Why do RPGs have rules?

[Bedrockgames]

That is the point, though.

There's no and can't be no skilled play in D&D, because the only possible skill being expressed is players' ability to please the GM who pretends to be impartial. Some even go further and gaslight themselves into thinking that they are actually impartial, and their decision-making is predicated on anything other than their left foot.

I don't think anyone really thinks they are impartial. The idea is to strive for being as evenhanded and fair as you can be. It is a goal, not an end state. And there is a substantive difference between a GM who is trying to do this (especially ones who are humble enough to admit when they've made an error or a questionable call) and ones who just see themselves as the guy in charge. Now you are obviously not measuring player skill in a vacuum, and it isn't the same as testing it in a more objective environment but a GM can very easily make an adventure or a sandbox designed to be challenging and designed to reward players who are cautious, strategic, creative, diplomatic, tactical, etc. Yes the GM and the system are the two things that will be measuring the players but like I said before plenty of sports with scoring measure skill subjectively (even something as concrete as boxing requires some subjective judgement when awarding points to determine who won each round----you wouldn't have split decisions otherwise). Is it a perfect and flawless system for measuring player skill? Of course not. But I don't think anyone is arguing that it is.

 

[hawkeyefan]

What? Who is putting it on a pedestal? Who is claiming some type of high ground, all I've seen is people continuously trying to explain how and why they enjoy a particular play agenda/playstyle.

I believe that the "on a pedestal comment" was more about folks placing importance on it and thinking of it as an important agenda. Not a commentary on how the discussion has been presented in this thread. Looking at the context of the comment, I think it's clear.

I just agree with @pemerton, based on my own experience, that it does no good to mystify and put "living world sim" play on a pedestal, without really trying to come to grips with what the actual play process entails.

The rest of the sentence is important. "What the actual play process entails" is really significant. I think, and @innerdude can and should absolutely correct me if I've misread it, that it's a call to look at what's actually happening and not mistake it for this ideal of simulation.

And in my experience, it's way, way, way harder to separate the "causal functionality" decisions as a GM from the "I really want to run engaging play" than we want to admit.

Another important element. This is where I'm struggling to accept a lot of what's said about simulation. For me, I struggle to separate all my thoughts and inclinations on why I crafted an NPC or scenario the way I have. Did I do it because it challenges the characters in some meaningful way? Did I do it to challenge the players in some way? Did I do it because it makes sense according to what's been established in the game?

My answer to all of these is hopefully yes. When there's a conflict of some sort between them, I don't know that I'd say I always go with one over the others.... it really depends on that specific moment of play and what's come before and what's likely to follow.

 

[Emberashh]

The core texts layer on top of one another. So that the PHB layers over the Basic reference. And DMG layers over PHB. It'd be redundant to restate the core loop in the DMG.

The typical person reads the title "Dungeon Mastere Guide" and makes the appropriate conclusion that said book includes everything you need to be a Dungeon Master.

The typical person does not conclude that it would be "redundant" for the Dungeon Masters Guide to not have all of the information a Dungeon Master needs.

And regardless of that pointless argument, the idea of redundancy being a concern here is in of itself rather absurd. Even if we're not going to take the option to make everything just one big book, it is still important to make sure that the books, aimed at two different types of players, include all the relevant info.

Like, thats one of the core problems people have with the Druid in 5e is that a lot of what you need to play one isn't in the PHB, but in a book that isn't meant to be player facing outside of a few specific instances.

And it also has to be said that none of this was an accident or a byproduct of incompetentance. The books were deliberately designed this way because they were never intended to be critical resources for new DMs; DMs were expected to already know what they're doing and could therefore fill in the gaps the books have.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The core texts layer on top of one another. So that the PHB layers over the Basic reference. And DMG layers over PHB. It'd be redundant to restate the core loop in the DMG.

Redundancy would be appropriate in this case though, and also in some other cases e.g. Create Thrall really ought to explain what "charmed" condition does and doesn't do because it's so absolutely vital to the ability. I'd accept a page reference but in this case redundancy would be a lesser evil than misleading players who assume "charmed" means something similar to what it meant in OD&D/AD&D/3E/etc.

 

[Imaro]

I believe that the "on a pedestal comment" was more about folks placing importance on it and thinking of it as an important agenda. Not a commentary on how the discussion has been presented in this thread. Looking at the context of the comment, I think it's clear.

That's not generally how that phrase is used (to indicate something is of regular or equal importance to other similar things). Putting something on a pedestal usually means claiming it is objectively more important, of higher quality, etc. compared to other similar things. No one did that (instead stating it was there preference for consideration 7in decision making when running their games) and I don't think it was clear or I wouldn't have asked...

 

[clearstream]

The typical person reads the title "Dungeon Mastere Guide" and makes the appropriate conclusion that said book includes everything you need to be a Dungeon Master.

The typical person does not conclude that it would be "redundant" for the Dungeon Masters Guide to not have all of the information a Dungeon Master needs.

