Why do RPGs have rules?

[robertsconley]

Once again I am compelled to query, what is the virtue of a "GM decided" from all the way back in 1986 on the fun being had today, by players now?

Because it means I can focus more of my prep time in the current campaign or session on other things that the players want to focus on and have fun with. In addition, elements of my campaigns that stuck around for that long with that level of detail are things that players both past and present found interesting.

What are you are understandingly missing is the fact that my Majestic Wilderlands isn't 100% what Rob Conley thinks it is fun today. It also incorporates what groups of players have found fun to do stemming back to 1982 when I first started running campaigns in my setting.

Is adherence to "simulationism" so rigid that it cannot brook even the suggestion of modification or change in the moment of play?

The players are free to do anything as their characters. The world they inhabit however has a life of its own. If you want to get a sense of how things can go I recommend this journal that was kept by one of my players who played in a campaign that I ran using the D&D 5e rules in my setting.

For a condensed version of another campaign I recommend these two posts. I never got around to Part III but
Nomar Part 1
Nomar Part 2

I never got around to Part 3 but it basically involved the Party getting a charter for an Inn from Prince Artos (King Arthur) at M a reward for capturing the Viking King of Ossary. Then starting construction of the Inn at N, some roleplaying and intrigue with the local Baron at P, and the bulk of that phase of the campaign was about clearing out the barrows on the Plain of Cairns at O.

As stated in my posts about Nomar, I setup the Nomar region everything else was a result of the players choosing what they wanted to do as their character. Moments that would drive most referees crazy would be Cei Kerac's player persuading the party to pay off their contract with the Baron of Abberset and joining the main army led by the Brotherhood of Wyrm.

Then the party decided after Cei Kerac's player left the campaign and they captured the King of Ossary to cash in and build an inn. Unlike helping the Brotherhood of the Wyrm, the decision to build an inn was truly a group consensus decision.

Not a whole lot of rigidity as far as I can see. I had to archive all the prep I did for the southern border of Nomar and take my notes on the Heatherbrush region and flesh them to what I needed for that part of the campaign. And yes the stuff I had from previous campaigns stemming back into the 80s saved me a lot of time.

And again, I remain skeptical of how this thing, what I can only call "tradition" in the sense of Fiddler on the Roof, hijacked an entire hobby for 40 years, because it was assumed part and parcel of being part of the rules.

I don't take it personally. All I can do is relay what happened, why did it, and what I plan to do differently and keep the same. If you try some of this for yourself and have questions I will be happy to answer them. So far it seems folks find some useful stuff from my blog and works.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But upthread I was told by @robertsconley that his setting "based everything on how medieval villages worked and how interpersonal relationships between humans work". Except for the genre tropes?

just ask for clarification. Rob us pretty transparent. I can’t speak for him but I am sure he meant he basis setting elements like institutions on what he has learned about medieval institutions and that he bases his character reactions in more realistic real world behavior than trying yo have them react like a character in a genre film. That doesn’t mean tropes won’t be present. Instead of making this sidebars to see who wins I think we are just better off asking people what they mean

 

[robertsconley]

I don’t think either me nor Rob see our style as needing to preclude genre tropes. It’s more about why they are introduced, how and how they are managed when they emerge. Also as I stated before my style is specifically more fusion, I call it drama and sandbox. But not all sandbox games operate the way I run them

I agree, if I am running a four-color superhero setting for a campaign and firearms come up, I am not going to be concerned with details that GURPS High Tech, Phoenix Command or Twilight 2000 (GDW) concerns themselves with. Instead, I will look at how firearms have been depicted in comics and be consistent with that.

But not all sandbox games operate the way I run them

Nor should they be. Worlds, even imaginary ones, are big places filled with folks living their lives and having all kinds of adventures. Once a focus is figured out then that will lead to a different set of choices about how the campaign flows and what systems are used than if another type of focus is selected.

For most of my campaign they are about players being able to "trash" my setting in whatever way they find interesting and fun to play. And I found that doesn't always mean killing the king and sitting on a throne. It can be as modest as building a crossroads inn.

 

[robertsconley]

I've run the sort of campaign you and @Bedrockgames are describing.

The reason I call it post hoc is because the actual reasons for having Excalibur, the Bronze Master etc are to manifest certain genre tropes, to establish certain interesting events, etc. And then the "simulationist" backstory is retrofitted in.

Sorry that not what I do. I take what I learned about a medieval village and ask what would happen if it existed in a world where monsters roam the wilderness and magic is real and then go from there. If anything it is the fantasy tropes that get toned down or fall by the wayside in favor of keeping the medieval. I am not running a historical medieval setting, nor I am running a fantasy setting I run a medieval fantasy setting. A slightly more fantastic version of what Harn or Mythic Europe of Ars Magica does.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Sorry that not what I do. I take what I learned about a medieval village and ask what would happen if it existed in a world where monsters roam the wilderness and magic is real and then go from there. If anything it is the fantasy tropes that get toned down or fall by the wayside in favor of keeping the medieval. I am not running a historical medieval setting, nor I am running a fantasy setting I run a medieval fantasy setting. A slightly more fantastic version of what Harn or Mythic Europe of Ars Magica does.

