What can rules actually contribute?

[contracycle]

I'm suprised to see Mike  H. resisting this argument so manfully.  Sure, the value of randomness is externality - but surely we can still examine where randomness is located, and where other rules than those that control randomness call for randomness to be generated.

Surely we can go beyond saying some players enjoy uncertainty in some of their models some of the time.  I think this is related to the previous point about whether or not players actually use the rules that are written.  And if it is true that randomness is used in a certain way in a certain context, what can that tell us about the desire so fulfilled, or where else the same solution might be applied?

Therein lies the virtue of distinguishing between process and intent.  The process selected at a rules level may contradict the nominal intent.  Intent can be separated from rules without ignoring the implications of rules.

[Mike Holmes]

I'm not disagreeing with any of that.

I'm not saying we can't look further at all the ramifications of randomness - indeed we've done this on a number of occasions in other threads.

But when asked what the purpose of these things are, I said randomness, and thought that I was being shot down on that.

That is, what I'm not sure of is whether the problem with my analysis is that I've said that the ultimate purpose of randomness is to satisfy some player need, or if it's that randomness is not the purpose at all. I'd assumed the latter. Perhaps this is all just a misunderstanding.

If what he was asking is what the ramification of certain forms of randomness are, then, by all means, that's my thing. If he's asking what else, other than randomness, one gets from fortune systems, that's where I'm at a loss.

That is, it seems to me that some people have one idea of what the problem is on a very surface level, whereas my perception was that I'm being asked something more deeply epistemological which only answer I have is "I don't know."

It's like I've been asked, what is the use of the number zero, and I've said, "Well, it's used as a placeholder in a digital system and to indicate the empty set, so that people can do math with the algorythms we have." And I've been challenged that this is the intent of zero, but not it's "purpose."

Mike

[Tomas HVM]

1. Contributing nasty results we might otherwise not have inflicted on our play.

2. It can add combination of events that one wouldn't have considered putting together otherwise.

Is there anything else that doesn't basically fit under the above two contribution types?

Yes.

3. It ease the storytelling, by letting chance be the decisive factor. This is generally a boon to both GM and other players.

4. It lifts the heavy burden of improvisation from the shoulders of the active player, and place it "above" (in a non-entity). The fact that none may be held responsible for the outcome makes the overall mass of roleplaying games an egalitarian activity.

5. When chance is the central mean of resolving conflict, the GM/player is made into a mediator or translator of chance. I believe this buries the notion of "GM is god" for good. If you want to make anything into a "God" in roleplaying games, it should be Fortune. Roleplaying games may be described as an elaborate seremony in praise of Fortune... :-)

Hope this makes sense to you.

[John Kim]

I'm not saying we can't look further at all the ramifications of randomness - indeed we've done this on a number of occasions in other threads.

But when asked what the purpose of these things are, I said randomness, and thought that I was being shot down on that.

Well, I'll bring up that there are in my mind two issues with regard to Fortune: random results and appearance of random process.  

For example, a GM might secretly roll dice to determine something without the players knowing that dice were rolled.  Conversely, the GM might deal cards out to players having stacked the deck.  Regardless of whether you think it is a good idea or not, I think that unknowingly drawing from a stacked deck has a different play experience than knowingly being told a result that is GM fiat.

[Callan S.]

Hi Chris,

Off in some spots, very much on in others like the religion analogy. I think posters have overshot what I meant, found nothing where they've stopped at and written about that. I'll try and pin this down.


Hi all,

Okay, first lets establish something: As a designer, you can't force someone to use any particular rule. We all know that, but just to be clear it doesn't matter how good or sexy you make your rules (in your own opinion), you can't force them to use it by designing in a way that you think will please 'em.

Second, it doesn't matter if you think people will love your material...very rarely will anyone ever use everything in it you find dear about it. An example might be someone who plays TROS but doesn't use those SA thingies (or uses them in such a skewed way they're effectively not used) for whatever reason. Another example is the myriad ways early D&D was played despite its authors intent. Drift is prevalent.

So, that whole 'guess what your target audience will like' is speculative, not just in terms of 'will they buy my book' but 'will they use these spiritual attribute rules (or whatever)'. And I'm not knocking this by saying its speculative, I'm just establishing this.

It being a speculative area, I'm looking to see if at a more basic level there is something concrete rather than speculative. And I'd really prefer people to probe me or skip the thread (I've done plenty of boring threads before that people have skipped, don't worry, it wont phase me) than tell me nothing is there, now get on with what the board is really about.

