PDA

View Full Version : What do you think is the role of the ruleset in a TTRPG?



PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-02, 08:21 AM
Edit: I'm not interested in game design per se here. Instead, this is about learning to understand and model the needs and desires of players so I can be more effective, not only in discussion on forums but also at helping my fellow players have as much fun as possible. That requires understanding the components of their views by creating for myself a mapping between observed behavior and model attributes.

Disclaimer: This is entirely a hypothesis, an attempt to systematize some thoughts and to see if I can explain/understand the viewpoints of others. It is NOT an attempt to categorize or pigeonhole or condemn. If it comes across as such, please let me know so I can change the offending verbiage. The viewpoints are given labels merely to have a shorthand way of referring to the group of associated beliefs. Real people can be thought of as a mix of multiple of these viewpoints in differing amounts (like colors can be thought of as being made of primary colors).

I think that lot of the issues that come up with rules stem from a conflict of visions. Different ideas as to the role of rules in a TTRPG. I've identified three rules modalities from posts of people here. If there are other modalities or if the ones I present don't describe your viewpoint (in aggregate), feel free to add more or suggest modifications in the comments.

Rules as Contracts: This viewpoint sees the game rules as a binding contract between the players (including the DM) of the game. The rules set the acceptable parameters of play--anything within the rules is fair game but deviations from the rules (on the part of anyone) is unacceptable. This viewpoint finds ambiguity or vagueness in rules to be unpleasant. Unfettered discretion on the part of the DM (in the form of rulings or of un-negotiated house rules) is a problem. This dislike of discretion and rules variability sometimes extends between tables (preferring that all people playing that system start from the same foundation). Those with this viewpoint favor specific rules for as many situations as practical and often favor more detailed systems. The important thing for them seems to be that there are rules and that everyone knows what the rules are. This is very common in competitive games such as wargames or board games.
Key values: clarity, completeness

Rules as Maps: This viewpoint sees the game rules as a map (mathematical sense) between the players and the in-universe actions. Every in-universe event should be reflected as closely as practical in mechanical resolutions and vice versa. This viewpoint sees consistency as a priority. Systems that favor this viewpoint tend to have lots of modular pieces and to give guidelines for resolving edge-cases or events not covered directly in the rules. Disconnected mechanics are particularly disliked--the fictional layer and the game layer should mesh tightly. This viewpoint is intolerant of perceived dissonance between mechanics and fiction--the state of the world should be theoretically resolvable from the mechanics (and vice versa).
Key values: fidelity between mechanics and fiction, consistency

Rules as Toolkits: This viewpoint sees the game rules as a set of tools and a workspace for constructing game scenarios. Rules serve as helpers to be used when needed and put away when not needed. Different rule sets are used opportunistically--consistency between various pieces isn't as important as utility. Those with this viewpoint tend to favor rules grant relatively wide discretion to the players (including the DM) to improvise rulings during play. They see the natural variability as being large enough to make consistency between tables less practical. This viewpoint favors systems with broad principles over details.
Key values: flexibility, freedom

Are these a meaningful basis for discussion? Are there other major viewpoints out there? How do you see the rules for TTRPGs?

Lapak
2018-05-02, 09:04 AM
I think you have captured some very good broad categories in your post, but for me the main thing to take away is that there is no one answer, because the answer changes based on the kind of game being designed.

The role of the ruleset for RPG with a heavy focus on tactical combat is necessarily different from the role of the ruleset for a game that revolves around social politics, or that emulates Saturday morning cartoons, or that is intended as a therapeutic tool, or that serves as the middle stage of a global-strategy wargame, or one that is meant to be played as a one-shot icebreaker leading into a classroom exercise. What you are hoping to accomplish defines what purpose the rules need to serve.

Knaight
2018-05-02, 09:06 AM
I'd add a fourth - Rules as Game where the rules are intended as their own primary form of play, and the fun is to be found with interacting with mechanics directly. Setting is generally deemphasized entirely, as is the idea of mapping rules to setting.

I'd also say that those viewpoints are less clean categories and more individual positions agreed with and disagreed with to varying points by varying people. Contracts and Toolkits are in pretty direct opposition in a lot of ways, but either of them is comparable with basically any degree of Rules as Maps.

Sneak Dog
2018-05-02, 09:26 AM
Is this even the right starting point?

The rules for me first of all are the structure which is applied to the roleplaying experience to make sure everyone is on the same page and the players know what outcomes their actions have. Trying to climb a wall results in a 75% success chance for the fighter for example.
Then, secondly, they're a tool to add strategy and tactics in the game. To give tools to players to be clever with, to plot plans and pull of hijinks. They know they have the ability to do X, Y and Z, so they can plan ahead.
Thirdly, the chance of failure adds tension to the game.

From this, what you describe as toolkit isn't a ruleset for me. The lack of consistency makes it unusable, for a player lacks the required structure to know what he is able to do. This first result in a lack of planning options and from there, options to apply tactics and strategy. Secondly it results in an arbitrary chance of failure, meaning one removed the tension.
The GM has to make a ruleset from the toolkit, adding the consistency himself and gaining the player's trust that he is capable of doing so.

Floret
2018-05-02, 09:27 AM
Reflexively I have two thoughts:

1. This split seems awfully familiar. While not the same in detail, it maps rather closely to the threefold model. (Though to doublecheck my impression I would like other people to comment how they would sort the stuff before my own impression colours it. It does seem rather obvious to me, though).

2. While I would probably place myself mostly in the "toolkit" box, I did find myself oddly agreeing with the contract... If only to realise that I don't treat the rules as binding, but find that they ideally should be. That while I will discard the rules of most games when they stand in my way, I don't like doing so, and my ideal ruleset would be one where the table does not step outside it. Maybe that is a mixing? But it hardly feels like it considering my answer is "ignore the rules anyway, but maybe search for a system that actually does what I want". I feel if I actually cared about the contract, I would hesitate more; but if I truly viewed the rules as a toolkit, I wouldn't mind. Maybe that is a mix, now that I think about it. I will leave the rambling up.

And a third one in response to Knaight:
3. While I'm not sure how much Game as a primary preference finds much place in TRPGs, I do personally lean a good bit this way - rules should, while tools, also be fun to use and capable of providing interesting results.

Interestingly, splitting this off does neatly differentiate a problem I had for a long time with the term "gamist", namely, that it seemed to conflate "playing for the game aspect" and "playing for the competition", which I found to be rather unconnected in practise.

After some thinking, a fourth:
4. I think I would sum up my position as rules as facilitators (of play), both in a narrative, and in a game sense. I dunno if having terms for the various mixes helps, but I wanted to put it out anyways.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-02, 09:32 AM
I think you have captured some very good broad categories in your post, but for me the main thing to take away is that there is no one answer, because the answer changes based on the kind of game being designed.

The role of the ruleset for RPG with a heavy focus on tactical combat is necessarily different from the role of the ruleset for a game that revolves around social politics, or that emulates Saturday morning cartoons, or that is intended as a therapeutic tool, or that serves as the middle stage of a global-strategy wargame, or one that is meant to be played as a one-shot icebreaker leading into a classroom exercise. What you are hoping to accomplish defines what purpose the rules need to serve.

Absolutely. There is no "right" viewpoint. But there are viewpoints better suited to some needs than others--wargames (Warhammer table-top, for example) tend to the contract mentality. Others lean in other ways. But someone who has one mentality and analyzes a system that implicitly assumes another, or two people of different mentalities that are in a discussion can run into trouble because the analytical framework they're using was built for something else.


I'd add a fourth - Rules as Game where the rules are intended as their own primary form of play, and the fun is to be found with interacting with mechanics directly. Setting is generally deemphasized entirely, as is the idea of mapping rules to setting.


That would be something like Minecraft (especially the modding scene) or the Total Optimization alt-game people play?



I'd also say that those viewpoints are less clean categories and more individual positions agreed with and disagreed with to varying points by varying people. Contracts and Toolkits are in pretty direct opposition in a lot of ways, but either of them is comparable with basically any degree of Rules as Maps.

They're absolutely supposed to be squishy categories that have overlap. Big tents here. Any individual may have parts of all three at any time. But they serve as reference points and (attempt to) illuminate the tradeoffs people make. If utility and clarity are juxtaposed, which one takes priority? If a useful and clear rule causes incoherence with the desired setting elements and a more ambiguous, more complicated rule fits better, which do you choose?

As I see it, the different viewpoints ask different initial questions when analyzing a proposed rule (or set of rules):

Contract: How robust is it against breakage? Are there edge-cases to consider? Where are the boundaries?
Map: What does this mean in the fiction? How does this relate to what's going on? Does it lead to where I want to go?
Toolkit: Does it help me build what I want to build? Does each element serve a purpose and do so well? Does it have sharp edges I should worry about? (Note that last question is similar to the contract questions).
Game: What can I build with it? How does this help me do X? Can I "exploit" its interactions to do something cool? (I'm guessing on this last one, as I'm not entirely clear on what this viewpoint espouses).

All of these are compatible questions--it's a matter of focus. Which questions are the make-or-break ones? Which don't really matter?

Edit @Sneak Dog:


Is this even the right starting point?

The rules for me first of all are the structure which is applied to the roleplaying experience to make sure everyone is on the same page and the players know what outcomes their actions have. Trying to climb a wall results in a 75% success chance for the fighter for example.
Then, secondly, they're a tool to add strategy and tactics in the game. To give tools to players to be clever with, to plot plans and pull of hijinks. They know they have the ability to do X, Y and Z, so they can plan ahead.
Thirdly, the chance of failure adds tension to the game.

From this, what you describe as toolkit isn't a ruleset for me. The lack of consistency makes it unusable, for a player lacks the required structure to know what he is able to do. This first result in a lack of planning options and from there, options to apply tactics and strategy. Secondly it results in an arbitrary chance of failure, meaning one removed the tension.
The GM has to make a ruleset from the toolkit, adding the consistency himself and gaining the player's trust that he is capable of doing so.

That's a clear rules as contract viewpoint. Someone with the other viewpoint can feel very differently about things and both can be right.

Sneak Dog
2018-05-02, 09:56 AM
That's a clear rules as contract viewpoint. Someone with the other viewpoint can feel very differently about things and both can be right.


But why would my above viewpoint be a rules as contract viewpoint? For mayhap I am wrong, my reasoning is faulty or includes bad assumptions, and then I'd like to know so.

The more rigidity you apply to the rules, the more weird edge cases can cause questionable or illogical results. That's why usually there's some catch-all skills with only rough definitions of what they do and the GM is the arbiter within these guidelines.
The more complex your ruleset, the harder it is to learn, the more it can slow down the game and the harder it is to foresee all potential combinations of effects.

Personally I favor the rules as mapping as a solid middle road for TTRPG's.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-02, 10:12 AM
But why would my above viewpoint be a rules as contract viewpoint? For mayhap I am wrong, my reasoning is faulty or includes bad assumptions, and then I'd like to know so.

The more rigidity you apply to the rules, the more weird edge cases can cause questionable or illogical results. That's why usually there's some catch-all skills with only rough definitions of what they do and the GM is the arbiter within these guidelines.
The more complex your ruleset, the harder it is to learn, the more it can slow down the game and the harder it is to foresee all potential combinations of effects.

Personally I favor the rules as mapping as a solid middle road for TTRPG's.


The rules for me first of all are the structure which is applied to the roleplaying experience to make sure everyone is on the same page and the players know what outcomes their actions have. Trying to climb a wall results in a 75% success chance for the fighter for example.

This is almost the definition of the contract mentality. "Knowing what the outcomes are" with precision is a key concern for this viewpoint.

It's not that your reasoning is wrong, it's a matter of values. It's a matter of priorities. That is, your axioms and foundations lead to that result. But different axioms and foundations lead to different results and both are right.

People who don't share that mentality might not care what the probability of success or even if it's consistent from instance to instance. A map-focused (at the extreme) person would want to know how the 75% chance maps to the universe (and the consequences of making climbing really hard). A toolkit-focused person would ask "does setting those numbers lead to results I like? Does it make sense across all the various types of walls or do I have to fiddle with them constantly?"

Knaight
2018-05-02, 10:29 AM
That would be something like Minecraft (especially the modding scene) or the Total Optimization alt-game people play?
Theoretical Optimization is a pretty textbook example of Rules as Game, yes. I'd also put most boardgames in this category, particularly highly abstract games that don't have much overt theming (e.g. Go).


From this, what you describe as toolkit isn't a ruleset for me. The lack of consistency makes it unusable, for a player lacks the required structure to know what he is able to do. This first result in a lack of planning options and from there, options to apply tactics and strategy. Secondly it results in an arbitrary chance of failure, meaning one removed the tension.
The GM has to make a ruleset from the toolkit, adding the consistency himself and gaining the player's trust that he is capable of doing so.

This post is a near perfect example of how these categories work - you're deep within Rules as Contract and Rules as Map, to the point where Rules as Toolkit design is completely discounted because it doesn't fit your priorities. Meanwhile these "unusable" systems continue to work beautifully for a whole bunch of people who don't particularly care about your priorities.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-02, 10:45 AM
Theoretical Optimization is a pretty textbook example of Rules as Game, yes. I'd also put most boardgames in this category, particularly highly abstract games that don't have much overt theming (e.g. Go).


Ah. I guess I was so focused on RPGs that the other games didn't register. I had placed them "out of scope" for my hypothesis. That works.



This post is a near perfect example of how these categories work - you're deep within Rules as Contract and Rules as Map, to the point where Rules as Toolkit design is completely discounted because it doesn't fit your priorities. Meanwhile these "unusable" systems continue to work beautifully for a whole bunch of people who don't particularly care about your priorities.

This says it better than I did. The framework is designed to help people (me, mostly) figure out why two people can vigorously disagree on something while both having reasonable logic. It's an attempt to understand the priorities and foundational assumptions of different people.

Altair_the_Vexed
2018-05-02, 11:23 AM
This was the topic of my Blog post from ages ago. I mentioned some of the things being discussed here, a few that haven't been (yet), and missed off some things that this thread is handling. (http://running-the-game.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/rules-and-game.html)

Personally, I see RPG rules as toolkits - I use the rules to create fair play, to enable the game, to inform my playing of the game: not to tie the game down.

I may have in the past considered them to be a math-map or a contract, but rarely. I grew up with the Red Box Basic D&D set - it started out telling you that if I didn't like what was in the rules, I could change it.

But even when I use rules as a toolkit, the rules should create consistency and clarity. They're a set of rules, see - we can use that framework to make up new things with consistency, and we use these rules to show us all what is possible in the game.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-02, 11:41 AM
This was the topic of my Blog post from ages ago. I mentioned some of the things being discussed here, a few that haven't been (yet), and missed off some things that this thread is handling. (http://running-the-game.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/rules-and-game.html)

Personally, I see RPG rules as toolkits - I use the rules to create fair play, to enable the game, to inform my playing of the game: not to tie the game down.

I may have in the past considered them to be a math-map or a contract, but rarely. I grew up with the Red Box Basic D&D set - it started out telling you that if I didn't like what was in the rules, I could change it.

But even when I use rules as a toolkit, the rules should create consistency and clarity. They're a set of rules, see - we can use that framework to make up new things with consistency, and we use these rules to show us all what is possible in the game.

I agree with this (being a toolkit type myself), but want to modify that last phrase for my viewpoint.

"we use these rules to show us all examples of what is possible in the game and give principles for figuring out other things."

The thing I like best is when situations arise that don't come from the rules (and then figuring out how to resolve them using tools/principles from the rules). I had a case come up recently--I was letting a player decide what abilities his new shiny shield should have. He wanted to "light up like a flashlight" and "shoot fire." Since I knew I wanted something like a 3rd level spell, we discussed it and ended up going with

-shield can toggle between light cantrip (spherical), bullseye lantern (cone), and off as a bonus action
- While attuned he can use scorching ray 1x/day.

All of this based on thematics and rough guidelines instead of detailed procedures.

Aotrs Commander
2018-05-02, 11:53 AM
Some of all three, I think.

I consider rules primarily as system for resolution of a simulated environment (be it wargames or roleplaying). I regard the rules an imperfect simulation1 of the "real" world; while I will keep to a set of rules mechanics pretty consistently, but the rules are not absolute (at least on the DM's side of the screen) and stuff will happen outside of them occasionally. I.e., the rules of the game are not the rules of the world (as in OotS - to an extent!) (This also extends to the DM's random number generator, which is given no more sanctity than the rest of the system if occasional push comes to shove.)

As a wargamer and DM (and player, though I am former more often), I want set of rules to do what I want it to. (A set of rules WILL be modified, regardless, as no set of rules will be automatically fit for purpose, it is merely the case of finding the one which is the best starting point.) In the case of D&D, this is to provide a suitable framework for interesting combats while having some out of combat utilty2. In the case of Rolemaster, it is ability to do anything/anywhere/anywhen and a lesser emphasis on combat (but with the delight of the critical hit tables), which now is good for exploratory purposes where most of my RM games end up going.). I expect rules to at least have a passing glance as simulationism as opposed to just using gamist mechanics (or at least approach it from that angle, which is why I did not get on with D&D 4E). That said, reflavouring fluff from mechanics is entirely acceptable. I expect rules to be thorough and consistent; if I have to make up rulings all the time arbitarily, why am I would I pay for or use a system, as I could do that all by myself? Appropriate granularity is also a requirement, with (as stated above) the understanding that the universe does not actually run on 5% increments (or 1% if RM) and so Things (usually Plot Things) can happen outside of those chances.



1As my Dad, former lead aerospace modelling engineer says, "all simulations are wrong. Some simulations are useful."

2Roleplaying and interaction and exploration are largely system immaterial; mechanics help, but at the same time, they don't need to be quite as exhaustive.

RazorChain
2018-05-02, 03:25 PM
I adhere to all 3 points.

For me rules are binding until changed. Changing rules is done before play starts or with an agreement of the group during play.

I like to map the rules to the setting for consistency and versimilitude.

I love the toolkit aspect where I can tinker with rules in a modular design. This allows me both to make rules and new content within the boundaries of the rules

Which is why I have played lots of Gurps lately.

Rules as a game is not to my liking unless I'm not playing a TTRPG. I prioritize RPG's as an immersive experience rather than a game

Florian
2018-05-02, 03:47 PM
Possibly: Rules as visual/haptic interface/immersion aid. Basically, once you understand how a system uses rules and numbers to model in-game reality, some apparently small and meaningless stuff takes on new meaning, like how direct bonus types can stack, when visualizing a scene.

JoeJ
2018-05-02, 04:14 PM
I fall mostly into the Rules as Toolkit model. If the rules don't facilitate what the players and GM think ought to happen, then those rules are not useful, and need to be fixed. In the same vein, I don't buy the argument that a player has to know the rules when they create their character, in order to know what that character can do. It's not bad if they know, but it isn't necessary. The player decides what their character is able to do, within the parameters of the agreed-upon premises. If they're not sure how to translate that into a character sheet, they should ask the GM for help. (And even if the player is sure, the GM should double-check that what the character sheet says supports the player's concept of their character.)

Player: "I'm the best horseman who ever lived."

GM: "You're starting out as inexperienced, so you won't be the best anything at first. To be a great horseman, though, you need to choose these options, and you want this ability score as high as you can get it. So let's swap these two numbers, and replace that skill with this other one."

1337 b4k4
2018-05-02, 04:37 PM
Most people here seem to be catching it but I think we should be perfectly clear that any given player is likely to mix and match these play styles and mapping yourself is less about fitting your mental model into a box and more about making a radar chart (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_chart) of your preferences.

It’s probably also worth noting that mapping these values to individual systems probably isn’t really possible in the abstract, but rather either relative to how people use the system or how the system presents itself relative to other systems.

Frozen_Feet
2018-05-02, 05:05 PM
One of these three is not like the other.

All game rules are contracts, the contract exist to define the game, and for the game to exist the participants must continue to heed it.

Whether the contract also serves as a map or a toolkit depends on shape of the contract. RPGs are always (at least partial) maps and most are heavy on the toolkit side too.

The above is not a matter of perception nor argument. It is a trivial fact that's true by definition and immediately evident from reading any RPG rules.

There's certainly a lot to discuss about each three aspects of game design, but it really needs to be disentangled from the usual (and boring) talk about preferences. Because that's what characterizing these three things as viewpoints reduces the discussion to.

In reality, if you pool all the "key values" listed for the "viewpoints" together, that's when you're starting to approach a good holistic guideline for designing contracts, and by extension, game rules. When preference causes one to be prioritized over another, that's only interesting when there is conflict between values and a compromise must be made.

That is: statements like "I value clarity over flexibility!" is only relevant when you can't have both. If you can, the right choice is to always have both.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-02, 05:21 PM
One of these three is not like the other.

All game rules are contracts, the contract exist to define the game, and for the game to exist the participants must continue to heed it.

Whether the contract also serves as a map or a toolkit depends on shape of the contract. RPGs are always (at least partial) maps and most are heavy on the toolkit side too.

The above is not a matter of perception nor argument. It is a trivial fact that's true by definition and immediately evident from reading any RPG rules.

There's certainly a lot to discuss about each three aspects of game design, but it really needs to be disentangled from the usual (and boring) talk about preferences. Because that's what characterizing these three things as viewpoints reduces the discussion to.

In reality, if you pool all the "key values" listed for the "viewpoints" together, that's when you're starting to approach a good holistic guideline for designing contracts, and by extension, game rules. When preference causes one to be prioritized over another, that's only interesting when there is conflict between values and a compromise must be made.

That is: statements like "I value clarity over flexibility!" is only relevant when you can't have both. If you can, the right choice is to always have both.

I disagree. Completely. That's a possible viewpoint, but it's reliant on certain axioms and non-universal definitions. Calvinball (http://calvinandhobbes.wikia.com/wiki/Calvinball) is a game without a sane contract--I've played in RPGs with that same style of "rules." And describing things as preferences is the only truth there is. In the end, there is no universal objective truth of game design other than "do what works for the group at hand."

That is, unless you take the circular position of "the rules are whatever the group plays, so nothing can violate the rules." That's tautologically true, but useless.

