Why do RPGs have rules?

[AbdulAlhazred]

And really, it was false for fantasy even in the 1970s. That’s the decade when it became no longer feasible to read enough of the field to count on seeing every story worth nominating for the Hugo awards. It was the decade of Nine Princes In Amber, Watership Down, Elric Of Melniboné, Tje Forgotten Beasts Of Eld, A Spell For Chameleon, Lord Foul’s Bane, The Sword Of Shannara, A Wizard Of Earthsea,
The Silmaeilliom, The Dark Is Rising, Deryni Rising, Night’s Master…it was not really likely that any given reader would be into all of these.

I read every one of those except Shannara, and a lot more. But then I don't actually remember having many friends in the '70s, lol.

Yes! I loved it when Robin Laws treated guns that way in Feng Shui, and realized very belatedly that OD&D had something smart with its weapons all doing the same damage. Transmogrification in World of Warcraft has the same liberating effect. Your actual gear has its stats, but you can make it look like anything you’ve previously collected. I’ve become a fan of the concept applied widely.

Yeah, my game doesn't gate damage by weapon type either. Use whatever you want, each weapon is just better for a certain thing.

 

[Maxperson]

But how many orcs does a fireball kill?

 

[Maxperson]

Yup. @AbdulAlhazred is continuing to demand perfect simulation, or it doesn't count and the playstyle isn't a real thing.

Right, but when I mentioned a certain logic that wasn't mine resulting in the need to know absolutely everything(if taken to it's ultimate logical conclusion) in order to have agency, I was being absurd.

 

[hawkeyefan]

You can, but if you present that argument with an implied, "and your GMing will also improve if you do what I did", you are essentially suggesting objective superiority of your preferences, which will get some push-back.

If people are asking for ways to improve their game, why would I not suggest ways that I improved mine? Why would I suggest other methods and present them as equal? If there's someone out there who thought adding a bunch of tables to the game, then I'd leave it to them to suggest that and explain why.

You're missing my point. They don't care. If its not designed for them, or at best, for the majority, its poorly designed. They're using a different (and entirely arguably irrational) criterion, and by that criterion it's bad design. The fact you and I and any number of people consider that a poor metric makes absolutely no difference. They've projected their personal desires as a universal good.

That reminds me of something. I don't want to say it, but it rhymes with shmain shmamage.

Not at all. Its simply an observation that some people are, well, dumb about some things. It just happens to be that in this particular context and place, you get to see more of them on the trad/D&D scale because there's a higher proportion of people (particularly from the latter) because of numbers and the focus of this board.

I wouldn't be so harsh as that. There are several conversations I took part in a few years ago that if I had them now, my input would be significantly different. I don't think I was dumb for not understanding things back then. There were just things I wasn't really aware of or familiar with.

 

[Deset Gled]

except that the person I was quoting was presenting it as a fundamental truth of the hobby, by use of the inclusive plural without limiting the scope of the inclusive contextually.

Yes. In the context of the hobby of RPGs on a D&D message board, it is a fundamental truth that games are played for fun. This doesn't seem like it should be a controversial statement.

You might be able to find the odd exception, like someone who plays D&D to try and prove that it's actually satanic, or something similar. But even then I would argue that they are having fun by furthering some other personal goal, even if they aren't enjoying the game directly. And in any case, their experience would hardly be applicable to the theories of game design that are being discussed.

 

[Maxperson]

Aside II: on things not mattering

I play Team Fortress 2. For those who don't know, it's a hat simulator. There are tons and tons of cosmetic options that can be mixed and matched together. They don't matter. They do not influence the gameplay in any way, shape or form.

And precisely that allows them to matter. To work as a tool of expression. If they had stats (like they used to, which is, thankfully, a thing of the past), the choice of an outfit would be a simple optimization problem.

They don't, so you are free to dress in a way that you think looks cool.

The same applies to fiction in RPGs, and maintaining verisimilitude (who the hell came up with this word, it feels like playing twister on a keyboard?) often stands in the way of expression. Yeah, it makes sense that shooting someone with a gun should be more effective than throwing a plate at them, sure.

The problem is that you very quickly end up with a whole stable of characters that shoot guns. And check corners. And throw flashbangs into a room before barging in.

Because there's a very limited pool of actually effective and good options.

