Why do RPGs have rules?

[pemerton]

So every event in your life has meet a dramatic need for you? Nothing has ever happened outside of your control and which has not been dramatic?

Sure they do. What is a dramatic need for your PC is effectively the same as someone in the real world who had a child kidnapped and getting the news that he has been found.

I reiterate: I am not a character in a work of fiction. I have no dramatic needs.

 

[pemerton]

You were correct, I was referring to the passage of time within the fiction.

So if I'm understanding you correctly, 10 years pass.
Where say in D&D, a DM like myself will narrate to the players what their characters have heard/learned about the changes to a region (imagined events necessitating real world action), your understanding is

The GM frames a new scene (real world action authoring new imagined events), which you say in AW this is referred to a soft move.

I'm suspecting, and please correctly me if I'm wrong or miss something, the only difference that may exist between the two would be the motive for the change in the fiction. Perhaps yours is necessitated by dramatic needs, where the former is because I am attempting to adhere to a simulationist principle (whatever that is). Is that a fair statement to make?

I think it's a fair statement, in the sense that what you're saying is that - in establishing the scene "After the passage of 10 years, . . . . " - a GM might apply different principles. I don't think one could infer, from the adoption of different principles, anything specific about the content of the fiction. Probably not even if one knew all the parameters of the established fiction. (Beyond trivialities that follow from genre.)

Another example. In the style of games you play, one uses clocks/die in order for a GM to make a hard move such as a change in the fiction and the gamist mechanic of that is foregrounded (i.e. the players are aware of it).
Would it be fair then to say that if the DM in your typical traditional D&D game foregrounded the mechanics about a future change and say used a different element, say fictional time (x days something occurs), to narrate changes in the fiction - the two play styles, at least in that example, would be similar if not identical?

How is the passage of fictional time ("X days") established as a part of the shared fiction?

One of the tightest games I know for this is Classic Traveller: jumping between worlds takes a week; time in port between jumps is a week; mortgages and crew salaries must be paid every month; the roll to meet a patron can be made once per week; etc.

So Classic Traveller can unfold in a way rather like a "clock".

On the other hand, in Prince Valiant the GM declaring that something will happen in X days (say, a curse will come to fruition after a week, if it is not lifted in some fashion) is just colour. There are no resolution processes or framing processes that take ingame time as an input or generate ingame time as an output. The GM can narrate stormy weather that makes travel near-impossible, or a horse coming down lame, or the roads being clear of bandits such that travel is quick and peaceful, just as they have a mind to.

In my experience, a typical traditional D&D game is much closer to Prince Valiant in this respect than to Classic Traveller. An exception might be if the players are resolving a situation primarily via spellcasting, and so are on the clock of rest - rememorise spells - cast spells - repeat. This is part of the significance of spell casting as a mechanic in traditional D&D - it shifts control over the fiction out of the hands of the GM and into the hands of the players. Gygax didn't describe it in those terms, but was clearly aware of the phenomenon. So was Lewis Pulsipher when he wrote that most experienced D&D players prefer to play MUs.

 

[loverdrive]

Wonderful! One of the real joys of the mode is emergent drama. Your idea is an example of players forming "their goals within the context of those [independent world] facts".

Can we call the drama "emergent" if it is consciously engineered? It's not like the character just happened to be a person that would be interesting to watch interacting with these world facts, no, the character was grown in a lab.

(and then, if it is a completely fictional world, those facts probably were grown in a lab to be interesting too)

 

[chaochou]

I think the pressure point on purist-for-system is what stops it becoming pretty boring? In my experience, the answer is - a drift (perhaps quite a sharp drift) into what The Forge calls "vanilla narrativism".

I suggest the pressure point is 'Who decides what these characters are doing?' and you've got three options -

• the players do and you get a drift to vanilla narratavism (as you suggest)
• no-one actually cares - the point is a meta-game of kudos amongst the participants (gamism)
• a GM deciding everything that matters in the game

The practical upshot of which is that the Sim agenda is inseperable from GM control. Sim play is illusory - the only player is the GM who, ironically, spends their time desperately pretending not to play.

 

[clearstream]

There is no such play, to the best of my knowledge. (Perhaps Toon, which sits at the edge of my knowledge.) Even Over the Edge has "world facts" that are beyond the characters - eg it is set on Earth, circa the mid-to-late 1980s, and so it has all sorts of facts about (eg) Canberra and Buenos Aires.

Yes, almost all TTRPG contains some world facts that are external to characters. Hence I emphasise the following dichotomy

1. players author world facts in light of their dramatic intentions for their characters
2. players author world facts based only on assumptions about the world itself

The former has frequently been described as desirable for dramatic or narrativist approaches, the latter prioritises externally or independently "real" world facts that provide a context for the activities of characters. I'm trying to stress here that I don't see this as about who authors those facts.

Some posters argue that simulationism is about prioritising referee authorship of world, and from there identify the significant problem that player goals can run into world facts that thwart them. That misses the lusory attitude expected in this mode. The external or independent world facts form part of the lusory means: they're accepted just like the net on a tennis court - an inconvenience that thwarts some otherwise possible actions.

In the first quoted sentence we have "external to player purposes". Given that someone has to have a purpose, I assume therefore the "world facts" serve some GM purpose (eg aesthetic pleasure in creation of a work of fiction).

Could be the group collectively switching between authorship and player modes, could be game designers, could be the canon created by some other authors, could be historical, could be procedural.