One whole point of this is to get away from thinking of "facts" and realize that there are other, equally valid but incompatible (at least in part) viewpoints on these things.

And at one margin or another, there will always be conflicts between the core values. Because time, attention, and most other things are limited. There are tradeoffs everywhere, and believing that you can have it all only makes the perfect the enemy of the good.

Knaight
2018-05-02, 05:32 PM
One of these three is not like the other.

All game rules are contracts, the contract exist to define the game, and for the game to exist the participants must continue to heed it.

Whether the contract also serves as a map or a toolkit depends on shape of the contract. RPGs are always (at least partial) maps and most are heavy on the toolkit side too.

The above is not a matter of perception nor argument. It is a trivial fact that's true by definition and immediately evident from reading any RPG rules.

This uses an extremely weak definition of "contract" to make everything fit, without incorporating the philosophy behind rules as contract at all. Reasonable expectations of the sort of mechanics likely to see use in a broad sense aren't remotely the same as a thorough set of binding rules which heavily restrain GM and player options, and it's that specifically which RaC proponents are generally looking for.

As for RPGs always being at least partial maps, this is also only true if you look at a specific subset of RGPs. Baron Munchausen, Microscope, Shock: Social Science Fiction, these games don't fit that description at all.

Pex
2018-05-02, 05:39 PM
I'll put myself in the Contract camp, but I think your explanation is a bit harsh on acceptance of house rules. I don't mind house rules existing. I can like or dislike a particular house rule for whatever reason, but I'm ok with the concept of a DM wanting to change an established rule.

I'm not seeing how Maps is distinct from Contract. It reads more like a subset.

Max_Killjoy
2018-05-02, 05:46 PM
This uses an extremely weak definition of "contract" to make everything fit, without incorporating the philosophy behind rules as contract at all. Reasonable expectations of the sort of mechanics likely to see use in a broad sense aren't remotely the same as a thorough set of binding rules which heavily restrain GM and player options, and it's that specifically which RaC proponents are generally looking for.


"Extremely week definition to make everything fit" is sadly very common in these discussions. See also, the horrible "all gaming is storytelling" thread.




As for RPGs always being at least partial maps, this is also only true if you look at a specific subset of RGPs. Baron Munchausen, Microscope, Shock: Social Science Fiction, these games don't fit that description at all.


Disassociated mechanics in general don't really follow the "map" principle.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-02, 05:55 PM
I'll admit--As I was writing the OP I had a few people in mind as my exemplars for each of the three. Myself (RaT), Max_Killjoy (RaM; he had mentioned that he sees rules as maps), and Pex (RaC). I say that with respect for all of you--you sparked a new way of thinking for me, bringing something clearer than what I had before.


I'll put myself in the Contract camp, but I think your explanation is a bit harsh on acceptance of house rules. I don't mind house rules existing. I can like or dislike a particular house rule for whatever reason, but I'm ok with the concept of a DM wanting to change an established rule.

I'm not seeing how Maps is distinct from Contract. It reads more like a subset.

The comments about house rules was specific to un-negotiated house rules. That is, the DM just deciding one day to change things without getting buy-in from the players. When you go to roll your Climb check, he says "oh, I decided that Climb is now a Dexterity skill." That sort of thing (although that's an extreme example).

And RaM and RaC are quite different--Contracts focus on the interpersonal dynamics and is generally ok with (or uninterested in) associated vs disassociated rules. On the other hand, Map cares a lot less about buy-in from the players (although each individual might) and cares more about the fit between the mechanics and the fictional universe. People who are strong on RaM tend to reject disassociated mechanics the same way you reject "vague" rules.



Disassociated mechanics in general don't really follow the "map" principle.

Case in point.

Thrudd
2018-05-02, 07:50 PM
A set of rules that intend to model a type or style of narrative might still be considered a "map" - it just isn't mapping the state of the fictional world, it's mapping the state of the story.
Also, "The GM can decide what happens" might be a rule. If so, then this is part of the contract the players have all agreed to. Players attempting to persuade or manipulate the GM might be part of the game, in this case. I don't think this makes a rule set any less of a contract. There are defined expectations on the part of all parties.

Game rules always have the same role - to define for the players the objective of the game and the manner in which the objective is pursued. On another level, they are a framework that allow the players to anticipate how their choices will affect the state of the game, and tells them what sort of skills and knowledge are required. That framework might be very abstract or very specific and precise, but it has the same function regardless. TTRPGs are a very broad category, the role of the rules across the entire category likewise must be described very broadly, even more broadly than these proposed categories.

If the primary game objective is "create a story that plays out like an action movie", and the rules include "GM can decide what happens based on what would be cool and cinematic", this gives the players a way to decide what sort of things they should be doing and to anticipate how their actions will be resolved. Player skills/knowledge would involve a vocabulary of action movies that are "cool", in common with the GM, and imaginative visualization of action scenes.

A very simplistic example, of course, but it serves. Good game rules are consistent with the stated goal of the game and enable the players engaging ways to participate. Define the game's objectives and you can define what sort of rule set it ought to have.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-02, 08:13 PM
A set of rules that intend to model a type or style of narrative might still be considered a "map" - it just isn't mapping the state of the fictional world, it's mapping the state of the story.
Also, "The GM can decide what happens" might be a rule. If so, then this is part of the contract the players have all agreed to. Players attempting to persuade or manipulate the GM might be part of the game, in this case. I don't think this makes a rule set any less of a contract. There are defined expectations on the part of all parties.


At this point you're so broad as to lose all resolution. That's like saying that animals on average have X legs--it blurs together things that are better kept separate.



Game rules always have the same role - to define for the players the objective of the game and the manner in which the objective is pursued. On another level, they are a framework that allow the players to anticipate how their choices will affect the state of the game, and tells them what sort of skills and knowledge are required. That framework might be very abstract or very specific and precise, but it has the same function regardless. TTRPGs are a very broad category, the role of the rules across the entire category likewise must be described very broadly, even more broadly than these proposed categories.

A very simplistic example, of course, but it serves. Good game rules are consistent with the stated goal of the game and enable the players engaging ways to participate. Define the game's objectives and you can define what sort of rule set it ought to have.

This is circular--if the rules define the objective and the objective defines the rules...

In addition, the bold part suffers from terminal ambiguity. Specifically, different people might define the objectives of a single TTRPG completely differently (and thus arrive at different results). Who, then, is correct? If it's an objective decision only one of them can be. In reality, all of them might be. We can usually say what a TTRPG is not designed to do, but the level of specificity needed to arrive at a rule-set is unavailable.

Every person at my tables plays the same game with different objectives and from different perspectives. And none of them are wrong or right. They simply are.

The 4e D&D DMG had a good section on different motivations for play (stressing that most people have multiple motives at different strengths at different times). One gets enjoyment out of killing monsters in dramatic ways. Another gets enjoyment out of describing fantastic events and scenes. Another gets enjoyment out of the social aspect--being together and rolling the dice. And these are all valid motivations, valid objectives. For TTRPGs there is no win condition. Or rather, the only win condition is that people had fun doing it.

1337 b4k4
2018-05-02, 08:56 PM
PhoenixPhyre,

It seems like there's some confusion here. Are your classifications for defining types of rules systems (e.g. D&D is a Rules as X system, GURPS is a Rules as Y system) or is it for defining user preferences for interacting with a rules system (e.g. I'm a Rules as X person, which is why I like D&D and not Fate). I was under the impression you were going for the latter, but this argument about whether or not all rules are contracts seems to be more about the former.

Pex
2018-05-02, 09:04 PM
The comments about house rules was specific to un-negotiated house rules. That is, the DM just deciding one day to change things without getting buy-in from the players. When you go to roll your Climb check, he says "oh, I decided that Climb is now a Dexterity skill." That sort of thing (although that's an extreme example).

Ok. Yep that's me right there. I hate it when DMs do that. I've seen it done because the DM can't stop fiddling with the gameworld, trying to make it perfect and never satisfied. They often eventually quit the game altogether because it never works for them. Worse are the DMs who do it because they got outsmarted by a player. An ability their character has nullifies the encounter or makes a combat the DM expected to be tough turn out to be a piece of cake. The rules change to prevent that from happening again.


And RaM and RaC are quite different--Contracts focus on the interpersonal dynamics and is generally ok with (or uninterested in) associated vs disassociated rules. On the other hand, Map cares a lot less about buy-in from the players (although each individual might) and cares more about the fit between the mechanics and the fictional universe. People who are strong on RaM tend to reject disassociated mechanics the same way you reject "vague" rules.



Ok.

Quellian-dyrae
2018-05-02, 09:14 PM
While I think the general categories are fairly solid classifications for the uses of rules, I think the definitions are suffering some from packing too much into them, much of which is unrelated. Believing that the rules should be clear and easily-understood, believing that the GM shouldn't change the rules, and believing that there should be lots and lots of individual rules to cover specific situations, are all very different things, but here they're presented together as a single cohesive viewpoint. Likewise, just because you see the rules as tools to use or not use to set up certain scenarios doesn't necessarily mean you believe the rules themselves should be broad principles; FATE is a system that uses the toolkit viewpoint and broad design principles, but my understanding is that GURPS is every bit as much a toolkit system, but uses a very detailed and specific ruleset. Wanting fidelity between the game rules and the fiction doesn't inherently favor a more modular system design (or a heavily detailed one, or a heavily abstracted one - all three can accomplish the goal in their own ways). And so on.

So I'd narrow them down to the core principles. Rules as Contract might mean that the rules are there to tell you what you are allowed to do. Rules as Map might mean that the rules are there to clearly define what is happening in the game world. Rules as Toolkit might mean that the rules are there to provide a framework for resolving situations in the game. And then the Rules as Game suggested earlier might mean the rules are there to give players a tactical system to interact with. There may also be others, but those four do seem to cover the most important bits, I think.

But each of these would be distinct from things like how detailed the system is, or how flexible it is, or how much GM adjudication it expects, or so on.

Cluedrew
2018-05-02, 09:34 PM
I don't have much time so I will just try to add two thoughts I had. Or two other purposes I use rules for.

Rules as Communication: This might be a subset of rules as map, but instead of connecting a player to the fiction (or mapped world) it connects players. Strong is kind of vague, good strength is less so ... I was going to say +3 strength is even less, but if we are talking about FUGDE or FATE good strength is already the exact rating.

Rules as Tension: There is a reason rolls happen. There is a reason HP ticks down at a set rate and something very particular happens at 0. Sometimes forfeiting some control actually makes the game more fun by adding tension and limits to be avoided (or that you have to try to reach). Relates to Rules as Contract and Rules as Game.

1337 b4k4
2018-05-02, 09:42 PM
Worse are the DMs who do it because they got outsmarted by a player. An ability their character has nullifies the encounter or makes a combat the DM expected to be tough turn out to be a piece of cake. The rules change to prevent that from happening again.

This is one of those things that GM advice sections of rules really need to do a better job of covering. Sometimes as a GM you're going to make a mistake, or you're going to introduce something into the world that you didn't think about all the way. Those things are going to break your game or plans in ways you didn't expect, and sometimes in ways that makes running the game less fun for you. Most of the time, you should let it ride. If your player one shot Strahd with a scroll of Dispel Evil (http://dreamsinthelichhouse.blogspot.com/2011/07/die-strahd-die.html) that is the epic thing D&D stories retold years down the road are made of, bask in the epicness.

For everything else, for the things that actually make running your game unpleasant, or require you to double the AC and DC of everything for the next 10 levels, you need to talk to your players. Acknowledge their cleverness, not to stroke their egos but to make it clear you understand what they have and what you're asking them to give up. Then explain why it's a problem for you and work with them to resolve it in a way thats satisfactory for all. Maybe that means the wand of infinite wishes has a 1 per month recharge time. Maybe it means it has a drawback, or maybe it even means they do give it up but only after getting one epic level loot item each. Whatever it is, like most TTRPG problems, you solve it with communication. Because a broken mechanical object is an out of game problem, not an in game problem.

JoeJ
2018-05-02, 10:28 PM
PhoenixPhyre,

It seems like there's some confusion here. Are your classifications for defining types of rules systems (e.g. D&D is a Rules as X system, GURPS is a Rules as Y system) or is it for defining user preferences for interacting with a rules system (e.g. I'm a Rules as X person, which is why I like D&D and not Fate). I was under the impression you were going for the latter, but this argument about whether or not all rules are contracts seems to be more about the former.

Speaking only for myself, the categories don't apply to the game systems but to the way I approach the game and what I expect/want to get out of it. Some rules sets may facilitate one approach more easily than another, but it's the approach that I'm categorizing, not the rules.

Thrudd
2018-05-02, 11:53 PM
At this point you're so broad as to lose all resolution. That's like saying that animals on average have X legs--it blurs together things that are better kept separate.



This is circular--if the rules define the objective and the objective defines the rules...

In addition, the bold part suffers from terminal ambiguity. Specifically, different people might define the objectives of a single TTRPG completely differently (and thus arrive at different results). Who, then, is correct? If it's an objective decision only one of them can be. In reality, all of them might be. We can usually say what a TTRPG is not designed to do, but the level of specificity needed to arrive at a rule-set is unavailable.

Every person at my tables plays the same game with different objectives and from different perspectives. And none of them are wrong or right. They simply are.

The 4e D&D DMG had a good section on different motivations for play (stressing that most people have multiple motives at different strengths at different times). One gets enjoyment out of killing monsters in dramatic ways. Another gets enjoyment out of describing fantastic events and scenes. Another gets enjoyment out of the social aspect--being together and rolling the dice. And these are all valid motivations, valid objectives. For TTRPGs there is no win condition. Or rather, the only win condition is that people had fun doing it.

That's true, my use of objective was vague. I think it would be clearer to say that the game's objective ought to determine the shape of the rules as they are designed. Once they are designed, the rules inform players what that objective is. In the case of a game with broad objectives, like a lot of RPGs, there is usually some order of priorities that should inform the shape of the rules. One game may prioritize tactical combat. Another may prioritize narrative. Simulating the conventions of a certain genre or setting may be more important than generic applicability. People may define the objectives of a game differently, but it is possible that some of those definitions are wrong. One needs to examine the rules to determine what the game is meant to do, if it doesn't tell you explicitly. No game will make everyone happy.

It is a problem that RPG writers are often too vague in their description of the game's objectives. The social aspect of getting together with friends and rolling dice - that isn't the kind of objective we're talking about, but is a basic defining feature of a "table top game". Everyone wants that, or they wouldn't be there at all. Likewise "have fun" isn't the only condition, it can't be. It is all supposed to be fun. So I'd throw that out as something applicable to this.

There isn't a "win condition", but there is something that the players are trying to do. The rules tell them what kind of things they should be trying to do. The most general thing that all TTRPGs do, is "simulate some kind of fictional environment." If you don't want to be involved in that, then you don't want to play any TTRPG. But I know we need to be more specific.

In D&D, for example, there are going to be combats (or there ought to be, since the game rules provide for little else). So players ought to think some aspect of combat is fun, whether it be the tactical element or describing/imagining action or being challenged to use abilities and imagination to solve problems in general. Those who don't like any of those things probably tune out for a good chunk of a D&D session, this isn't a game that is very fun for them. They may want something else out of D&D, but they aren't going to get much of it. What they want is a different game.

I don't think you can separate this matter/hypothesis from game design. If whatever game you're playing needs to be modified to be more fun for your players, then you need to design.
I think you're right about most problems stemming from a conflict of visions. The solution to this is to clearly define the vision of the game. There is a finite range of possible "visions" that any given rule set can facilitate, so players need to be made aware of just what to expect.

Mapping people's preferences to different categories of rule sets I don't think will ultimately be very useful to you. More useful will be understanding what part of a game they think is fun, and choosing or creating a game that has rules to do that fun thing in the most engaging way possible. Nobody thinks the rules themselves are fun - it is the application of the rules to create a game environment that is the fun part. Their preferences will be completely based on how well a particular rule set accomplishes the things they like.

That said, I do agree there are some people that do not want any subjectivity, or as little as possible, involved in game rules. I think that is what you're calling "rules as contracts."
Unless it is a competitive combat game, I think this mindset may be less about what aspects of the game they think are fun and more about a desire to be able to plan and predict and control outcomes. I suppose it's possible that this person might feel that calculating probabilities is part of the fun of the game for them.

The "as map" category can probably be as easily called "associated rules". Not a category that is mutually exclusive with the "contracts". I'd think a lot of people want both.

The "toolkit" category might be more precisely called "flexible" or "subjective". Toolkit implies to me a number of optional rules and modules that can be selected by the GM to modify their game - what 5e D&D is trying to do, what a lot of the generics are like. Many of those are not at all what you are calling "toolkit".

"subjective" rules are not necessarily optional rules, it is just that the GM can choose when to apply them, or the results are open for interpretation by GM or players. If the GM wants something to happen, it happens, even if the outcome might have been in doubt from an objective, in-world perspective (serving the narrative or "rule of cool"). Or the dice give you very broad categories for results, and the GM or player interprets what it means that they got "success" or "failure" for any given event. "I'm swinging on the chandelier and jumping onto the ledge." -roll=fail-. "Ok, you make it across, but you stumble and drop your sword off the ledge."

This also doesn't really compete with the "mapping/associated" category. The real comparison is in the degree of objectivity and precision in the rules. This also would seem to map to rule complexity/density. Simplified/fewer rules or more rules/more complexity. Since the rules need not be player-facing, more detailed rules will not necessarily take fun away from a player that doesn't enjoy the complexity or the math. As long as they don't need to interact with it, they wouldn't care, it is just the GM that needs to like it. Alternately, a player that wants to know and predict outcomes may find a subjective/simplified game less fun, and would want to know that the rules are being followed in a "contract rules" game, even if the GM does most of the rolling behind the screen, so they can calculate their odds. Knowing the GM is subjectively determining outcomes would make it less fun for them.

JoeJ
2018-05-03, 12:06 AM
Disassociated mechanics in general don't really follow the "map" principle.

Yes and no. You're right that they don't map what is happening in world, but some disassociated mechanics map what happens in the type of story the game is trying to model. An example is hero points in M&M, which model the way that 4-color comic superheroes are incredibly lucky when it's dramatically appropriate, and how they typically fail early in a story, only to come back and succeed at the climax.

Max_Killjoy
2018-05-03, 12:20 AM
Yes and no. You're right that they don't map what is happening in world, but some disassociated mechanics map what happens in the type of story the game is trying to model. An example is hero points in M&M, which model the way that 4-color comic superheroes are incredibly lucky when it's dramatically appropriate, and how they typically fail early in a story, only to come back and succeed at the climax.


"Genre emulation" is an entirely different thing, and probably needs its own category.

Darth Ultron
2018-05-03, 12:21 AM
Well, maybe two more?

Rules as Common Ground As big step up from freeform: rules put everyone on the same page. Roll 1d20 to make a DC, for example. You can't change the basic rule: all creatures have hit points, for examples...but you can modify it.

Rules as Suggestions My favorite. They are simply one suggested way of doing things.


Oh, and how about:

Rules are a Strightjacket They are the 800 pound gorilla that forces gamers to do or not do things...no matter if they want too or not. Like when a player won't even speak in character but will just be like ''my character uses his +2 talk ability to talk to the guards. " Or worse, the player that won't even try to open a door, as they don't have the skill: open doors.

Floret
2018-05-03, 01:48 AM
I am a bit confused about the use of "Rules as Toolkit" by some people in this thread, that focus on the moddability of the rules?

I had the impression from the OP (And other threads where PhoenixPyre talked about his preferences) that the approach was more about "we use the rules when we need them, and hope they get out of the way when we don't", which isn't really related to how good they are to mod?

Which I would agree FATE probably works best for a toolkit approach, but for reasons fully unrelated to the existence of a thing called "Fate system toolkit".

Who of us is confused by the terminology, me or Thrudd (and others)?

Florian
2018-05-03, 02:17 AM
@Floret:

I'm with you on this. "Rules as Toolkit" is basically "Rulings > Rules", as I´ve understood it.

RazorChain
2018-05-03, 03:09 AM
I had the impression from the OP (And other threads where PhoenixPyre talked about his preferences) that the approach was more about "we use the rules when we need them, and hope they get out of the way when we don't"

Don't most people do that? Drag the rules out when you need them?

I remember one GM who made us roll for everything. Mount your horse, roll riding. Ask directions, roll a social skill. Look down into the valley, roll perception and we failed and missed the huge castle which dominated the landscape....and missed the adventure. So STUPID. This was at a convention, not fun.

NichG
2018-05-03, 03:20 AM
I tend to take rules as a combination of Toolkit and Contract. As a player, the primary thing the rules do for me is that they tell me, in enough detail that I can imagine it for myself, what sort of things are feasible or unfeasible within the game. Systems with good rules can act as a source of inspiration and make me think 'wow, I want to do that!', 'I want to see what happens when this factor and that factor come together', etc.

The reason why the Contract bit matters is, I'm going to be thinking about that stuff on my own, and if I find that it's hard for me to correctly determine when to use the rules versus when it's going to end up running another way, then I'm going to waste a lot of time and thought that ends up getting thrown out because it doesn't work that way. It's totally fine for me if there are sections of the game where I can't use the prewritten rules, or where there's a specific caveat that tells me 'this stuff may not be 100% true or stable', but I want to have a good basis for understanding when that will be the case. That basis doesn't have to itself be a hard rule - a rule of thumb like 'if it looks like you're going to totally break the game with something, assume it will get nerfed' is fine - I can understand that and get in front of it and when things look too good to be true, I know to ask for verification. So in that sense, I don't particularly care about 'completeness' when it comes to Rules as Contract, or even necessarily clarity - its more that I want the 'injection' of a rule into the game by the DM to be a promise, with the intent to follow through.

For pre-written rules, I'm satisfied not assuming that they bear the same weight or stability as something the DM actually introduced intentionally.

As a DM, I think having the rules seen as a Contract can actually be valuable in the sense that you can then use rules to ease the way in places where players are getting paralyzed by the appearance of difficulty, complexity, or just self-doubt. For example, I've had the experience when running a complicated political maneuvering scenario of a player who, when their first attempt to figure out the hook to manipulate a particular NPC failed, they just assumed 'these NPCs cannot be convinced, period'. Adding an explicit mechanic to the game like 'by using this ability, you will learn what the NPC most desires' can help to act as a promise that the scenario is not actually impossible. Similarly, in a mystery or similar type of scenario, the presence of a few things which guarantee 'the information gained from this one method or source is true' can help the group get unstuck if they're arguing back and forth about suppositions or assumptions as to what the situation is.

