Why do RPGs have rules?

[Micah Sweet]

I'll be honest Micah. I think you're expressing a zoomed out, not-particularly-informed idea of how these games work during play and what they ultimately yield downstream of play. There are some people that might use Dungeon World non-normatively to express an agenda outside of the game's primary ethos (in the 7 cultures of play it would be OC/Neotrad...on the Forge it would be a version of High Concept Simulation) where play looks like "power fantasy." Testimonials for that might appear to convey "servant of player desires." But, consider what happened during the first few sessions (Expedition #1 of the 2nd Stonetop game I'm running):

* The Ranger lost 2 of their 3 dogs (as in dirtnap).

* The Marshall nearly lost their entire Crew (6 essential Followers both thematically and tactically) during a ferocious effort to save Stonetop's group of children who collect deadfall for firewood. They would have all perished if not for a timely move by the Seeker and attendant good dice result and a series of subsequent good plays afterward by all of the other players involved (Marshal, Lightbearer, Ranger).

* The Cave Bear they befriended during the Expedition was forced to make a last stand against their enemy to cover the PC & children retreat after the group saved Stonetop's children. That could have gone much worse than it did, but it still ended in The Cave Bear falling prey to an entity of terrible corruption (of which she will now be a part of and that Threat and will manifest in the future on its behalf either in play as a Monster or as a Grim Portent).

* The NPC Requisitioned Expedition to handle an Opportunity (to lend Stonetop's Midwife to deliver a child for a goatherding Hillfolk tribe...compensation for success would have been a family of goatherders as assets for Stonetop) went disastrously. It failed in every way possible leading to (a) the group losing the +1 Fortunes they gained from Returning Triumphantly (saving the kids from the Threat in The Great Wood), (b) the Expedition leader being bent at his failure (which turned into a Homefront Threat last session and was resolved) and (c) the town Cobbler going missing. If (c) isn't resolved, we're going to have shoe/boots complications (the social issue with the cobbler's parents was resolved during this Homefront phase...that also could have gone terrible wrong).

---

That ain't power fantasy. That ain't wish fulfillment gaming. That ain't "servant to the players."

"Being a fan of the player characters" and "asking questions and using the answers" isn't about "being subsurvient to the players." Honestly, I inflict hardship, duress, and harm on the players at a frequency and magnitude in these games than in any Trad game I've ever run (and its not close). People coming from a trad perspective and playing in these games (without being acquainted with and having their cognitive space appropriately mapped to how the games work) could (and has) absolutely feel like "HOLY CRAP THIS IS THE MOST ADVERSARIAL GMING POSSIBLE...WTH?" That is the thing. Its structured and principled adversarial GMing. I have resources I can draw upon. I have moves I can make. These are structurally and principally constrained by the ruleset in question.

As a result, all of the stuff that happened above was neither expression of "subservience to players" nor "adversarial GMing."

It was an expression of running the game with a combination of the integrity required of me + the assets at my disposal + the creative means afforded to me personally (such as they are).

Sounds like the game is a good fit for you (I have no idea what Stonetop is, other than a regularly referenced game by a few posters on these kinds of threads, but I assume it is strongly narrativist in a way similar to PbtA games are). I do not like the strictly enforced structure of these games, and bounce off it every time I read about it. I'm sure that, if you're able to handle the mechanical buy-in and prioritize the kind of narrative, player-authored play the game enforces, that it suits those needs admirably, and is every bit the dramatic, hard-core experience you are describing above. I cannot. I cannot deal with a system that hard codes how I'm supposed to GM, and what I am and am not allowed to do, even if the hard coded ideas are good ones. It does not work for me.

I really am happy that it works for you, however, as well as the others on this thread who support this style of play.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Note also how DW in particular admonishes the participants to speak in character...

I'm curious about this. Is it the belief by the designer that speaking in character might see a loss of communication, perhaps related to on the meta level, or at worst lead to miscommunication?

 

[AnotherGuy]

That is a really excellent post. Here is what I'll say about my running of any game with a Gamism element that is supposed to be front-and-center, compelling on its own, and meaningfully give shape to play.

* Always think of the game layer first. Always. Frame situation, frame decision-points, generate consequences that are compelling as moments of gameplay. But do so with integrity. If you you eff around with the game layer, you've defeated the entire point of Step On Up, Challenge-based play. The player's decision-space that they're navigating becomes subordinate to GM decision if you eff around with the game layer.

So game layer primacy, game layer integrity, game layer transparency as much as possible. Foreground threats, telegraph consequences, give agonizing (eg compelling) tactical/strategic choices between charting course A vs B vs C.

* Keep the meta channel open. Solicit player input and offload onto them/involve them as much as you can. I'm talking framing. I'm talking consequences. I'm talking any required conversation about game layer adjudication or internal causality/extrapolation examination. What is most important is that they understand what the hell is happening. If they don't understand what is happening then its basically Ouija Board play where you're moving the planchette while their hands are vaguely on it. They need to understand the game layer and the fiction first and foremost.

