Why do RPGs have rules?

[AbdulAlhazred]

Why is it more realistic to meet the goblins, rather than the Orcs the PC hopes to confront?

"Realistic" here just means "What the GM decided would be part of their world."

Exactly.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why is it more realistic to meet the goblins, rather than the Orcs the PC hopes to confront?

"Realistic" here just means "What the GM decided would be part of their world."

Why is it more realistic to meet the Orcs the PC hopes to confront, rather than the goblins?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Any GM who tells their player the kind of stuff you're saying has, in my opinion, failed as a simulationist. Of course the PCs can change the world, through their actions. That's the point. Big changes require more effort and more time, of course. Just like in real life.

Well, I'm happy we agree on something.

 

[loverdrive]

As of granularity, the most granular game I've ever had was on Fate. Like, there were separate statblocks created using Fate Bronze Rule for the character, their weapon, the calibre of their weapon, their body armour and each piece of cover at the battlefield.

Granted, yeah, it was done for two reasons: for kekz and for lulz, but it still worked pretty well.

 

[pemerton]

Why is it more realistic to meet the Orcs the PC hopes to confront, rather than the goblins?

It's not. But if both are equally (un)realistic, why not frame the situation that speaks to the PC's dramatic need?

Conversely, if there's no plan to do that, then why bother having players establish such things for their PCs?

 

[clearstream]

To roll up several posts into one convenient summary starting with the reason from the OP...

1. The emotionally fraught, where participants would be reticent to say the unwelcome and the unwanted; especially that had the potential to upset every single person at the table.

2. The systematically complex, where there are too many mechanics interacting in too many ways for participants to maintain and operate them purely mentally; especially in diverse circumstances over multiple sessions.

3. The competitively robust, where participants want fair outcomes influenced by their dissimilar choices in contests between them (PvP, PvE), especially as disparities widen between outcomes and participants want to play their hands vigorously.

4. The subversively creative, where participants desire to work creatively within the game's limits, including subversively and with inventive interpretations of the rules.

5. The unpredictable, where participants want shared uncertainty about the contours of future game state, especially where they want capacity to influence its distribution.

Did anyone notice any other reasons?

Intentionally omitted from this list - I believe echoing the OP - is structuring ongoing agreement about what happens. Putting weight on this, from Vincent Baker (requoting from the OP)

"if all your formal rules do is structure your group's ongoing agreement about what happens in the game, they are a) interchangeable with any other rpg rules out there, and b) probably a waste of your attention. Live negotiation and honest collaboration are almost certainly better..."

So there are some things we want in play that would necessitate rules, and other things that we want in play (e.g. ongoing agreement about what happens) but that we can achieve without them. Challenging 1. to 5. with the question - "Have I never experienced or observed this in TTRPG play without rules?" - yields intuitions that partly match @innerdude's, i.e. that GM can supply something of what rules otherwise supply.

What would they require to do that? Their decisions would need to be counted among the lusory means. They cannot while doing that be a player. (I would in this case mean in 1. "every single player at the table.") That says something about rules: they are a common reference. When I wonder what to do, I refer to the rule. When I wonder what to do, I refer to GM. And of course "wondering what to do" can be made to be the case whenever "I act in a given way" or "I am in a given circumstance".

A GM can serve as a rule-like reference iff they are capable of articulating standards that are given normative force. One can easily see that AI GMs could in future bring into this 2., so that only 4. would necessitate rules. The behaviour in 4. might then be re-understood as a creative subversion of the dispositions or philosophies that inform the given standards.

My view is that 1. to 5. all require rules, and that GMs can serve as a rule-like reference. It is better to say that 1. to 5. can only arise when provided for in the lusory means: that is necessitated for players to experience them. I have observed that a participant can be both player themselves and an element of the lusory means for other players: allowing players to collaboratively achieve what was outlined above for GM.

 

[Lanefan]

Maybe, but I admit this is a pretty shallow example. How about "Brilliant, but obsessed with the idea that I cannot live up to my father's expectations, I will do anything to unite the Yu states under my rule, and crush the orc tribes forever." You gonna condone that? Because, from my experience 99.9% of all 'simulationist' GMs are going to instantly tell me that its unrealistic to expect your character to do great things, that changing the world is basically impossible, and they don't seem to want to upend their lore.

Inetesting, in that I have a character of my own in a similar situation: she has ve-e-ery big long-term goals, the end point of which is to become the Empress of that setting's version of Rome. That said, I harbour no expectations those goals will be realized during her adventuring (i.e. played) career, as they really don't involve adventuring. In fact, even now she's starting to realize that going adventuring in fact runs a bit counter to her aims (though the funds it provides are welcome!) in that if she's in the field it means she's not in the political arena where she really should be.

To take your end points in sequence, for my own part:

"It's unrealistic to expect your character to do great things". Well, it depends on a) what those great things are and b) whether you expect to happen during the character's played career. I mean, knocking off the orc tribes forever is great adventuring fodder, but all the politics around becoming overlord of the Yu states is IMO something best done after retiring from adventuring (and thus from day-to-day play).

"That changing the world is basically impossible". I don't hold to this one either as DM or player. As DM I'll sometimes put PCs in positions of potentially making great changes to the world - for better or worse - and see what they do. Some real-world years ago in my current campaign I put a party in a huge-scale lose-lose position: they could either kill an imprisoned god and in so doing doom the world later (a large part of the reason the world exists is as a holding cell for this guy), or let him loose and in so doing doom the world now. They chose to kill the god. Three in-game years later the winters are already noticeably colder to much colder everywhere, and I've currently got a completely different party on a long and twisty path to maybe un-dooming the world, though they don't know it yet.

"They don't seem to want to upend their lore". Established history, no. The future? They can make as big a mess of that as they like.