Floret
2018-05-03, 03:59 AM
Don't most people do that? Drag the rules out when you need them?

Not what I meant precisely, but I can see how it came across that way. I'll try to clarify.
Now, especially rules-heavy systems with lots of skills and spells (if spells are rolled for, as basically separate skills (Dark Eye, some of Symbaroum), or as a "cast ****" skill (Shadowrun, Legend of the Five Rings)) there is a certain expectation that "if this thing where this skill exists for comes up, you will roll it".
Especially for spells this becomes a given, but it also shows up in a lot of published modules as "you come to a wall, climb check please", with failure just meaning stalling - but there is something to climb, and a climb skill, so roll. In the extreme this thinking leads to the experience you describe. (Or L5R 4th ed. Horrible, horrible advice for "if your character wants to do something in the world, roll dice". I am not kidding, that is in the core rules).

What rules as toolkit does, as I understand is say "rules are for clearing up interesting points of possible failure", so you roll when that occurs, and every other time, you just do. The wall has to be climbed to progress? You just climb. You want to see if this mundane, irrelevant thing is magical? It isn't, go on, don't roll your analysis spell and waste time on that.

Of course I also use rules as arbitration aid. "Roll Edge to determine how nice I'll be to you" is a staple of my Shadowrun games, but "I roll Willpower to see if my character resists this temptation" is a staple of playing for me as well. Is that toolkit usage? Maybe...


@Floret:

I'm with you on this. "Rules as Toolkit" is basically "Rulings > Rules", as I´ve understood it.

Maybe? It certainly feels weird to me to describe it that way though, but maybe those are different ways of getting to the goal?

Maybe I mostly play by "rules to see what happens". Is that rulings? Doesn't feel like it...

The thing I notice, though, is that this discussion, even from my side, has started assuming "rules as the stuff with the dice and the numbers" again. I guess rules of a different kind are rather automatically rules as contract, since they can't really map stuff or be used as tools if they want to retain their "rules" characteristic?
(I am talking about something like AWs Agenda and principles here)

Florian
2018-05-03, 05:39 AM
@RazorChain/Floret:

That depends on the mindset. As gm, I'm mostly on the "Rules as Communication / Tie-breaker" side of things, so the answer to the question "Can I do that?" is either "Say yes!" or "Roll the dice!". Now unlike the gm example given, who apparently goes straight towards the dice as an impartial method to give the answer, I make two individual judgements here: a) Does it matter? and b) Knowing the situation, do I actually know the answer? C) would actually be: If I'm not sure, do I really want to waste time getting in an argument, when I can shift it over to mechanics to solve the question?

Those Judgements lead to implementing rulings. To go with the L5R 4th example Floret quoted, for folks coming from the "rules as contract" crowd, it can seem to be quite random how the decision-making process of simply saying "yes" or "roll" happens.

As for the mentioned modules, I really have to wonder why? Roadblock design only works when you accept a "fail state" for the scenario.....

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-03, 06:39 AM
Speaking only for myself, the categories don't apply to the game systems but to the way I approach the game and what I expect/want to get out of it. Some rules sets may facilitate one approach more easily than another, but it's the approach that I'm categorizing, not the rules.

That is my approach to it as well. It's about people, not rules. Although since rules are written by people, they tend to lean in one direction or another.


I am a bit confused about the use of "Rules as Toolkit" by some people in this thread, that focus on the moddability of the rules?

I had the impression from the OP (And other threads where PhoenixPyre talked about his preferences) that the approach was more about "we use the rules when we need them, and hope they get out of the way when we don't", which isn't really related to how good they are to mod?

Which I would agree FATE probably works best for a toolkit approach, but for reasons fully unrelated to the existence of a thing called "Fate system toolkit".

Who of us is confused by the terminology, me or Thrudd (and others)?

Possibly my use of "toolkit" (an overloaded term) was confusing. The bold is my meaning of it. The tool doesn't demand to be wielded; not using the router where a plane might do isn't wrong. The tools are to be used where they're needed in the judgement of the players (including the DM).

I first arrived at this idea based on the text right at the beginning of the 5e D&D PHB under "How to Play." Paraphrased, it says that the basic flow is

1. DM describes the environment.
2. Players describe what they want to do
That part has this quote:

But the door might be locked, the floor might hide a deadly trap, or some other circumstance might make it challenging for an adventurer to complete a task. In those cases, the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action.
3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers actions.

The bold part made me realize that

a) the rules don't always need to be invoked, but only when there's a challenge.
b) Even then, the rules aren't always invoked and it's up to the DM to decide exactly how to resolve it.

This provides tons of latitude for the DM. And a very different view on the nature and use of rules than, for example, a board game where every possible action is laid out in detail; other actions are forbidden.


Not what I meant precisely, but I can see how it came across that way. I'll try to clarify.
Now, especially rules-heavy systems with lots of skills and spells (if spells are rolled for, as basically separate skills (Dark Eye, some of Symbaroum), or as a "cast ****" skill (Shadowrun, Legend of the Five Rings)) there is a certain expectation that "if this thing where this skill exists for comes up, you will roll it".
Especially for spells this becomes a given, but it also shows up in a lot of published modules as "you come to a wall, climb check please", with failure just meaning stalling - but there is something to climb, and a climb skill, so roll. In the extreme this thinking leads to the experience you describe. (Or L5R 4th ed. Horrible, horrible advice for "if your character wants to do something in the world, roll dice". I am not kidding, that is in the core rules).


That is a failure case, a pathology if you will, that seems more prevalent in the RaC viewpoint. "If the rules are there, we have to use them." Other viewpoints have other pathologies, so one's not better than another. Just different points of failure.



What rules as toolkit does, as I understand is say "rules are for clearing up interesting points of possible failure", so you roll when that occurs, and every other time, you just do. The wall has to be climbed to progress? You just climb. You want to see if this mundane, irrelevant thing is magical? It isn't, go on, don't roll your analysis spell and waste time on that.

Of course I also use rules as arbitration aid. "Roll Edge to determine how nice I'll be to you" is a staple of my Shadowrun games, but "I roll Willpower to see if my character resists this temptation" is a staple of playing for me as well. Is that toolkit usage? Maybe...


I'd put those all as toolkit uses. Because you're invoking rules (or the spirit of the rules in the second case, as there may not be an explicit "resist this temptation" mechanic) as aides to do what you want, rather than letting them define the possible solutions. A RaC use would be to say "there's no rule for non-magical temptations, so I don't do <suboptimal thing> unless I choose to."



Maybe? It certainly feels weird to me to describe it that way though, but maybe those are different ways of getting to the goal?

Maybe I mostly play by "rules to see what happens". Is that rulings? Doesn't feel like it...

The thing I notice, though, is that this discussion, even from my side, has started assuming "rules as the stuff with the dice and the numbers" again. I guess rules of a different kind are rather automatically rules as contract, since they can't really map stuff or be used as tools if they want to retain their "rules" characteristic?
(I am talking about something like AWs Agenda and principles here)

Meta rules (rules about the kinds of rulings you make) often rely on Contractual viewpoints--they're concerned with the player-to-player dynamic which is characteristic of Contracts. They also tend to set binding expectations, which is a Contracts thing to do.


While I think the general categories are fairly solid classifications for the uses of rules, I think the definitions are suffering some from packing too much into them, much of which is unrelated. Believing that the rules should be clear and easily-understood, believing that the GM shouldn't change the rules, and believing that there should be lots and lots of individual rules to cover specific situations, are all very different things, but here they're presented together as a single cohesive viewpoint. Likewise, just because you see the rules as tools to use or not use to set up certain scenarios doesn't necessarily mean you believe the rules themselves should be broad principles; FATE is a system that uses the toolkit viewpoint and broad design principles, but my understanding is that GURPS is every bit as much a toolkit system, but uses a very detailed and specific ruleset. Wanting fidelity between the game rules and the fiction doesn't inherently favor a more modular system design (or a heavily detailed one, or a heavily abstracted one - all three can accomplish the goal in their own ways). And so on.


The intent was to present a basic viewpoint and then priorities and other things that are strongly correlated with that viewpoint. That is, someone who is strongly RaC-minded will generally prioritize clarity and consistency over event-mapping-fidelity if they're in conflict. Someone who is strongly RaT-minded will generally prioritize utility and principles over consistency or fidelity. They're not mutually exclusive, they're more a reflection of a hierarchy of priorities.



So I'd narrow them down to the core principles. Rules as Contract might mean that the rules are there to tell you what you are allowed to do. Rules as Map might mean that the rules are there to clearly define what is happening in the game world. Rules as Toolkit might mean that the rules are there to provide a framework for resolving situations in the game. And then the Rules as Game suggested earlier might mean the rules are there to give players a tactical system to interact with. There may also be others, but those four do seem to cover the most important bits, I think.

But each of these would be distinct from things like how detailed the system is, or how flexible it is, or how much GM adjudication it expects, or so on.

Those are true and useful. I will repeat that I'm looking more at people than at systems here. Because systems, in the end, are just pieces of paper with ink on them.

I'm in 3 different 5e D&D games, 2 as DM and one as a player.

The first (where I DM) runs mostly on rule of cool/funny. It has serious moments, but the people aren't focused on challenge, on mapping fidelity, or other such concerns. They're interested mostly in doing things and seeing what happens. Knocking down a fleeing gnome by throwing a canister of soup at them (soup gets used for a lot). Sweet-talking the boss's dumb lieutenant into attacking his boss to "prove his strength." So I end up stretching the rule-set quite a bit to give them what they want.

The second (also as DM) is a more grounded, lore-heavy, crunchy group. They like more tactical combats and challenge, along with a rich, detailed world. They do like to switch things up quite a bit (talking to the undead and making deals instead of fighting them), so I still have to play fast and loose with some of the more lore-based rules and end up adjudicating actions and making scenarios that are highly unlike most of the core rules. So despite being in the same setting they get a very different game using the same base rules.

The third (as a player) is a printed module run by a new DM (although he's played a bunch). So we stick pretty close to the rules as printed and voluntarily stay near the rails.

All three are very different, all three are fun. All three apply the same rule-set in different ways. I'd pin my attitude in the first as strongly RaT--I pick up the rules to ease my burden for adjudicating the wacky hijinks. Basically mining them for things I can fit into shape to keep the game going. The second is a mix of RaT and RaM--they want strong world/action feedback and the rules are used to hold the structure together. But the rules aren't in charge most of the time (I do have to say "no, hitting someone's head in combat is abstracted in the HP-loss from the attack--it's not an instant-kill" sometimes). The third is pretty strongly RaC, with RaM as secondary.

Pex
2018-05-03, 07:52 AM
Don't most people do that? Drag the rules out when you need them?

I remember one GM who made us roll for everything. Mount your horse, roll riding. Ask directions, roll a social skill. Look down into the valley, roll perception and we failed and missed the huge castle which dominated the landscape....and missed the adventure. So STUPID. This was at a convention, not fun.

???!

What happened the rest of that session block? Did the game end and everyone left the table? Did the DM improvise irrelevant combats until the scheduled time was over?

Rhedyn
2018-05-03, 08:05 AM
I see the rules as tools to build world's and characters.

I don't agree with your toolkit definition because it acts like rules can just be disregarded. If I'm dropping one tool, it's because I'm using another tool instead.


I'm coming at this from a Savage Worlds perspective. Other games I like, like Pathfinder would be more "rules as contract". But I still take the "Rules as tools" approach where I can, but I still follow the rules.

Floret
2018-05-03, 08:10 AM
Those Judgements lead to implementing rulings. To go with the L5R 4th example Floret quoted, for folks coming from the "rules as contract" crowd, it can seem to be quite random how the decision-making process of simply saying "yes" or "roll" happens.

As for the mentioned modules, I really have to wonder why? Roadblock design only works when you accept a "fail state" for the scenario.....

I mean, the question what is "yes" and what is "roll" is an arbitrary one, with no two people consistently giving the same answers. (To be fair, btw, I don't think for a second L5R intended that meaning. It's just what they wrote, probably with a "everyone knows that eating doesn't require a roll" mindset)

As for the modules... I think it is this "there are rules for this, and we do it, so we have to use the rules" mentality. I've seen it outside of modules, too, and seen a bunch of GM advice outlining why it is bad and you shouldn't do it, so it doesn't seem to be such a rare problem?

One example I actually faced as a player (I discuss a lot with the GM about all of it afterwards, he's my roommate, boyfriend and sort of GMing student):

We arrived on an island, to search for a missing boat crew. The adventure expects the group to use tracking to find them - and gives no alternatives. Now given that this is a high-seas campaign and our characters made for it... we couldn't track. The adventure didn't have an answer. (My priest decided talking to the seabirds to ask if they had seen stuff might work, and the GM let it, but the book just assumes one of the PCs will make the roll, but requires it.

Now this is a highly acclaimed (And rightfully so) campaign module, from otherwise experienced authors, and generally pretty good about giving the players freedom of choice in approach. But the mentality of "this is in the rules so we use the rules" is rather pervasive, and when coupled with detailed rules, a potential problem.



Possibly my use of "toolkit" (an overloaded term) was confusing. The bold is my meaning of it. The tool doesn't demand to be wielded; not using the router where a plane might do isn't wrong. The tools are to be used where they're needed in the judgement of the players (including the DM).

It seems to have been. But good to know that I got it right.
My thoughts of a better term seem to come up empty, though, except for the "rules as facilitators" suggestion I had earlier, though I'm sure that has its own problems...




I'd put those all as toolkit uses. Because you're invoking rules (or the spirit of the rules in the second case, as there may not be an explicit "resist this temptation" mechanic) as aides to do what you want, rather than letting them define the possible solutions. A RaC use would be to say "there's no rule for non-magical temptations, so I don't do <suboptimal thing> unless I choose to."

Well the system technically uses the exact skill I did for resisting temptation, but noone called for a roll but me, who didn't want to arbitrate her characters actions - I don't know her exact situation, how shook she is from what just happened, and how enticing the bottle of booze held in her face is for her, there are too many surrounding factors no immersion methods can get me. (Turns out, despite near the highest possible scores, she constantly failed those rolls (dice pool. **** luck.), which made for a far more interesting character than the utterly stoic one she'd have been had I just said "no". ...I suppose this thinking is pretty exactly rules as toolkit^^



Meta rules (rules about the kinds of rulings you make) often rely on Contractual viewpoints--they're concerned with the player-to-player dynamic which is characteristic of Contracts. They also tend to set binding expectations, which is a Contracts thing to do.

That sounds about right and what I was trying to say, but clearer and more eloquent^^



The intent was to present a basic viewpoint and then priorities and other things that are strongly correlated with that viewpoint.

I find it rather interesting that filling out the priorities led to the strong parralels to the threefold model. I am assuming you did not do it intentionally, which leads me to three possible assumptions:
a) there is some interesting truth in that model
b) It has seeped so deep into RPG theorisers thinking that they replicate it automatically, or
c) I am seeing things.

Another point I find interesting in the distinction about people's intent, and the rules themselves, would be the question why certain rules lend themselves better to certain perspectives? For example, it seems relatively irrelevant for a rules as toolkit if the rules are sleek or if you are just ignoring the complicated ones. One might even think that having a wider variety of tools would be useful if one needed one, and unhindering if one just packs them away afterwards. Yet RaT-primary proponents so far have shown a preference for lighter, less varied toolkits. Why is that?

Ofc, if this is a list of priorities, I guess many people might have all of them, but ranked differently, and ignoring rules violates the contract priority; so if there are less rules, you can fullfill both toolkit and contract, and don't have to choose? Does that sound sensible, or am I blabbering nonsense?

Pelle
2018-05-03, 08:26 AM
Another point I find interesting in the distinction about people's intent, and the rules themselves, would be the question why certain rules lend themselves better to certain perspectives? For example, it seems relatively irrelevant for a rules as toolkit if the rules are sleek or if you are just ignoring the complicated ones. One might even think that having a wider variety of tools would be useful if one needed one, and unhindering if one just packs them away afterwards. Yet RaT-primary proponents so far have shown a preference for lighter, less varied toolkits. Why is that?


That's the difference between modular toolkits, still rules as Contracts, and rules as "Toolkits" per PP. The latter don't want thousands of rules for every potential situation, but rather general adjudication methods that can be applied to many different situations.

Pleh
2018-05-03, 08:51 AM
Well, maybe two more?

Rules as Common Ground As big step up from freeform: rules put everyone on the same page. Roll 1d20 to make a DC, for example. You can't change the basic rule: all creatures have hit points, for examples...but you can modify it.

Rules as Suggestions My favorite. They are simply one suggested way of doing things.


Oh, and how about:

Rules are a Strightjacket They are the 800 pound gorilla that forces gamers to do or not do things...no matter if they want too or not. Like when a player won't even speak in character but will just be like ''my character uses his +2 talk ability to talk to the guards. " Or worse, the player that won't even try to open a door, as they don't have the skill: open doors.

Rules as Common Ground: "Contracts are fine as long as no one actually holds me to them."

Rules as Suggestions: "Contracts are better when there aren't actually any at all."

Rules are a Straightjacket: "Contracts are bad and you should feel bad for using them."

What an unexpectedly thorough way to tell us you dislike Rules as Contract.

---

I've been intrigued by the suggested comparison of Rules as Game. My first thought is that Rules as Game seems to have a LOT of overlap with Rules as Contract, because nothing undermines Rules as Game faster or more efficiently than breaking the Contract (aka cheating). The "Game" in most TTRPGs tends to involve Mastering the System and the goal being that you can predict (with accuracy and precision) your character's ability to overcome challenges through various available solutions.

In essence, the Game of TTRPGs tends to boil down to tactical calculation (aka Strategy). The "payoff" to the game comes from verifying that the player has elected a viable strategy. This is why Rules as Contract is sacred to many players seeking Rules as Game; when the rules are altered in reaction to their calculations rather than their calculations adjusted to accommodate the rules, there is no honest evaluation of the effort the player has put into their calculations.

Taking it back to Minecraft (since it's a great example of Rules as Game), the strategy to the game hinges off the element of resource management. Do I continue exploring the winding cave network and maximize my returns on the expedition, or do I play it safe and head back home to secure my current returns before I get lost/run out of food/have an unfortunate encounter with a monster? I'm trying to build this structure in the territory I've claimed for my home base, so how many blocks of X material do I need to build the structure? What's the most efficient method for gathering those materials? How much of my current resources must be expended in obtaining those resources? Do I need to gather OTHER resources first to improve my ability to stockpile the necessary resources for my desired structure (such as gathering iron to make tools to mine gold)?

All of these calculations would be useless if the recipes and formulas were inconsistent (moreover, unpredictable, as even some random chance can be accounted for if the random miss chance is somewhat predictable). Sure, the player might alter their plans or designs, causing them to have to redo some of their calculations, but that was a player choice, not a violation of the Contract.

OTOH, I'm reminded that PP mentioned Calvinball, which is an utterly other form of play that involves virtually no strategy because it is honestly pure improvisation. Calvinball and RPGs like Toon are less an exercise of strategy or computation and more of an exploration of raw creative imagining. Here, strict rule sets can indeed be stifling as DU suggests. This is the Creative Mode of Minecraft. Flying? Sure, that'll probably help speed things up. Invincible? We didn't care about death anyway. Infinite Resources? Go for it.

Calvinball itself almost wraps around the whole spectrum into the territory of Rule-Modding As Game. This isn't even Modded Minecraft, but the sheer game of inventing and writing code for Minecraft Mods.

But I bring all this up because it shows how little Calvinball and Toon have in common with RPGs like D&D. Yes, D&D implies that this creative imagining is meant to be part of the game, but since it exists to an unspecified degree, the default is presumed not to possess any at all (and many people prefer it that way).

I believe the primary reason that TTRPGs have Strategy Focused, Rules as Game relates to Rules as Contract philosophy is stemming from the fact that the modern RPG developed as a branch of Board Games (which are almost universally Strategy based Rules as Contract games). The more a TTRPG separates itself from the Board Game, the less reliant Rules as Game will be with Rules as Contract.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-03, 08:59 AM
That's the difference between modular toolkits, still rules as Contracts, and rules as "Toolkits" per PP. The latter don't want thousands of rules for every potential situation, but rather general adjudication methods that can be applied to many different situations.

Agreed. Darn polysemous language. My internal metaphor for "toolkit" was more like "bench of tools with equipment, but nothing dictating how or when to use each piece". Each individual rule is a tool--some tools work together well but the tool doesn't dictate its use.



I find it rather interesting that filling out the priorities led to the strong parralels to the threefold model. I am assuming you did not do it intentionally, which leads me to three possible assumptions:
a) there is some interesting truth in that model
b) It has seeped so deep into RPG theorisers thinking that they replicate it automatically, or
c) I am seeing things.


Never having actually read the 3-fold model, it wasn't intentional. I think there is some kind of underlying systematics here. How it's presented and sliced-and-diced depends on the use you're going for.



Another point I find interesting in the distinction about people's intent, and the rules themselves, would be the question why certain rules lend themselves better to certain perspectives? For example, it seems relatively irrelevant for a rules as toolkit if the rules are sleek or if you are just ignoring the complicated ones. One might even think that having a wider variety of tools would be useful if one needed one, and unhindering if one just packs them away afterwards. Yet RaT-primary proponents so far have shown a preference for lighter, less varied toolkits. Why is that?


Pelle had a good answer to this, quoted above. "Heavier" (with more specific rules) rule-sets come with an implicit "there's a rule for it, so use that" expectation. And expectations are important. In addition, when you do invoke a rule, a lighter system is easier to alter on the fly without breaking things and just plain easier to use. Often simple tools that can be used in a wide variety of situations are better for me than very powerful, single-use tools. Unless, of course, you need that exact thing a lot. Then it's worth creating a more individualized tool. So having a wide variety of levels of detail (a few very specific ones for things that need that detail and a lot of more general ones) lets you find a tool appropriate to most situations and reduces the load. Cooks have a preference for general tools over unitaskers--things that take up space but are only ever useful for de-pitting olives. Unless you're constantly de-pitting olives...



