Why do RPGs have rules?

[FormerlyHemlock]

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.

It's part of a style discussion, not a system discussion.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

I just want to be clear that I am not saying anything about the amount of contrivance in those systems. The kind of contrivances I had in mind were simply events or developments that might feel more cinematic but less plausible. I am not particularly keen on the term personally but it came up so I was reacting to a post about. . I also don’t think it is a question of contrivances being inherently undesirable. Like I said, in a very over the top cinematic campaign, I would expect contrivances and welcome them.

 

[pemerton]

It's part of a style discussion, not a system discussion.

But who, of all the posters in this thread, do you think uses whatever the style is you're describing?

The kind of contrivances I had in mind were simply events or developments that might feel more cinematic but less plausible.

But how is that relevant to the discussion.

The idea of contrivance came to be discussed at all because it is an ostensible criticism of "story now", character-driven play, where the GM establishes situations that speak to the PCs' dramatic needs.

What does a contrived rescue from a pending TPK have to do with that?

 

[pemerton]

I think the key here is they aren't post hoc explanations. One of the overriding principles of play here is you don't introduce something and then explain how and why after.

They are post hoc in the sense that the real reason for having the Bronze Master, or Excalibur, or whatever, is to evoke some element of genre, trope or theme. But then some rationale is retrofitted in to make it make sense in the world.

How is this not special pleading but my post is?

I'm not calling out a particular sort of fictional construction and denying that it exhibits contrivance.

there is a difference between campaigns with heavy handed set pieces (again nothing wrong with those)

Who in this thread to you think is running that sort of campaign? What does that have to do with the assertion that "story now" or character-driven RPGing is contrived?

 

[robertsconley]

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

Agreed that not a PbtA issue.
The issue I have with PbtA types RPG is different. That incessant use of playbooks and moves feels like an unnecessary complex gimmick to me. Toi anything you have to think about what moves fit before you can figure out what mechanic to use. Then there is the fact that like feats in D&D 3.X moves tend to interlock so you have to read up on all of them to get a sense of what the options are. When a system does to excess whether PbtA (moves), D&D 3.5 (feats), D&D 4.0 (powers), or AGE (talents) I feel like I am playing a boardgame not an RPG hence metagaming.

Doing things as a player playing a game rather roleplaying a character. Just to clear up exactly what I mean by metagaming.

 

[robertsconley]

I don't know this seems like we are just reframing things then. If you are taking a simulationist approach to play then that is what matters, even if you using genre tropes. I don't think the presence of genre elements mean the game can't follow a certain realism logic. Game of Thrones kind of does this, where it flows a bit more like history than a standard fantasy novel. I think these kinds of campaigns strive for that.

Hybrids are the norm for this hobby. Folks may have a main focus when it comes to systems and settings but they will also throw whatever they think will help or be interesting.

Also I think the key here is they aren't post hoc explanations. One of the overriding principles of play here is you don't introduce something and then explain how and why after. It has to happen for a reason that makes sense. There are exceptions (for example random encounters). But if I have Bronze Master attack the party in an ambush, I don't post hoc explain how he got there and why, it all flows from a series of actions.

The first step when I do when I describe the new circumstances or to roleplay the NPC, is to think about what is possible given the circumstances and then I decide how to describe things or how to roleplay.

The alternative is that you can decide how the new circumstances or how to roleplay first, and then look for reasons why that is possible or plausible. I find doing this to be highly problematic and prone to bias whether an individual or a group acting in a consensus does it. One bias that comes up often when making a decision this way in an RPG campaign is that it is rare that a negative outcome will be chosen outright. The result of incorporating this decision-making process into the mechanics is that failure tends to be minimized to levels that break immersion or destroy one sense of accomplishment.

This is not a new issue either I experienced this with Lion Rampart's Whimsy Cards back in the 90s. Where playing a card meant coming up with post hoc explanation.

