Why do RPGs have rules?

[Anon Adderlan]

Vincent's thoughts on the 'Unwelcome and Unwanted' is one of the most important insights to ever emerge from the RPG design community. People tend to see rules as tools to resolve conflict when one of several outcomes are being advocated for. But introducing the unexpected is a fundamental part of the experience too.

Another thing rules should do is inspire contributions. Lots of #PbtA games explain very clearly what you should do, but then fail to give you any tools which help you do it. For example, most Moves have the possibility of success with complications, but the resolution mechanics provide no hints as to what those complication might be. You have to think of them on the spot, even if the fictional positioning gives you no obvious suggestions.

There's a reason why random tables are so popular.

What are the rules actually for? For fun, obviously.

If the concepts of "fun" or "enjoyment" aren't part of your theory of game design (but "mediation" and "constraint" are), it's evidence that your philosophy is very far removed from what most people actually play.

You cannot design for fun, only the things people find fun, and it's quite surprising how diverse that gets even in this hobby.

How about we look back at the origin of the game that we are all acquainted with - D&D.

It's origins are in wargaming. And wargaming goes back to things like chess. Chess isn't about agreeing on a shared fiction - it is about engaging tactical and logical puzzle solving, with the rules providing the framework.

While there are RPGs that drastically reduce the presence of tactical play, most traditional RPGs still include a healthy dose of it - because it is fun for a lot of people.

Tactical play is impossible if the DM can ignore the rules at any time. And if that's a rule, then the DM is letting the players win by not implementing it. So yes it emerged from wargaming, but quickly diverged from it due to factors like this.

“the purpose of an rpg's rules is to create the unwelcome and the unwanted in the game's fiction. The reason to play by rules is because you want the unwelcome and the unwanted - you want things that no vigorous creative agreement would ever create”

that’s crazy talk … rules are quite welcome in a game. Physics are rules in the game of life and we welcome gravity and order.

Gravity injures, maims, and kills millions every year. Sounds pretty unwelcome and unwanted to me.

 

[Baron Opal II]

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick.

Consider a random encounter roll in 'classic' D&D. It might suddenly inform the group that the low-level party just encountered something way out of their league, at exactly the wrong time. This news is 'unwelcome', but the potential for this sort of thing gives the game tension, and can send play flying off in unexpected directions.

That said, I'm not sure I agree that assigning authority isn't an important part of design.

Exactly?

Perhaps I misunderstood, but "twists" and "curves" that come up make the game interesting. That these things can send play in unexpected directions are exactly the point. Mr. Baker seems to think that rules that provide this are unwelcome.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Exactly?

Perhaps I misunderstood, but "twists" and "curves" that come up make the game interesting. That these things can send play in unexpected directions are exactly the point. Mr. Baker seems to think that rules that provide this are unwelcome.

Here's an example of what I find to be an interesting type of 'twist' (and not to say this is the ONLY sort of thing, just A thing): Meda talked to the girl, Jenfir, that Tober found, and discovered that she was trying to find help for her mother, and warned that there were plainsfolk raiders who had taken some of their group. Meda did some research, and I rolled a 'know things' check result of 6, meaning I learned 2 things that are true, but make the situation more difficult. One was that these raiders can only be distracted by an easier target (than our rescue party) and two was that the raiders goal is to ritually murder whomever they find (due to some sort of religious rite or something). We subsequently raised a rescue party of several villagers to go get the girl's mother and help her. To guard against the raiders, Meda convinced a foolish townsman, Ifrhys, to go distract the raiders by playing on his vanity and flirting a little.

This is a twist, we have learned something about Meda, precipitated by an outcome of the dice, that she's not above a little manipulation in the service of making her plans work. Who knows what the eventual outcome will be. Ifrhys could get killed or injured, which would presumably weigh on Meda's conscience (I guess it might create some other sort of strife too, I'm not sure who Ifrhys' family are). Ifrhys might survive, and might be successful in his part of the mission. Given his foolish nature this could lead to various complications. My guess is any of these outcomes will be mostly explored to whatever degree based on my own input, though the GM might pose them as moves of one sort or another.