So, what the hell is left if you remove the intent to make people happy? Well, actually I don't want you to remove that intent. I want you to remove, as a designer (and for the purposes of this thread) is not the intent but the thought that you can make people happy. Now, you can hope for it and should...but sans hope, what will your rules produce?

This is the trip up point. 'Without intent, rules do nothing!' seems to be the cry. Okay, time for an example: Lets look back at TROS with no SA's again. Now, I'm pretty certain it was designed to hopefully please a certain market in terms of the effect of SA's on/with the combat system. Now, say they removed the SA's because 'those SA's don't seem realistic at all!' but then have a bad time with the deadly combat.

Now, if were speculating what pleases an audience, we'd tackle this in a whole different way. But here I'm going to look at the amount of rules printed and the effect saught. Now, you have two chunks of rules to produce one result. But because you made those chunks seperate, they are vulerable to being broken up. What would happen if you combined the rules more intimately, in a smaller description so they are harder to break up. You would get that nar effect on combat more certainly than you do by having two chunks of rules that you hope the user will use both of. It's a matter of looking at what the rule should be producing and making the structure less vulnerable by being large. This is just one design rule I'm drawing. In this example, your not thinking of reducing the size of the rules because you think the audience doesn't like lots of rules. Your not even doing it because you think the audience will love SA's. Your doing it because this is the effect you want and your making it tighter to ensure that result is more likely to be produced.

So you've decided on the type of result you want to produce and with no concrete 'yeah, everyone will always use your SA rules' knowledge, you can only run off the knowledge that the more straight forward and tight the rules are to produce that effect, the more likely they will be used by everyone who uses your product (and not because everyone loves tight and straight forward rules). Again, just one design rule I'm outlining here.

Am I getting anywhere closer to a practical use for anyone here?

Note: I love TROS and I'm not knocking it. It's just handy that it's a spectacularly different game without SA's. The above isn't advice for it, for certain reasons which would convolute my point if detailed here.

Hi Simon,

I hope this covers some of your questions, because I fear that if I answer your many quoted post, it'll be readable to others in the same way frankenstien walks...kind of clunky. I don't think I'd be able to tackle it adequately for forge reading purposes.

[M. J. Young]

This thread has posed great difficulties in terms of how to grasp its intent.

It seems that the core question is what do rules accomplish?

However, it is complicated by the seemingly ever-present insertion of this qualifier, what do rules accomplish given that the players are likely to ignore them all anyway?

So somewhere between the last paragraph of Mike Holmes' post and the first paragraph Chris Lerich's post, something started to form in my brain that might be a fresh approach to the question.

A role playing game, as we understand it currently here, is a cooperative creative entertainment process through which two or more individuals contribute ideas to a shared imagined space in a fashion that produces imagined events that can be expressed in narrative if desired. That is, the entire fun of the game is to create the little-s story. (The kind of little-s story we create and the reason we find it fun to do so is where creative agenda come in, which are not part of this consideration at this point.)

It is also agreed that such play, even if "free-form", is possible because of system, a set of agreed limitations and obligations within the social contract of the group involved in the activity.

Now, the sole purpose of "writing a role playing game" must be this: we have found a way to play in our social group which we find both fun and different from other ways people do this, and we wish to communicate how we do that to others so that they can have the same fun we have, or at least approach what we're doing.

Thus what rules attempt to do is codify those limitations and obligations which make the game work for the group currently using it in a form which another group can adopt into their own social contract to achieve the same outcome.

So what point do rules have if we assume the players are going to ignore them? No point at all. The entire point of writing the rules was to tell someone else "This is how we achieve the enjoyable experience we'd like to share with you." If the players don't want to follow your rules, then either

[*]your rules do not effectively provide them with the experience you're having;[*]these players don't enjoy role playing for the same reasons you do;
or[*]they don't really want your advice on how to play, and are going to play their way no matter what you tell them (because, probably, they think they know how to have fun role playing, and your ideas of how to do it another way and have more fun must be wrong).[/list:u]

What rules accomplish, if they are well written, is conveying the means of reproducing an enjoyable play experience through adjusting the social contract of another group of people. That's both what they do and how they do it. If that other group of people ignores the rules, they accomplish nothing.

Now, if Chris is right that what you're really after is connecting specific rules with what they specifically accomplish, I think that it either doesn't work that way or the answers you will get will be too narrow to be useful.

For example, I can suggest the use of an illusionist technique by which the referee has complete control of what happens next: whichever way the player has his character turn, he will go here next. I can use that technique to completely disempower a player so that he has to go through my story; combined with a couple other techniques we wind up with a thoroughly rigid illusionism in which  none of the player choices matter. Conversely, I can use that technique to completely empower a player by assuring that none of his choices send him to some gaming backwater where nothing is happening and he's just wasting time. Used with certain other techniques, it can put the player character exactly where the player wants him to be, faced with the choices that should and do matter to him in this game.