Ofc, if this is a list of priorities, I guess many people might have all of them, but ranked differently, and ignoring rules violates the contract priority; so if there are less rules, you can fullfill both toolkit and contract, and don't have to choose? Does that sound sensible, or am I blabbering nonsense?

I figure most have all priorities, just ranked differently. If you rate things on a 1-5 scale, normalized so that your highest priority gets assigned a 5, different people might be

"Balanced"
RaC: 5
RaM: 4
RaT: 4

"Lawyer"
RaC: 5
RaM: 1
RaT: 1

"Free-spirit"
RaC: 1
RaM: 1
RaT: 5

"Immersionist"
RaC: 2
RaM: 5
RaT: 2

Or any other linear combination. So yes, I think your comment makes sense in this model.

RazorChain
2018-05-03, 09:20 AM
???!

What happened the rest of that session block? Did the game end and everyone left the table? Did the DM improvise irrelevant combats until the scheduled time was over?

we went down into the valley, stumbled around, killed some of the local fauna out of boredom, made a lot of meaningless skill checks. Went out of the forest and didnt notice the castle AGAIN. But we saw the lake....

Went into the forest, argued with some Pixies who didnt want to tell us where the castle was because we failed our social roll asking for frigging directions. Then we murdered the Pixies for being uppity and I tortured one of them for answers but sadly failed my roll because I didnt have THE torture skill.

Walked out of the forest, didnt notice the Castle so we went to the lake and suddenly found ourselves next to the castle......time was up and the GM explained how unlucky we were failing our perception checks and not noticing the Castle we were looking for.

Pelle
2018-05-03, 09:24 AM
I've been intrigued by the suggested comparison of Rules as Game. My first thought is that Rules as Game seems to have a LOT of overlap with Rules as Contract, because nothing undermines Rules as Game faster or more efficiently than breaking the Contract (aka cheating). The "Game" in most TTRPGs tends to involve Mastering the System and the goal being that you can predict (with accuracy and precision) your character's ability to overcome challenges through various available solutions.


For me, too much focus on RaC can ruin the RaG, if the current level of abstraction in the rules trivializes the decisions made. I like the flexibility to adjust the abstraction level to allow for a better game, be it about tactical combat, logistics in exploration, political intrigue, or deducing answers to mysteries, while still keeping the RaM aspects as high as possible.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-03, 09:44 AM
I've been intrigued by the suggested comparison of Rules as Game. My first thought is that Rules as Game seems to have a LOT of overlap with Rules as Contract, because nothing undermines Rules as Game faster or more efficiently than breaking the Contract (aka cheating). The "Game" in most TTRPGs tends to involve Mastering the System and the goal being that you can predict (with accuracy and precision) your character's ability to overcome challenges through various available solutions.

In essence, the Game of TTRPGs tends to boil down to tactical calculation (aka Strategy). The "payoff" to the game comes from verifying that the player has elected a viable strategy. This is why Rules as Contract is sacred to many players seeking Rules as Game; when the rules are altered in reaction to their calculations rather than their calculations adjusted to accommodate the rules, there is no honest evaluation of the effort the player has put into their calculations.
...
But I bring all this up because it shows how little Calvinball and Toon have in common with RPGs like D&D. Yes, D&D implies that this creative imagining is meant to be part of the game, but since it exists to an unspecified degree, the default is presumed not to possess any at all (and many people prefer it that way).

I believe the primary reason that TTRPGs have Strategy Focused, Rules as Game relates to Rules as Contract philosophy is stemming from the fact that the modern RPG developed as a branch of Board Games (which are almost universally Strategy based Rules as Contract games). The more a TTRPG separates itself from the Board Game, the less reliant Rules as Game will be with Rules as Contract.

I think that for a lot of people, Game == Strategy is a big draw. But it's not an intrinsic part of TTRPGs in general. I posted about 3 different groups I'm in. Only in one is Strategy even a visible part. They play 5e D&D much more for portraying characters in worlds. They're very very character focused--they do wildly sub-optimal things because the character is that type of person. There's little concern for consistency or "following the rules" (especially in one group).

3e (character builds) and 4e (tactical combat) were heavy into that model, which explains why many who grew up in those systems are much RaC oriented, with 3e being heavy RaM in addition and 4e being almost entirely RaC. 5e seems to have gone much more toward promoting RaT, which is (thematically) a reversion to AD&D.

I do agree that board games are almost entirely RaC constructs. The rules of Monopoly have basically no connection to the capitalist economic model it purports to be based on, and there's little tolerance of using the rules only occasionally. If you're not playing by "the rules" (including any house rules, which often are many), you're not playing the game.

I guess that RaT is best exemplified by the commentary on the pirate's creed from Pirates of the Caribbean--"And thirdly, the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules."

Pleh
2018-05-03, 09:50 AM
I think that for a lot of people, Game == Strategy is a big draw. But it's not an intrinsic part of TTRPGs in general. I posted about 3 different groups I'm in. Only in one is Strategy even a visible part. They play 5e D&D much more for portraying characters in worlds. They're very very character focused--they do wildly sub-optimal things because the character is that type of person. There's little concern for consistency or "following the rules" (especially in one group).

3e (character builds) and 4e (tactical combat) were heavy into that model, which explains why many who grew up in those systems are much RaC oriented, with 3e being heavy RaM in addition and 4e being almost entirely RaC. 5e seems to have gone much more toward promoting RaT, which is (thematically) a reversion to AD&D.

I do agree that board games are almost entirely RaC constructs. The rules of Monopoly have basically no connection to the capitalist economic model it purports to be based on, and there's little tolerance of using the rules only occasionally. If you're not playing by "the rules" (including any house rules, which often are many), you're not playing the game.

I guess that RaT is best exemplified by the commentary on the pirate's creed from Pirates of the Caribbean--"And thirdly, the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules."

Here's my question then: is Rules as Game a separate category at all in your mind? While it's been mentioned in the thread, your most recent posts seem to still be trying to map it to one of the three primary categories you started out with. The way you're talking now, it almost feels like you're suggesting that Rules as Game is just a different way of looking at Rules as Contract.

In fact, it almost feels like we're saying, "Rules as Game is to Rules as Contract as Combat as Sport is to Combat as War."

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-03, 10:00 AM
Here's my question then: is Rules as Game a separate category at all in your mind? While it's been mentioned in the thread, your most recent posts seem to still be trying to map it to one of the three primary categories you started out with. The way you're talking now, it almost feels like you're suggesting that Rules as Game is just a different way of looking at Rules as Contract.

In fact, it almost feels like we're saying, "Rules as Game is to Rules as Contract as Combat as Sport is to Combat as War."

I'm not sold on Rules as Game as a viewpoint. I can see it, but it's not as comfortably incorporated.

I think that (as I understand it) RaG is very tightly correlated with a RaC mentality. A certain level of RaC may be a prerequisite to get any non-trivial amount of RaG--without the certainty of the rules being fixed and knowable (and of known application), the "character-creation minigame" (that I most associate with RaG in RPG context) is too undefined. So you'd see things like

RaC: 5
RaG: 4

or RaC: 4
RaG 5

but not

RaC: 1
RaG: 5.

You can have a Contract priority without having strong Game priorities, but not (?) vice versa.

1337 b4k4
2018-05-03, 10:11 AM
So where does the viewpoint that generates something like Fiasco or Skeletons come in? Where the rules are less about what players can or can’t do to interact with the world and more about controlling the pace and beat of the game itself. Is that rules as toolkit or something else? I’m not sure it really falls under rules as contract because you can’t really “break” the contract without pretty much not playing the game at all.

Max_Killjoy
2018-05-03, 10:14 AM
When I first saw the categories, I did wonder where "the game is the thing" / "play the rules, the fluff is just fluff" would fit in -- but as I read the full description of Rules as Contract, it seemed to fit there well enough.

(Having a high "Rules as Map" score myself, I cringe every time someone says "that's just fluff, what are the rules?" or "just slap some different fluff on it, who cares?" or something along those lines.)

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-03, 10:17 AM
So where does the viewpoint that generates something like Fiasco or Skeletons come in? Where the rules are less about what players can or can’t do to interact with the world and more about controlling the pace and beat of the game itself. Is that rules as toolkit or something else? I’m not sure it really falls under rules as contract because you can’t really “break” the contract without pretty much not playing the game at all.

I'm not familiar with those systems enough to tell. They may be edge-cases where the model doesn't really describe them well. I'd never expect the model to cover everything, just a lot of interesting things. I tend to mentally tag rules that mainly affect how the players interact with each other and with the game structure itself as RaG or RaC, but that's a weak link in my mind.

And again, the model is about people primarily and less about systems. You can probably play such a game successfully with any of the mentalities.



When I first saw the categories, I did wonder where "the game is the thing" / "play the rules, the fluff is just fluff" would fit in -- but as I read the full description of Rules as Contract, it seemed to fit there well enough.

(Having a high "Rules as Map" score myself, I cringe every time someone says "that's just fluff, what are the rules?" or "just slap some different fluff on it, who cares?" or something along those lines.)


Absolutely that's RaC. It's almost a defining trait, especially the "fluff is just fluff" part. It's also the biggest point of friction with RaM, where RaT can go either way.

In fact, you could probably find similar "pain points" between each pair of viewpoints.

Pelle
2018-05-03, 10:20 AM
but not

RaC: 1
RaG: 5.

You can have a Contract priority without having strong Game priorities, but not (?) vice versa.

I think I disagree, if I understand all the terms correctly. I rather use RaT to choose which mechanics to invoke to ensure a good game (providing for interesting decisions), than keep to RaC and have a boring game. And for me the game usually exist within the fiction, not in the mechanics themselves.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-03, 10:28 AM
I think I disagree, if I understand all the terms correctly. I rather use RaT to choose which mechanics to invoke to ensure a good game (providing for interesting decisions), than keep to RaC and have a boring game. And for me the game usually exist within the fiction, not in the mechanics themselves.

That wasn't my interpretation of RaG when it was brought up.

I saw it more as "having fun playing the rules" or "seeing what new creations you could build using these rules." More Minecraft meets Barbie dollhouse, less narrative game. A pure "RaG" for 3e D&D might be the TO threads--using the rules to create characters to meet benchmarks with no intention of actually playing them at a table.

All three viewpoints (4 if you include Game) are attempts to answer "what makes a game good," but they come from different foundational axioms and so arrive at very different answers.

"Providing for interesting decisions" is, to me, a RaT-leaning meaning of "good game." A RaM-leaning meaning might be more "providing for accurate representations of the universe" while a RaC-leaning meaning might be "Following the rules/overcoming challenges". I'll leave it to people who are more of those alignments to correct me on those, though.

Thrudd
2018-05-03, 11:32 AM
I think the main issue I have with this is that it comes from an assumption that people only have one type of game they want to play, ever. That's true for some people, but is it enough for this to be a useful model? This is why I go back to associating rules with the results they achieve, the nature of the game in question rather than people's preference for one game or another.

If I'm playing a game that intends to simulate some aspect of living/acting in a fictional world as its primary goal, then I want rules closely mapped to the physical reality of that world. The level of abstraction in such a game's rules must vary depending on the details and to facilitate playability.

If I'm playing a game that intends primarily to emulate a narrative, then the rule structure I want doesn't need to be fully mapped to physical reality but needs to map to the intended genre and narrative structure. It needs room for creating the style and flow of events that would satisfy expectations. This generally means something closer to the "toolkit" style, though there should still be some element of binding contract for fairness and to set expectations. But the rules are more focused on the broad category of "what happens" vs. addressing the details of how it happens as the mapping rules would do.

If I'm playing a strategy/war game, the rules need to be an impartial arbiter that clearly covers every scenario/conflict that could arise in the course of play. So they need to be a "contract" especially, and ideally have some depth of tactical and strategic options to allow player skill to interact in a variety of ways- luck should be a minimized factor vs preparation and position.

So the question isn't what kind of rules do people prefer, but what kind of focus/objective do they want in the game. This determines the presence of and prioritizing of the different rule categories.

If you want a game that does everything at once, you are still going to need to make some compromises that won't totally satisfy someone that only likes one aspect of the game (which I think is probably pretty rare). An RPG generally isn't a strategy war game, so that element is going to be prioritized behind either simulating the physics or simulating narrative, even when there is a tactical element.

I realize this looks like the tripartite division, but these are just three game objectives that come to mind, there could be others: like inter-personal social interaction or improv. I'm not sure what rules best facilitate those as a goal of the RPG, possibly a more "game" focused structure that gives guidelines and rules for when people can speak and what they can say and how sorts of interactions affect the fictional world, like a LARP. But we are talking about table top, so that might be out.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-03, 11:50 AM
Thrudd, my disconnect with that is associating games with objectives. That makes it sound like there is a singular objective for each game. And that, in my experience, is just false for TTRPGs. Each player has a mix of objectives. A mix of priorities. Individual systems can foster one set of objectives more than another, but you can play Barbie Dress-up in 4e D&D, you can play "serious character exploration" in 4e D&D, etc.

And different people can interpret the same rule set in radically different and equally valid ways by starting with different premises, different viewpoints. So talking about systems doesn't get us very far to understanding people.

Pex
2018-05-03, 12:40 PM
That's the difference between modular toolkits, still rules as Contracts, and rules as "Toolkits" per PP. The latter don't want thousands of rules for every potential situation, but rather general adjudication methods that can be applied to many different situations.

That is inaccurate exaggeration for Contract supporters. We don't need a particular number of rules. We need the rules to be concise. Since it is inherent no game can account for every possible instance of everything the rules only need to establish a pattern or examples for players and DMs to extrapolate. Tool kit agrees on the extrapolation but tends not to want patterns or examples because they interfere with their vision.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-03, 12:50 PM
That is inaccurate exaggeration for Contract supporters. We don't need a particular number of rules. We need the rules to be concise. Since it is inherent no game can account for every possible instance of everything the rules only need to establish a pattern or examples for players and DMs to extrapolate. Tool kit agrees on the extrapolation but tends not to want patterns or examples because they interfere with their vision.

That's not entirely true for RaT types either--we do want patterns. We want principles, mostly. What we don't want is an expectation that using different patterns as we feel appropriate is somehow "cheating." That is, to a RaT type, the rules are the servants. They don't say what can be done, they just provide a useful framework for resolving things so we don't have to make one up ourselves.

The big distinction is that RaT cares much less about consistency (especially between tables or between non-identical events).

Pex
2018-05-03, 12:55 PM
When I first saw the categories, I did wonder where "the game is the thing" / "play the rules, the fluff is just fluff" would fit in -- but as I read the full description of Rules as Contract, it seemed to fit there well enough.

(Having a high "Rules as Map" score myself, I cringe every time someone says "that's just fluff, what are the rules?" or "just slap some different fluff on it, who cares?" or something along those lines.)

Out of curiosity, would my hexblade bother you?

Previous campaign I played a cleric of Ra from Mulhorand. His Domain was Light. His philosophy was he brings light to the darkness. This campaign my hexblade is from his congregation in Phandalin. I'm playing a hexblade because I want to play a hexblade (Blade Pact), but I don't want anything to do with the Raven Queen. Raven Queen doesn't exist in our Forgotten Realms. My Pact is with Ra. He's Lawful Good. His fluff is he's shadow's light. He doesn't think of himself as a warlock. He's a warrior of Ra.




Absolutely that's RaC. It's almost a defining trait, especially the "fluff is just fluff" part. It's also the biggest point of friction with RaM, where RaT can go either way.


Case in point. :smallbiggrin:

Thrudd
2018-05-03, 12:58 PM
Thrudd, my disconnect with that is associating games with objectives. That makes it sound like there is a singular objective for each game. And that, in my experience, is just false for TTRPGs. Each player has a mix of objectives. A mix of priorities. Individual systems can foster one set of objectives more than another, but you can play Barbie Dress-up in 4e D&D, you can play "serious character exploration" in 4e D&D, etc.

And different people can interpret the same rule set in radically different and equally valid ways by starting with different premises, different viewpoints. So talking about systems doesn't get us very far to understanding people.

Re 4e D&D: can you, though? I'd argue you can't play serious character exploration or Barbie dress up- at least not within the rules that are actually written. Doing those things basically means not doing anything covered by the rules, which negates this discussion of mapping rules to people. The rules of 4e don't help you to achieve either of those goals. Going free form because the rules don't give any structure to something can't really be said to be a feature of the rule set. So what those people like is that the DM lets them spend time outside the rules, riffing and free form, rather than spending the whole session playing the tactical combat game that the rules of 4e describes. Unless they also like the tactical combat, they don't really like 4e or its rules.

Rules are systems. If you're discussing one you're discussing the other. Trying to figure out what people want based on the type of rules they prefer is the same as asking what systems they prefer. People like certain aspects of playing an RPG, right? You can look at what someone says they like and then determine what sort of rules best do that thing, and from that determine what game systems they'll like the best. That's what this boils down to, isn't it? Is there something deeper I don't see? Trying to psychoanalyze why people like certain things in their games?

These categories really seem to be a measure of how closely one adheres to the rules of any given game, with the assumption being a rules-heavy system like modern D&D, where you have the option of the degree to which RAW is adhered to.

Considering a broader range of RPGs than D&D-likes, what people prefer is generally a function of how well those rules result in the game play doing what someone finds enjoyable. A very light, abstract rules system can be followed to the letter, "contractually", and still result in a lot of freedom to create outcomes and narrative. A very heavy system with specific rules for many physical/fictional actions and scenarios, if followed contractually, will perform differently. You adjust that outcome by choosing to not always follow the rules. If you find that most of the rules of a game aren't being followed most of the time, why are you using that system? It isn't that this is wrongfun, but it seems like there is probably something out there you'd find more fun.

Floret
2018-05-03, 01:24 PM
That's the difference between modular toolkits, still rules as Contracts, and rules as "Toolkits" per PP. The latter don't want thousands of rules for every potential situation, but rather general adjudication methods that can be applied to many different situations.

While not what I meant, after reading Phoenixs answer, possibly what I said. Or meant, but not meant to mean. I am confused right now.


Never having actually read the 3-fold model, it wasn't intentional. I think there is some kind of underlying systematics here. How it's presented and sliced-and-diced depends on the use you're going for.

The threefold is the basis for GNS, and how most people use the GNS terms (But who can blame them, "dramatism" says not at all what it sounds like...). It proposes play preferences (Which isn't necessarily rules preference); of competition, emergent(!) story and simulation (...Oversimplification included).


If you find that most of the rules of a game aren't being followed most of the time, why are you using that system? It isn't that this is wrongfun, but it seems like there is probably something out there you'd find more fun.

This line of thinking is one I've had multiple times, and I've alluded to it in the thread - I would guess the answers to range from "Don't know any better (systems)" (See also how can I play high intrigue in DnD); "Close enough/Don't wanna bother learning something new"; or "Compromise of differing preferences between players".
For me personally, the answer has in at least one case become "I want to finish this campaign, even though I learned of games more fun to me".

I do also agree with Phoenix, while I can't comment on the 4e example, on the genral statement that yes, the same ruleset can be used very differently. I do however also agree certain sets lend themselves better to some playstyles than others - I imagine, since I suspect it partially triggered this discussion(?), that a system like AW, despite its clear insistence that the rules are binding, for all players, tends not to work well for people with a contract mentality. That is, the rules, while a binding contract, have a lot of interpretative space, that might not make it feel like they are?

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-03, 01:25 PM
Re 4e D&D: can you, though? I'd argue you can't play serious character exploration or Barbie dress up- at least not within the rules that are actually written. Doing those things basically means not doing anything covered by the rules, which negates this discussion of mapping rules to people. The rules of 4e don't help you to achieve either of those goals. Going free form because the rules don't give any structure to something can't really be said to be a feature of the rule set. So what those people like is that the DM lets them spend time outside the rules, riffing and free form, rather than spending the whole session playing the tactical combat game that the rules of 4e describes. Unless they also like the tactical combat, they don't really like 4e or its rules.

Rules are systems. If you're discussing one you're discussing the other. Trying to figure out what people want based on the type of rules they prefer is the same as asking what systems they prefer. People like certain aspects of playing an RPG, right? You can look at what someone says they like and then determine what sort of rules best do that thing, and from that determine what game systems they'll like the best. That's what this boils down to, isn't it? Is there something deeper I don't see? Trying to psychoanalyze why people like certain things in their games?

These categories really seem to be a measure of how closely one adheres to the rules of any given game, with the assumption being a rules-heavy system like modern D&D, where you have the option of the degree to which RAW is adhered to.

Considering a broader range of RPGs than D&D-likes, what people prefer is generally a function of how well those rules result in the game play doing what someone finds enjoyable. A very light, abstract rules system can be followed to the letter, "contractually", and still result in a lot of freedom to create outcomes and narrative. A very heavy system with specific rules for many physical/fictional actions and scenarios, if followed contractually, will perform differently. You adjust that outcome by choosing to not always follow the rules. If you find that most of the rules of a game aren't being followed most of the time, why are you using that system? It isn't that this is wrongfun, but it seems like there is probably something out there you'd find more fun.

I've done it. Yes, some of the rules get modified or thrown out, but the core is still there.

I'm really only interested (for the purpose of this model) in how, for any single rule set, different people can read it so very differently. What the rule set is, in particular, is relatively irrelevant. It's about interpretation and the assumptions we make and the priorities we have.

The bold part is a RaC assumption, as I see it. You're assuming that rules are there to be followed, that is, that rules rule. To someone with a RaT mindset like me, that's a nonsense statement. RPG rules are resolution mechanics and patterns, to be used where they're useful. I can go whole sessions, never rolling a single "required" die and still be playing an RPG. To a RaT person, the explicit mechanics aren't really part of the fun directly. They can inhibit fun (by being obtrusive or by breaking immersion), but they aren't really why we play the game. If we could get the same results without rules, we would.

