument about realism seems to me to boil down to saying that (A) unrelated remarkable events continually happen to the same group of people all the time is somehow more realistic or sensible than (B) related events continually happen to the same group of people all the time. That's a really weak argument.

So let's set aside the appeal to realism. What is the difference?

The most obvious, to me, is that (A) is more about the GM dictating what happens, and (B) is more about the players dictating what happens. Realism is just the excuse GMs use for pushing for (A).

You're pushing a false dichotomy here (A vs. B but really there's a C) and using it to unilaterally discard realism as a concern, without agreement from @Maxperson or myself. All you're doing here is rendering yourself incapable of hearing what he or I is saying.

You're jumping to incorrect conclusions.

 

[loverdrive]

I'd say "dramatic needs" is a misnomer in this discussion.

Creating things for the purposes of them being interesting is also decidedly non-sim, while being unbothered with the characters.

Consider this hypothetical game:

World is composed of hexes, about 1-mile in diagonal. When you lead the way into an unexplored hex, decide: do you want to learn about something new or to test an existing hypothesis about something known and roll +Exploration. On a miss, you get the opposite. You are not the main character, things just are the way they are. On a hit, you get what you want, and on 10+ you can also narrow the result even further: "I feel the stench of Dark Arts", "Huh, I've never seen this symbol before...", etc.

It preserves the uncaring feeling of the sword, while ensuring that things will be interesting.

I'm certain this game exist already and I'm going to look for it.

In the meantime:
There are three Blades-like phases:

1. Exploration
2. Downtime
3. Pathfinding

each session is played in this order, regardless of the events of the previous one: treat each session as a standalone episode — characters find themselves in an exciting situation, deal with it, and find new mysteries.

In Exploration phase, the usual stuff happens. You've played it before: GM frames a scene, players say what their characters do, something happens.

In Downtime phase, characters rest, clench their vices and do long-term things. If you are sleeping on a cold stone floor somewhere deep in Agartha, you can't go into an extravagant casino, but you can remember that time you did with a smile on your face.

In Pathfinding phase, one of the players comes up with a premise for the next episode and places where it will happen on the map.

 

[hawkeyefan]

You're pushing a false dichotomy here (A vs. B but really there's a C) and using it to unilaterally discard realism as a concern, without agreement from @Maxperson or myself. All you're doing here is rendering yourself incapable of hearing what he or I is saying.

You're jumping to incorrect conclusions.

What's the C?

 

[niklinna]

Thanks. I think that answers my question about using sensible actions to shift probability curves in your favor: it probably would involve "taking a +N forward" to some subset of possible actions governed by tags. E.g. luring enemies into quicksand to impose an Immobile tag, and then using your enormous hammer (which gets a +1 vs. Immobile targets) to smash them.

I appreciate your generosity with your time and expertise in writing that post, @Manbearcat. Thank you.

Yes, I think the initial responses to your question were a bit off the mark. Dungeon World (as any PbtA game) has stats, forward, hold, etc., all of which you use at a very basic level to shift probability curves—as long as it's well-grounded in the fiction. A friend phrased this as "part of player skill is navigating the fiction so you can use stats that give (ideally your best) bonuses". This family of games always come from that perspective: think of the fiction first, and then map it onto mechanics*. So setup moves are totally a thing. (And Stonetop, descended from Dungeon World, even has advantage!)

* But sure, I'll totally cop as a player to thinking in terms of mechanics in my head before finding a fictional justification for it! I'm even guilty of saying things like, "I Seek Insight", naming a formal move, when the rulebooks pointedly discourage doing so. Could be something for me to work on. Even so, these are games after all, so it's no sin to seek advantages however they are encoded.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

What's the C?

