Why do RPGs have rules?

I would say that "relevant to what the players want" is the important thing. Not all characters at all times, necessarily, but generally the focus of play is going to be about something that's relevant to one or more characters.



That's because you're using the goals of GP and XP. If that's all that play is about, then sure. But we're talking about games where that's not the focus. The play is meant to be about more than that. Sure, character wealth may be a goal, or my be relevant toward achieving a goal, but there are going to be other goals beyond that.
I agree with you here.

Generally a play session is going to have something relevant to the player and/or character. If the player has set the goal of killing the emperor, then he's likely to seek out allies, assassins, etc. and play will involve those things, even if he doesn't find one that session. Sometimes gold and xp(well xp for players anyway) are going to be sufficient on their own, since gold is a huge resource in the game is will generally be relevant to PC goals and therefore players.

Sometimes the session won't have anything in it for one or more players, since PC goals aren't always the same and the session won't always be about those players and their PCs. But that's okay. Ultimately the game will(or at least should) take all players' and PCs' goals into account within a few sessions and without contrivance. Especially if you have proactive players who seek out what they need and move the game through their actions.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

One of the things I struggle with continually is the tension between wanting a living world, and wanting to be fair to the players by giving them lots of information (since I am the bottleneck on all their information about the gameworld). In particular I struggle with offscreen NPC activities. I want to make them do a lot (move around the dungeon and get behind the PCs, sow caltrops; launch coups, explore dungeons, sometimes get themselves killed offscreen, possibly turn into ghosts) but when I can't think of a way to give the players visibility into why e.g. Komar the Terrible is now a ghost, I often don't.
Remember that there are two broad categories of things that can impact how players roleplay their characters: the environment and the social landscape in which the player characters exist. The problem you described falls into the social landscape category.

In my opinion, the only way the social landscape can impact a player's character is through how you roleplay NPCs. So, during a campaign, I focus on which NPCs the characters are likely to interact with. I also consider what factors might impact the NPCs' behavior, which will then impact how I roleplay them when the PCs interact with them.

In real life, people typically only have a few people with whom they interact on a regular basis. The same is true for players in my campaigns. I assume that most of the other people the players encounter, even in a busy place like the City-State of the Invincible Overlord, are fleeting or unimportant interactions.

This means that I typically only need to roleplay a half-dozen to a dozen NPCs. Each of these NPCs will have their own social circle, but I can simplify this depending on the nature of the NPCs' relationship with the players. I typically end up with a list of maybe three dozen NPCs for whom I need to come up with personalities, plans, and motivations. The NPCs beyond the PCs' social circle are just sketches.

I also put a fair amount of work into determining how cultures work, whether they are religious, political, social, or ethnic. I believe that every character in my setting is unique, but that uniqueness happens within the context of the culture they inhabit. To be specific, I will come up with a letter-sized page worth of notes for each culture.

It is also helpful to have a good set of random tables that reflect how you think your setting operates. These tables don't need to be elaborate, but they should be detailed enough to give you a spark when the players go off the beaten path. They should also help keep you honest about what the players encounter and who they interact with. We all have our biases, so a good random table can help diversify your roleplaying enough to make that the people and the setting have their own life.

All of this benefits from being a well-rounded reader of history. The most useful information for RPGs is the stuff that describes how people lived their lives on a day-to-day basis. The grand sweep of history is not as useful. However, you do want to have a basic understanding, because as I said about culture, every person who ever lived is unique, but within the context of their times.

With all of this in mind, you will be prepared when the players decide to go left instead of right. You will be able to extrapolate a consistent and believable way of roleplaying the people they encounter.

I apologize if this is a bit rough. I hope it is helpful!

This may be useful, I turned my World Outside the dungeon chapter in my RPG into a free PDF that folks can download. I don't go into as much detail on handling NPCs as I was focusing more on managing the entire campaign.

Could "Somehow, Palpatine has returned" be okay if there actually were a good explanation that the GM doesn't go out of their way to reveal?)
To answer the question about Palpatine's return what impact does his return have how you would roleplay the NPCs the PCs will interact with?
Maybe a former imperial officer who winds up running a local bar after getting mustered after the Battle of Endor is inspired to their part to ensure peace and order in the galaxy once again under the Empire's aegis. Then starts recruiting imperial sympathizers to ready for the day the Empire returns. Her changes in behaviors starts raising red flags to the observant PCs and before they know it they are investigating an imperial cell on their planet.

Or maybe it inspires her to finally commit to the New Republic and she uses her connections with the PCs to do more for the Republic and give them a list of all the hardcore remaining Imperial sympathizers she knows of.

Is starts by asking OK given the current situation of my campaign what happens to my NPCs if Palpatine returns?
 