This is just an example of differing priorities. It's really awesome that you like this game and looking cool. Other people enjoy optimizing and would want to play a game with a hat that does awesome stuff and is cool that way. Still others enjoy mixing the two and finding the coolest looking hat that also provides good, fun stuff, even if that stuff isn't the absolute best.

There's no wrong way to play an RPG as long as everyone is having fun. Your way isn't the best way. My way isn't the best way. That guy over there isn't playing the best way. There is no best way.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I wouldn't be so harsh as that. There are several conversations I took part in a few years ago that if I had them now, my input would be significantly different. I don't think I was dumb for not understanding things back then. There were just things I wasn't really aware of or familiar with.

I'm pretty comfortable saying universalizing one's taste is dumb. It should be one of the first things people learn is not true to operate in the world.

(Generalizing--is more complicated, but still needs to be approached with care.)

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah, there are many games out there with great design that aren't for me (for a myriad of reasons). I will still recommend them if I think that others would like them. IMHO, good game design should be lauded - especially by independent designers - regardless of my preferences.


I was dragged into the conversation by someone who mentioned me in a post where they clearly misunderstood and misrepresented Dungeon World. I had to backtrack to see what the conversation was even about, which included seeing how DW got mentioned in the first place. Mention of story games and any advice thereof were actually mostly absent from the initial wave of discussion.

Dungeon World and story games doesn't come up until Post #107 by EzekielRaiden in a single offhand comment buried in his post, i.e., being a fan of the characters. No one cared. No one pushed back. No one mentioned it all.

But before that? Hawkeyefan didn't intially mention story games with their advice. Mort didn't initially mention story games with their advice. EzekielRaiden didn't initially mention story games with their advice. AbdulAlhazred didn't initially mention any story games with their advice. FrozenNorth didn't initially mention any story games with their advice.

It's really only at this point with AbdulAlhazred's post that the conversation starts to pivot as he starts (somewhat abrasively) explaining the what he perceives as the difference between his and your preferred play styles, game preferences, and perspectives. But by this point, basically everyone in the thread had written off the OP. But no one was initially peddling story game advice to the OP.

That was abrasive? LOL! The point I made there was pretty cogent, and as you say, the thread was pretty much a runaway choochoo rather a long ways before that. I merely noted that you could not run into the OP's failure mode in narrative play. Obviously you couldn't play anything even faintly resembling his game that way, so I admit that if you interpret it as actual advice it is about like saying "just shoot the whole game in the head and start over." Well, that was prophetic! Really though, you should come join me in a few code reviews, if I wanted to be abrasive I'd just channel that!

I think that your narrative that you are trying to construct about people just wanting to push story games is pretty bogus. Debate and disagreement was happening prior. It turns out that people can disagree on a topic without pushing their preferred games.

If you don't care about advice from story games, the simple solution is not to engage it and let it die of natural causes. Putting the more egregious offenders for your complaints on ignore is also an option. It's that easy.


I suspect that your bias may be clouding your judgment given that a fair number of people are also running 5e D&D or other traditional games and not just story ones, and I would also say that you are painting others with too broad of a brush.

I don't care about people's biases, honestly. But this is so very true. I say what I see, I don't expect everyone to see the same things, want the same things, etc. That would be arrogant! I am happy to debate facts and ideas, but I want to do it in a sense of "what if we compare what we know and maybe mush it together and see what happens."

 

[loverdrive]

This is a similar point to the thread you started not too long ago, isn't it? About separating fictional content from resolution process?

Probably, yes. I tend to repeat myself.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This, one thousand times.

I mean, anyone who has even a passing familiarity with the historical and literary tropes that the WoG is built on can read the book and imagine things happening - eg in one of my games using the setting, the Great Kingdom was pulled into shape by new and dynamic leadership, and as a result conquered Rel Astra and was preparing to absorb Almor. That's not a model - it's just imaginative projection from the material provided.

Exactly, and you could JUST as easily imagined the GC collapsing into chaos and a war erupting amongst its neighbors to divide it up into new spheres of influence. Or a dozen other equally plausible scenarios, all based on what is in that WoG gazetteer. Nor would having access to basically everything that ever emerged from Living Greyhawk and every other GH product combined have much real impact on that. These are fun imaginings, but not an organized corpus of interlocking facts that really put any constraints on things.