Pelle
2018-05-03, 01:27 PM
That is inaccurate exaggeration for Contract supporters. We don't need a particular number of rules. We need the rules to be concise. Since it is inherent no game can account for every possible instance of everything the rules only need to establish a pattern or examples for players and DMs to extrapolate. Tool kit agrees on the extrapolation but tends not to want patterns or examples because they interfere with their vision.

That wasn't supposed to describe RaC, but rather to explain why "toolkit" tends towards light systems, instead of modular systems where you choose which out of many potential rules should be used for this particular game. RaC can of course play with only a few rules, but that wasn't the point made.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-03, 01:51 PM
Another way of thinking is in terms of what happens when you're adjudicating a situation:

RaC: Is there a rule that covers this? If not, find the best match in the system before looking outside. If there isn't a good one, there's a problem.
RaM: What makes the most sense in the fictional scenario? Is there a rule that produces that outcome? Use it. If not, there's a problem (a dissonance).
RaT: Do I need a rule for this? If so, what rule fits what I want to do best? If the best-fitting rule is still a bad fit, there's a problem.

The mindset is different. The RaC and RaM mindsets always ends up with a rule being applied, but how you choose which rule applies differs (one looks at mechanics first and the other looks at the world first). RaT, on the other hand, doesn't always apply a rule. It treats rules/mechanics as discretionary pieces and selects rules based on desired outcomes, not on mechanical or "system" grounds.

And this is rule-set insensitive--someone playing 4e (which has a strong RaC bent) with a RaT mindset will find themselves using only a small fraction of the rules. To a RaC person, that's a waste. But if that's what people want to play, then...

As a side note--not everyone has the freedom to switch game systems freely. That takes time (and often money), a currency that's in quite short supply for some of us. My groups are committed to 5e D&D (mostly because it does what we want pretty well and is easy to use). In my city there really are only groups for PF and 5e. Anything else is hard to come by. So the "just change systems" idea is a bit patronizing. Yes, that means that some things don't get explored very much (sci-fi, deeply political games, etc), but that's a tradeoff I'm willing to make compared to the time, expense, and annoyance involved in switching systems.

Thrudd
2018-05-03, 02:06 PM
I've done it. Yes, some of the rules get modified or thrown out, but the core is still there.

I'm really only interested (for the purpose of this model) in how, for any single rule set, different people can read it so very differently. What the rule set is, in particular, is relatively irrelevant. It's about interpretation and the assumptions we make and the priorities we have.

The bold part is a RaC assumption, as I see it. You're assuming that rules are there to be followed, that is, that rules rule. To someone with a RaT mindset like me, that's a nonsense statement. RPG rules are resolution mechanics and patterns, to be used where they're useful. I can go whole sessions, never rolling a single "required" die and still be playing an RPG. To a RaT person, the explicit mechanics aren't really part of the fun directly. They can inhibit fun (by being obtrusive or by breaking immersion), but they aren't really why we play the game. If we could get the same results without rules, we would.

Based on this, I'm seeing this "contract" vs "toolkit" comparison, then, as how much freeform does a person want to engage in. To a maximum freeform person, the actual system wouldn't even matter much, would it? Except for conventional tabletop expectations that involve some sort of dice rolling and numbers on a sheet, they'd probably not play with any system at all, or the most basic possible - "assign a target number and roll a die if we can't decide what should happen" for all situations. In D&D, this means not using most of the rules most of the time.

"Contract" then means following the rules to the letter and using an interpretation that anything not described in the rules can't happen in the game - a rather extreme case that probably isn't very common, but does exist. In between these is the "mapping" realm where you interpret things according to what makes sense in the fiction and allow any behavior that makes sense for the fictional world, but still use all the rules as written for the situations where they apply. There is a range within this category of degrees of freeforming or more likely homebrewing to create results that reflect the specific world you want to simulate, since it is likely that the specific system you're stuck with can only satisfactorily simulate a finite range of settings.

If the rules have a large section on combat mechanics and abilities/spells with precise effects, and that most of how a character is described involves the way in which they interact with the combat and magic system, players are generally going to have the expectation that these things are going to be a large part of the game. Why spend so much time generating and thinking about these things, if they compose only a small part of most game sessions? I'd want the GM in such a case to tell players beforehand that they need not worry much about any of those things, and to tell us what mechanical elements will truly be important and in-use throughout the game - IE, don't let people spend hours trying to plan and optimize their 3.5/PF character when the game is mostly only going to be making the occasional skill roll with a low number of combats that will be theater of the mind and cinematic in nature.

Pleh
2018-05-03, 02:29 PM
Based on this, I'm seeing this "contract" vs "toolkit" comparison, then, as how much freeform does a person want to engage in. To a maximum freeform person, the actual system wouldn't even matter much, would it? Except for conventional tabletop expectations that involve some sort of dice rolling and numbers on a sheet, they'd probably not play with any system at all, or the most basic possible - "assign a target number and roll a die if we can't decide what should happen" for all situations. In D&D, this means not using most of the rules most of the time.

It feels like you're stretching PP's principles to only consider their extreme case scenarios, which is usually helpful for determining a formula's limits, but not so great at evaluating its average results.

For me, the difference between RaC and RaT as it has been explained seems to be more a question of where the game's point of contention is being placed. For RaC, there is contention between the players at the table, whether this is a PVP game or a PVE with some mild to strong PC/DM animosity (hopefully of the good sportsmanship variety where there is no actual toxic behavior). At this point, the DM isn't an impartial referee, but the instigator of the challenge and thus the contract must take on the role of the impartial mediator. Players (including the DM) can't be trusted to make rulings over the rules because that kind of authority represents a conflict of interests with regard to their pursuit of victory over the challenge presented to them.

Then RaT places the contention into a more narrative focus of the PCs vs the Encounter. All players at the table are inherently cooperative and on the same team even if they are playing characters in opposition. This is the most visible in encounters where the DM is playing enemy characters, but ultimately is trying to help the players succeed rather than hoping only to give them the utmost fair challenge possible. The DM must play the enemy role as a fiduciary player of the opposing encounter elements, but there is no contention to the game between the desired outcome of the players at the table. Thus the rules themselves become more the antagonist as the DM has to shift to a tone of simply evaluating how well the players fare in overcoming the problems presented by the rules; the players are fighting a stat block more than an enemy DM. In these cases, places where the rules start to produce bizarre and ill fitting responses can be overruled in favor of making them map more accurately to the challenge the DM intended the rules to represent.

Thrudd
2018-05-03, 02:37 PM
It feels like you're stretching PP's principles to only consider their extreme case scenarios, which is usually helpful for determining a formula's limits, but not so great at evaluating its average results.

For me, the difference between RaC and RaT as it has been explained seems to be more a question of where the game's point of contention is being placed. For RaC, there is contention between the players at the table, whether this is a PVP game or a PVE with some mild to strong PC/DM animosity (hopefully of the good sportsmanship variety where there is no actual toxic behavior). At this point, the DM isn't an impartial referee, but the instigator of the challenge and thus the contract must take on the role of the impartial mediator. Players (including the DM) can't be trusted to make rulings over the rules because that kind of authority represents a conflict of interests with regard to their pursuit of victory over the challenge presented to them.

Then RaT places the contention into a more narrative focus of the PCs vs the Encounter. All players at the table are inherently cooperative and on the same team even if they are playing characters in opposition. This is the most visible in encounters where the DM is playing enemy characters, but ultimately is trying to help the players succeed rather than hoping only to give them the utmost fair challenge possible. The DM must play the enemy role as a fiduciary player of the opposing encounter elements, but there is no contention to the game between the desired outcome of the players at the table. Thus the rules themselves become more the antagonist as the DM has to shift to a tone of simply evaluating how well the players fare in overcoming the problems presented by the rules; the players are fighting a stat block more than an enemy DM. In these cases, places where the rules start to produce bizarre and ill fitting responses can be overruled in favor of making them map more accurately to the challenge the DM intended the rules to represent.

Yes, that makes sense. We are really talking about the GM's preferred focus(objectives that I was talking about before). This ends up veering close to narrative/simulation/challenge distinction. What the GM values most along this spectrum will determine how they interpret and use(or don't use) a system's rules- with the caveat that we are in a situation where only one game system (D&D) is available and must be modified to fit preferences.

FreddyNoNose
2018-05-03, 03:02 PM
TTRPG are games. Games have rules.

Beyond that is religion.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-03, 03:06 PM
Yes, that makes sense. We are really talking about the GM's preferred focus(objectives that I was talking about before). This ends up veering close to narrative/simulation/challenge distinction. What the GM values most along this spectrum will determine how they interpret and use(or don't use) a system's rules- with the caveat that we are in a situation where only one game system (D&D) is available and must be modified to fit preferences.

It's not a spectrum. It's three orthogonal axes, each ranging from 0 (unimportant) to MAX (most important). An individual occupies (at any instant) an ordered triplet (C, M, T) in this 3-D (or more if there were more viewpoints) space.

RaC and RaT aren't opposed as a matter of necessity--they're opposed when considering certain questions. RaM isn't in the middle, it's orthogonal.

And it isn't using/not using rules. That's a how it looks from one viewpoint, but not the inherent truth of it. It's how you prioritize certain competing values that have to do with the rules.

That is, whatever you're talking about has very little to do with the model and makes me think that you are reading it through your own biases. For one, I'm not particularly talking about D&D or any other specific system. I use 5e D&D as an example because it's the system I know best. The model is system-agnostic. It's not concerned with the system per se. It's concerned with the people playing the game (or talking about it). In fact, it was prompted by the discussion about AW in another thread. I saw people reading the same quotes and getting very very different impressions out, because they were approaching the concept of "what do the rules do for us" from very different angles. So it made me think "what categories/descriptions best fit the ways to see the role of the rules in a TTRPG?" I remembered reading someone say that, to them, the rules were a contract between players. Max_Killjoy had said that for him, the rules were a map. Neither of those fit with me, so I tried to find another analogy to understand what the rules are for me. The best I could come up with was a toolbox. So I threw it out here as a "what do people think? Does this describe you in a useful way? Are there better-fitting analogies?" sort of way.

And you're trying to take it as a commentary about game design. Which it's not. It's somewhat related, because games are written by people, and people come at things from their (conscious or not) viewpoints. So a game written by someone who's strongly oriented one way will look different than one written by someone oriented differently. Not because of the game's supposed objectives (which for TTRPGs is a very ill-defined concept, I'd contend), but because of the worldview of the writers. That is, they write the supposed objectives because of their worldview; the objectives don't define the worldview. But even that is separate from the question at hand.

People choose systems for many many reasons, only a few of which are actually rule related in my experience. Cost, advertising, network effects, recommendations, genre--these are all much more important than the rules. People don't say "oh, this is a dice-pool system with task resolution! I need it!" (some might, but not the majority). People say "oh, this is what I've heard/read about" or "my friends said this was good" or "I want to play fantasy, what's popular" or something like that. Rule details are for people who have been playing a lot and have built up a collection. They're not the drivers of system or genre choices--they're just ways for "pros" to feel better than those peasants out there who only know D&D.

Thrudd
2018-05-03, 03:49 PM
It's not a spectrum. It's three orthogonal axes, each ranging from 0 (unimportant) to MAX (most important). An individual occupies (at any instant) an ordered triplet (C, M, T) in this 3-D (or more if there were more viewpoints) space.

RaC and RaT aren't opposed as a matter of necessity--they're opposed when considering certain questions. RaM isn't in the middle, it's orthogonal.

And it isn't using/not using rules. That's a how it looks from one viewpoint, but not the inherent truth of it. It's how you prioritize certain competing values that have to do with the rules.

That is, whatever you're talking about has very little to do with the model and makes me think that you are reading it through your own biases. For one, I'm not particularly talking about D&D or any other specific system. I use 5e D&D as an example because it's the system I know best. The model is system-agnostic. It's not concerned with the system per se. It's concerned with the people playing the game (or talking about it). In fact, it was prompted by the discussion about AW in another thread. I saw people reading the same quotes and getting very very different impressions out, because they were approaching the concept of "what do the rules do for us" from very different angles. So it made me think "what categories/descriptions best fit the ways to see the role of the rules in a TTRPG?" I remembered reading someone say that, to them, the rules were a contract between players. Max_Killjoy had said that for him, the rules were a map. Neither of those fit with me, so I tried to find another analogy to understand what the rules are for me. The best I could come up with was a toolbox. So I threw it out here as a "what do people think? Does this describe you in a useful way? Are there better-fitting analogies?" sort of way.

And you're trying to take it as a commentary about game design. Which it's not. It's somewhat related, because games are written by people, and people come at things from their (conscious or not) viewpoints. So a game written by someone who's strongly oriented one way will look different than one written by someone oriented differently. Not because of the game's supposed objectives (which for TTRPGs is a very ill-defined concept, I'd contend), but because of the worldview of the writers. That is, they write the supposed objectives because of their worldview; the objectives don't define the worldview. But even that is separate from the question at hand.

People choose systems for many many reasons, only a few of which are actually rule related in my experience. Cost, advertising, network effects, recommendations, genre--these are all much more important than the rules. People don't say "oh, this is a dice-pool system with task resolution! I need it!" (some might, but not the majority). People say "oh, this is what I've heard/read about" or "my friends said this was good" or "I want to play fantasy, what's popular" or something like that. Rule details are for people who have been playing a lot and have built up a collection. They're not the drivers of system or genre choices--they're just ways for "pros" to feel better than those peasants out there who only know D&D.

I'm sorry if my posts have sounded patronizing of D&D players, it is not meant to be. I just struggle to see how the model holds up for systems significantly divergent from D&D's design (which is a not insignificant subset of table top RPGs).

The idea that one can potentially hold all these categories simulataneously at maximum level of priority would imply to me that such a person would never be satisfied. You can't rearrange the rules to both satisfy a strict contractual rule preference as you describe it and a tool kit preference. What would that look like? They appear to me to be mutually exclusive, and therefore opposite ends of a spectrum. The more you have of one, the less you have of the other. You yourself just called them "competing viewpoints".

It only works if we can define the contractual rule category to include very broad rules that have baked into them narrative leeway, such as found in systems "lighter" than D&D. But that idea seems to have been shot down as being too broad of a definition for "contract".

I still fail to see how this doesn't lead to a discussion of system design and the goals of such, ultimately. How someone sees "rules" depends entirely on what they want out of the RPG. It's an intermediary stage. They don't want rules, they want an experience. Isn't the model meant to lead to the ability to make some kind of decision about the game and how it will be played and designed? Maybe I am jumping the gun and trying to get to the reason for the model and discuss actions taken as a result of the data the model provides. So now we've determined somebody likes level 5 of toolkit, level 3 of contract, and level 5 of mapping. So now what? What does that mean for them and the game they're playing?

Max_Killjoy
2018-05-03, 03:55 PM
Out of curiosity, would my hexblade bother you?

Previous campaign I played a cleric of Ra from Mulhorand. His Domain was Light. His philosophy was he brings light to the darkness. This campaign my hexblade is from his congregation in Phandalin. I'm playing a hexblade because I want to play a hexblade (Blade Pact), but I don't want anything to do with the Raven Queen. Raven Queen doesn't exist in our Forgotten Realms. My Pact is with Ra. He's Lawful Good. His fluff is he's shadow's light. He doesn't think of himself as a warlock. He's a warrior of Ra.


Honestly, that sounds like a combination of all three from PP's list.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-03, 04:06 PM
I'm sorry if my posts have sounded patronizing of D&D players, it is not meant to be. I just struggle to see how the model holds up for systems significantly divergent from D&D's design (which is a not insignificant subset of table top RPGs).

The idea that one can potentially hold all these categories simulataneously at maximum level of priority would imply to me that such a person would never be satisfied. You can't rearrange the rules to both satisfy a strict contractual rule preference as you describe it and a tool kit preference. What would that look like? They appear to me to be mutually exclusive, and therefore opposite ends of a spectrum. The more you have of one, the less you have of the other. You yourself just called them "competing viewpoints".

It only works if we can define the contractual rule category to include very broad rules that have baked into them narrative leeway, such as found in systems "lighter" than D&D. But that idea seems to have been shot down as being too broad of a definition for "contract".

I still fail to see how this doesn't lead to a discussion of system design and the goals of such, ultimately. How someone sees "rules" depends entirely on what they want out of the RPG. It's an intermediary stage. They don't want rules, they want an experience. Isn't the model meant to lead to the ability to make some kind of decision about the game and how it will be played and designed? Maybe I am jumping the gun and trying to get to the reason for the model and discuss actions taken as a result of the data the model provides. So now we've determined somebody likes level 5 of toolkit, level 3 of contract, and level 5 of mapping. So now what? What does that mean for them and the game they're playing?

They're not fully orthogonal, true. But they're not linearly opposed either. And yes, you can have people who can't be satisfied because they have mutually-incompatible priorities. Knowing that, they'll have to make a choice of what's important to them. Without knowing that it's these specific criteria that are in conflict, they'll blame the game or the other players, neither of which is at fault.

And no, it doesn't depend on what you want out of the game, as I've tried to say a bunch of times. The attitudes pre-exist the game and shape what you want to get out of things, not the other way around.

As to what does it get you, it helps people talk to each other and solve arguments about rules in ways that make sense to both parties. It lets them see where the other person is coming from so that there's a chance of agreement.

Let's take me and as an example. I'd put myself (on a scale of 1-5, higher is more important) at about C = 2, M = 3, T = 5. That means that when someone says "That rule's bad because it's vague," my response is "so what? As long as it has a (at least one) clear meaning I'm good. The more meanings the merrier" (because I can pick and choose which works best in a particular case). When someone says "That rule is causes setting dysfunction X", now I'm more interested. I may still be willing to ignore it if the rule brings flexibility and utility. That is, lack of rules clarity only motivates me in extreme circumstances (no reasonable meanings), so arguments based on that will fail in the vast majority of cases. Arguments from setting "fit" (mapping) are better, but can easily be overridden by operational concerns or by other things I value more. Arguments from practicality, arguments from flexibility, arguments from rule-transparency (does it get out of my way when I'm not using that feature/mechanic/etc?) are much more likely to be effective.

Compared that to someone like Pex, who is much higher on the C scale (and, from what I've seen, much lower on T). Arguments that are persuasive to me by default are counterproductive to him. So if I want to talk to him and get anywhere other than flame-wars, I need to phrase my points very differently.

The same goes for at the table. Arguing "but RAW says" to someone with low C valence is meaningless. They just don't care about that, so those arguments aren't persuasive. It's a framework for understanding people and understanding how to talk to people about rules, rather than about rules themselves. The actual content of the rules is relatively irrelevant here.

Pleh
2018-05-03, 04:46 PM
It's not a spectrum. It's three orthogonal axes, each ranging from 0 (unimportant) to MAX (most important). An individual occupies (at any instant) an ordered triplet (C, M, T) in this 3-D (or more if there were more viewpoints) space.

RaC and RaT aren't opposed as a matter of necessity--they're opposed when considering certain questions. RaM isn't in the middle, it's orthogonal.

I don't want to oversimplify your point, but I'm getting a little stuck on this mathematical graphing metaphor.

Being orthogonal doesn't mean the subject doesn't exist on a spectrum. What I think you mean is they do not collectively constitute a one dimensional spectrum as if any one is the polar opposite of the other.

You could have a three dimensional color pallet using primary colors as your axes and represent the color spectrum with three dimensions based on the various combinations of the three primary colors. They can be perfectly orthogonal and it can still be a spectrum.

I would just skip past this part to your more primary points except my brain just strains really hard to contextualize your point until I've fixed the metaphor we're elaborating.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-03, 05:26 PM
I don't want to oversimplify your point, but I'm getting a little stuck on this mathematical graphing metaphor.

Being orthogonal doesn't mean the subject doesn't exist on a spectrum. What I think you mean is they do not collectively constitute a one dimensional spectrum as if any one is the polar opposite of the other.



True. I should have said that they're a set of basis functions. I've thought in the metaphor of the RGB color basis myself. If that works better, go with that. And even if they're not orthogonal, they're still a useful basis to parameterize the space, IMO.

Thrudd
2018-05-03, 06:32 PM
They're not fully orthogonal, true. But they're not linearly opposed either. And yes, you can have people who can't be satisfied because they have mutually-incompatible priorities. Knowing that, they'll have to make a choice of what's important to them. Without knowing that it's these specific criteria that are in conflict, they'll blame the game or the other players, neither of which is at fault.

And no, it doesn't depend on what you want out of the game, as I've tried to say a bunch of times. The attitudes pre-exist the game and shape what you want to get out of things, not the other way around.

As to what does it get you, it helps people talk to each other and solve arguments about rules in ways that make sense to both parties. It lets them see where the other person is coming from so that there's a chance of agreement.

Let's take me and as an example. I'd put myself (on a scale of 1-5, higher is more important) at about C = 2, M = 3, T = 5. That means that when someone says "That rule's bad because it's vague," my response is "so what? As long as it has a (at least one) clear meaning I'm good. The more meanings the merrier" (because I can pick and choose which works best in a particular case). When someone says "That rule is causes setting dysfunction X", now I'm more interested. I may still be willing to ignore it if the rule brings flexibility and utility. That is, lack of rules clarity only motivates me in extreme circumstances (no reasonable meanings), so arguments based on that will fail in the vast majority of cases. Arguments from setting "fit" (mapping) are better, but can easily be overridden by operational concerns or by other things I value more. Arguments from practicality, arguments from flexibility, arguments from rule-transparency (does it get out of my way when I'm not using that feature/mechanic/etc?) are much more likely to be effective.

Compared that to someone like Pex, who is much higher on the C scale (and, from what I've seen, much lower on T). Arguments that are persuasive to me by default are counterproductive to him. So if I want to talk to him and get anywhere other than flame-wars, I need to phrase my points very differently.

The same goes for at the table. Arguing "but RAW says" to someone with low C valence is meaningless. They just don't care about that, so those arguments aren't persuasive. It's a framework for understanding people and understanding how to talk to people about rules, rather than about rules themselves. The actual content of the rules is relatively irrelevant here.