 

[Rejuvenator]

I didn't mean "what emotional state are they intended to engender?"

I meant "what function do the perform in the overall process of play?" It's an engineering-type question.

I doubt an engineer could give you a proper answer about is the function of something when you haven't defined to the engineer what exactly the thing is, as even slightly different things can have functions with different purpose(s) for various end users.

I strongly suspect this thread (like so many others) will be inconclusive, because you haven't defined specifically what kind of "play", and so many people will default to their respective idea of "play", resulting in lots of talking past each other.

 

[Pedantic]

Exactly?

Perhaps I misunderstood, but "twists" and "curves" that come up make the game interesting. That these things can send play in unexpected directions are exactly the point. Mr. Baker seems to think that rules that provide this are unwelcome.

"Unwelcome" is being used in an idiosyncratic way here. Baker does not mean "undesirable to the play experience" when talking about results like that. Much to the contrary, I personally think his designs go overboard on introducing and encouraging such elements.

He's referring to the fictional position of the characters experiencing them: one doesn't try to sneak into a camp without the intent to succeed, or swing a sword at a foe planning to miss. The rules introduce outcomes that players wouldn't if they were just making true declarations about the world instead of playing a mediated game.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Here's an example of what I find to be an interesting type of 'twist' (and not to say this is the ONLY sort of thing, just A thing):
...
This is a twist, we have learned something about Meda, precipitated by an outcome of the dice, that she's not above a little manipulation in the service of making her plans work. Who knows what the eventual outcome will be.

You hold this up as a good, interesting, novel thing- and I agree.

I don't see this as coming from Vincent because you used rules to determine this. Which he seems to dislike.

There is no RPG game that I have ever played where your scenario could not come about,

 

[Baron Opal II]

He's referring to the fictional position of the characters experiencing them: one doesn't try to sneak into a camp without the intent to succeed, or swing a sword at a foe planning to miss. The rules introduce outcomes that players wouldn't if they were just making true declarations about the world instead of playing a mediated game.

Exactly?

The actions of your character don't always succeed? Sometimes things come about you don't expect? Why is this a bad thing, again?

I think I'm getting a little far afield here. I'm probably getting hung up on a particular paragraph that, I guess, isn't supposed to mean what it seems to.

 

[Pedantic]

Exactly?

The actions of your character don't always succeed? Sometimes things come about you don't expect? Why is this a bad thing, again?

Yes, that's exactly what Baker is describing as "unwanted" or "unwelcome." He goes further than that, but that's the basic idea. The rules exist to make stuff that no one wants to happen occur, because that is interesting and absolves any player from having to play entirely to complicate the narrative.

I think I'm getting a little far afield here. I'm probably getting hung up on a particular paragraph that, I guess, isn't supposed to mean what it seems to.

I tend to find Baker's style pretty arcane and aggressive, and it often builds on assumptions/commonplaces you really have to have read a lot of his stuff to get at.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Yes, that's exactly what Baker is describing as "unwanted" or "unwelcome." He goes further than that, but that's the basic idea. The rules exist to make stuff that no one wants to happen occur, because that is interesting and absolves any player from having to play entirely to complicate the narrative.

Thank you for clearing that up for me. I appreciate it.

 

[niklinna]

I tend to find Baker's style pretty arcane and aggressive, and it often builds on assumptions/commonplaces you really have to have read a lot of his stuff to get at.

Agreed. I think he'd have a bigger audience if he explained some of his stuff more/better. "To do it, do it" really put me off when I first saw it. Oh, really? I never would have guessed! His subsequent "explanation" was also less than satisfactory. Still I think he has injected some pretty awesome ideas into the RPG space.