diff -r 1e85b39d803d -r be57f0035c67 references/HowRPGRulesWork.txt --- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/references/HowRPGRulesWork.txt Thu Feb 23 15:13:15 2006 -0500 @@ -0,0 +1,440 @@ +http://www.lumpley.com/archive/156.html + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +anyway. +A Penny for Your Thoughts + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +*1-18-05* +*How RPG Rules Work* + +This is description, not prescription. + +The way I figure it, an RPG's rules coordinate three things: + +The fictional things and events and stuff in the game. The interactions +of the players themselves. Dice, numbers, words, maps - real-world +tokens, things, props, representations. Emily calls 'em "cues" and I +think that's just right. + +If you can pick it up and hand it to another player, or change it with a +pencil and eraser, it's a real-world cue. If it exists only in our heads +and our conversation, it's in-game. + +So here's a rule: "1. Don't mess with the dark forest to the North, it's +Vincent's." + +This rule coordinates the interactions of us, the players, with the +made-up stuff in the game. The rule says that if the in-game stuff comes +to include our characters entering the forest, we change our +interactions in a particular way: we defer to me, Vincent, about what's +what. + +The rightward-pointing arrow is "our characters entering the forest," +the leftward-pointing arrow is "we defer to Vincent about what's what." + +Here's a rule: "2. Subtract the roll on the damage die from your +character's hit points." + +This rule coordinates our interactions with the real-world cues we're +employing. The leftward-pointing arrow is "the roll on the damage die," +the rightward-pointing arrow is "subtract from your character's hit +points." The die represents every real-world thing we're using: dice, +character sheets, life stones, everything. + +Notice that non-RPG games' rules are all entirely like this one. +Monopoly, Chess, Die Siedler - they have no fictional in-game, just +people interacting and real-world tokens. + +Here's a rule: "3. If your character has higher ground than his +opponent, make your attack roll at +3." + +Now this rule takes information from the fictional in-game and applies +it to the real-world tokens we're using. The long rightward-pointing +arrow is "your character has higher ground than his opponent, +3," and +the leftward-pointing arrow is "make your attack roll." + +I've drawn the long arrow /through/ the people because of course it's +the people who interpret the in-game and apply the rule. + +Here's a rule: "4. If your character takes damage greater than 4 on the +damage roll, he's knocked down." + +Here the rules instruct us to have certain things happen fictionally +when certain things happen in the real world. The rightward-pointing +arrow is "the damage roll" and the long leftward-pointing arrow is +"damage greater than 4, knocked down." + +Here's a rule: "5. If your character's opponent tries to disarm your +character, make a Hold Weapon check. If you fail, your character is +disarmed, and you thus suffer the unarmed penalty until you retrieve +your weapon." + +The more complicated your rule, the more complicated the arrangement of +arrows. The short leftward-pointing arrow is "your character's opponent +tries to disarm your character." The long rightward-pointing arrow is +"make a Hold Weapon check." The long leftward-pointing arrow is "your +character is disarmed" - the part where we imagine your character's +sword skittering across the rocks. The short rightward-pointing arrow, +at last, is "suffer the unarmed penalty." + +If this were the Weapon Breakage rule instead of the Weapon Droppage +rule, the short rightward-pointing arrow would be both "suffer the +unarmed penalty" and "add 'broken' to your weapon on your character sheet." + +So now, we employ various rules in various orders and combinations over +time. + +Right? + +This animation shows kind of what Dogs in the Vineyard or D&D or +Shadowrun or PTA or V:tM is like in play. + +The way Charles' group plays Ars Magica would have practically only the +arrows between the players and the in-game lit up: + +(I'm very open to correction about this, but it's my impression.) + +The way my group plays Ars Magica would be about the same, but we'd have +the arrows crossing the players light up a few times per session: + + +And finally, Jonathan Tweet in /Everway/ describes three kinds of rules: +Drama, Fortune and Karma. + +Rules like this are Drama rules. + + +Rules like this are Fortune rules if the real-world cues include dice or +some other randomizer; Karma rules if they don't. + +On 1-19-05, *Matt* wrote: + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +I really only clicked to see if comments were working, but now I feel +obliged to come up with something. + +My ideal game, I think, has a balance of movement across all the arrows. +This might be a useful diagram for identifying the kind of play people +prefer by making certain arrows darker, etc. Or not. Shit, it's only 6 +here and what am I doing up? +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +On 1-19-05, *anon.