Won't any discussion of rules between people ultimately hinge on what specific effect on the game the rule is meant to be having? And this is going to come down to what it is you think the rules should be doing rather than what sort of rule it is. So someone isn't just going to be arguing "this rule is vague" - it's going to be a specific scenario, and how you choose to apply the rules depends on what you think the rules are supposed to do rather than what form of rules you prefer. The content of the rule is always going to be relevant for that, isn't it?

"But RAW says" is usually going to be a discussion either of "actually, I think RAW can be interpreted differently than that" or "I'm house ruling that, and the rule for this situation is now X."

Or, you have a discussion before the game to head off all arguments, saying "I do not follow RAW, I will decide when to apply rules or make rulings for each scenario independently." The only debate then is going to be "your ruling doesn't match what I would expect to happen in this scenario" or "I disagree with how you're running the game and I wish you'd follow the RAW more closely."

How a high-contract value player will feel in that game is sort of irrelevant, unless you're willing to actually change how you run the game to make them happier. If a group is high on the C-scale, should that result in the GM choosing to run a game close to RAW for them? Or pick a system that has the type of rules they like? How would you talk to them to make them accept or understand the "toolbox" approach to the game, that is different from how you'd talk to someone else? Or is this just a way to label people, or for them to label themselves, so we know who would be a good fit for which game?

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-03, 06:55 PM
Won't any discussion of rules between people ultimately hinge on what specific effect on the game the rule is meant to be having? And this is going to come down to what it is you think the rules should be doing rather than what sort of rule it is. So someone isn't just going to be arguing "this rule is vague" - it's going to be a specific scenario, and how you choose to apply the rules depends on what you think the rules are supposed to do rather than what form of rules you prefer. The content of the rule is always going to be relevant for that, isn't it?


Not really, actually. I've mostly seen arguments (both here and in game) that boil down to "I don't like how this is approached." And those aren't very fact-bound at all--they're discussions about tone and about philosophy of the rules, not the actual rules. The rules themselves are a avenue to make the case, not the case itself. And regardless of what the rule or problem really is, disputes with it are going to be better couched in language that matches the listener's priorities. That's almost a truism.



"But RAW says" is usually going to be a discussion either of "actually, I think RAW can be interpreted differently than that" or "I'm house ruling that, and the rule for this situation is now X."

Or, you have a discussion before the game to head off all arguments, saying "I do not follow RAW, I will decide when to apply rules or make rulings for each scenario independently." The only debate then is going to be "your ruling doesn't match what I would expect to happen in this scenario" or "I disagree with how you're running the game and I wish you'd follow the RAW more closely."

How a high-contract value player will feel in that game is sort of irrelevant, unless you're willing to actually change how you run the game to make them happier. If a group is high on the C-scale, should that result in the GM choosing to run a game close to RAW for them? Or pick a system that has the type of rules they like? How would you talk to them to make them accept or understand the "toolbox" approach to the game, that is different from how you'd talk to someone else? Or is this just a way to label people, or for them to label themselves, so we know who would be a good fit for which game?

If I have a group of high-contract players, then I need to change how I DM by being clearer and more upfront about my mechanical decisions (and explaining the rules behind them and my reasoning) and pointing out explicit rules more frequently. Even that "illusion" of consistency is often enough to bridge the gap even if the actual mechanical choices don't change. Simply by being willing to compromise and understand their viewpoint, I've defanged the problem even if I don't agree. If, on the other hand, I have a group of high-map players, I need to spend extra care and attention making sure the resolutions fit the world and the ongoing events more carefully. A high-toolkit group is easiest, as that's my natural position. And if there's a mix and no one's willing to compromise, I need to decide if I want to run that game at all and I'll know that we need to carefully hammer out these issues before we begin (and throughout the game). Understanding the rough basis functions for viewpoints is a way to remove my own ego from the problem--it's a way to see things from other perspectives and figure out what will work for everyone. It's interpersonal optimization. Some people can do it instinctively, I need conscious models.

I do this by instinct/trial-and-error every year--I run one or two school-club groups of 5e D&D. The system is fixed (by the resources I have available and the time I can afford to put into it). These are mostly new players and, critically, they're sorted into groups based on which day after school works best for their schedule. Groups generally don't continue campaigns between school years (this year might be an exception), although usually people come back for the new year. So I have to adapt my DM style to the group in a way that I wouldn't have to for a more hand-picked group. So having a mental framework to pick up and adapt my wording, descriptions, and explanations helps a lot. I have one group (with two boys that are both strong-willed and literal-minded) that I have to run much more RaC/RaM to keep them interested and playing along. The other I play much more RaT--that one's heavily rule of cool/rule of funny. I had a group last year that was heavily mixed--two RaT types, one mixed RaT/RaM, a RaC, and a couple wild-cards. That one had much more friction because they would react to the same rule application in very different ways.

Pex
2018-05-03, 07:06 PM
I've done it. Yes, some of the rules get modified or thrown out, but the core is still there.

I'm really only interested (for the purpose of this model) in how, for any single rule set, different people can read it so very differently. What the rule set is, in particular, is relatively irrelevant. It's about interpretation and the assumptions we make and the priorities we have.

The bold part is a RaC assumption, as I see it. You're assuming that rules are there to be followed, that is, that rules rule. To someone with a RaT mindset like me, that's a nonsense statement. RPG rules are resolution mechanics and patterns, to be used where they're useful. I can go whole sessions, never rolling a single "required" die and still be playing an RPG. To a RaT person, the explicit mechanics aren't really part of the fun directly. They can inhibit fun (by being obtrusive or by breaking immersion), but they aren't really why we play the game. If we could get the same results without rules, we would.

With the caveat that a published game rule book is not the Bible. I'm ok with the concept of a DM setting parameters - house rules, splat books not used, ignore this section of the rules, etc. If I don't like the result I don't play, and I'm always open to giving feedback if asked allowing for the DM to change his mind. Once the set-up is made, yes, I want the rules followed. Rule of Cool and Rule of Fun can still happen. The situation could demand it, but everyone knows, understands, and accepts it's the exception suitable for that moment.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-03, 07:12 PM
With the caveat that a published game rule book is not the Bible. I'm ok with the concept of a DM setting parameters - house rules, splat books not used, ignore this section of the rules, etc. If I don't like the result I don't play, and I'm always open to giving feedback if asked allowing for the DM to change his mind. Once the set-up is made, yes, I want the rules followed. Rule of Cool and Rule of Fun can still happen. The situation could demand it, but everyone knows, understands, and accepts it's the exception suitable for that moment.

And this is the clearest Rules as Contract description I've seen. Once the rules are set, they're inviolate and "in charge" until the table decides to change them (after open and explicit negotiation).

And that's something I can understand (intellectually). In real life (not in game), I'm very much like that. I like knowing what the rules are and that everyone's following them (even when I don't really care what the rules specifically are). For some reason, I don't feel that way nearly as much about TTRPG rules. There's something different about them. I'm not completely opposed to a contract mentality--I do like to know what variant rules (are we doing encumbrance?) before I build the character. But variation between tables and variation in play just don't bug me very much because other concerns are paramount.

erikun
2018-05-03, 08:08 PM
I will repeat that I'm looking more at people than at systems here. Because systems, in the end, are just pieces of paper with ink on them.
I will admit that I'm a bit confused by this point. I mean, I understand what you are saying: You're saying that different people can, and will, use the same ruleset in different ways. Thus, the rules presented in the ruleset are a lot less important than how people use them. However, I'm not quite sure that's true - there's a huge difference between trying to use a system like D&D for complex social encounters and trying to use a system like WoD, Burning Wheel, or Fate. Sure, one group could use them all in the same manner (probably very like with the occasional simple roll for resolving conflicts) but there are also going to be situations and gameplay styles which are possible in the other three which simply cannot be done in D&D's simple system of one social stat and perhaps three skills.

Plus, I am even more confused by what exactly you are asking here. If you want to know what I prefer to have in a system, then that's the same as asking what kind of system I prefer - it's asking about the system ruleset, despite the quote above. If you're asking about what I play, then it largely depends on the system. All systems are going to be imperfect by some degree, and the point of sitting down to a RPG session isn't typically to attempt to perfect the game system - it is to create an imaginative session between the players and use the rules of the game to produce that, as best they can.

If you want my opinions on the role of a game system, then see below. I don't think it fits well into your categories, though.
I view that the point of a game system is twofold: it should be able to interpret anything a player wishes to do into a game mechanic that can be tested for success (however that is defined) and it should be able to produce a meaningful result from that test. Ideally, anyways, since no system is likely to cover everything perfectly. And preferably it should be done without requiring encyclopedic knowledge of several dozen books to do so.

By that, I mean that anything which happens in a game which the players might question how it works should have a method of interpreting it in the game system. Sometimes this is obvious so a ruling wouldn't be needed (can I breathe underwater?), sometimes this is naturally so abstract or complex that the game system is the only method of getting a proper understanding of what is happening (if I cast a fireball at the troops gathered in the barracks, what happens?). Sometimes it is a bordercase where some might understand, some might not, or some might misunderstand. In any case, there should be a method of taking the action as stated by the player, and turning it into a game mechanic that the system can produce a result.

And for the other half, it means that there should be some test - typically a roll - which produces a clear outcome that the players can understand. That can be an abstract outcome, like "five levels of damage dealt", but it should produce something understandable. A good system should give players an idea of what happened, either through success/failure or degress of success (or both) providing an interpretation. Something as vague as a general "success" isn't terribly helpful. Something as vague as "ten points of slashing damage" when it's unclear what slashing damage would do to a particular target turns out just as unhelpful as well.

I find that the Rules-as-Contracts doesn't work well at describing this system method, because while having unambiguous rules would be an ideal, realistically there will need to be interpretations and decisions based on what mechanics apply in what situations. This isn't something which should be avoided - in fact, trying to do so would limit a system's ability to have an answer for a situation which might come up. I don't find the Rules-as-Maps to be fully valid either, because general mechanics like "attacking with a fireball" or "convincing a target of something" are fairly vague rules which can apply in a lot of situations, but also mean that they can be applied to a lot of situations outside just the expected fireballs in combat or convincing somebody of a lie. And Rules-as-Toolkits doesn't seem to apply because the point of the rules is not to be ignored. Indeed, if the rules are specifically telling the player to not use the rules, then I'd say that's a fault of the ruleset that is attempting to hide itself. (Rules advice recommending not using the rules in certain situations where they really aren't relevant is fine. That's general playing advice. But rules recommending you avoid the rules to avoid odd situations, like D&D's "Taking 10" rule, is just a patch over a fault in the system.) Rules should be useful when a player wishes to use them and shouldn't interfere when they don't. But a ruleset should not be telling a player not to use a ruleset, because at that point, there's a problem since the reason they wanted to use the ruleset at that point is to resolve the issue in the first place.


As an aside, the second most important thing a ruleset should provide is a method of taking an idea and interpreting it into the ruleset mechanics. Because the real purpose of a RPG - the thing that makes it stand out from a board game or a video game - is the ability of the player to take an idea in their head and apply it to the game. Board games, video games, and similar other media force players to only use the options already available in the game. So a system should allow, or at least allow as much as possible, the ability of a player (GM or no) to apply their ideas into the game in a meaningful way, through the system mechanics. Which I guess is sort of what I said above, if you'd consider player actions during a game as "allowing the player to apply their ideas into the game."


So yeah. Opinions.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-03, 08:28 PM
I will admit that I'm a bit confused by this point. I mean, I understand what you are saying: You're saying that different people can, and will, use the same ruleset in different ways. Thus, the rules presented in the ruleset are a lot less important than how people use them. However, I'm not quite sure that's true - there's a huge difference between trying to use a system like D&D for complex social encounters and trying to use a system like WoD, Burning Wheel, or Fate. Sure, one group could use them all in the same manner (probably very like with the occasional simple roll for resolving conflicts) but there are also going to be situations and gameplay styles which are possible in the other three which simply cannot be done in D&D's simple system of one social stat and perhaps three skills.

Plus, I am even more confused by what exactly you are asking here. If you want to know what I prefer to have in a system, then that's the same as asking what kind of system I prefer - it's asking about the system ruleset, despite the quote above. If you're asking about what I play, then it largely depends on the system. All systems are going to be imperfect by some degree, and the point of sitting down to a RPG session isn't typically to attempt to perfect the game system - it is to create an imaginative session between the players and use the rules of the game to produce that, as best they can.

If you want my opinions on the role of a game system, then see below. I don't think it fits well into your categories, though.
I view that the point of a game system is twofold: it should be able to interpret anything a player wishes to do into a game mechanic that can be tested for success (however that is defined) and it should be able to produce a meaningful result from that test. Ideally, anyways, since no system is likely to cover everything perfectly. And preferably it should be done without requiring encyclopedic knowledge of several dozen books to do so.

By that, I mean that anything which happens in a game which the players might question how it works should have a method of interpreting it in the game system. Sometimes this is obvious so a ruling wouldn't be needed (can I breathe underwater?), sometimes this is naturally so abstract or complex that the game system is the only method of getting a proper understanding of what is happening (if I cast a fireball at the troops gathered in the barracks, what happens?). Sometimes it is a bordercase where some might understand, some might not, or some might misunderstand. In any case, there should be a method of taking the action as stated by the player, and turning it into a game mechanic that the system can produce a result.

And for the other half, it means that there should be some test - typically a roll - which produces a clear outcome that the players can understand. That can be an abstract outcome, like "five levels of damage dealt", but it should produce something understandable. A good system should give players an idea of what happened, either through success/failure or degress of success (or both) providing an interpretation. Something as vague as a general "success" isn't terribly helpful. Something as vague as "ten points of slashing damage" when it's unclear what slashing damage would do to a particular target turns out just as unhelpful as well.

I find that the Rules-as-Contracts doesn't work well at describing this system method, because while having unambiguous rules would be an ideal, realistically there will need to be interpretations and decisions based on what mechanics apply in what situations. This isn't something which should be avoided - in fact, trying to do so would limit a system's ability to have an answer for a situation which might come up. I don't find the Rules-as-Maps to be fully valid either, because general mechanics like "attacking with a fireball" or "convincing a target of something" are fairly vague rules which can apply in a lot of situations, but also mean that they can be applied to a lot of situations outside just the expected fireballs in combat or convincing somebody of a lie. And Rules-as-Toolkits doesn't seem to apply because the point of the rules is not to be ignored. Indeed, if the rules are specifically telling the player to not use the rules, then I'd say that's a fault of the ruleset that is attempting to hide itself. (Rules advice recommending not using the rules in certain situations where they really aren't relevant is fine. That's general playing advice. But rules recommending you avoid the rules to avoid odd situations, like D&D's "Taking 10" rule, is just a patch over a fault in the system.) Rules should be useful when a player wishes to use them and shouldn't interfere when they don't. But a ruleset should not be telling a player not to use a ruleset, because at that point, there's a problem since the reason they wanted to use the ruleset at that point is to resolve the issue in the first place.


As an aside, the second most important thing a ruleset should provide is a method of taking an idea and interpreting it into the ruleset mechanics. Because the real purpose of a RPG - the thing that makes it stand out from a board game or a video game - is the ability of the player to take an idea in their head and apply it to the game. Board games, video games, and similar other media force players to only use the options already available in the game. So a system should allow, or at least allow as much as possible, the ability of a player (GM or no) to apply their ideas into the game in a meaningful way, through the system mechanics. Which I guess is sort of what I said above, if you'd consider player actions during a game as "allowing the player to apply their ideas into the game."


So yeah. Opinions.

The idea is to think about how people approach rules, independent of the rules themselves. Why do some people react with utter hostility to a high-detail rule-set? It's not something inherent in the rules, because otherwise people would react similarly. It's something pre-existing in the person. How does that translate into priorities and predilections? How can I learn to talk a language that they understand and reach common ground with them? Because if I assume that everyone is like me (pro-tip--they aren't) I won't get very far. Been there, tried that, failed. For me, thinking through a model of human interactions and human mind-sets is important to learn what really motivates them. And in my experience, the motivations exist independent of the games they play. People who prioritize concrete rules and think of RPG rules as laws to be obeyed gravitate toward systems produced with this in mind. And so on for other possible priority sets. The world-view comes first, the games come later.

You sound, to translate, like someone who's relatively mixed. And that's normal. There won't be a single descriptor for lots of people--there will be a combination of viewpoints that may even change based on the group (and possibly the system).

But the idea that "rules shouldn't tell you not to use them" doesn't fit well with me (since it's, to use my terminology, a very Rules as Contracts-grounded argument)--each rule-set is inherently incomplete. Rule-sets that acknowledge that and teach principles for when to get the mechanics involved seem to me to be much more capable of "taking an idea and implementing it". You don't need a bunch of rules to tell you to do things that you'd do anyway. You need rules to handle the heavy lifting for things that need precise resolution. And that's my Toolkit viewpoint talking--the idea that the rules aren't a translation layer. The GM is the translation layer, and the GM may use rules as tools, just as a carpenter uses a hammer sometimes and doesn't at other times. Knowing when not to use the rules is as important as knowing how to apply them.

1337 b4k4
2018-05-03, 09:52 PM
True. I should have said that they're a set of basis functions. I've thought in the metaphor of the RGB color basis myself. If that works better, go with that. And even if they're not orthogonal, they're still a useful basis to parameterize the space, IMO.

I linked it earlier in the thread, but basically you want people to plot themselves on a spider or radar chart (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_chart)

Florian
2018-05-04, 02:19 AM
Won't any discussion of rules between people ultimately hinge on what specific effect on the game the rule is meant to be having? And this is going to come down to what it is you think the rules should be doing rather than what sort of rule it is. So someone isn't just going to be arguing "this rule is vague" - it's going to be a specific scenario, and how you choose to apply the rules depends on what you think the rules are supposed to do rather than what form of rules you prefer. The content of the rule is always going to be relevant for that, isn't it?

Look over at the "climb a tree"-discussion to see that the approach is more important than the rule.
1) There is a climb skill, there is a tree, both are different rules entities, let's look how they interact.
2) The climb skill includes the tree, it is only one entity that interacts by itself.
3) There's an universal task resolution system that will generate either "yes" or "yes, but", no matter the task or involved objects.
4) I don´t care. Let´s say you just climb that damn tree.

Pelle
2018-05-04, 04:30 AM
Just a small observation based on an earlier thread, on how the different combinations of priorities can be expressed.

For people high on RaM and RaC, the rules seems to define the setting and fiction. For example NPCs can only possibly be created by the PC creation rules, because these rules map the fiction.

For people high on RaM and RaT, the rules can be adjusted or invoked to better fit the setting and fiction. For example if an NPC should have certain stats according to the fiction, it just has those stats even if it is not a possibility within the PC creation rules.

Seems plausible, or am I misrepresenting?

Knaight
2018-05-04, 04:51 AM
Just a small observation based on an earlier thread, on how the different combinations of priorities can be expressed.

For people high on RaM and RaC, the rules seems to define the setting and fiction. For example NPCs can only possibly be created by the PC creation rules, because these rules map the fiction.

For people high on RaM and RaT, the rules can be adjusted or invoked to better fit the setting and fiction. For example if an NPC should have certain stats according to the fiction, it just has those stats even if it is not a possibility within the PC creation rules.

Seems plausible, or am I misrepresenting?

This definitely sounds plausible. The idea that NPCs should be generated according to specific rules is very much a RaC view point, and the idea that this should mirror PC generation tends to come from RaC views on fairness. Meanwhile for people with low RaC there's basically no value in that, and with high RaT it's just hobbling your tools available to a frustrating set that you probably outright dislike.

Meanwhile with high RaM the tie to the fiction gets brought in, fitting either of those cases.

Of course, over fitting the data to a model is always a very real possibility. Still, this seems to explain a lot of the forum debates here, particularly when you consider the quirks of who this site attracts, where almost everyone is high RaM, and there's about a 90-10 split between RaC and RaT, with some blurriness around the neither and both groups. Some of this is specific forum culture, some of it is that while these are independent variables there seems to be a pretty strong negative correlation between the RaC and RaT philosophies.

Floret
2018-05-04, 05:58 AM
Some of this is specific forum culture, some of it is that while these are independent variables there seems to be a pretty strong negative correlation between the RaC and RaT philosophies.

I'm not sure about that, not precisely. The fact that I personally care relatively little about rules as map (I mean, FATE Accelerated is a bit disconnected for me; but AWs fixed difficulty just feels great for letting me skip making up TN, and I see no issue with its lack of versimilitude...) is probably of secondary issue, but I feel surprisingly strongly about elements of both others.

Now, if the rules don't do what I want I tend to default to ignoring them, but I do prefer in keeping with them. I want the rules to facilitate the game, not enslave it, but for that to happen they kinda need to be used, and being able to have a shared base of expectations is a rather good basis for trying things.
But if someone points out something should be possible in the rules I tend to find a way to make it fit, not deny it. (So, RaT over RaC, and definitely both over RaM)

So from my experience I have to disagree that there is a negative correlation between tools and contract in general. Ultimately there might be situations where you have to choose - unless in a rulesystem which intervenes exactly when intuition calls for tool use, and only then - but a) I think someone who values both will probably strive for that, and b) that is where the higher priority shines. After all, these are not absolutes.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-04, 06:15 AM
I think that the apparent opposition between RaC and RaT shows up most when we mistake the subset (those rules that give resolution mechanics) for the superset (all rules). RaT tends to care most about mechanical flexibility while being much more ok with concrete interpersonal rules.

Consider a proposed rule:


One or more players will bring enough snacks for each session.

I think that both RaC and RaT can agree that this rule is inherently contractual in nature and should absolutely be followed to the letter.

More seriously (can you get more serious than snacks?), certain situations expose the fault-lines between the worldviews. What if a mechanic, if followed exactly, breaks the setting? RaM says "find a better mechanic, that one's busted." RaC says "find a better setting, that one's busted." RaM and RaT disagree when there's a tradeoff between fidelity and flexibility--yes, there is a better chance of drowning if you're wearing heavy armor. But it's not worth (says the RaT proponent) dealing with because it's not an interesting consequence. The RaM proponent may feel a bit queasy there.

RaC and RaT agree in the main about meta-rules (things like AW's "this is how the game works and has to be GM'd" policies), as I see it.

And @Knaight & @Pelle--I agree about NPC creation. That's a clear dividing line for people who are heavy one way or another.