And here is the thing. The Czege Principle is easily avoided. In martial arts and in ball sports (etc), you do technical drills and scrimmages all the time where the parameters of play are either (a) devised by one of the participants or (b) one of the participants is intentionally handicapped by the drill/scrimmage dynamics. Doesn't matter. That isn't a violation of The Czege Principle. So long as the participants understand the Rules of Engagement (RoE) up front and there isn't an "auto-win" scenario so Win Con is still up for grabs...you're good. Its when the RoEs or Win Cons are corrupted/obfuscated such that the participants can't go as hard as possible and still potentially get "the W" when a problem arises.

In D&D terms, you can have players say "hey use Encounter Budget x" or "hey you know what would be really cool here...use enemy unit type y, and z, with hazard/terrain n" and that isn't a violation. So long as the GM can still run their bad guys to the hilt and go all-out for "the W?" You're good.

---

If you have an awesome game layer in D&D and you're using 3-4 participants to infuse that gamestate trajectory with an attendant vital, vibrant, thematically rich fiction? Congrats. You're winning all the D&D. D&D is a game. That gets lost way, way, way, way too much and too easily. Maximize what its good at and lean on/involve your players. Whenever I run a new game, I'm always looking at the game layer first and foremost. What is this engine trying to do? What sort of tough decisions (regarding loadout, regarding action economy and positional relationships and Win Con dynamics, regarding action and conflict resolution dynamics, regarding resource marshalling, regarding advancement/reward cycles, regarding the premise/dramatic needs of a character intersecting with situation framing and thematic consequences/moves I can make against them to provoke them.

I just never think about the overall shape of the fiction. Never give it a thought. I try my best to get as good as I can on the fundamentals of this game (which requires deeply understanding the game engine, the levers, the widgets, what all of this does to create compelling decision-points for players) and execute play right now.

Game Layer, Integrity, Transparency, Fundamentals, and Right Now.

Thank you for this reply! I read it quite a few times to understand where each point you made could be applied to my game.

On the issue of Transparency and Keeping the Meta channel open with the table I have 2 concerns that I'm struggling with:
(1) How does being so open factor on the Narrative Surprise Reward; and
(2) Ensuring character integrity is followed

I will give examples for (1) and (2) using my prior post as the point of reference for ease.
Player doesn't know his character is suffering from PTSD after his near-death experience with the "marilith" (polymorphed BBEG). Do I tell him and do I provide/discuss with him the mechanics? From your post, as I understand it, I should - keeping the game part of the RPG as much as possible in the foreground. I get that.
However the Narrative Surprise Reward is immediately nullified as soon as I disclose it on the Meta Level. Player will know immediately that his Long Rest could be affected and that Mariliths and serpentine creatures induce dragon-fear-like checks. By being transparent with it the table doesn't discover this naturally through the fiction, which is the Reward, but rather matter-of-factly.
Imagine GRRM's books or the TV show GoT revealing Hodor's trauma right at the outset. It wouldn't have had the same impact.

(2) I can use the same example as above. Player knowledge now could affect the moves the character makes. i.e. moves could be made to accelerate the negation of the PTSD earlier than what would normally occur.
By me keeping it secret I'm assisting character integrity until the PTSD is revealed in the fiction.

Edit:

I just never think about the overall shape of the fiction

What do you mean by this? As in the story is not a concern? This is tricky for me because I feel my story-weaving (including character backstories) is my strength.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Sounds like the game is a good fit for you (I have no idea what Stonetop is, other than a regularly referenced game by a few posters on these kinds of threads, but I assume it is strongly narrativist in a way similar to PbtA games are). I do not like the strictly enforced structure of these games, and bounce off it every time I read about it. I'm sure that, if you're able to handle the mechanical buy-in and prioritize the kind of narrative, player-authored play the game enforces, that it suits those needs admirably, and is every bit the dramatic, hard-core experience you are describing above. I cannot. I cannot deal with a system that hard codes how I'm supposed to GM, and what I am and am not allowed to do, even if the hard coded ideas are good ones. It does not work for me.

I really am happy that it works for you, however, as well as the others on this thread who support this style of play.

I'm not sure what's 'hard coded' exactly in a sense that is more so than trad games. I've run into this meme before, that there's some kind of inherent flexibility in trad play that is lacking in narrative play, but with extensive experience on both sides of the fence I'm not seeing it. I think the potential exists with either form to do a lot of the same things in terms of genre, etc. There will be differences, definitely preferences will vary. No doubt we could each think of a fairly niche case where one technique will not present certain things in a specific way, but the Venn Diagram of trad and narrative largely overlaps.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm curious about this. Is it the belief by the designer that speaking in character might see a loss of communication, perhaps related to on the meta level, or at worst lead to miscommunication?

