Rules that outsource

[Callan S.]

Anyway, back to continuing the topic.

Note: After Vallamirs post, instead of saying 'rules that outsource to their user' I now prefer to use the term 'back source' as in 'rules that back source to the user that out sourced to them to begin with'. Annoying, but healthy for it.

Okay, I think backsourcing is going to be part of most RPG designs. But as I said earlier in the thread, the more it happens, the more your just freeforming (ie, the results of the system aren't helping (because they are just a reflection of the GM's desires)). So some steps for management are:

* Terminology in your RPG texts: Ensure that responsiblity for making rule calls is textually centered on the GM. Ensure that it is understood that game world situations don't make descisions on when rules are employed, the GM does. Refer on to advice on social contract/gentlemens agreement, so as to arrange a situation where it actually is more like the game world situation makes rule use descisions (through a consitant GM, for example).

* Apply guidelines on the inputs to rules. Also recognise that guidelines aren't a wall that stops something, but more like mud to wade through. Make the guidelines in a way that makes it easier to tie them to a social contracts accountability system. This makes the mud much harder to wade through.

* Where possible, mechanically limit what can be inputed into a rule by GM whim. Keep in mind as a designer, this limits just how flexible and encoupasing the system is. Decide on the genre/setting/whatever focus and try to keep the flexibility there and elsewhere place mechanical limmits. Recognise you'll have to make a descision on what your system is designed to explore and answer, rather than coddle a wishy washy desire for a system that 'can do everything'. Recognise that you already accept abstraction has to be in your system...accept focus too.

[Callan S.]

Am I beating a dead horse? Or not inspiring any ideas? Or covering what is considered a non issue?

[John Kim]

Am I beating a dead horse? Or not inspiring any ideas? Or covering what is considered a non issue?

I suspect the topic is a little overly abstract and/or broad for people to be able to debate it as a concept.  I am similar to you in that I prefer rules with less back-sourcing (i.e. Champions or James Bond 007 more than, say, Over the Edge or HeroQuest).  

I would say it might make for better debate if you narrowed the topic a little.  For example, you might contrast freeform traits like HQ or OtE versus system-defined traits.

[Callan S.]

Thanks for the pointer, John! :)

That being said,  I have zero experience with OtE or HQ. I'm going to have to make up some examples...but help me out, if I'm being to fuzzy, tell me and I'll try to get something from some books (Rifts, blue planet, Riddle of steel, D&D, HOL, some more...I've got a few, but not a lot either).

Okay, I'll tackle traits in terms of those that are like personality traits (ones listed in imaginary system books rather than user defined, to keep it simple).

Now, say there are two systems. How they handle the trait 'cowerdice' is listed below.

System 1. Cowerdice means that in certain conditions (determined by the GM), the character suffers -2 to his rolls.

System 2: Cowardice means that on all will saves verses effects that are fear based (which is detailed in each effects description), they suffer -2 to save. Such effects come from monsters or terrain designs.


Now, system 1 back sources a hell of a lot. It doesn't help you at all to determine when to apply the penalty. It can provide a bunch of guidelines, but in the end, who's doing the work on this, you or the system? The only work the system has done for you is say cowardice gives a -2 penalty. Applying it over and over correctly is up to you. You source out to it, it tells you -2 and then the rest is back up to you.

This is ideal if want all the responsiblity to be on you...but if you do, why are you outsourcing to rules in the first place? (On a side note, if its just for ideas, have you told your players this...or are you BS that your using a system?)

In system 2, determination of when cowardice applies is tied in with other elements of the rules. Its triggered by them quite clearly, thus the outsourcing was worth it as some responsiblity (for session quality) is placed into the hands of the rules.


I hope that provokes some further discussion. :)

[Callan S.]

Gah, apparently not. John or anyone, another pointer as to where I should go on this...nothing has really been discussed so far. Somewhat defined, but not discussed.

[Callan S.]

Is three pages too long? Should I start a new post with the basics clearly outlined, to give direction a longer thread might not have?

[John Kim]

Is three pages too long? Should I start a new post with the basics clearly outlined, to give direction a longer thread might not have?

In short, yes.  A thread needs to have focus or no one can really comment on it.  Also, threads trail off and diverge, and it is better to start a new one than to try to divert an old one.

[Callan S.]

That's cool then. I thought Ron might think I was hogging the board if I did so. I'll type something up when I'm off line and can do it at my leasure, then post it latter.