@1337 b4k4: I've never liked spider/radar plots on pure aesthetic grounds, but yes, that's a good way of showing it.

Pex
2018-05-04, 07:47 AM
This definitely sounds plausible. The idea that NPCs should be generated according to specific rules is very much a RaC view point, and the idea that this should mirror PC generation tends to come from RaC views on fairness. Meanwhile for people with low RaC there's basically no value in that, and with high RaT it's just hobbling your tools available to a frustrating set that you probably outright dislike.

Meanwhile with high RaM the tie to the fiction gets brought in, fitting either of those cases.

Of course, over fitting the data to a model is always a very real possibility. Still, this seems to explain a lot of the forum debates here, particularly when you consider the quirks of who this site attracts, where almost everyone is high RaM, and there's about a 90-10 split between RaC and RaT, with some blurriness around the neither and both groups. Some of this is specific forum culture, some of it is that while these are independent variables there seems to be a pretty strong negative correlation between the RaC and RaT philosophies.

I used to think that, but I eventually accepted NPCs can be built differently. I had to to avoid my own hypocrisy. Running a Pathfinder game I created adversaries with a combination of abilities I thought were fun to interact with. Pathfinder NPCs are created using the same rules as PCs. It was a good challenge for the party, and they defeated them well. Looking things over after the game I realized my NPC builds were illegal. I had given them a feat they didn't qualify for. Making that mistake bugged me, but my idea was so cool however biased I am about it. It was then I learned as a player I had to place more trust in a DM than I was that whatever bad guy abilities I face the DM is being fair about it accepting the occasional Honest True mistake because no one is perfect. If a DM is going to be the bad tyrannical killer DM I despise, following the rules in creating the bad guys doesn't make it better.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-04, 08:08 AM
I used to think that, but I eventually accepted NPCs can be built differently. I had to to avoid my own hypocrisy. Running a Pathfinder game I created adversaries with a combination of abilities I thought were fun to interact with. Pathfinder NPCs are created using the same rules as PCs. It was a good challenge for the party, and they defeated them well. Looking things over after the game I realized my NPC builds were illegal. I had given them a feat they didn't qualify for. Making that mistake bugged me, but my idea was so cool however biased I am about it. It was then I learned as a player I had to place more trust in a DM than I was that whatever bad guy abilities I face the DM is being fair about it accepting the occasional Honest True mistake because no one is perfect. If a DM is going to be the bad tyrannical killer DM I despise, following the rules in creating the bad guys doesn't make it better.

I think that this is a good take-home lesson. All the viewpoints have truth to them. When taken to extremes un-fun happens. We should temper our "the rules must be followed" tendencies, our "but this makes sense" tendencies, and our "do what makes the game flow" tendencies and find a balance. That balance may be different for each person and each table and each system, but it's rarely at one of the "pure" positions. Games happen, fun happens somewhere in the middle. And being open about new experiences can help us do that.

jindra34
2018-05-04, 08:16 AM
Its taken some thinking for me to figure out how to speak/word my answer to the original question, but here is my two coins to add to the discussion. Rules are the supplies around which you build the game. The foundation and beams to build a house essentially. The provide structure and understanding to the game, but at the end of the day the tools of assembly are words and creativity.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-04, 08:30 AM
Its taken some thinking for me to figure out how to speak/word my answer to the original question, but here is my two coins to add to the discussion. Rules are the supplies around which you build the game. The foundation and beams to build a house essentially. The provide structure and understanding to the game, but at the end of the day the tools of assembly are words and creativity.

That brings up an analogy I came up with for the extreme cases--

RaC sees the rules as being an IKEA flat-pack furniture kit. While you can customize things a bit, that has to be done at the "store" (before play). Once you've got it, put it together by the instructions for best results.

RaM sees the rules as being a set of equipment to build a specific piece of furniture--the important thing is that it matches the picture on the box. Ideally you have exactly the right things, but if you're going to bodge something together, do it so it fits that model.

RaT sees the rules as the raw materials. What furniture are you building? Doesn't really matter. You might use the same pieces one day to build a chair, on another day to build a table, etc. If you have to modify the pieces, cut your own, or ignore large chunks that's fine. The important thing is that you built something interesting with it.

These are the extremes--most people have a blend of the three. They may have a specific furniture item in mind (RaM), follow instructions for part of it (RaC), but substitute out parts to make it their own (RaT).

Max_Killjoy
2018-05-04, 08:58 AM
This definitely sounds plausible. The idea that NPCs should be generated according to specific rules is very much a RaC view point, and the idea that this should mirror PC generation tends to come from RaC views on fairness. Meanwhile for people with low RaC there's basically no value in that, and with high RaT it's just hobbling your tools available to a frustrating set that you probably outright dislike.

Meanwhile with high RaM the tie to the fiction gets brought in, fitting either of those cases.


My opinion is that NPCs should use exactly the same rules for combat, interaction, etc. Character creation doesn't need to be identical, but the "stats" that represent them and the way they interact with the "fictional world" and with other characters better damn well better be.

Systems with separate "in play" rules for PCs vs NPCs are an absolute non-starter for me. If a PC is capable of something, then an NPC had better at least theoretically be capable of it. As far as I'm concerned, they're not special because they're the PCs -- they're the PCs because there's something special, rare, and/or interesting about them. If the PCs are, "in-fiction", supposed to be significantly more powerful or skilled or whatever than most individuals, it's fine that they're mechanically more capable -- but that has nothing to do with the specific fact that they're PCs.

In other words, to me, if what makes them stand out from other characters comes from what they are as "people" inside the "world", that's great. If what makes them stand out from other characters comes from the fact that they're PCs, or some other "out of world" consideration, then that's a non-starter. And that latter includes the PCs supposedly have a different "narrative role" or "story role" than the NPCs -- I'm not telling a story or working in a narrative or emulating a genre. (This is part of why I push back so hard at the idea of all RPGs as 'storytelling".)

Max_Killjoy
2018-05-04, 09:01 AM
I used to think that, but I eventually accepted NPCs can be built differently. I had to to avoid my own hypocrisy. Running a Pathfinder game I created adversaries with a combination of abilities I thought were fun to interact with. Pathfinder NPCs are created using the same rules as PCs. It was a good challenge for the party, and they defeated them well. Looking things over after the game I realized my NPC builds were illegal. I had given them a feat they didn't qualify for. Making that mistake bugged me, but my idea was so cool however biased I am about it. It was then I learned as a player I had to place more trust in a DM than I was that whatever bad guy abilities I face the DM is being fair about it accepting the occasional Honest True mistake because no one is perfect. If a DM is going to be the bad tyrannical killer DM I despise, following the rules in creating the bad guys doesn't make it better.

To me, that's more a problem with D&D/Pathfinder/d20, and other systems, that use a giant interlocking sequence of stacked, gated, permission-needed elements for character builds, to begin with. Classes, levels, feats, abilities, skills, etc.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-04, 09:07 AM
My opinion is that NPCs should use exactly the same rules for combat, interaction, etc. Character creation doesn't need to be identical, but the "stats" that represent them and the way they interact with the "fictional world" and with other characters better damn well better be.

Systems with separate "in play" rules for PCs vs NPCs are an absolute non-starter for me. If a PC is capable of something, then an NPC had better at least theoretically be capable of it. As far as I'm concerned, they're not special because they're the PCs -- they're the PCs because there's something special, rare, and/or interesting about them. If the PCs are, "in-fiction", supposed to be significantly more powerful or skilled or whatever than most individuals, it's fine that they're mechanically more capable -- but that has nothing to do with the specific fact that they're PCs.

In other words, to me, if what makes them stand out from other characters comes from what they are as "people" inside the "world", that's great. If what makes them stand out from other characters comes from the fact that they're PCs, or some other "out of world" consideration, then that's a non-starter. And that latter includes the PCs supposedly have a different "narrative role" or "story role" than the NPCs -- I'm not telling a story or working in a narrative or emulating a genre. (This is part of why I push back so hard at the idea of all RPGs as 'storytelling".)

And here we have a classic, textbook example of a Rules as Map viewpoint. Note the focus on the fiction/mechanics meshing--once you're in play it everything in the mechanics better show up in the world and vice versa.

1337 b4k4
2018-05-04, 09:21 AM
Systems with separate "in play" rules for PCs vs NPCs are an absolute non-starter for me. If a PC is capable of something, then an NPC had better at least theoretically be capable of it. As far as I'm concerned, they're not special because they're the PCs -- they're the PCs because there's something special, rare, and/or interesting about them. If the PCs are, "in-fiction", supposed to be significantly more powerful or skilled or whatever than most individuals, it's fine that they're mechanically more capable -- but that has nothing to do with the specific fact that they're PCs.

In other words, to me, if what makes them stand out from other characters comes from what they are as "people" inside the "world", that's great. If what makes them stand out from other characters comes from the fact that they're PCs, or some other "out of world" consideration, then that's a non-starter. And that latter includes the PCs supposedly have a different "narrative role" or "story role" than the NPCs -- I'm not telling a story or working in a narrative or emulating a genre. (This is part of why I push back so hard at the idea of all RPGs as 'storytelling".)

You know, I think this finally makes it click for me why you dislike Dungeon World (and we’ve gotten into some pretty heavy arguments on it) despite the fact that you and I do seem to agree on general principles more often than not. Your self identification strongly with a RaM preference contrasts to my heavier emphasis on RaT. Even though we have a lot of overlap our primary concern is different.

That’s a pretty cool “ah hah” moment for me, so congrats PP, if nothing else your categories have helped me understand Max a bit better

Pelle
2018-05-04, 09:36 AM
I used to think that, but I eventually accepted NPCs can be built differently. I had to to avoid my own hypocrisy. Running a Pathfinder game I created adversaries with a combination of abilities I thought were fun to interact with. Pathfinder NPCs are created using the same rules as PCs. It was a good challenge for the party, and they defeated them well. Looking things over after the game I realized my NPC builds were illegal. I had given them a feat they didn't qualify for. Making that mistake bugged me, but my idea was so cool however biased I am about it. It was then I learned as a player I had to place more trust in a DM than I was that whatever bad guy abilities I face the DM is being fair about it accepting the occasional Honest True mistake because no one is perfect. If a DM is going to be the bad tyrannical killer DM I despise, following the rules in creating the bad guys doesn't make it better.

I have a related experience with 3.5, which I guess is close to PF in this regard. When preparing npc stats, I tried in the beginning to follow the rules as much as possible, but in the end it was just a waste of prep time to follow all the rules in most cases. First, it is possible to build anything in 3.5, you just have to search through countless splatbooks, spending lots of time. Second, worrying about balance in 3.5 is a moot point since the system is mighty unbalanced anyways. So following the rules is no guarantee of a balanced NPC, nor a protection against unfair DMs. Thus, giving the npc fighter an extra toughness feat doesn't matter, it's the final stats that do for the encounter being too challenging or not.

For example, when I made a legendary hare (carrying the MacGuffin inside it), I knew I wanted it to have high AC, speed, jump, stealth etc, but low HP, attack etc. I could have jumped through the hoops and statted up something with a template, but found that a complete waste of time when I already knew what the stats to match the fiction should be. And since those stats were specified ahead of time, deemed balanced, and stuck to, it was completely fair IMO.


This approach seems to be difficult with high RaC and high RaM priorities though, because there not following the character building rules is impossible within the fiction.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-04, 09:43 AM
You know, I think this finally makes it click for me why you dislike Dungeon World (and we’ve gotten into some pretty heavy arguments on it) despite the fact that you and I do seem to agree on general principles more often than not. Your self identification strongly with a RaM preference contrasts to my heavier emphasis on RaT. Even though we have a lot of overlap our primary concern is different.

That’s a pretty cool “ah hah” moment for me, so congrats PP, if nothing else your categories have helped me understand Max a bit better

Thanks! I'm glad it wasn't only useful for me. It has crystallized some things for me, so I count it a success. But being useful for someone else makes it even better.

1337 b4k4
2018-05-04, 10:04 AM
Thanks! I'm glad it wasn't only useful for me. It has crystallized some things for me, so I count it a success. But being useful for someone else makes it even better.

So an interesting question is for people who both play and GM do their mappings in these categories change depending on whether they’re playing or GMing?

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-04, 10:10 AM
So an interesting question is for people who both play and GM do their mappings in these categories change depending on whether they’re playing or GMing?

I'm a bit more RaC tolerant as a player than as a DM. RaM and RaT still stay constant and higher though.

1337 b4k4
2018-05-04, 10:15 AM
I'm a bit more RaC tolerant as a player than as a DM. RaM and RaT still stay constant and higher though.

If I had to guess I’d say higher tolerance or even preference for RaC as a player is pretty common. Once you get past character creation, RaC as a player has fairly minimal downsides as long as the rules are letting you do what you want (so 3.x grappling or even “I leap over the table, do a flip and stab the goblin in the head and land running for the door” would be an example of RaC working against you as a player).

As a GM RaC has more negative impacts I think precisely because as a GM you’re interacting with the rules system directly more often than players are.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-04, 10:18 AM
If I had to guess I’d say higher tolerance or even preference for RaC as a player is pretty common. Once you get past character creation, RaC as a player has fairly minimal downsides as long as the rules are letting you do what you want (so 3.x grappling or even “I leap over the table, do a flip and stab the goblin in the head and land running for the door” would be an example of RaC working against you as a player).

As a GM RaC has more negative impacts I think precisely because as a GM you’re interacting with the rules system directly more often than players are.

That rings true with me. As long as you're in the "happy path" for the rules the players are fine sticking with the rules. The GM sees the rough edges much more since he's directly involved in all the interactions the players are plus a bunch more.

erikun
2018-05-04, 11:21 AM
The idea is to think about how people approach rules, independent of the rules themselves. Why do some people react with utter hostility to a high-detail rule-set? It's not something inherent in the rules, because otherwise people would react similarly. It's something pre-existing in the person. How does that translate into priorities and predilections? How can I learn to talk a language that they understand and reach common ground with them? Because if I assume that everyone is like me (pro-tip--they aren't) I won't get very far. Been there, tried that, failed. For me, thinking through a model of human interactions and human mind-sets is important to learn what really motivates them. And in my experience, the motivations exist independent of the games they play. People who prioritize concrete rules and think of RPG rules as laws to be obeyed gravitate toward systems produced with this in mind. And so on for other possible priority sets. The world-view comes first, the games come later.
Fair enough. In my experience, most of the time people are hostile to a type of table play or game system can stem from several different aspects. One can be time investment, where they've put dozens of hours and hundreds of dollars into a system, and they don't want to see that investment go to waste by now switching everything over to another system. One reason can be just not caring: not being overly concerned about the game system, just wanting to play a game, and a new system at the table would just disrupt that. Some people prefer a specific game style or genre, and so aren't interested in the new one being presented. Some people have had very bad experiences before, either with that specific system or just with groups trying out new systems in general, and so are hostile to the idea of unfamiliar systems.

Some systems require something out of a player that they don't want to give. It's a topic that a lot of these discussions don't seem to bring up, but different systems can require different levels of involvement from players. I've had some very familiar D&D players completely drop a game of Diaspora in the first session because the idea of cooperative setting creation was just too unfamiliar and not at all what they wanted in a RPG.


But the idea that "rules shouldn't tell you not to use them" doesn't fit well with me (since it's, to use my terminology, a very Rules as Contracts-grounded argument)--each rule-set is inherently incomplete. Rule-sets that acknowledge that and teach principles for when to get the mechanics involved seem to me to be much more capable of "taking an idea and implementing it". You don't need a bunch of rules to tell you to do things that you'd do anyway. You need rules to handle the heavy lifting for things that need precise resolution.
True, a ruleset should be able to resolve things in a sensible way. That's what I'd consider the thing that you are really paying for in a RPG system: having the math add up and give you the results you'd expect, if you could factor everything out yourself. If your game system has a Strength 14 character lift so much over their heads, then that should be what you'd expect the equivalent of a "Strength 14" character to accomplish - either in the genre being emulated, or in the reality being emulated. I'm paying for the work having been done to make these things add up properly, I'd hope. I'm certainly not paying $150 for the unique mechanic of rolling two dice and taking the higher of the two for an "advantage" roll. (That was an Ironclaw thing long ago anyways.)

And yes, some systems can be fine with telling the player not to use the rules. Not all rulesets cover everything, and trying to say otherwise would highly limit the available rulesets to just highly generic ones. A RPG that has combat but no social skills is fine with just stating outright that the system can't handle social situations so the players should just RP it out - in fact, it's probably best that it does so. A RPG that handles swords and cavalry but cannot model cars or guns at all is fine. Heck, the common RPG advice of "don't roll if failing isn't interesting, just roleplay or allow success" is a fairly good one. My problem is when they game system already has rules for a certain situation, generally calls for rolls for the situation... except in cases where it doesn't. D&D's whole Take 10 rule is an example of that: a player would have a 50% chance of success, unless using the rule which states they automatically succeed. Even worse are rules along the lines of "if you don't like the result, ignore the die roll." At that point, the system is just behaving inconsistent and is actively becoming unhelpful. The point of the system is supposed to be to help players determine the outcome - giving them a rule to determine the outcome and then giving another rule to ignore that outcome is wildly paradoxical advice. It certainly does nothing to help a player (especially a new player) in how to resolve the situation.

Floret
2018-05-04, 11:22 AM
So an interesting question is for people who both play and GM do their mappings in these categories change depending on whether they’re playing or GMing?

Definitely would agree with the suspicion that players might lean more towards RaC in general. And I definitely veer that way as well - though the fact that as a player I rather rarely call for the rules to be involved (apart maybe from a situation of "I want to cast spell X", but is that clearly any of the three?), and as such their toolkit usage I normally prefer slides into the background.

Pex
2018-05-04, 12:46 PM
And here we have a classic, textbook example of a Rules as Map viewpoint. Note the focus on the fiction/mechanics meshing--once you're in play it everything in the mechanics better show up in the world and vice versa.

Yeah, I see it now.

You're getting pretty proud of yourself of this analysis discovery you made.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-04, 01:26 PM
Even worse are rules along the lines of "if you don't like the result, ignore the die roll." At that point, the system is just behaving inconsistent and is actively becoming unhelpful. The point of the system is supposed to be to help players determine the outcome - giving them a rule to determine the outcome and then giving another rule to ignore that outcome is wildly paradoxical advice. It certainly does nothing to help a player (especially a new player) in how to resolve the situation.

I'm going to focus on this statement. From one viewpoint (what I've labeled as RaC), you're correct. From another (RaT), you're completely off-base. Let me explain.

RaT views the rules as a guide to getting what you already have in mind. As a help. And if the help doesn't do the right thing, ignoring it is the best option. The 5e DMG has sections where it discusses three different styles of using the Dice:

* Rolling with it (roll for everything)
* Ignoring the dice (roll as little as possible)
* The middle path (recommended)

In that last section, it says the following:


Remember that dice don't run your game--you do. Dice are like rules. They're tools to help keep the action moving. At any time, you can decide that a player's action is automatically successful. You can also grant the player advantage on any ability check, reducing the chance of a bad die roll foiling the character's plans. By the same token, a bad plan or unfortunate circumstances can transform the easiest task into an impossibility, or at least impose disadvantage

Using Ability Scores
When a player wants to do something, it's often appropriate to let the attempt succeed without a roll or a reference to the character's ability scores.

This can be read as a "just ignore the rules" direction. But it's clear that the DM is the master, not the rules. The rules are there to serve the game, not the game to serve the rules.

Thrudd
2018-05-04, 01:48 PM
This can be read as a "just ignore the rules" direction. But it's clear that the DM is the master, not the rules. The rules are there to serve the game, not the game to serve the rules.

What does it mean to "serve the game?"
It requires specifying what you are trying to accomplish in the game.
Tell a story you've planned out?
Let players feel powerful and awesome?
Challenge the players to solve puzzles and win battles?
More important that it's a fair challenge? Or more important that it plays out like an action movie or an epic tale?

What you want from the RPG is integral to your view of the rules and how to use them, what are good rule systems and what are poor ones.

1337 b4k4
2018-05-04, 02:09 PM
What does it mean to "serve the game?"
It requires specifying what you are trying to accomplish in the game.
Tell a story you've planned out?
Let players feel powerful and awesome?
Challenge the players to solve puzzles and win battles?
More important that it's a fair challenge? Or more important that it plays out like an action movie or an epic tale?

What you want from the RPG is integral to your view of the rules and how to use them, what are good rule systems and what are poor ones.

Well yes, but that’s also precisely why “ignore the rules if they’re not serving the game” is fine advice. Whatever your goals, there will never be a perfect rules system. So to that end, if the rules are conflicting with your goals, for non RaC play styles “ignore the rules” is not only good advice, but it’s better than “stick to the rules” because stickin to the rules is actively working against your game and your play style

Pelle
2018-05-04, 02:20 PM
I'm going to focus on this statement. From one viewpoint (what I've labeled as RaC), you're correct. From another (RaT), you're completely off-base. Let me explain.


Not sure what erikun meant, but I agree that "if you don't like the result, ignore the die roll" is stupid. If you don't like the potential results of rolling, don't roll at all. I don't think 5e advocates ignoring die results either (except maybe for random encounters, but that's just to avoid having to update the tables all the time when a particular entry should change), but rather decide if you should roll or not as you quoted.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-04, 02:31 PM
What you want from the RPG is integral to your view of the rules and how to use them, what are good rule systems and what are poor ones.

I'd say it's the other way around. Your view of the rules shapes what you use them for and what you want out of them (beyond "is fun").


Not sure what erikun meant, but I agree that "if you don't like the result, ignore the die roll" is stupid. If you don't like the potential results of rolling, don't roll at all. I don't think 5e advocates ignoring die results either (except maybe for random encounters, but that's just to avoid having to update the tables all the time when a particular entry should change), but rather decide if you should roll or not as you quoted.

It advocates both deciding when to roll (or not) and deciding when to just fudge the roll. As an example--take zombies. They have this nasty habit of not dying (make a save when reduced to 0 by anything except a crit or radiant damage, on success they don't die). So you have a game going on and on, trying to kill this one stubborn zombie that just. won't. die. (I've seen this happen for 10+ rounds with bad luck). At some point, you just ignore the save entirely and say the thing dies. Because otherwise it's a bad result. Or you realize you shouldn't have rolled, after you did, and so you just ignore that result because it would leave the game in an un-fun state.