A) unrelated remarkable events continually happen to the same group of people all the time (your wording)

B) related events continually happen to the same group of people all the time (also yours)

C) unrelated remarkable events often happen if they go to the places where remarkable events happen (Wild West or equivalent)

D) unrelated remarkable events occasionally happen to them, and the GM skips over times when nothing remarkable is happening

E) remarkable things rarely happen to or around the players, but it doesn't matter because they are proactively doing remarkable things (planning and executing heists or con games, hunting down Most Wanted criminals, participating in ongoing wars as special operations personnel)

There's probably an F, G, H...

 

[hawkeyefan]

A) unrelated remarkable events continually happen to the same group of people all the time (your wording)

B) related events continually happen to the same group of people all the time (also yours)

Keeping the above quoted for reference.

C) unrelated remarkable events often happen if they go to the places where remarkable events happen (Wild West or equivalent)

What brings them to such a place? Wouldn’t it be (A) or (B)?

D) unrelated remarkable events occasionally happen to them, and the GM skips over times when nothing remarkable is happening

I see this as (A).

E) remarkable things rarely happen to or around the players, but it doesn't matter because they are proactively doing remarkable things (planning and executing heists or con games, hunting down Most Wanted criminals, participating in ongoing wars as special operations personnel)

I view this as (B).

EDITED: I had my A and B mixed up. I've corrected that.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Yes, I think the initial responses to your question were a bit off the mark. Dungeon World (as any PbtA game) has stats, forward, hold, etc., all of which you use at a very basic level to shift probability curves—as long as it's well-grounded in the fiction. A friend phrased this as "part of player skill is navigating the fiction so you can use stats that give (ideally your best) bonuses". This family of games always come from that perspective: think of the fiction first, and then map it onto mechanics*. So setup moves are totally a thing. (And Stonetop, descended from Dungeon World, even has advantage!)

* But sure, I'll totally cop as a player to thinking in terms of mechanics in my head before finding a fictional justification for it! I'm even guilty of saying things like, "I Seek Insight", naming a formal move, when the rulebooks pointedly discourage doing so. Could be something for me to work on. Even so, these are games after all, so it's no sin to seek advantages however they are encoded.

This emphasis on "as long as it's grounded in the fiction" seems unremarkable to me except in contrast with systems like D&D 5E (and I think also 4E and maybe 3E, but not AD&D) that have a lot of abstract resources like Second Wind and Channel Divinity.

In systems like GURPS, Shadowrun, AD&D, etc., everything you do is "grounded in the fiction" to such an extent that you don't even wind up talking about "the fiction" and mapping the fiction to mechanics. It's just: if you go to cut his arm off, roll dice, and if he doesn't parry/block/dodge and you do enough damage, the arm comes off. The whole gameworld is "the fiction." (Yes, even Vancian magic, if you've read Mazirian the Magician.)

It's interesting to hear that Dungeon World lines up with GURPS in some respects because they have very different reputations.

 

[clearstream]

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

One question is - why would it be important to you that your gameworld is or is not real, if that is not your priority for play?

Realism is a priority for play for some folk. Groups I have played Harnmaster with put a far greater emphasis on realism than groups I've played MotW with. It's not that MotW play punts realism, but it's normally a much higher priority for Harn.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Keeping the above quoted for reference.

What brings them to such a place? Wouldn’t it be (A) or (B)?

The existence of the Wild West might be remarkable, but it's something that happened to and among other people.

Deciding to move to the Wild West isn't something that "happens to you". Proactive, not reactive.

So clearly it cannot be A or B.

I see this as (B).

B is both continual and related, and D is neither of those things. It can't be B.

I view this as (A).

But no remarkable events are "happening to" them, so it cannot be A. And even if it were A, that would disprove your argument about A being no more realistic than B!

If I'm a Roman citizen in 100 A.D. and I go to Rome and try to kill the Emperor, interesting things are going to happen to me, but my probable crucifixion and death is not improbable or unrealistic! I can't give a modern example due to ENWorld rules (even the Roman example risks Umbran's wrath IME) but hopefully you get the gist. Making interesting things happen around you by doing interesting things does not require becoming a Weirdness Magnet the way B does.

