Why do RPGs have rules?

[Thomas Shey]

Do you find that moving from binary task resolution to tiered task resolution actually changes how that game is played? Like, qualitatively, is the game really that different? I bring this up because (and specially when these particular point revives a famous discussion from decades ago) in most 5e tables we see online and in play reports, GM fiat is still what often determines the outcome of the conflicts these task resolution mechanisms address.

I think there's at least some notable differences when outcomes are framed before the dice are rolled there. In other words, even if I'm having to make up outcomes out of whole cloth, if I say (using something like BRP result categories as an example) "On a fumble A will happen, on a failure B will happen, on a success C will happen, on a special, D will happen, and on a crit E will happen" I've permitted more output space than if all I had was success/failure to work with. If I do it afterwards, as you say, its much less clear.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yes I do... and do most 5e tables use these rules?

EDIT: To expound more, I think that adding nuance to the level of success vs having a binary outcome allows for a more flexible process and a lessening of the need for GM Deus-ex-Machina. When there's only do it or fail there can be a greater incentive for the GM to manipulate things either behind the scenes or directly in order to keep things moving forward. Things like levels of succe3ss and success at a cost allow the mechanics to offer up options beyond hard stop or resounding success as well as giving the GM and players multiple options to build their fiction from.

As I've noted elsewhere, you can very much see this in how Chill 3e handled its die rolls. There are four possible results in it, and while none of them entirely bring things to a halt, you very much would prefer a crit to a fumble.

 

[andreszarta]

I think there's at least some notable differences when outcomes are framed before the dice are rolled there. In other words, even if I'm having to make up outcomes out of whole cloth, if I say (using something like BRP result categories as an example) "On a fumble A will happen, on a failure B will happen, on a success C will happen, on a special, D will happen, and on a crit E will happen" I've permitted more output space than if all I had was success/failure to work with. If I do it afterwards, as you say, its much less clear.

Yup! With you 100%. No disagreement there. Not saying the outcomes outloud before the roll vs framing them before produces notable differences in gameplay.

The expansion of the output space, though, like does it really dramatically change the play experience? Originally I was responding to this idea:

I think you missed my point. What I took from your post was that you were stating that the claims of trad play being flexible (irrespective of whether non-trad games are or are not) boils down to purely fictional differences as opposed to system and process and even experience differences. In response to that I am asking how you reconcile that view with the actual process/rules/changes in a single trad like D&D that does actually change how a game is played, it's processes and what the experience of play is?

Isn't an expansion of the output space something more than just "purely fictional differences", specially when, at the end of the day, the GM retains the control of where story can and can't go? I argue that it doesn't.

 

[clearstream]

Do you find that moving from binary task resolution to tiered task resolution actually changes how that game is played? Like, qualitatively, is the game really that different? I bring this up because (and specially when these particular point revives a famous discussion from decades ago) in most 5e tables we see online and in play reports, GM fiat is still what often determines the outcome of the conflicts these task resolution mechanisms address.

Yes, I think so. One of the general learnings from fiction-first is that ideally there is momentum between system and fiction. While that's a common consequence of RPG rules, the DMG 242 rules reinforce and nuance it. And there is a valuable additional DMG 237 step of applying consequences resolution.

The table I index from is modified yet further with a view to ease of use in play (I find the sliding thresholds for the DMG 242 rules harder to apply at a glance)

Check​	Result​
Nat. 20​	Critical hit​
Result ≥ DC​	Success​
Nat. 10-19 and Result ≥ DC​	Success with Complication​
Result < DC​	Setback​
Nat. 1​	Critical miss​

I prefer using the nat. 10-19 because

• It doesn't slide - you're always looking for the same numbers on the d20 so it becomes a reflex
• To me it makes sense that if you need a high number to succeed (i.e. you're less skilled or it's more difficult) the only way to get what you want might be to accept a complication
• It has a friendly interaction with advantage/disadvantage

 

[hawkeyefan]

Or not.

It seems very much like it to me. Plenty of folks, yourself included, have tons of experience with D&D and similar games. You have less with other types of games. This is neither good nor bad, it simply is. It was the same situation for me not all that long ago. In some ways, it still is... there are plenty of games I'm not familiar with.

It can be challenging to talk about other types of games, or RPGs in general, when everything gets funneled back to D&D and similar games, as if that's a default setting for all RPGs.

I get that it can serve as common ground since just about everyone knows how those games work, but it gets treated as the default expectation even when it should not.

And I'm not going to name names. It's pretty apparent which are the One True Wayers and which are not.

Are these the same folks who say "Rule Zero is always in effect"?

What pages of BitD would the hacking section be in? I have Blades but I don't remember reading that... of course it's been a while since I last looked at it.