What I'm saying is it admonishes people TO speak in character instead of out of character. I think the idea is to produce an immersive and 'flowing' kind of an experience. To bring the game to life so that the players are completely focused on being in character as much as possible. I also hypothesize that when operating in this mode players retain a memory of the action that is more true to narrative and less a transcript of game process. I think it helps remember details of things like NPCs and situations by making them more real.

In any case, both AW and DW repeat this as a principle and technique. I think it is fairly common to relax it when asking questions and answering them, but I think its best even then.

 

[AnotherGuy]

What I'm saying is it admonishes people TO speak in character instead of out of character. I think the idea is to produce an immersive and 'flowing' kind of an experience. To bring the game to life so that the players are completely focused on being in character as much as possible. I also hypothesize that when operating in this mode players retain a memory of the action that is more true to narrative and less a transcript of game process. I think it helps remember details of things like NPCs and situations by making them more real.

In any case, both AW and DW repeat this as a principle and technique. I think it is fairly common to relax it when asking questions and answering them, but I think its best even then.

Ah I read that wrong.
This makes much more sense and I agree with the sentiment of the immersive experience and the memory retention.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm not sure what's 'hard coded' exactly in a sense that is more so than trad games. I've run into this meme before, that there's some kind of inherent flexibility in trad play that is lacking in narrative play, but with extensive experience on both sides of the fence I'm not seeing it. I think the potential exists with either form to do a lot of the same things in terms of genre, etc. There will be differences, definitely preferences will vary. No doubt we could each think of a fairly niche case where one technique will not present certain things in a specific way, but the Venn Diagram of trad and narrative largely overlaps.

Then I have to wonder where the disconnect is, because I see a lot of very specific principles, rules and codified admonishments in narrative games that have to be followed or the game doesn't work. I don't see that much in trad games, and certainly not much at all in classic games. That's the kind of freedom I'm used to when I play RPGs, and the very specific play experience most narrative games push for from what I've seen is not what I want.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

What do you mean by this? As in the story is not a concern? This is tricky for me because I feel my story-weaving (including character backstories) is my strength.

Just for myself, while I can depict cool stuff sometimes, and pull some moves that players like, etc. I don't really see myself as being much of a storyteller. I can do a pretty straightforward puzzle, but I never got straight up trad style mysteries and such to work.

So, if I can increase the brain power in a game for focusing on narrative stuff, that's great! Now, it may be different for you. I guess you'd have to try both kinds of play and see if nar interferes with what you do. Maybe it will, maybe it won't! I wouldn't even pretend to know for sure.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I'm not sure what's 'hard coded' exactly in a sense that is more so than trad games. I've run into this meme before, that there's some kind of inherent flexibility in trad play that is lacking in narrative play, but with extensive experience on both sides of the fence I'm not seeing it. I think the potential exists with either form to do a lot of the same things in terms of genre, etc. There will be differences, definitely preferences will vary. No doubt we could each think of a fairly niche case where one technique will not present certain things in a specific way, but the Venn Diagram of trad and narrative largely overlaps.

I'm not @Micah Sweet but I'll provide you my experience...

I play 5e but I borrow techniques and tools from OSR and indie games, which I find fun and imagine my players would to, and incorporate them.
In fact threads like these, especially when indie mechanics are mentioned, often inspire me to try something different or add to my repertoire.

I've used clocks, flashbacks, had players generate interesting content to use in SC, had players create NPCs they encountered in their city of residence for me to use, we've had combat zones and fate tokens...etc

I'm not sure if indie games allow for traditional D&D DMing as that would go against their play ethos. I feel they have a more focused playstyle from my participation with the posters here.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Then I have to wonder where the disconnect is, because I see a lot of very specific principles, rules and codified admonishments in narrative games that have to be followed or the game doesn't work. I don't see that much in trad games, and certainly not much at all in classic games. That's the kind of freedom I'm used to when I play RPGs, and the very specific play experience most narrative games push for from what I've seen is not what I want.

Right, but I don't think those interfere with play. I don't think they stop me from doing what I do, they're mostly telling me how to be most effective at it. I think part of trad's cross to bear is a lot of that sort of knowledge is like "Secrets of Being a Good GM" and you can dig around in the 5e DMG and a bunch of things are there, but most people never read the book. And then they're just cast as advice, where narrative play focused games generally are like "you MUST do this!" AW 2e actually cusses at you, like "Do this *****er!" Clearly designers are seeing a need there.

And, if someone tells me they do their idiosyncratic narrative approach that breaks all the "thou shalts" and it WORKS, more power to them! I'm not going to sit there and say they did it wrong. Not any more than I would tell my BF Mike that he's a complete railroading puppet master, because nobody cares, his games are fun as hell! But if I did what he does, I'd be playing solo in a month.