Why do RPGs have rules?

[pemerton]

How can you know that?

It's a conjecture based on a general premise that most designers have reasons for the things they do.

I mean, the causal explanation for why my computer has a keyboard is that someone put it there.

But they didn't put it there for no reason. There's a functional explanation of why my computer has a keyboard - it's a type of user input device. (I'm sure tech people can give a more elaborate account of the function. But that basic point seems fairly obvious, driven home by the fact that my other computer with a keyboard that doesn't work properly is gathering dust.)

And, how is their intention relevant to your decisions?

Which decisions? I don't quite follow this question.

 

[Davies]

It's a conjecture based on a general premise that most designers have reasons for the things they do.

And I suspect that the designers of all role-playing games have a reason for the things they do. But I neither agree that this reason is ever anything more substantial than "I made up some naughty word I thought would be fun," nor that, if it is, their reasons have any relevance to my decisions.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

How can you know that? And, how is their intention relevant to your decisions?

I have a hard time believing that your definition, or this rhetorical path leads anywhere illuminating. It smacks of "just because it is so" which is pretty much canonical for 'uninteresting response to a question', lol.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

And I suspect that the designers of all role-playing games have a reason for the things they do. But I neither agree that this reason is ever anything more substantial than "I made up some naughty word I thought would be fun," nor that, if it is, their reasons have any relevance to my decisions.

It is going to be pretty easy to trivially dismiss this position, don't you think? Are you saying you simply play random RPGs? I posit that you actually recognize certain design principles and agenda within the implementation of a given RPG and match that against your desire to experience certain kinds of play that said elements will (or will not) engender in play according to your experience. This is the very essence of matching your preferences and desires with those of the game's author(s). Thus you DO care!

 

[aramis erak]

And dull in any game. I mean, why would you?

sometimes, you just want to hit stuff.
Not much better for that than an early D&D fighter with no personality past, "Kill. Kill! KILL!!!"

There are those who still see TTRPGs as a form of wargame, and want to have the narrative merely a linkage between battles, and not as a story engine..
'
And when I'm in a D&D mood, that is EXACTLY what I want.
I'm not often there.
My players are, however, in Kill-team mode more than I, and I usually don't mind.

 

[Davies]

I have a hard time believing that your definition, or this rhetorical path leads anywhere illuminating.

Okay.

 

[aramis erak]

Oh, I understand the concepts of Story Now play, I just don't like it personally and don't buy into it. There's nothing inherently superior to that kind of shared fiction.

I thought this was a thread about why RPGs have rules, not about any particular set of rules.

One cannot look at the purpose of rules without looking at the intent of the rules...
and, for better or worse, Story Now games' rules are there to serve a strong purpose -- making players narrate, mostly -- and avoiding abstraction and irrelevant random.

This is pretty much 160° out from pure simulationist games, such as GW's Inquisitor (my copy had a "3D Roleplay" sticker on it, so I'll take GW's label for inclusivity) - a character scale wargame mechanically, but one where the coordinator is expected to have an ongoing narrative affected by the battles.

I'll note that in 1981-82, that's pretty much how the guys I played with (grades 6-8) played D&D: a story emerging from the results of battles, almost no non-combat action, and 90% of non-combat being evading combat... due to low HP and/or out of spells...

 

[aramis erak]

Maybe they got bored, or frustrated by an inability to contribute in their preferred manner.

Maybe its the only way they can exert control over the course of their character's narrative. They might like other ways better.

This is just your hang up. You could try different styles of play that they might like.

In the middle case, no, I asked him why hew played. And he literally said, "To piss people off."
Why are you unwilling to take what I'm saying at face value?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

In the middle case, no, I asked him why hew played. And he literally said, "To piss people off."
Why are you unwilling to take what I'm saying at face value?

Oh, I am. Sometimes people here seem like they post from some very opinionated points of view and haven't always considered things from all angles. I sometimes have a tendency to use a contrary statement to get past that. I will say though, while I've engaged with difficult players of various types, its hard to remember anyone that genuinely just wanted to ruin everyone else's day. Normally THOSE people were something like passers by when we played in a public place or something (IE in high school or college). I think the most intractable players I actually ever had who stuck around were the "disinterested boyfriend" type.

But I don't doubt that other people have different experiences, though how common is a truly toxic AND persistent player?

 

[Clint_L]

I know players whose reasons are essentially invalid...

• in one case, because it allows them to find victims for their toxic sense of humor.
• Another is there simply because they enjoy causing in-party strife. And not at my table in the last 20 years.
• Another reason I'd consider invalid is "because the significant other insists" or "to appease the significant other"...

Those appear to be valid reasons, even if they don't make sense to us, per my original statement. Valid = it makes sense to them, which is what you describe. Doesn't mean that you agree with them; I hope you don't. What was your point in throwing out these extremely fringe examples? I don't think my claim was particularly controversial; is it not common sense that everyone is entitled to their own opinion about what makes something fun?