There's a section called Changing The Game that begins on page 229.

I think you missed my point. What I took from your post was that you were stating that the claims of trad play being flexible (irrespective of whether non-trad games are or are not) boils down to purely fictional differences as opposed to system and process and even experience differences. In response to that I am asking how you reconcile that view with the actual process/rules/changes in a single trad like D&D that does actually change how a game is played, it's processes and what the experience of play is?

EDIT: Also I'm unsure how to take it as anything but a "knock" when you are claiming their diversity of play doesn't amount to actual diversity except in what cloth happens to be draped over them?

I don't think it's a knock to say that any given game will only allow for so much variety, even when changed. At least, while still remaining recognizable as itself. I think @Campbell 's point was more that D&D is no more capable of such flexibility than many other games.

Yeah speaking of DW specifically, the GM can plot up fronts to his hearts content, though too many and too much detail is probably not a good idea.

In terms of what is on your character sheet, in theory it's better to avoid moves in a sort of game sense, but then you're going to not get XP easily. Also you're softballing play, and the GM will surely make you choose at some point, do your thing or pay the price. Honestly if a 5e wizard avoided magic totally it would be some pretty odd play. I bet the GM will push you there too.

Overall character abilities are not really that different.

I think a better way to look at it is not that you don't want to trigger moves, but that triggering a move always carries a risk to it, so you have to keep that in mind. Something is going to happen when a move is made... things will change.

 

[niklinna]

Or not. And I'm not going to name names. It's pretty apparent which are the One True Wayers and which are not.

Oh I bet know this one! The folks who aren't One True Wayers must be the ones who play a wide variety of games in a wide variety of styles, enjoy each for what they offer, cogently articulate the qualities & differences of those games and styles based on actual play experience, and don't complain ad nauseam about feeling attacked when other people share excitement—or even just information—about unfamiliar games and play styles.

 

[clearstream]

Isn't an expansion of the output space something more than just "purely fictional differences", specially when, at the end of the day, the GM retains the control of where story can and can't go? I argue that it doesn't.

That old chestnut. The simple and accurate answer is - just GM in a principled way. You're allowed to respect the fictional position and follow the rules. Referring to the D&D game text, you're allowed to give weight to the PHB 185 text. And so on.

 

[Umbran]

Or not. And I'm not going to name names. It's pretty apparent which are the One True Wayers and which are not.

Mod Note:
It is also pretty clear who is choosing to pay insufficient attention to moderator warnings to the thread.

I will err on the side of the less severe, and repeat myself once. Please stop dismissing people instead of addressing their points. If you aren't up for that, you aren't up for further discussion in the thread. I hope that's clear.

 

[clearstream]

Are these the same folks who say "Rule Zero is always in effect"?

I see this as a red herring. We established above (or was it elsewhere) that all participants have a preexisting capacity to form and modify rules (and of course, to ignore them). So everyone at the table has the nuclear option. Why don't they use it?

 

[Imaro]

You said:


You are saying that partial successes reduce the likelihood of a GM having to "manipulate things either behind the scenes or directly in order to keep things moving forward".

Your statement already assumes a bunch of things about gameplay namely:

• Yes...
• That there is a thing that needs to be moved forward.
• That the GM determines whether that thing is being moved or needs to get moving.
• That the GM may at any point chooses to or chooses not to manipulate things behind the scenes.

Point 1: I'm not assuming that something NEEDS to be moved forward... I'm assuming that some non-zero number of GM's will use illusionism to move something forward (whether needed or not) this cuts down on that inclination...

Point 2: If the GM is determining this, he can have an auto-success happen... so this is incorrect since the assumption is that some amount of uncertainty has been determined by the GM

Point 3: Yes... Being able to do something, choosing to do something, or always doing something are all different things. You are conflating the first with the last.

So, even if agree with your rebuttal about how this would get implemented, and agree to see it in its best light: Partial, but known outcomes, that we will all agree to abide by...is this expanded set of outcomes truly a substantial deviation of play style when the three things that I mentioned above are still maintained?

Well first they aren't maintained... they aren't even true. But more importantly you can't both maintain everything you listed in the paragraph above and those points be true at the same time... that's my point. By accepting that house rule and all abiding by it in the game, the nature of play has changed.

We have been talking about differences in rules that allow for such vast differences in play styles; those that restructure the kind of contributions that are expected of the GM.

With all that in mind, how are we expected to accept that rules that trade one narrow way of performing illusionism with a less, but still narrow, way of performing the same kind of illusionism are creating substantially different experiences of play?

There isn't any illusionism being preformed... there can't be if we are transparent with the option we picked and all abide by it.