Do you have any thoughts to share on managing offscreen NPCs in a way that's still legible to the players? (Or player reactions to non-legible NPC actions? Could "Somehow, Palpatine has returned" be okay if there actually were a good explanation that the GM doesn't go out of their way to reveal?)
This one is pretty important I think. It looks like Rob has picked up on this one so I would take a look at what he wrote. For me as a big fan of villains (RPGs aside I adore villains in movies and I think they are the most fascinating aspect of settings for me), I think you have to be really careful here if your goal is a living world. There is a kind of "Villains has to earn their place" value that I cleave to. I am fine making a great villain, but I don't give them plot armor because I want PC victories that are earned to be respected.

One early example of this I have given, that also helped really shape my views as a GM, was running a Ravenloft campaign with a bishop or cardinal who was the big villain of the campaign. I don't recall all the details but the players ended up devastating him by, if I recall, ambushing him in a cathedral during mass. He tried to flee but they killed him as he climbed out a stained glass window and ended up slumped over it, a pretty ignoble demise for the great villain of the campaign. I remember being disappointed that it turned out that way but one of my players kept bringing this up as one of the reasons he liked my GMing (because I didn't do anything to protect the villain, and I didn't fudge or bring in more minions to up the drama). So I would rather have a dead villain than a miraculously returned on in most cases. I don't think I could ever defend the plot line of the last star wars movie in terms of bringing back the emperor in a campaign.

What I have done is had villains who survived, who were just as devious and scheming, who have somehow managed to get by their skin of their teeth and continue to earn the players trust even if they betray them once again. I have a character who is like that called Bronze Master in my wuxia campaigns. I recently had a player go to bronze master to seek his help, and I even said to him out of character "You realize bronze master betrays everyone all the time and is not at all trustworthy?", he said he understood but wanted to try to work with him and mitigate his lack of trustworthiness. I had said that because I value trust in my campaigns and I felt if I didn't the player might misunderstand how I would run Bronze Master. In the end Bronze Master did exactly what I said he always does, but he is just one of these characters who can somehow make himself seem trustworthy 'this one time'. In the end the player was entirely okay with him betraying them and setting up an ambush because I played the scheming fairly, I was straightforward about the likelihood of him betraying them, etc. I liken this a little to Carlito's Way. Where de Palma shows you everything upfront at the beginning, and during the movie the outcome is clearly stated (down to who is going to do what) but it still manages to be a surprise. That is clever but it also makes you feel like the director was playing very fair to set up the surprise.

I should say in this instance I communicated regularly with the players about it, and I even explained after the fact how I had managed the set up for the ambush (and I made a point to have things written down in advance in terms of planning so they could see everything was fair). That way I could show them how Bronze Master got the information he obtained, how he set the ambush up, etc. I think a lot of GMs in the simulationist approach would avoid this so it probably isn't the norm. I find it helpful

All that said, sure if you have a good explanation for why Palpatine has returned and it is a real explanation that the players could have legitimately thwarted had then done X, Y, or Z, I think it is fair. I do think those moments are where you really risk losing trust though if you aren't being fair in the return. I think a big problem with be any kind of post hoc reasoning. For example if you clearly establish before the emperor dies, the conditions that would warrant his return (i.e. he can't be killed by X, he has a clone hidden on a lame planet somewhere,, etc), then it is okay (and this is at least something you could explain to the players if you wanted to, even if you don't. On the other hand if the emperor is just coming back because you want him back and nothing the players ever did would have changed that, I think it is a lot less workable in this kind of campaign.
 

Is starts by asking OK given the current situation of my campaign what happens to my NPCs if Palpatine returns?
Sorry for the lack of clarity. I meant to ask whether events that LOOK prima facie arbitrary and nonsensical, like Palpatine returning to life out of the blue, are always bad even if (hypothetically) they have a hidden explanation that makes sense,
like a pre-established cloning technology, which Palpatine wants to keep secret and is therefore not advertised to the galaxy before or after his return?

If Sauron shows up after the explosion of Mount Doom (because it was really Melkor all along, pretending to be his little buddy Sauron so that the Valar wouldn't realize he'd broken out of jail), is that bad for gameplay, or interesting? I suppose it could be either based how much trust you've earned and how you handle players' inevitable questions. "Yes, you did drop the ring in Mount Doom. I'll tell you in out-of-character that yes, no one was lying to you about what would happen if the Ring were destroyed: Sauron would die, or the equivalent from a Maiar perspective. But here's this guy making waves, claiming to be Sauron, and it looks like he's got plenty of wisdom and power. All of this is really happening. Interesting, huh?"
 

Sure, there have historically been hotspots of lawlessness and strife.

They tend to be somewhat contained though, rather than present throughout the world. There also can be a lot of cultural factors at play. That many of the people involved have cultural reasons for doing so. Many of the participants are intrinsically connected to the struggles that are happening, with strong bonds with other people in the area.

This idea if rootless wanderers who find adventures everywhere they go, and who have no concerns or connections beyond the drive for adventure… it exists purely to support play of D&D.