IKR! They really could have done a better job of identifying and calling attention to their game text structure. It took a great deal of analysis of the text through robust debate here and elsewhere to see that structure.

The best example I can think of are the rules for ability checks. The PHB contains a workable set of rules which on surface look complete. What a GM is told to have in mind for a PHB ability check is uncertainty. But then check the DMG. There are additional, non-conflicting rules, that bring in consequences. The DMG rules work together with the PHB rules to offer a more sophisticated game.

I believe that is intentional albeit as you point out, woefully unexplained!

And regardless of that pointless argument, the idea of redundancy being a concern here is in of itself rather absurd. Even if we're not going to take the option to make everything just one big book, it is still important to make sure that the books, aimed at two different types of players, include all the relevant info.

Well, I'm not a fan of really big RPG books. And I quite like the strategy of offering layers of sophistication. I just wish they'd articulated that. Maybe for some reason they didn't see it as a priority... they expected folk would find their way there.

The idea of redundancy isn't absurd. It is statement about the design strategies employed. An example, which rules in the DMG are per text, optional? Turns out that there is an intentional strategy of labelling optional rules optional, and variant rules variant, and then - in the DMG - there are also just rules. Run through those rules and see if you can find any conflicts with PHB rules. Consider them from a perspective of building upon the PHB rules.

And it also has to be said that none of this was an accident or a byproduct of incompetentance. The books were deliberately designed this way because they were never intended to be critical resources for new DMs; DMs were expected to already know what they're doing and could therefore fill in the gaps the books have.

The DMG isn't expected to be a critical resource, I agree. PHB 5e D&D is a thing. It's probably the most widely played mode of 5e D&D.

 

[clearstream]

I believe that the "on a pedestal comment" was more about folks placing importance on it and thinking of it as an important agenda. Not a commentary on how the discussion has been presented in this thread. Looking at the context of the comment, I think it's clear.

To me also it was not clear, especially in light of

Pox be upon you and your house if you just "make stuff up just because it sounds fun and dramatic and appealing"! No no, we must always assiduously provide causation, even if it means creating stuff up on the fly and revising secret backstory, lest we fall prey to the curse of non-simulation, and ruin our benighted players' sense of immersion.

However, if the intent was as you say then I can very much accept that it simply came across badly, and move on.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

If lightning bolts in heavy rain always strike houses I'd get a little bit suspicious that something is at work besides dispassionate extrapolation.

I'd get even more suspicious if lightning bolts in heavy rain strike houses only when the players are watching.

I realize that that's not an answer the question you asked, but it's the answer to the question you would have asked if we were both on the same page about what simulationism is.

How could questions like this even be meaningful? Do you know how many lightning bolts strike WoG every day? How many houses are there? What proportion get hit over any period of time? Do you have even order of magnitude answers to these questions?

Worse, what is the cause of lightning in WoG? Elementals? Gods? Wizards? Dragons? Does electricity even exist there? Are there laws or physics or just magic? How does that work?

 

[Maxperson]

Out of curiosity: when you say "traditional game" how do you mean "traditional"? Is that a reference to Six Cultures of Play and the classic/trad/Nordic LARP/storygame/OSR/neo-trad distinction?

I don't agree with those classifications. It seems like they broke out how people play the game into very narrow bands that don't really fit any game I've ever played in.

Traditional almost gets it right, but fails when it concludes that the narrative is king and players are secondary. The narrative(adventure/campaign) is big, but player agency is huge in traditional play. Players can alter the adventure/campaign narrative or even shift it to something entirely new with their decisions.

OSR includes that player agency, but fails by putting too much weight on the invisible rulebook.

When I talk about traditional play, I'm talking about how 1e and 2e did it once people started moving beyond "You go into a dungeon and loot it, then go back to town to sell stuff and train." It didn't take long to do. I think by the late 80's and early 90's we were playing that way. If you're looking at that list, it's a combination of traditional and OSR.

 

[Maxperson]

The core gameplay loop of 5e is not, at any point, ever explained or even directly referenced in the DMG. That is only in the PHB, as is the bulk of actual practices for running a game as a DM.

Theres a reason nearly a third or so of the PHB is very clearly not talking to the players, but to DMs.

There's a reason for the play loop not being in the DMG. The DMG doesn't have any rules in it other than the optional rules from the DM tookbox section. All of the rules to play the game are in the PHB. The PHB isn't just for players, but rather it's for players and DMs which is the reason that so much of the PHB talks to DMs.

The DMG just gives advice for world building, how to create an adventure, and how to run the game. The play loop describes the basic play experience. DM describes, players declare, DM narrates, then rinse repeat.

While the loop is not explicitly referenced in the DMG, how to engage each of the parts is. The DM is given advice for how to create the world and describe and the DM is given advice on how to narrate responses to various player declarations. The DMG doesn't need to repeat the game loop in the form that it does in the PHB, because the DM is using both books to learn to DM and run the game.