So we can say that the use of dice "creates randomness and the consequential uncertainty"; but first, that's not necessarily true, since it's entirely possible to use dice in a way that only appear to create uncertainty, and second, if it does do this, that's only a means to some other desired objective in the game design. It is only in combination that individual techniques achieve specific design tendencies and outcomes.

Does this help clarify the topic at all, Callan?

--M. J. Young

[Callan S.]

I'm not sure...

So we can say that the use of dice "creates randomness and the consequential uncertainty"; but first, that's not necessarily true,

That's why I stuck the word 'can' in there. They aren't going to provide that necessarily.

However, it is complicated by the seemingly ever-present insertion of this qualifier, what do rules accomplish given that the players are likely to ignore them all anyway?

This shouldn't be a problem with the discussion so much as the problem under discussion. :)

Think of it this way: You as a designer have this nifty result you want to give. Now, it's established that the players may ignore any rule at any time. Now, we'll say this gem of a result occurs after ten rules. Now imagine that these ten rules are like stepping stones and if you remove one, the result just does not come about. As a designer, why the heck are you putting it at the end of ten steps when you know all those steps are vulnerable to being ignored? Don't you care much about getting that result across to the users? This is one point I'm trying to convey.

Now, there is a sort of reason to do so. Necessary self indulgence. By necessary I mean, you can speculate about what your market will love (everyone does, including me), but really you don't know what the dudes will like when they pick up the book in the shop to look, or carry it home to use. You might speculate that the market will not ignore those ten stepping stone rules and will use them all. But really you don't know what they will like...basically your being self indulgent in having ten stones and thinking your market WILL use them all. However, one has to be self indulgent in thinking that the end users will even use one stone/rule provided by oneself. But the less the self indulgence the better...if you can do in seven stones what you were doing in ten, go for it if you care about getting that result across.

I'm just looking at the basics to draw on design advice which I think also shows up in stuff like the idea of fantasy heartbreakers. Gem of a rule inside them...shrouded in the many steps that it takes to get there. Get rid of those steps, get that gem out there! Now! Well, I think that was part of the message.

[Mike Holmes]

OK, I think I get what you're saying with the particular design priciple you're now espousing, but I think you really got there the long way. I get the impression that somehow you have more principles that you think are exposed by this line of reasoning? That is, this was not your only point to make tight designs?

See, from my POV, we've been saying make tight designs for ages now, and it was a product of the idea of the intent to make a fun game for the players. That is, without looking "beyond intent" we got to this principle by looking at the intent to provide a good experience.

I think that you're seriously jaded about what happens between design and play. I think your speculation that drift is "prevalent" is incorrect. I think that there are a lot of people playing the rules as written who have little to say because play is going fine for them. IOW, the squeaky wheels are the ones that are heard most from.

But even if I'm wrong, if one player has fun as written, I'm satisfied. Further, and I say this a lot, if one does modify from the rules, it's precisely how well presented the original vision was that makes it possible to make good modifications to the rule system. Some systems even are so good as to suggest their own modifications. If people are having fun with modified versions of the rules, then I'm good with that.

Might be why we included a rule to make modifications to the rules?

I think that it's not "self-indulgent" even to assume that other people will like what you like. That is, being as it's the best indicator of what's fun that you can objectively have, it's also the best tool to objectively decide on what will be fun for others, outside of independent playtesting. And then we have independent playtesting, where the author eats his ego as he sees just where his own pecadillos are not appealing to everyone. So, in point of fact, these things are corrected in the design process to the extent humanly possible.

One can theorize til the cows come home, but in the end the best measure of success is to see the game played succesfully. By people other than yourself, if that's your intent for the design.

Can we thorize about how to do it better? Yes, that's what we do here every single day. I don't see how trying to separate the end goal of user happiness makes it impossible to do inner analysis. It doesn't we do it constantly.

Mike

[M. J. Young]

Think of it this way: You as a designer have this nifty result you want to give. Now, it's established that the players may ignore any rule at any time. Now, we'll say this gem of a result occurs after ten rules. Now imagine that these ten rules are like stepping stones and if you remove one, the result just does not come about. As a designer, why the heck are you putting it at the end of ten steps when you know all those steps are vulnerable to being ignored? Don't you care much about getting that result across to the users? This is one point I'm trying to convey.

So then part of the question is how do you encourage the players to use the rules as written?