Your words: "If they aren't proactive, then things are still going to happen to them because it's a game and we all want stuff to happen. Wherever they go, they run into significant events, unrelated to their own agenda."

Can you see how much your argument relies upon the false dichotomy that excludes C, D, and E from existing? You even said it yourself: "If [not E], then... [unrealistic things will happen]." You're implicitly acknowledging that E (no improbable events occurring except through player instigation) is more realistic than B (improbable coincidences related to player character's interests and themes, i.e. becoming a Personalized Weirdness Magnet).

A/B is a false dichotomy and should not be used to unilaterally dismiss realism as a genuine concern that some people have. If you do, you will never understand why people have that concern. You'll be talking to yourself about a riddle in a language you've forbidden yourself to learn.

 

[clearstream]

Upthread, the issue of Middle Earth and simulationism was raised. It seemed to be suggested that there could be a simulationist game set in Middle Earth.

Everything in Middle Earth is authored to meet some dramatic need or serve some thematic purpose.

Now it is being posited that this is "unrealistic" and hence at odd with simulationism.

I'm lost.

The mystery of Middle Earth is straightforward. In the Silmarillion and other works, and in the maps by his son, Tolkien supplied an abundance of information that fits the criteria for realism. Those can be supplemented from books such as the superb Atlas by Karen Wynn Fonstad. Tolkien undertook multiple projects in Middle Earth. Some of those projects were dramatic stories.

If a "world truth" means something the GM has made up in their notes that the players never learn about, then it's separate from play, and in my view of little interest.

That expresses your preferences in no uncertain terms. Taking Middle Earth as an example, the path of the Deeping Steam is an externally true fact regardless whether players ever go to Helms Deep. I find that delightful and in some subtle sense powerful. I accept that you do not.

If a "world truth" means something that we can imagine happening that is independent of the events the PCs participate in, then every RPG with some minimum degree of sophistication has this. Eg in my BW games there are shops, soldiers, guards, sailors, etc and its obvious that all these people have lives and families and so on that don't have any relevance to or bearing on the PCs.

I suppose it depends on whether those facts are contingent or not. If they will warp around player characters then under my account you wouldn't be prioritising that facet of realism.

If a "world truth" means something that the GM makes a focus of play that is not connected to the players' evinced concerns for their PCs, then what we're talking about in my view is not "realism" but rather who gets to decide what play is about.

Under my account, world truths are not dependent on GM. That's only one approach to managing them.

 

[robertsconley]

Realism in the sense being used for the past few post exchanges is about the setting being consistent with how the world works.

This debate over "realism" is irrelevant. What matters for RPG campaigns is consistency. That the mechanics reflect how the setting is described Particularly the descriptions of how things work when you try to do things as your character. The world described by Toon an RPG about Saturday morning cartoon is very different than the world described by Harnmaster. Yet both are known for being consistent in how their mechanics reflect their respective settings/genres.

Why is consistency important? Because player don't like it when told they have to roll a different way when the same situation comes up later in the campaign. Even in the zany world of Toon, you want to be consistent with how the world of cartoons works. Yes what happens in those cartoons is often random but it is a specific type of randomness which Toon handles well.

Players like they can leverage their knowledge of a setting in to plans that work.

And finally, this has nothing to do with the level of detail. You don't need all the detail that GURPS or Harnmaster has to run a campaign where things are consistent with how things work in the real world. A minimalist system that has a good way of abstracting how things work in a setting is fine. ANd it is fine to have systems like GUPRS and Harnmaster that do use detailed mechanics.

The test is whether a player new to the system can use their knowledge of the setting to make meaningful decisions as their character. And that after resolving whatever they are trying to do with the mechanics that afterward they go "Yes those rules make sense. If the answer is yes, then the author of the system has done their job well.