Pelle
2018-05-04, 03:06 PM
It advocates both deciding when to roll (or not) and deciding when to just fudge the roll. As an example--take zombies. They have this nasty habit of not dying (make a save when reduced to 0 by anything except a crit or radiant damage, on success they don't die). So you have a game going on and on, trying to kill this one stubborn zombie that just. won't. die. (I've seen this happen for 10+ rounds with bad luck). At some point, you just ignore the save entirely and say the thing dies. Because otherwise it's a bad result. Or you realize you shouldn't have rolled, after you did, and so you just ignore that result because it would leave the game in an un-fun state.

If you have already decided (for yourself or together with the group) that you will ignore the result of the zombie save, just say it dies, rolling is unecessary. I want the die rolls to have tension, and fudging quickly ruins that (and can potentially devolve into illusionism). If you realize too late, that's ok I guess, but then you have already made an error. I like flexibility to choose the appropriate adjudication method. If the appropriate method is auto-success, then I want to use auto-success, not a method with a chance for failure, and then ignoring that failure when it comes up.

(A zombie surviving 10+ rounds sounds awesome btw, don't kill it early...)

1337 b4k4
2018-05-04, 03:18 PM
If you have already decided (for yourself or together with the group) that you will ignore the result of the zombie save, just say it dies, rolling is unecessary. I want the die rolls to have tension, and fudging quickly ruins that (and can potentially devolve into illusionism). If you realize too late, that's ok I guess, but then you have already made an error. I like flexibility to choose the appropriate adjudication method. If the appropriate method is auto-success, then I want to use auto-success, not a method with a chance for failure, and then ignoring that failure when it comes up.

(A zombie surviving 10+ rounds sounds awesome btw, don't kill it early...)

There’s value in generating variable results for a while but after a certain number of results in a row, there’s also value in moving on. Maybe the zombie example isn’t great since if everyone is tired of the zombie not going down you can kill it before it makes a save, but consider the player who’s just on a streak of rolling natural ones. Maybe after their 8th or 9th one this session they’re getting frustrated. At that point there’s value in ignoring the result, and a result you couldn’t necessarily foresee.

Pelle
2018-05-04, 03:38 PM
There’s value in generating variable results for a while but after a certain number of results in a row, there’s also value in moving on. Maybe the zombie example isn’t great since if everyone is tired of the zombie not going down you can kill it before it makes a save, but consider the player who’s just on a streak of rolling natural ones. Maybe after their 8th or 9th one this session they’re getting frustrated. At that point there’s value in ignoring the result, and a result you couldn’t necessarily foresee.

Allright, for a 1/20 chance of non-result it makes more sense to wait and see, especially if other failure outcomes are acceptable. I'll still rather prefer to say in advance that they can re-roll the next natural one if they want, instead of fooling the player into thinking they take a risk when they don't. At my table a streak like that would be a great event though.

Max_Killjoy
2018-05-04, 03:39 PM
It advocates both deciding when to roll (or not) and deciding when to just fudge the roll. As an example--take zombies. They have this nasty habit of not dying (make a save when reduced to 0 by anything except a crit or radiant damage, on success they don't die). So you have a game going on and on, trying to kill this one stubborn zombie that just. won't. die. (I've seen this happen for 10+ rounds with bad luck). At some point, you just ignore the save entirely and say the thing dies. Because otherwise it's a bad result. Or you realize you shouldn't have rolled, after you did, and so you just ignore that result because it would leave the game in an un-fun state.



If you have already decided (for yourself or together with the group) that you will ignore the result of the zombie save, just say it dies, rolling is unecessary. I want the die rolls to have tension, and fudging quickly ruins that (and can potentially devolve into illusionism). If you realize too late, that's ok I guess, but then you have already made an error. I like flexibility to choose the appropriate adjudication method. If the appropriate method is auto-success, then I want to use auto-success, not a method with a chance for failure, and then ignoring that failure when it comes up.

(A zombie surviving 10+ rounds sounds awesome btw, don't kill it early...)



There’s value in generating variable results for a while but after a certain number of results in a row, there’s also value in moving on. Maybe the zombie example isn’t great since if everyone is tired of the zombie not going down you can kill it before it makes a save, but consider the player who’s just on a streak of rolling natural ones. Maybe after their 8th or 9th one this session they’re getting frustrated. At that point there’s value in ignoring the result, and a result you couldn’t necessarily foresee.


Sounds like the save should get worse (from the zombie's point of view) every time until it's an auto-fail and the zombie will die to anything -- thus capping the number of times it can avoid death.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-04, 04:00 PM
Sounds like the save should get worse (from the zombie's point of view) every time until it's an auto-fail and the zombie will die to anything -- thus capping the number of times it can avoid death.
The save DC is 8 + damage taken in that hit. At low level, you might do 3-5 damage. So, with the zombies con bonus, it's a 50-50 save. Normally it's not a problem. But low probability things happen...

Or take the wild magic sorcerer's surge. You want to roll it, since it resets some resources. But that dreaded "fireball self" outcome... I'd not find it wrong to ignore that result (and reroll) if it would cause a stupid TPK. Everybody dying to a goblin because you fireballed the party is boring and breaks campaigns. So ignore that result in those cases.

Pex
2018-05-04, 06:25 PM
The save DC is 8 + damage taken in that hit. At low level, you might do 3-5 damage. So, with the zombies con bonus, it's a 50-50 save. Normally it's not a problem. But low probability things happen...

Or take the wild magic sorcerer's surge. You want to roll it, since it resets some resources. But that dreaded "fireball self" outcome... I'd not find it wrong to ignore that result (and reroll) if it would cause a stupid TPK. Everybody dying to a goblin because you fireballed the party is boring and breaks campaigns. So ignore that result in those cases.

I would argue the wild sorcerer is a poorly designed class as in it shouldn't exist as in I wish wild mages never existed in D&D history.

Oh, did I say that out loud?
:smallyuk:

Quertus
2018-05-04, 07:58 PM
When I first saw this thread, I thought I understood it. Then I left to consider my position, and what I've seen. Now, having distanced myself enough to have an independent answer, I no longer understand the conversation (or I never did to begin with, or definitions changed).

So, I'll explain where I am, and maybe someone can lead me back to the path.

I come from a war game / board game background. The rules fundamentally are the game. Extending that to an RPG, then, if the rules and the setting/fiction don't match up, somebody ****ed up. Either the rules or the fiction need to be changed.

To me, the rules are the interface, the language of the conversation. Without the rules, you have no voice. No eyes. Maybe, maybe you can be led by the hand, and stumbling through the game, blind and mute. EDIT: and, on a related note, I value consistency between tables.

I've also seen people who view the rules as more of suggestions. To them, the rules kinda draw a picture of what the game is about. To them, "we're playing D&D" means fantasy adventure, probably dungeon crawl, but not any specific rules. To them, mother may I, flip a coin, or gurps are all valid rules sets for D&D.

So, anyone care to explain how (or if?) these two observed ways of interacting with the rules relate to the current state of the conversation?

Florian
2018-05-05, 01:23 PM
@Quertus:

Consider the possibility that your whole understanding of the matter is wrong and not really shared by everyone.

You basically post a clear RaM POV, so the simulated world should be used to model the rules, or more exactly, the mechanics.
You also post a clear RaC POV, in that the rules are set before the game, everybody understands them and agrees to them.
Incidentally, you also "naturally" include an exception break point by including an "if, then" value, in this case including an override clause what happens if the RAW and fluff doesn't mesh.

The rest of what you write doesn't really matter. No-one really cares whether you need to have some concrete rules in had to get some degree of immersion.

Max_Killjoy
2018-05-05, 06:37 PM
You basically post a clear RaM POV, so the simulated world should be used to model the rules, or more exactly, the mechanics.


That's kinda backwards -- RaM, the mechanics should model the simulated / fictional world, and should produce results as close as possible as to what one would expect from the nature and "physics" of that world. Thus, "rules as map" -- the setting and characters, the "world", is the actual territory, and the rules are just the map of that territory.

If you ever come to a point where the mechanics -- the map -- say "there's a bridge here" and you can clearly see that there's no bridge and it's a 100 meter drop down to the river in the crevasse below, then the map is wrong and "reality" is correct.

NichG
2018-05-06, 12:48 AM
I think this shows that these three terms aren't really a good way to break down how players relate to the rules - specifically, they're a bit too focused on 'shoulds' that each imply a strict necessity of some or other behavior, which ends up excluding views that deal with those dissonances in different ways.

That is to say, it's mixing goals with methods. That's why there's awkwardness about e.g. 'should a RaM player change rules to match setting, or setting to match rules?' - that should probably be a meaningless question.

I think the set of motivations out there is decidedly broader than those three axes. I've seen (non-exhaustively): protection from abuse of power, consistency, structure, inspiration, resolution, provision of puzzles/toys, guidance, consensus, motivation/pressure, clarity, etc.

Thrudd
2018-05-06, 01:03 AM
It seems to me that "contract" vs "toolkit" are ways to look at/approach rules. "Mapping" is an objective of rules and the motive that guides how/when you choose to apply them. If you see rules as contract, and have the objective of mapping the fictional reality, then you will attempt to fix or create rules that simulate the fictional physics as closely as possible and apply the rules consistently. If you see rules as toolkit, you might not bother writing new rules but rather just ignore them or wing it for each situation, ruling by fiat the outcome that makes sense according to the fictional physics.

In addition to mapping the world's reality, you might also be mapping a type of genre or narrative. As above, rules might be seen as contract or as toolkit, but you're making your decision whether to fix the rules or ignore them on whether an outcome has the narrative effect or fits the conventions of a genre you want.

In any game, the motive could shift from situation to situation, and often they overlap anyways - though some people will almost exclusively focus on one or the other. IE - One might decide that something should happen, regardless of how plausible or realistic it is, if it is awesome or makes for a good story or is a thing that happens in the movies. The GM is concerned with narrative pace and dramatic tension and sufficiently satisfying climaxes. In some games, that would never be an acceptable reason either to change a rule or ignore a rule, nor would that guide a GM's fiat decisions.

Example, both "toolkit" GMs who aren't bothered by making decisions without rules -
Assassin sneaks up to a sleeping person, and tries to cut their throat. Mapping GM asks - Is assassin competent sneaking and proficient with the weapon? if yes, then they are successful, and the victim is dead (barring the victim having some sort of established protection or sixth sense). Narrative GM asks - does this makes a good scene, for this character to die in this manner? Will it impact the story negatively? Would it be more fun for there to be an exciting combat and chase scene? If yes, then the assassin steps on a creaky floorboard and the victim wakes up just in time, and shouts out for help!

Max_Killjoy
2018-05-06, 10:04 AM
It seems to me that "contract" vs "toolkit" are ways to look at/approach rules. "Mapping" is an objective of rules and the motive that guides how/when you choose to apply them. If you see rules as contract, and have the objective of mapping the fictional reality, then you will attempt to fix or create rules that simulate the fictional physics as closely as possible and apply the rules consistently. If you see rules as toolkit, you might not bother writing new rules but rather just ignore them or wing it for each situation, ruling by fiat the outcome that makes sense according to the fictional physics.

In addition to mapping the world's reality, you might also be mapping a type of genre or narrative. As above, rules might be seen as contract or as toolkit, but you're making your decision whether to fix the rules or ignore them on whether an outcome has the narrative effect or fits the conventions of a genre you want.

In any game, the motive could shift from situation to situation, and often they overlap anyways - though some people will almost exclusively focus on one or the other. IE - One might decide that something should happen, regardless of how plausible or realistic it is, if it is awesome or makes for a good story or is a thing that happens in the movies. The GM is concerned with narrative pace and dramatic tension and sufficiently satisfying climaxes. In some games, that would never be an acceptable reason either to change a rule or ignore a rule, nor would that guide a GM's fiat decisions.

Example, both "toolkit" GMs who aren't bothered by making decisions without rules -
Assassin sneaks up to a sleeping person, and tries to cut their throat. Mapping GM asks - Is assassin competent sneaking and proficient with the weapon? if yes, then they are successful, and the victim is dead (barring the victim having some sort of established protection or sixth sense). Narrative GM asks - does this makes a good scene, for this character to die in this manner? Will it impact the story negatively? Would it be more fun for there to be an exciting combat and chase scene? If yes, then the assassin steps on a creaky floorboard and the victim wakes up just in time, and shouts out for help!

Honestly, I think "rules as serves a narrative or genre" needs a separate category. It's already exasperating enough having to explain over and over that one cares very much about character and setting, but not at all story.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-06, 03:03 PM
Honestly, I think "rules as serves a narrative or genre" needs a separate category. It's already exasperating enough having to explain over and over that one cares very much about character and setting, but not at all story.

That's a good point. Maybe "Rules as Narrative Enforcement"? It is a conceptually distinct category from Rules as (Setting) Map, since you can have multiple different styles of narrative within a single setting and games that are completely unconcerned with genre or narrative devices such as story arcs, plot pacing, etc.

Cluedrew
2018-05-07, 08:55 PM
I had a similar idea a while back. I was going to post it, but it didn't quite mesh with this (more importantly I was busy). However it might "not mesh" in a useful way actually because it takes a slightly lower level view of the matter. If Rules as is what a rules-set is for this would be what a system does. While still being at a high enough level that we are not talking about any particular rules. Also I use the word system because it includes thing like setting lore and so on.

System provides Limits: Mostly related to Rules as Game mentioned by sort of abandoned. But having lines that mean very particular things. Tactical mastery is one reason for this, another is the tension thing I mentioned. This is... one thing I see people say is knowing that they "actually" accomplished something as opposed to having it given to them. This is really what that is about.

System provides Predictability: Not like "I know what is going to happen next" but as in given a certain situation, you know what reasonable outcomes there are as well as possible but unlikely outcomes. Also things like what you can find in the world regularly, how big of a boom this is going to make and so on.

System provides Inspiration: Yes this does include explicate inspiration, by which I mean things like example characters and optional random generation tables. But also softer sources of inspiration like general lore and even interesting character building options.

System provides Communication: So much of these games is in your head we need ways to get it from one player's head to another. A character sheet is a simple example: A character is strong? How strong? Great Strength.

System provides Resolution: Sometimes you just need to figure out what happens next. There are a lot of other reasons to provide resolution mechanics, but here I am referring to the idea of figure out what would happen once, the write in down so you can use it again.

System provides Tension: I was debating if this one counted, but I guess I will through it out and other people can decide. But you know, wondering if you are going to make that roll or not, that sort of thing.

System provides Mastery: Not so big on this one myself. But games often have large sections of getting good at them. No reason you can't have some in role-playing games.


It's already exasperating enough having to explain over and over that one cares very much about character and setting, but not at all story.Because I'm still not entirely sure what that is supposed to mean. Do you dislike plot? Do you think people misuse "for the story"? Because I don't quite how you can hate the story, the whole that everything else is creating. That is how I understand it and because of that... I really don't get what you are saying.

Knaight
2018-05-07, 09:13 PM
Because I'm still not entirely sure what that is supposed to mean. Do you dislike plot? Do you think people misuse "for the story"? Because I don't quite how you can hate the story, the whole that everything else is creating. That is how I understand it and because of that... I really don't get what you are saying.

We've been down this path before - the term "story" is used in a few different ways by a few different people, and if you really want to dig down into how exactly that falls out on this forum there's a 40 page locked thread you can read. It's the one that spawned the now-infamous "meaningless term" series of threads, or at least the first of those threads.

Florian
2018-05-08, 12:21 AM
@Thrudd/PhoenixPhyre:

IMO, one can approach "mapping" from two different angles. We're talking very concrete when it comes to modeling rules based on something, agreed, this goes into the territory of "associated rules" that Max will mostly mean, I guess.
The broader picture would be rules that should facilitate something, like modeling a genre instead of an object.
The difference seems to mainly be between the top-down and bottom-up view, but the result seems to be fundamentally the same, mechanics mapped on something.

@Cluedrew:

Max has an aversion against non-immersive mechanics.

Max_Killjoy
2018-05-08, 12:44 AM
Because I'm still not entirely sure what that is supposed to mean. Do you dislike plot? Do you think people misuse "for the story"? Because I don't quite how you can hate the story, the whole that everything else is creating. That is how I understand it and because of that... I really don't get what you are saying.


"Story" in this sense meaning:

1) Decisions made based on "what would make the best story" at the expense of setting or character coherence, continuity, etc. See also, "narrative causality". See also, sadly, how a lot of TV and movie scripts are written.

2) Invoking of or enforcement of genre tropes or narrative constructs or "formulas".

3) Rules based on narrative roles or narrative tropes, especially when disconnect from the character's actions within the "world". See, FFG Star Wars Bad Motivator talent, which allows the PLAYER to cause some device or system within the "fiction" / setting to fail or malfunction or otherwise behave in a way that "advances the story", without their character ever interacting with it or even knowing that the incident occurred.

When I sit down at the table to play my character, I am not telling a story, nor do I have any interest in telling a story. If a solution to the problem at hand that's in character and plausible to the context presents itself, then the character will attempt that solution, even if it "ruins" the "story", because if anyone cares less about "telling a good story" in the game than I do... it's the character who is "living" in that "world" and wants to live, and win, and succeed, and get the most return for the least effort. I reject drama done for the sake of drama in its entirety. Stories that might emerge are fine, even great, but they emerge as they do in life, after the fact and as "accidents".


And that's pretty much as far as I'm doing to discuss/debate the matter here, I have no interest in derailing PP's thread, either.

Thrudd
2018-05-08, 11:04 AM
@Thrudd/PhoenixPhyre:

IMO, one can approach "mapping" from two different angles. We're talking very concrete when it comes to modeling rules based on something, agreed, this goes into the territory of "associated rules" that Max will mostly mean, I guess.
The broader picture would be rules that should facilitate something, like modeling a genre instead of an object.
The difference seems to mainly be between the top-down and bottom-up view, but the result seems to be fundamentally the same, mechanics mapped on something.

@Cluedrew:

Max has an aversion against non-immersive mechanics.
Yes, but that is literally what all mechanics do, isn't it? It's not useful to just say "rules that map to something". Unless the rule is "someone decides what happens", or "roll a die to decide what happens" without any further conditions or specifications, a rule that describes or uses some type of mechanic is mapped to something. This is why one needs to specify, if this is to be used as a metric. Or we are measuring "uses game mechanics" vs "free form".

Max_Killjoy
2018-05-08, 12:35 PM
Yes, but that is literally what all mechanics do, isn't it? It's not useful to just say "rules that map to something". Unless the rule is "someone decides what happens", or "roll a die to decide what happens" without any further conditions or specifications, a rule that describes or uses some type of mechanic is mapped to something. This is why one needs to specify, if this is to be used as a metric. Or we are measuring "uses game mechanics" vs "free form".

For RAM, it's not that the rules map to something, but rather that the rules are a "map" OF something.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-08, 01:00 PM
For RAM, it's not that the rules map to something, but rather that the rules are a "map" OF something.

Exactly, and that that "something" is a fictional world (specifically the actions of entities and their consequences) with it's internal logic. Appeals to verisimilitude or opposition to "disconnected rules" are common here.

Rules as Narrative Enforcement is something else--the idea that the rules should be read to preserve tone/genre/narrative conventions/etc. An appeal to archetypes, to story pacing, or to emulating non-TTRPG fiction ("but they do it in Star Wars") are common to this viewpoint.

These two can be in conflict--take the idea of heroes effortlessly mowing down mooks but then having to really fight against the true villains. A very common narrative device, but one that causes struggles when you try to find a consistent world-set that generates those outcomes.

Pleh
2018-05-08, 03:58 PM
Exactly, and that that "something" is a fictional world (specifically the actions of entities and their consequences) with it's internal logic. Appeals to verisimilitude or opposition to "disconnected rules" are common here.

Rules as Narrative Enforcement is something else--the idea that the rules should be read to preserve tone/genre/narrative conventions/etc. An appeal to archetypes, to story pacing, or to emulating non-TTRPG fiction ("but they do it in Star Wars") are common to this viewpoint.

These two can be in conflict--take the idea of heroes effortlessly mowing down mooks but then having to really fight against the true villains. A very common narrative device, but one that causes struggles when you try to find a consistent world-set that generates those outcomes.

Should pair well with Rules as Toolkit in the sense that you're using the rules to produce a particular effect and throwing them out when they get to be more liability than asset to that goal.

Knaight
2018-05-08, 05:09 PM
Should pair well with Rules as Toolkit in the sense that you're using the rules to produce a particular effect and throwing them out when they get to be more liability than asset to that goal.

It does - that pairing often works out to the toolkit being essentially a collection of different maps. It's similar to how you use different maps for different things in the real world - if I need to know where roads are I use a road map, if I'm trying to figure out water basins I use a topographic map, if I need to know political borders I use a political map, with all sorts of smaller maps for particular smaller areas which don't need to show up on large maps, starting with building, trail, and cave maps.

PhoenixPhyre
2018-05-08, 07:07 PM
Should pair well with Rules as Toolkit in the sense that you're using the rules to produce a particular effect and throwing them out when they get to be more liability than asset to that goal.

RaT and RaNE tend to get along with rules that focus on the narrative, but also are in conflict when they're taken too far or when systems try to cabin things too far (for a RaT person). I'm somewhat allergic to "you must focus on these story elements/themes/etc" instructions in game rules. One of the reasons White Wolf (especially Vampire) games don't sit well with me--the heavy rules focus on "becoming a monster" and angsting about it. Seems...one-dimensional to me.


It does - that pairing often works out to the toolkit being essentially a collection of different maps. It's similar to how you use different maps for different things in the real world - if I need to know where roads are I use a road map, if I'm trying to figure out water basins I use a topographic map, if I need to know political borders I use a political map, with all sorts of smaller maps for particular smaller areas which don't need to show up on large maps, starting with building, trail, and cave maps.

That's a good way of looking at it. Does sometimes irritate the map purists, taking things in a utilitarian fashion like that, but :shrug: