Rules that back source

[Mike Holmes]

Ian, all systems have to do this sort of backsourcing - nobody is implying otherwise. That is, if there exists a list for which the options can't be exhaustive, then the GM will be relied on. The thing is that this isn't the same as the GM being relied upon with no list. Because the expamples on the list serve to inform not only the GM, but the players that the results of modifiers will fall into some reasonable and agreed to range. You may not agree that the GM was precisely correct with his ruling, but you will probably agree that the GM was not out of range on his ruling.

The system is "suporting" the GM here all it can. There are some cases where the players are directly limited by charts. For example, in Hero System, there are lists of combat maneuvers, and they cover all that you can do. If you come up with something that's not on the list, then you have to use the one closest. That's the rules. Fortunatlely due to the design of the powers in the game, you can create new maneuvers and such almost ad infinitum without ever once having to go outside of the printed rules. I think this is one of the most attractive things about Hero System. It, too has modifiers and GM arbitration, but far less than most games.

Note that the freedom that "backsourcing" gives you is, I believe, a defining part of RPGs. That is, in most games you are only allowed to do things from lists of actions. Since these can't possibly cover the extent of what the in-game elements could do, if say you were a writer deciding what they could do, then the game is unlike an RPG (shares little morphology). RPGs are those games that have as a basic precept that the in-game elements can do whatever it seems they could. That means no list can cover everything if the elements in question are, say, human. So the game has to give guidelines and backsource in these cases.

And that's just fine. What I think Noon is saying is that many games just abdicate everything, and leave it all on the GM and players to decide on what happens. Which is akin to freeform. This works just fine, but it lacks the structure of the classic tabletop RPG. Essentially TTRPGs are the bridge between structured games, and freeform games in which the structure puts some of the adjudication back on the GM. And what Noon is saying is that where you backsource, and how you do it, is important.

Seems pretty true to me. Too little backsourcing, and it's a boardgame. Too much backsourcing, and it's freeform.

Mike

[Callan S.]

M. J. Young: I've had a few people jump to the credibility stage early, and it really is jumping the gun. Crediblity is what you apply after you have a result.

Say instead of a rule, this object is a leaf blower. You could use it as intended, for blowing leaves. Or you can use it for blowing air in peoples faces, or blowing up womens skirts. If you apply enough crediblity there, people will go along with it.

But I'm not talking about that.

I'm talking about when the leaf blower says it blows leaves, then its instructions say 'to operate the machine, place this pipe in your mouth and blow really hard'.

It doesn't matter what you go on to do with it, or what crediblity you apply. That's all the latter stuff.

It's when the damn thing, for good or for ill, leaves all the damn work to its user.

Well, all/a lot/some work. A little bit of work seems unavoidable (in the analogy, that would be lifting and aiming the leaf blower...but hell, that's easier than blowing leaves with your own breath)

[Callan S.]

*snip*
Seems pretty true to me. Too little backsourcing, and it's a boardgame. Too much backsourcing, and it's freeform.

Mike

To the latter, add: Slows down the game by perported use of rules, missleads users into buying a product that doesn't do what it says it does, and worst of all, it missplaces responsiblity. The players think that even if the GM isn't using the exact results of the system, it is influencing him and thus the system is somewhat responsible. Thus when things go wrong, the most blame is laid on the system (which deserves an entirely different type of blame), and the GM mostly gets off scot free. Examples are of endless arguements about 'that wasn't a realistic ruling', which should be 'I don't think your running the game well', but are missplaced.

Sorry, just had to rant that out! :)

[Ian Charvill]

I seem to be expressing myself badly.  My point isn't that all systems backsource it's this or anything like that: I'm not convinced that rule systems actually do the things described.

That there may be qualitative difference between say GURPS and HeroQuest is fine but entirely beside the point.  My point is that both games include such lists and are clear about apportioning the right and responsibility to modify and apply the rules.  I.e. both backsource but neither in a misleading way.

Noon's Riddle of Steel example is fine as far as it goes - in establishing text that backsources.  Does TRoS also fudge on responsibilities though?  Is it the kind of rules that are being criticised here?  Actually, whether or not I agree with the systems named is irrelevant.  It would be useful if names were being named and text were being cited.

Saying X is bad is fine, but without explicit examples of X being done it's all pretty weightless.

[Callan S.]

There are basically three idea's here, one is that backsourcing happens. The second is that it can happen too much, and the third is that it can be done missleadingly.

Really, you have to accept each of these in the order presented, its pointless arguing the second or third if the first isn't established as true for the argument. From the line about you not being convinced the rules do the things described, I'm not sure if the first has been established with you?

[Ian Charvill]

Noon,

all three have been established for me theoretically.  If what you describe is done in the way that you describe then it would be bad.

What I feel would be useful - not just for me because, hey, at the end of the day, who am I? - but for the thread to make things concrete with actual text examples of the bad thing happening.

[Callan S.]

I think the first thing that needs to be addressed (since we already have four examples) is what 'The GM's word is law' actually covers.

Essentially it means the GM can ignore the use of rules, and/or substitute system results with his own preferred results. Obviously, as much as he has this power, that use will be scrutinised.

However, this has no effect on the GM using a system and then giving the exact result it produced. He is not exerting this 'GM's word is law' power here, so it is not relevant in the least. He is 'going by the rules', there is no exertion of any GM fiat here.

What is relevant is when his control of the systems inputs are so high it gives high control of the outputs. You do not need GM fiat when results come out the way you want even when you used the system. The more the system back sources to you, the more the results it produces are a product of your desires.

Essentially this allows the use of GM fiat, without having to face scrutiny for having used fiat. It also creates a free form game, without giving the main benefit of free form games, which is not having to wade through a system.

This actually happens at any point on the dial, even at the lowest (lowest without it actually being completely turned off). As you turn up the dial, the patches of system that harbour this problem geometrically increase in size.

And now, some further examples (from the Rifts RPG):

The insanity section
Here, examples of what sets off an insanity roll range from 'Long period of physical and/or mental torture'. The time is given in the description, but actual exact requirements of the torture aren't given. This is an example with the back source dial at about medium.
Then they rage to 'Witnessing or experiencing a shockingly grotesque atrocity', which IMO could include every time you see someone killed with a standard mega damage laser pistol, judging from the books descriptions. The dial turned up.

More can be found in that section.

Pilot skills
Horsemanship: 'The percentile number is used whenever the character tries to determine breed, quality, and when performing special jumps or manoeuvres'. What is a special jump or move, and which would be special, but not so special that there shouldn't be a bonus for circumstance, is left to a guess.

Technical skills
Lore- Demon and monster 'The master of demon lore may be able to identify a particular type of monster by' and a fairly solid list of evidence methods follow. However, what actual identification provides you (A name and then players use their meta game knowledge? A name and some details based on the quality of the roll? How should we judge quality in a pass fail system, etc etc) is not detailed at all.

Juicer description
Under super reflexes and reaction time: 'Tends to be a bit jumpy and anxious; boredom is a constant enemy (bio-comp will counter with tranquillisers and euphoria drugs to make feel good/zone out, but can instantly make the juicer ready for action in 15 seconds/one melee)'
What triggers boredom in such a being, what resistance if any they have against this considerable weakness and what penalties they suffer during the 15 seconds makes this useless. This is one of the higher examples, as players will often detect that this is GM fiat posing as system.


There, another four examples. Note that Rifts is an old book. It's actually seems to be getting harder to find heavy back sourcing rules in newer books, which would tend to identify it as a problem that is recognised in the hobby. However, it seems to be leaving through instinctual avoidance by designers (who have the hobbies past to draw on), rather than directly addressing the problem, being clear about it in system texts and being clear as a designer, how much you want this in your system. Ie, a cringe avoidance rather than direct handling.