Then in the last quoted sentence we have "adopted without regard to characters". But of course "world facts" can't be adopted without regard to anything - so again, I assume the GM has some reason for adopted them, again most likely some sort of aesthetic reason.

I do take this as a misgiving worth addressing. I ask myself in what ways this isn't all about GM aesthetics? One answer is that in some modes it's perfectly acceptable for it to be about GM aesthetics. That's the preferred setup. However, if that is conflated with simulationism then it would deny simulationism to more collaborative play, and I think that's incorrect.

What you seem to be describing here is the players establishing their goals for play out of the material the GM has presented to them (what you call "independent world facts"). I don't really see how this is more realistic than any other way the players might establish their goals for play.

I have aimed to avoid making the kinds of claims you're resisting, except under the specific definition I have provided.

 

[clearstream]

Can we call the drama "emergent" if it is consciously engineered? It's not like the character just happened to be a person that would be interesting to watch interacting with these world facts, no, the character was grown in a lab.

(and then, if it is a completely fictional world, those facts probably were grown in a lab to be interesting too)

If some in a group strongly want to drift play, they might well be able to. As I've laid out elsewhere, I largely do not think in terms of homogenous play, only of heterogenous with certain approaches, agenda or purposes given more weight.

 

[AnotherGuy]

How is the passage of fictional time ("X days") established as a part of the shared fiction?

So, in my current Tyranny of Dragons campaign, the party uncovered that the Cult of the Dragon believes it is approximately 100 days from being capable in summoning Tiamat. For mechanics, which are known to the players, I decided on 90 days + 2d10.

In that time the party is rushing to complete quests in gaining allies and destroying Cult assets and resources (while also working through their personal dramatic needs). The purpose of that is to convince the Council (the representatives of various factions and powerhouses) at their next and final meeting, to strike the Cult and its forces united and with their full strength.

The measurement of in-game time is very important as the players decide which tasks to pursue and how to pursue them. But I understand your comments below about how one can view this as merely colour as their decisions affect how the end game plays out and not necessarily if the end game occurs or not.

On the other hand, in Prince Valiant the GM declaring that something will happen in X days (say, a curse will come to fruition after a week, if it is not lifted in some fashion) is just colour. There are no resolution processes or framing processes that take ingame time as an input or generate ingame time as an output. The GM can narrate stormy weather that makes travel near-impossible, or a horse coming down lame, or the roads being clear of bandits such that travel is quick and peaceful, just as they have a mind to.

In my experience, a typical traditional D&D game is much closer to Prince Valiant in this respect than to Classic Traveller. An exception might be if the players are resolving a situation primarily via spellcasting, and so are on the clock of rest - rememorise spells - cast spells - repeat. This is part of the significance of spell casting as a mechanic in traditional D&D - it shifts control over the fiction out of the hands of the GM and into the hands of the players. Gygax didn't describe it in those terms, but was clearly aware of the phenomenon. So was Lewis Pulsipher when he wrote that most experienced D&D players prefer to play MUs.

 

[pemerton]

So, in my current Tyranny of Dragons campaign, the party uncovered that the Cult of the Dragon believes it is approximately 100 days from being capable in summoning Tiamat. For mechanics, which are known to the players, I decided on 90 days + 2d10.

In that time the party is rushing to complete quests in gaining allies and destroying Cult assets and resources (while also working through their personal dramatic needs). The purpose of that is to convince the Council (the representatives of various factions and powerhouses) at their next and final meeting, to strike the Cult and its forces united and with their full strength.

The measurement of in-game time is very important as the players decide which tasks to pursue and how to pursue them. But I understand your comments below about how one can view this as merely colour as their decisions affect how the end game plays out and not necessarily if the end game occurs or not.

I get that the measurement of in-game time is important. But how is it determined that completing a quest to gain allies or destroy assets takes X rather than Y days? This is where my comparison between Traveller and Prince Valiant comes in, at least as I see it.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I get that the measurement of in-game time is important. But how is it determined that completing a quest to gain allies or destroy assets takes X rather than Y days? This is where my comparison between Traveller and Prince Valiant comes in, at least as I see it.

I see.
We use maps which provide exact distances to locations.
Either teleportation spells are utilised or the movement rates of horses, griffons, dragons and cloud giant castles are calculated.
Downtime days are measured. Players have complete control over Downtime days and are limited only by our table's restrictions as to how much can be done in a day of Downtime.
Date and Time of Day is recorded at the end of every session.

I'd say before the 100-day mark was discovered things were far more loose, but since I foregrounded that information, everything is mapped out.

 

[clearstream]

I'm suspecting, and please correctly me if I'm wrong or miss something, the only difference that may exist between the two would be the motive for the change in the fiction. Perhaps yours is necessitated by dramatic needs, where the former is because I am attempting to adhere to a simulationist principle (whatever that is). Is that a fair statement to make?

This is an interesting way to put it. I've also supposed that it's largely down to what motivates the choice of world facts. One implication that should then be obvious is that "realistic" - under some senses of the word* - facts can be chosen regardless of motive. However, only those motivated by a "simulationist principle**" as you neatly put it are to be counted simulationist.

*Here I suggest two tests of "realistic", mapping to real-world counterparts, and conformance with some theory thought to be true of the world.

**Here I suggest the principle comes down to the dichotomy between A) players author world facts in light of their dramatic intentions for their characters, and B) players author world facts based only on assumptions about the world itself. So it is that the world facts are independent of the player characters that is distinctive of the simulationist principle. I take the principle to then be a composite of the first two tests and this one.