 

[pemerton]

The issue I have with PbtA types RPG is different. That incessant use of playbooks and moves feels like an unnecessary complex gimmick to me. Toi anything you have to think about what moves fit before you can figure out what mechanic to use. Then there is the fact that like feats in D&D 3.X moves tend to interlock so you have to read up on all of them to get a sense of what the options are.

To me, this is an extremely foreign, even bizarre, description of AW.

You play a classed base game, with spells of up to 9th level (as per your post not far upthread). AW is far more straightforward than that!

 

[pemerton]

The alternative is that you can decide how the new circumstances or how to roleplay first, and then look for reasons why that is possible or plausible. I find doing this to be highly problematic and prone to bias whether an individual or a group acting in a consensus does it. One bias that comes up often when making a decision this way in an RPG campaign is that it is rare that a negative outcome will be chosen outright. The result of incorporating this decision-making process into the mechanics is that failure tends to be minimized to levels that break immersion or destroy one sense of accomplishment.

Burning Wheel and Torchbearer have rates of failure that would shock most contemporary D&D players.

 

[Bedrockgames]

They are post hoc in the sense that the real reason for having the Bronze Master, or Excalibur, or whatever, is to evoke some element of genre, trope or theme. But then some rationale is retrofitted in to make it make sense in the world.

I think you are mixing my explanations here. Bronze Master was designed as a villain to meet the villain trope. I don't see any issue with that. What I don't do is make him the villain of the campaign unless he actually survives to be the villain. If the players stab him and he dies on their first meeting, or if he becomes the big bad of a years long campaign, I am not invested in either outcome. And so him becoming the villain isn't a post hoc explanation. Him setting up the ambush isn't a post hoc explanation (the ambush didn't have to happen).

Also, equally important, Bronze Master doesn't have to be their enemy. I have had parties befriend him. He is charming like a lot of bad guys. And that often results in him seeing eye to eye with certain parties. He isn't trustworthy. That is in his nature. But the reason the player got ambushed wasn't simply because Bronze Master had been introduced. The player went to Bronze Master, humiliated him and demanded a favor by demonstrating force. Bronze Master simply dealt with him diplomatically until he could get revenge. He definitely is modeled on a villain personality but his actual role in the campaign will very much depend on what happens, what his interests are and what the players interests are.

I'm not calling out a particular sort of fictional construction and denying that it exhibits contrivance.

My point was more nuanced than that. I was saying yes there is a conceit to playability going on with some of these premises, they aren't 100% historical realism, but that doesn't mean you can't bring historical realism to the table with them. Again it is about what franchise you are in. There are different kinds of action movies. Some are more grounded in reality, some are more comfortable with obvious plot contrivance and genre conventions that strain credulity becuause they add to the fun. Most campaigns reside on a spectrum here. It is not a matter of it being A or B (contrived or not contrived).

Who in this thread to you think is running that sort of campaign? What does that have to do with the assertion that "story now" or character-driven RPGing is contrived?

I was responding to posts and points people made as they made them. I wasn't litigating the whole thread.

 

[robertsconley]

They are post hoc in the sense that the real reason for having the Bronze Master, or Excalibur, or whatever, is to evoke some element of genre, trope or theme. But then some rationale is retrofitted in to make it make sense in the world.

The decision to include Excalibur in my setting happened in 1986. The decision I made that before Arthur died he would send Excalibur to his son Constans was made in 2018 when I updated my notes for the region. The session where who had Excalibur was a factor, as related in post #2321, was part of a campaign that started in the fall of 2020. And the fact that Excalibur shattered in the hands of the evil and selfish was decided on in 2008 when I wrote my first draft of the Majestic Wilderlands supplement.

I am sorry but it doesn't sound like you have a lot of experience with the types of campaigns that @Bedrockgames and I typically run. Otherwise, you would know why calling Brendan's inclusion of a Bronze Master and my inclusion of Excalibur as a type of post hoc decision is not only absurd but logically impossible.