* wrote: + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + + +"Notice that non-RPG games' rules are all entirely like this one. +Monopoly, Chess, Die Siedler - they have no fictional in-game, just +people interacting and real-world tokens." + +I would strongly disagree with this. The fictional worlds may not be as +pronounced or as strongly identified with as in RPGs, but they +definately exist. + +Case in point: Diplomacy. There's you intereacting with other people and +the game board, but there's almost always a shared imaginative space of +diplomatic missions running back and forth and high-level meetings and +so on. + +Even Monopoly can work this way. Who does not make sound effects when +they move their pieces? Who does not chortle like Snidely Whiplash when +they send another player to bankruptcy? And in these moments, a +fictional scene plays out. + +Who knows, perhaps when Kasparov is advancing his knight, he's thinking +of a medieval kingdom? + +later +Tom + + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +On 1-19-05, *Vincent* wrote: + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +I guess somebody was going to say that. + +Maybe my best answer is: + +Playing Monopoly, no arrows come rightward out of the fiction. Imagine +whatever you want, nobody else cares. + +When we talk about the imaginary stuff in the game re: rules, we aren't +talking about what I'm imagining in my own personal head anyway. We're +talking about the shared fiction, which means that it's /communicated/ +and /agreed to/. Kasparov might be thinking about a kingdom or his +laundry, I'm pretty sure he's not saying it all out loud and trying to +get his opponent to buy into it. + +And just to head off the other half: of /course/ the players can create +house rules to make Monopoly into a roleplaying game. Whatever! I don't +think it's especially controversial to observe that, as written, +Monopoly ain't one. Lord I hope it's not. +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +On 1-19-05, *C. Edwards* wrote: + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +"Notice that non-RPG games' rules are all entirely like this one. +Monopoly, Chess, Die Siedler - they have no fictional in-game, just +people interacting and real-world tokens." + +I totally accept and enjoy those kinds of rules in a non-RPG. They seem +annoying, unsatisfying, and extraneous most of the time when they are +incorporated into a role-playing game. It almost seems like a wasted +action to have rules that don't directly interact with the shared +imaginary space. + +I want to achieve nearly 100% efficiency in my rule/work to shared +imaginary space exchange. +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +On 1-19-05, *Bryant* wrote: + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Nice! Very nice. I agree with this 100% and I like the arrows a lot. +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +On 1-19-05, *Chris* wrote: + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Wow! Vincent- it just struck me how much power goes into the traditional +GM's hands in that they get final say not only over what goes into that +imaginary space, but also what effects the imaginary space has back OUT +into the game itself. So, say a player wants to put a character in a +tactically advantageous situation, and even the GM agrees("You're on +higher ground, with the sun to your back, etc.") but only if the GM +decides to apply modifers back out to the Tokens in play, will the SIS +have a solid effect. + +This is probably one of the best little ways of explaining the whole +social effect of gaming there. Neat. +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +On 1-19-05, *Ben Lehman* wrote: + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +I have this whole essay brewing about this two rightmost little arrows. +If you're going to beat me to it, let me know. + +yrs-- +--Ben +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +On 1-19-05, *Vincent* wrote: + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +I have no plans! + +What's your essay going to say? +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +On 1-19-05, *Ben Lehman* wrote: + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Like most of my essays, it's going to say "Look, a thing!" + +We physicists aren't so keen on the "persuasive argument" thing. + +Essentially, I think some games have something called "toy quality" +where the game's mechanic itself is fun to play without needing to +reference the SIS at all. I think that games with toy quality are a +bridge to board and card and dice games. I also think it might be a key +to Gamism, but I'm not sure. + +yrs-- +--Ben + +P.S. Hey, remember when I was talking about how "everything is system?" +I was going "look, see, those arrows are symmetric!" Just couldn't +express myself well. + +P.P.S. Heck, I still don't know what system is. Is it that box on the +right? Or is that just mechanics? + +P.P.P.S. Say we're using a published setting with canon guidebooks. Is +the setting in the right box or the left box? +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +On 1-19-05, *Vincent* wrote: + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +The arrows are System. System is what we /do/. + +The left box is a snapshot: what's happening in the game right now. You +can imagine its contents changing over the course of play, alongside the +arrows lighting up and going out. + +The right box is everything that's real that we consult to help us +decide what's happening in the left box. Along with dice and the writing +on character sheets and stuff, it can include the contents of setting +guidebooks. Really though, the vast most of the contents of setting +guidebooks simply don't appear in the illustration; they wait outside of +frame in case we want them. +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +On 1-19-05, *Ben