Why do RPGs have rules?

[aramis erak]

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.

I've been that odd exception. Fun is NOT the correct word for universality. Nor is enjoyment. Value? Yeah, that's vague enough to be inclusive. Benefit? That stacks well with dark historical tone poems like the rules of Grey Ranks; if you actually enjoy Grey Ranks, well, either you're a sadist or a masochist. (It's a surer death for your PC's than WFRP, T2K, or CoC.)

I've run older games for teens and 20-somethings because they wanted to try them "as written, but all the OSR crowd simply ignore the rules." Not because I wanted to, but because I was asked to. Educating the new generation, paying it forward.

I've run games for pay, for admission to conventions, for store discounts...

And I've run games for fun.

 

[loverdrive]

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.

...and? I didn't even imply it's a better approach.

Regardless. OK, some people enjoy optimizing trivial problems (hm, I wonder, what is better, running into the battle with your hairy chest on display or wearing a ballistic vest?), so? I don't care. I'm not among them.

I don't need to say that all music is valid every time I talk about my love for jazz, why would I need to do the same when it comes to games?

 

[pemerton]

Probably, yes. I tend to repeat myself.

Please keep doing so!

 

[loverdrive]

Aside III: on "fun"

"Fun" is not the goal of playing a game, it's a bare minimum requirement. A game being fun is like your meal being edible. The lowest possible bar to clear.

If the game isn't fun, then it utterly miserably spectacularly failed. "You do everything right as long as you didn't fail so badly you can feel liquid excrement flowing down your thighs" is an asinine idea.

 

[clearstream]

Here's a story fragment:

Once upon a time there lived a bear. One morning it woke up and, feeling thirsty, picked up its bucket and walked off to the well, to collect some water.​

Is someone really going to tell me that that's a simulation of Goldilocks?

That's a nice thought experiment. My first intuition is probably not, but then I have a few questions...

What is a bear?
What is a morning?
Why or how does the bear feel thirsty? What is thirst?
What is the connection between a well and water?
What is the connection between water and thirst? (Or are they unrelated?)
How does walking get a bear to a well? What is it like for a bear to walk?
In what way does walking to a well equate with collecting water?

Each reader will have a set of answers to questions like these. A model, if you will.

 

[clearstream]

EDIT nvm, too minor a point, please ignore

 

[clearstream]

I don't need to say that all music is valid every time I talk about my love for jazz, why would I need to do the same when it comes to games?

You wouldn't feel the need to say why indie is invalid though, in saying why you love jazz, right?

Or could there be times at which it would be necessary to show how indie is invalid in order to explain your love for jazz? A need to define in terms of differences?

 

[loverdrive]

Do you exclude from fun general satisfactions and enjoyments, and feelings that are not fun in themselves but are fun in elevating subsequent feelings?

My definition of fun is very simple: I'm having fun when I don't wish I was somewhere else doing something else.

There are things that are frustrating on a minor scale (like losing a character and having to create another one), but I'm not sure if it makes sense to classify things as "fun" or "not fun" at such a level.

Also, aside IV: sometimes fun isn't even the point in general. I don't have fun in training mode in MK11 or on my first attempts at boss in ULTRAKILL. The former is boring, the latter is teeth-breakingly frustrating, but both are necessary so I can have more fun in the future (as in my opinion, most things become exponentially more enjoyable the better you get at them)

 

[clearstream]

Good points! I haven't played Ironsworn and until I read this thread I had no techniques for allowing anyone but the GM to be Keeper of Secrets; it's the one GM role I saw no way to delegate elsewhere. How does Ironsworn do it?

As @aramis erak says, through a system of "oracles". These take the form of a process that either chooses between and confirms your current intuitions or indexes words from a list to prompt new intuitions.

Say I enter some location. Rather than there being any preexisting secret information about that location, I will follow the oracle's process.

 

[loverdrive]

You wouldn't feel the need to say why indie is invalid though, in saying why you love jazz, right?

Or could there be times at which it would be necessary to show how indie is invalid in order to explain your love for jazz? A need to define in terms of differences?

Yeah, sometimes. Often, I'd say.

This was not the case here, though.