I tend to see settings as though experiments. For me part of how I see settings and build them, and how I think about fantasy worlds, is shaped by history. I just read a lot more history growing up than literature and so my way of thinking about this stuff tends to be grounded in that. But I obviously watched genre movies and read horror novels, fantasy novels, science fiction etc. It is just my orientation with this stuff tends to pull more from history. So when I made a fantasy setting, it was very grounded in Ancient history and I tended to focus a lot on things like available technology, resources, trade goods, social institutions in cities, etc (things that I read a lot about in history courses and just in reading books about places like Ancient Mesopotamia or Ancient Greece). Doesn't mean these are historical settings. It just means the logic behind the world building, the mental models I tended to go to, were often historical. But there were also genre tropes in there. I tend to agree with Rob that this way of doing things tends to result in fantasy tropes getting toned down.

 

[robertsconley]

The point I am making is that the importance of verisimilitude, believability, consistency etc is not distinctive to the "simulationist" style.

And @Bedrockgames, myself and others acknowledge that there are a lot of artistic endeavors that are successful at verisimilitude, are believable, and are consistent. However, what you are not acknowledging is that each of these including the RPGs you like accomplish this differently. Those who use simulationism accomplish these things in their own way as well. And the RPGs you like are not a substitute. Furthermore, you are continually conflating simulationism with realism which is an error.

What distinguishes it is, primarily, the role of the GM in telling players the details of the setting. A secondary point of distinction tends to be the way the GM disclaims decision-making when doing that telling: eg by relying upon (and even pointing to!) notes written prior to play, or by using random tables.

The GM not disclaiming decision-making doesn't change the consistency, believability etc of the fiction. It doesn't change the content of the fiction at all. Likewise it being clear how the fiction speaks to player-authored dramatic needs of PCs doesn't change those things. Because these are all facts about how the fiction is established and communicated in the real world, not facts about the content of the fiction.

The campaigns I run are not about the needs of a narrative or dramatic needs. Until you get that then you will fail to understand why I do what I do and the reason why I use the techniques I use.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The point I am making is that the importance of verisimilitude, believability, consistency etc is not distinctive to the "simulationist" style. What distinguishes it is, primarily, the role of the GM in telling players the details of the setting. A secondary point of distinction tends to be the way the GM disclaims decision-making when doing that telling: eg by relying upon (and even pointing to!) notes written prior to play, or by using random tables.

I have said again and again, I don't think it is unique to 'simlulationist' style (and I use quotes because personally even though I think my style or elements of it might be labeled that by some in the thread, it isn't a label I personally embrace). I think my only point is believability, a kind of historical realism, etc are all just important to this style of gaming and to informing the kinds of decisions and choices a GM makes. Equally important is respecting the players ability to choose what it is they want to do and how (obviously in this style that usually means through their character, not through powers that exist outside the character that the player wields). I don't think the bold distinguishes simlulationist from other styles that well. I mean there are styles where the GM doesn't serve as the person who tells the players about the setting, but countless approaches that aren't simlulationist do this to. This is more about the relationship between player and GM. The italicized is just something we will have to agree to disagree on. The goal in this approach is a believable naturalistic world. There are lots of methods for achieving that but there isn't a set 'way to do it'. Most often yes the GM will rely on a combination random tables, extrapolation from things that have happened or been established, of notes about the setting (I think importantly though in this style you will rarely see notes about events happening or how the adventure is supposed to pan out as the idea is you are simply providing a setting for the players to explore and interact with), etc.

Also keep in mind, I never said I objected to other ways of doing this. I keep bringing up Hillfolk which I think is both highly immersive and highly capable of a grounded historical realism (with a heavy dose of drama for sure). And that is a game where the players have a degree of narrative control over the setting. In fact in Hillfolk the GM isn't particularly important (it is still a role that matters but not in the way a GM matters in the kinds of sandboxes Rob and I are discussing). I love it and I think it is a great way to do certain games. The only area where I would say this relationship poses a limit is in two places: solving mysteries and exploring a setting that is outside your character. Other than that it is still an entirely grounded, realistic and immersive game. And in some ways it is more immersive at times than the sandboxes I run because everything is keyed to dialogue (so you really do get into this idea of always speaking in character and having what you say have weight). All that is fine. But none of that means sandboxes as we've been describing are not driven by a desire for realism and that GM decisions in those sandboxes are not meant to be post hoc explanations. If you find that style of gaming unsatisfactory, that is entirely fair. I am not here to convert anyone to it

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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

Don't try to make this personal. I'm talking about ideas here, not people. If you want to prioritize S over G or D, you can. You don't even have to pick the same one all the time! As I've said repeatedly, I myself care less about verisimilitude during worldbuilding than during gameplay, so if you insist on having a name, accept mine: FormerlyHemlock doesn't mind much if improbably-interesting gameworlds are constructed, and often doesn't mind presenting players with contrived one-shot adventures like "your grandmother was framed for killing a modron and if you don't do something the modrons will execute her, but if you do do something about it you may kick off a war!" What I care about most is that the GM invents no contrivances after gameplay begins, a.k.a. blorbing.

 

[Autumnal]

A game biz colleague of mine once said that the practical effect of taxonomies in rolegaming (like some kinds of manifesto in the arts and humanities generally) is to give the advocate of a particular cause grounds on which to talk naughty word about every kind of potential rival or competitor. That was, egad, something like twenty years ago, but doesn’t seem less true or relevant now.

It’s an interesting challenge to see how far you can actually go in articulating and advocating for a combination of features you like without dragging down other combos. I find that it’s actually really hard to do at any length longer than a paragraph or so.

 

[niklinna]

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

Indeed, you must fail in order to advance!