I’m sure there are examples we can find from history, but I don’t think they support this idea of an adventurer economy of the sort that’s present in the typical game setting.
One other element, not always (or ever?) present in the periods/places of lawlessness noted by @aramis erak but often a factor in a typical D&D setting, is the get-rich-quick gold-rush mentality seen in the Yukon in the 1890s or mid-California around 1850.
 

I should say in this instance I communicated regularly with the players about it, and I even explained after the fact how I had managed the set up for the ambush (and I made a point to have things written down in advance in terms of planning so they could see everything was fair). That way I could show them how Bronze Master got the information he obtained, how he set the ambush up, etc. I think a lot of GMs in the simulationist approach would avoid this so it probably isn't the norm. I find it helpful

All that said, sure if you have a good explanation for why Palpatine has returned and it is a real explanation that the players could have legitimately thwarted had then done X, Y, or Z, I think it is fair. I do think those moments are where you really risk losing trust though if you aren't being fair in the return. I think a big problem with be any kind of post hoc reasoning. For example if you clearly establish before the emperor dies, the conditions that would warrant his return (i.e. he can't be killed by X, he has a clone hidden on a lame planet somewhere,, etc), then it is okay (and this is at least something you could explain to the players if you wanted to, even if you don't. On the other hand if the emperor is just coming back because you want him back and nothing the players ever did would have changed that, I think it is a lot less workable in this kind of campaign.
Great comments! That moment with the bishop is awesome. I find that sometimes players have very different feelings than GMs realize they do, and it can feel really awesome when a player opens up to you about how much they are enjoying their sense of agency (the feeling of being able to act within the game world in a way that has impact).

Yeah, losing trust would be a concern for me, and a reason I've erred on the side of doing less, and I've also been tempted to do it and "show my work" but unsure whether that is overkill or disruptive. I have been using some techniques lately that may help [1] but I'm always looking for more.

[1] Basically, players now gain XP by writing and rating short pieces of non-canonical writing after a game session: gain 1 character point per 3+ star review you earn (including from yourself). As GM I can write something too, so if I wanted to set up for "Sauron's" (actually Melkor's) masquerade and return I could write a short vignette where Manwe goes to interrogate Melkor in captivity and finds the prison empty, and brings the Valar to red alert. Even though it's non-canonical for the gameworld, players who have already read that story probably will be less likely to feel cheated if Sauron mysteriously fails to die when he "should", I hope.

Maybe another short vignette, an excerpt from "Sauron's" diary where he talks about how eager he is to find the ring and revive his faithful servant Sauron from his slumber, would be a good idea too to set up the feeling that the destruction of the Ring was still a great victory, would be a good idea too.
 
Last edited:

I love a good argument ...
Seems you've come to the right place. :)
by pursuing a premise to its ultimate expression.
Well, it's either that or have people say "I do this" as a near-absolute then when challenged come back and prevaricate "Well, I don't really do this, only sort of".

We're probably all somewhat closer in how we do our games (as in, the end-result product at the table) than the discussions here would indicate; but there's some deep underlying philosophical differences that can't really be discussed until they're exposed and defined and pinned down - a process which makes those differences appear more extreme than they probably are.
 


I don't think this is self-evident.
The intuition is that for any possible thing a player could do in a TTRPG, rules could be written to secure that they know to do that thing. My position was to withhold judgement, seeing as I don't see how it could be proved either way.

That doesn't mean such a rule must exist for every possibility, although 1) once we're working with infinite universal atemporal sets there's no way to exclude the companion set R of rules that produce equivalent possibilities to those contained in E, and 2) barring rules there will need to be some other explanation of how players know to do that thing... such as norms. The same challenge can be applied to norms, requiring yet further explanation. Hence I listed dispositions above, kicking the can down the road.

Pragmatically, can you think of any exceptions? Anything a player could do in a TTRPG that it would be impossible to write a rule for?

It seems to me that anything that you can frame in language, a rule can be written for. So the place to look would be non-language acts, such as the cognitive process by which a player decides on an action or a GM conceives of a twist, or the physics in obedience to which a die tumbles. These are all possibilities in TTRPG but it's not clear they're of the sort intended. [Note edit.]
 
Last edited:

The intuition is that for any possible thing a player could do in a TTRPG

<snip>

Pragmatically, can you think of any exceptions? Anything a player could do in a TTRPG that it would be impossible to write a rule for?

It seems to me that anything that you can frame in language, a rule can be written for.
E is the set of everything that can be imagined.

S is a system for generating elements of E.

The constraint on being an element of E is human imagination. Perhaps human language is an equivalent constraint.

The constraint on being a candidate S is the human capacity to establish systems for generating shared imaginings.

How are those two constraints related? I don't think it's self-evident. But - just as one example - the social psychological features of each constraint seem to be different.
 

Remove ads

Top