That sort of problem is exactly what I'm talking about. And that's still really a largely externally directed sort of dramatic need, the real nut of things is going to be when I have to marry off my favorite sister to that horrible guy that I must ally with to succeed. Can you really handle that?

That seems to me like one of the many obstacles along the path to reaching your goal. As DM I can handle that just fine. As player, it'd be situationally dependent both on the character (characters of different ethics/morals/alignment would have widely different approaches) and the situation (just how badly do I need this guy's alliance anyway).

Right, but again IME, what happens is endless such diversions and whatnot, all in the name of 'realism' in a pretend world. Obviously at some level there will be things that don't relate to your PCs and their stories, but its a question of focus.

I look at the game/campaign as being bigger than any one PC's story, in part because I don't want the campaign to end if-when that PC's story ends. And so, there's always going to be lots more out there at any given time than just what matters to the PC you happen to be playing at the moment.

 

[aramis erak]

To roll up several posts into one convenient summary starting with the reason from the OP...

1. The emotionally fraught, where participants would be reticent to say the unwelcome and the unwanted; especially that had the potential to upset every single person at the table.

2. The systematically complex, where there are too many mechanics interacting in too many ways for participants to maintain and operate them purely mentally; especially in diverse circumstances over multiple sessions.

3. The competitively robust, where participants want fair outcomes influenced by their dissimilar choices in contests between them (PvP, PvE), especially as disparities widen between outcomes and participants want to play their hands vigorously.

4. The subversively creative, where participants desire to work creatively within the game's limits, including subversively and with inventive interpretations of the rules.

5. The unpredictable, where participants want shared uncertainty about the contours of future game state, especially where they want capacity to influence its distribution.

Did anyone notice any other reasons?

I despise your choice of labels; I agree with the reasons you applied them to... but I personally have seldom seen #3 to be anything less than annoying in practice. PVP is antisocial, and uncommon. I'll also note that your list seems inherently limited to the storygames side....

• The mechanical systems are in themselves interesting. (Either for optimization/evaluation, or for enjoyable flow.) {this is often true for me.}
• The mechanics impose/enforce setting tropes. (Especially for systems with Magic rules. Also for class-based mechanics.)
• The mechanics provide tools for enhancing creativity by creating starting points.
• The mechanics provide tools for simulating some elements.

It's worth noting that the effect of AWE/PBTA moves is both providing a framework to be creative within, and to enforce tropes, by using the inherent interest of a mechanical resolution, the setting tropes, and the unpredictable.

Traveller has several examples of those.

• Mechanical interest: Character Generation, ship building, combat (Personal and Ship-to-ship).
• Imposing/enforcing setting tropes: Traveller's jump drive rules provide an interesting set of limits in the setting; they also provide the core tropeset for how the OTU handles travel. Character gen is very much a block of setting tropes. World Gen also has a bunch of setting tropes encoded/emergent in/from it.
• Tools for enhancing creativity: The Patron tables, the animal generation, the world generation, and the random encounter tables all provide starting points for various elements.
• Simulation: Traveller's Character Gen and combat are intentionally low-fidelity simulations. World Gen is at best emulation,

 

[aramis erak]

I assume 5e play to include at least a map and minis. I can't imagine (pun intended) trying to play 5e - or any form of D&D - in full TotM mode. Too many arguments.

Seldom was an issue under AD&D 1e/2e and BX/BECMI/Cyclo+Wrath.
I've used TOTM in 5E, it wasn't that big an issue.

It's far easier, however, to go from minis based rules to TOTM play than to use TOTM-focused rules on a map...

 

[clearstream]

I despise your choice of labels; I agree with the reasons you applied them to... but I personally have seldom seen #3 to be anything less than annoying in practice. PVP is antisocial, and uncommon. I'll also note that your list seems inherently limited to the storygames side....

• The mechanical systems are in themselves interesting. (Either for optimization/evaluation, or for enjoyable flow.) {this is often true for me.}
• The mechanics impose/enforce setting tropes. (Especially for systems with Magic rules. Also for class-based mechanics.)
• The mechanics provide tools for enhancing creativity by creating starting points.
• The mechanics provide tools for simulating some elements.

It's worth noting that the effect of AWE/PBTA moves is both providing a framework to be creative within, and to enforce tropes, by using the inherent interest of a mechanical resolution, the setting tropes, and the unpredictable.

Traveller has several examples of those.

• Mechanical interest: Character Generation, ship building, combat (Personal and Ship-to-ship).
• Imposing/enforcing setting tropes: Traveller's jump drive rules provide an interesting set of limits in the setting; they also provide the core tropeset for how the OTU handles travel. Character gen is very much a block of setting tropes. World Gen also has a bunch of setting tropes encoded/emergent in/from it.
• Tools for enhancing creativity: The Patron tables, the animal generation, the world generation, and the random encounter tables all provide starting points for various elements.
• Simulation: Traveller's Character Gen and combat are intentionally low-fidelity simulations. World Gen is at best emulation,

I like the implied premise of your first bullet, i.e. that we can hardly find the mechanics interesting if there are none. I feel like your fourth bullet is a subset of that - we find the mechanics interesting because they simulate something in a way we're interested in. So I would make your first bullet a 6th reason why RPGs need rules.

The middle two I feel fall well into - rules could do this, but are not necessitated. The group could just agree to enforce setting tropes on themselves, and similarly could just ad-lib some starting points. That doesn't mean it wouldn't be more successful with rules; I am drawing a line between what is necessary and what is ideal.

EDIT #3 can be PvP but isn't limited to PvP. Players can want their PvE play to be competitively robust. (They can also want their characters to be able to come into conflict without that amounting to antisocial play. I note your "seldom seen", but in some modes it's more common.)