Why do RPGs have rules?

[clearstream]

Eh? PbtA and FitD aren't even remotely similar to Fate?

Maybe I'm lost at what you mean by "metagaming" here, but neither Blades in the Dark, nor Apocalypse World don't require any. That's the reason I like them: I can just play the damn game and it works, while in D&D and its ilk I basically have to assume the director stance in order to have something even remotely resembling a coherent story.

I think it was @niklinna up thread who made the point that "metagaming" isn't well defined. That's going to bedevil this sort of debate because some will see certain mechanics as metagaming while others describe them as diegetic. Taking P&E as an example (and caveated by not having played BitD) I can see how it can be counted diegetic, because it's about what's going on in-world. It is going to be what's going on in world. On the other hand, it seems descriptive of what's going on - this is the position, that will be the effect, oh no, right, let's make that the position and this other the effect - which on reading feels like shifting into director stance or at least analysing the fictional situation into system terms.

 

[Maxperson]

They're the same set. For every outcome e in E there can exist a rule system S[e] which will produce e.

What makes rules interesting isn't just the outcomes they can potentially produce, it's how those outcomes are connected to each other. I.e. gameplay.

They aren't the same set. Set E is all possible things RPGs can do. Set S is all possible things that this particular system can do, which necessarily excludes a lot of Set E. Look at the following sets of numbers

2, 4, 6, 8, 10
1, 3, 5, 7, 9
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Those are three different sets of numbers, even though the first two are all contained withing set three.

 

[clearstream]

They aren't the same set. Set E is all possible things RPGs can do. Set S is all possible things that this particular system can do, which necessarily excludes a lot of Set E. Look at the following sets of numbers

2, 4, 6, 8, 10
1, 3, 5, 7, 9
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Those are three different sets of numbers, even though the first two are all contained withing set three.

It's speaking of all systems, not just one.

 

[Maxperson]

It's speaking of all systems, not just one.

Even so, I'm willing to bet good money that all systems released to date still don't allow everything possible in set E.

 

[clearstream]

Even so, I'm willing to bet good money that all systems released to date still don't allow everything possible in set E.

I agree, but also not to date. All possible.

Or in light of @pemerton's comments, it's better to say all feasible.

 

[Lanefan]

Interestingly, I've worked rather hard in the recent past to add a decent soupcon of setting rootedness to OSR play, as I have increasingly found the rootless wanderer trope to unfulfilling. Even if the PCs are new to the local (often the case) I tend to design settings that will as a matter of course tend to heavily involve the PCs in local affairs with the specific intent of giving the players a skin in the local game, as it were.

Which is great if the players are willing to get involved in local affairs. Personally, I'd likely quite enjoy this as long as we still had the ability and freedom in-character to travel elsewhere if we wanted.

IME, however, many players are not so inclined. They view downtime as evil, and thus any time - both in-game and at-table - spent dealing with local affairs would be seen as wasted time not spent adventuring.

 

[Lanefan]

Hm! In the very games being discussed, I note a distinct absence of metagaming, which allows me to roleplay my character's personality and motivations much better and feel much more immersed than in the usual trad games.

How many of those games use metacurrency e.g. player-side Plot Points, Inspiration, or similar? Any that do are integrating the metagame as part of the game itself, which means metagaming is anything but absent.

You might not notice it if it's something you're used to, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

 

[clearstream]

How many of those games use metacurrency e.g. player-side Plot Points, Inspiration, or similar? Any that do are integrating the metagame as part of the game itself, which means metagaming is anything but absent.

You might not notice it if it's something you're used to, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

It reminds me of debate elsewhere. There are some experiences that some folk can identify for themselves, but that other folk do not identify. The group that can identify the experience claim it as a fact about some kinds of play. Those who do not identify it claim their play doesn't include it.

I think it's partly down to preferences and sensitivities, where the two interact. And partly down to developing skill with the techniques.

 

[pemerton]

How many of those games use metacurrency e.g. player-side Plot Points, Inspiration, or similar?

How many times do I, @loverdrive and others have to answer that there are NO such mechanics in AW.

 

[pemerton]

As a player I would personally rather TPK than be saved by rescuers who appear at a suspiciously convenient time--I'd rather "die" as a character than have my willing suspension of disbelief and ability to roleplay be undermined as a player.

<snip>

Finally, as a GM I am willing to do some things for the players' sake that I would not want done if I were a player, if I'm confident the players won't hate it the way I would. I might (or might not) ask players in advance if they want the chance to avoid TPK at the cost of verisimilitude, and if they say yes I might give them an unlikely miracle on a roll of 4-6 on d6.

I don't understand why this is being put forward as an example - I don't see how it connects to the sorts of systems (eg AW, DW, Burning Wheel) that are said to involve undesirable contrivance.