Why do RPGs have rules?

[chongjasmine]

Rpgs have rules because without it, it would not be fun.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Again, what if they're not "adventurers"?

Just imagine for a moment that the classig paradigm doesn't apply. Let's say the PCs are not wandering adventurers.... let's say they're criminals. Or spies. Or inhabitants of a specific town.

What does that do for play? It helps focus their goals in such a way that you can make play be about those goals.

Exactly, there's nothing 'contrived' here. Stonetop is threatened by some sort of weird bug infestation from the Forest. Berkhardt's men think Meda is a crazy witch and want to burn her (or something). There's a corrupted bear wandering the countryside to whom we made a promise. It all stems from the fundamental premise of the people of Stonetop, living in a magical world, simply doing the everyday things that lets them survive.

There are dangers, and the dangers relate to the PCs in terms of being things that our construction of characters, relationships, etc. suggests. However, ANYTHING that happens impacts Stonetop itself, and its a town of, like, 300 people, so everyone is effected by everything. If someone gets sick, if a wild beast attacks someone, if a horse dies, then guess what?

And none of it seems particularly acausal. There's certainly no more contrivance than 'B2 Keep on the Borderlands' where there JUST HAPPENS to be a cave complex full of a graded sequence of 1-4th level humanoid monsters 2 miles away, sitting on piles of treasure no less.

 

[robertsconley]

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!

And classed based game means what to you as far as what you can do as your character?

AW is far more straightforward than that!

Yes you made it very clear that for you AW works very well in this thread.

 

[innerdude]

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?

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

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.

 

[pemerton]

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).

My point is that the whole idea of "a villain", a "big bad", is a conceit. You've created a character who has that potential - as you put it, "to meet the villain trope". That's contrivance, pure and simple!

I'm not criticising that contrivance, but I am noting it. Because (like @hawkeyefan) I don't see how that contrivance is deemed to be compatible with versimilitude, but other forms of contrivance around protagonism and antagonism are not.

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.

And my point is, How is this any different from my Prince Valiant campaign? And if the answer is "It's not", then what is the basis for saying that RPGing focused around PCs' dramatic needs, as authored by their players, involves a degree of contrivance that "simulationist" RPGing does not?

 

[Bedrockgames]

My point is that the whole idea of "a villain", a "big bad", is a conceit. You've created a character who has that potential - as you put it, "to meet the villain trope". That's contrivance, pure and simple!

Again it isn't a binary. My point isn't that making a character with villain qualities doesn't play to genre tropes. My point is how you handle that character in the campaign matters in terms of how contrived things feel (and again contrived is not my preferred language here). What I am talking about is the difference between a game where bronze Master will be the big bad, versus one where I have no idea whether he will be the big bad, a minor character, someone who drops dead immediately after meeting the party, becomes good friends with a party member. Yes he is a villain often doing villainous things, but you can I am sure see the distinction between a campaign like that and one where there is going to be a confrontation with Bronze master and there are going to be set pieces leading up to it (even if they aren't specifically planned in advance but they are things I know will happen).

And my point is, How is this any different from my Prince Valiant campaign? And if the answer is "It's not", then what is the basis for saying that RPGing focused around PCs' dramatic needs, as authored by their players, involves a degree of contrivance that "simulationist" RPGing does not?

Again, I have never said it is any different from any campaigns or games you run.

 

[pemerton]

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.

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.

 

[pemerton]

And classed based game means what to you as far as what you can do as your character?

Class based games mean that much of the time, when I want to do something as my character, I am moved or even required to reflect on the metagame conceit of classes.

As in, "the thief had better do this thing" or "I wish we had a cleric with us".

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

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

 

[pemerton]

I don’t think either me nor Rob see our style as needing to preclude genre tropes.

Clearly you don't!

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?

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.

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.