Lehman* wrote: + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Check. + +Rules printed in the game book: Cue or System? + +yrs-- +--Ben +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +On 1-19-05, *Vincent* wrote: + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +System if we're using them right now, nothing if we aren't. "Using them" +includes things like "if we get into combat, there goes the whole rest +of the session - let's talk to them instead." +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +On 1-19-05, *Ben Lehman* wrote: + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Cool. + +Now I still can't understand that other thread, where I was like "it's +all system" and other people were like "what?" I was hoping it would +illuminate that. I think I'm still right, though. + +Anyway, thanks a bunch. Just going to go stare at the animations now. + +yrs-- +--Ben +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +On 1-19-05, *Vincent* wrote: + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Link me to the other thread? +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +On 1-19-05, *Ben Lehman* wrote: + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=12001 + +And look! There's your diagram! +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +On 1-19-05, *Vincent* wrote: + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Linkinated . +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +On 1-19-05, *nothings* wrote: + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +I'm sure you've thought of all of this already, Vincent, but I found +your explanation a little confusing, so I have tried to go through in a +little more detail and a slightly different focus. + +http://nothings.org/writing/rpg/elements.html + +My apologies if I've slipped on any Forge-ian terminology, as I'm not +actually a regular reader. +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +On 1-19-05, *Vincent* wrote: + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Nothings: linkinated . +(corrected) + +Well, I agree that you have a different focus. I think that the +differences between mine and yours can probably all be summed up in +their opening sentences: my "...an RPG's rules coordinate..." vs your +"...the activity of game-playing can be reasonably characterized by the +interaction of..." + +Like, I don't include a picture of the rules because all I'm talking +about is the rules. I also don't include props or snacks - except as +real things inside the d6 picture, if and only if a rule refers to them. + +Also having a GM outside of the group is nonsense, no matter how you +slice it. If you want to talk about distribution of authority within the +group, cool, and that's when a GM can come up - but the GM's a person +same as the rest of us. + +And about my arrows and dice: I consider the interesting bit of rolling +a die to be the interpretation of it, not the rolling of it. Thus "roll +the die" is an arrow pointing from the die to the players; from the +origin of the information to its destination. + +Um, so now what? This conversation will make more sense if either you +ask me to comment on yours, which I'd be happy to do in another thread, +or else you ask me questions about mine, which I'd be happy to answer +here. Or both! +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +On 1-20-05, *Vincent* wrote: + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Ben, I reread that thread, most of it anyway. Here's a thing: + +The goal of designing rules is to change social contract. + +When I design a set of rules, I'm trying to change the way that people +relate to one another, within the confines of the game. I'm trying to +force, trick, or provoke them into treating one another in particular, +possibly unnatural ways. I'm fuckin' around with their working creative +relationships. + +Beyond apportioning credibility, rules create /permission/ and +/expectation/. Permission and expectation are the real building blocks +of social contract; cunningly designed rules have access to human +interactions at a deep level. + +So, sure, there are no complete RPGs; as you say, the complete RPG is +playerless. It may work better to think of RPG rules as strong or weak, +flexible or brittle: a strong RPG draws the players into its particular +play, where a weak one allows them to play however comes naturally. A +flexible RPG can survive or redirect a broad range of preexisting social +dynamics, where a brittle one requires a particular social dynamic to +already be in place, or the game crashes. + +Am I making sense? Am I kind of on your topic? + +*I bumped this thread up to the front page. Let's talk about my diagrams +here.* +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +On 1-20-05, *Rognli* wrote: + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +This is like the Central Theorem of Roleplaying. For dummies. With +friendly, unscary illustrations. It doesn't get any better... + +Can I translate it for publication in the only Norwegian gaming-zine, +"Imagonem"? And before you ask; no we can't pay you, cause we don't make +any money. But I will tell everyone you are very cool. +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +On 1-20-05, *Vincent* wrote: + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ +Sure! +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +Handle: + + +Consider including your email address in the body of your comment. + +anyway. + +------------------------------------------------------------------------ + +