One thing I think Multiverser does a fair amount of is explain not only what the rule is, but why it's there and what it accomplishes. A lot of times gamers will dump rules because they don't understand a rule and don't grasp what it does. (I see this in old D&D "fixes" all the time; one thing is changed without really understanding why it was the way it was in the books, and it has repercussions throughout the game that are quite unexpected.) If you've got ten pieces that fit together to create a really nifty result, and they're all necessary to get that result (which is kind of implied by the suggestion that the ten pieces fit together to do that), then with each piece you have to explain what it contributes to the play experience in a way that tells the reader what he loses if he dumps it.

Having a clear explanation of the value of a particular rule will sometimes mean that a player who was going to dump a rule he didn't understand will instead go back and wrestle with it in an effort to understand it. It would be better if he didn't have to wrestle with it; but at least in letting him know what he's sacrificing if he dumps the rule, you give him an incentive to try to use it.

--M. J. Young

[Tomas HVM]

One thing I think Multiverser does a fair amount of is explain not only what the rule is, but why it's there and what it accomplishes.

I think this is a very sound principle. The only one able to wrestle with the flood of misinterpretation, prejudice and stubborn traditionalism. Give reasons! Be clear! Instill positive thinking!


And don't foget the meaty bits at the end...

[Mike Holmes]

MJ, do you tend to think that such should be with the rules they explain, or in designer notes in another section? The basic issue being reference-ability vs. intent clarity.

Also, isn't there the threat that the explanation will be even more of a turn off than the rule by itself? That is, doesn't a good rule's intent become apparent by use? Just playing devil's advocate here.

Mike

[Callan S.]

OK, I think I get what you're saying with the particular design priciple you're now espousing, but I think you really got there the long way.

I'll wear that. I had the same problem with the 'a vase is pushed off a balcony' thread...I tend to think what I think will mesh well with everyone else, then spend pages finding out it doesn't and pages trying to find a middle ground. Still, the balcony thing finally came to a good conclusion.

I get the impression that somehow you have more principles that you think are exposed by this line of reasoning? That is, this was not your only point to make tight designs?

Nah. As I said, it wasn't the only point. That's what I wanted to get out of this post. I gave the 'use fewer stones' example because it parallels common design theory, so everyone could relate to it. But really I wanted to explore what other design principles could come of it. I can feel there's more there, but couldn't quite work them out and wanted the forges help (I started with what rules can contribute so I could ask this in light of what rules can contribute). I'm now in the ironic position of having to define what I mean by developing these principles by myself and explaining them.

Basically this principle I'm seeing mostly helps blow away some of my preconceptions (while at the same time reinforcing stuff like having tight rules or not bothering too much with anti cheating rules).

See, from my POV, we've been saying make tight designs for ages now, and it was a product of the idea of the intent to make a fun game for the players. That is, without looking "beyond intent" we got to this principle by looking at the intent to provide a good experience.

Yeah, it's a common practice. I noted it because I'm sure we can all relate to it and connect somehow with this thingie I'm talking about. There is an important difference though. "People like tight rules" is speculation (especially as the term 'tight' can have many an interpretation). "People may not use this or that rule, so the more you want an effect to definitely happen, make it occur as soon as possible step wise" is NOT speculation. It's a fact (You'd agree?). That's why I'm looking at it with this stark viewpoint that is without speculation...to arrive at facts about design, rather than speculation. Not, and I stress this, not because speculation is bad, but to develop some design rules anchored in fact. Then you can use these in tandem with design rules based on speculation and rule the world...ahem, I mean, do better as a designer.

I think that you're seriously jaded about what happens between design and play. I think your speculation that drift is "prevalent" is incorrect. I think that there are a lot of people playing the rules as written who have little to say because play is going fine for them. IOW, the squeaky wheels are the ones that are heard most from.

I'm not jaded, just looking for another source to draw on for design principles apart from speculation (which I can then, as said, use in tandem with principles drawn from speculation to rule the...damn, ah, nothing). But okay, drift is not that prevalent.

I think that it's not "self-indulgent" even to assume that other people will like what you like.*snip*

It is self indulgent from this point of view I'm proposing, but not self indulgent in general (if you get what I mean). It's just a different perspective to use along with any others one might use.

Anyway, as I said before, I think this perspective I'm trying to describe can be used to draw concrete (rather than speculative) design principles and blow away some preconceptions. Have I detailed it enough for anyone to help me investigate this, or should I withdraw and ruminate on it for some time then come back with what I've worked out (which will be less theoretical and more practical)? I'm thinking the latter and will take it up (baring any change in posting direction).

Although I like MJ's thoughts. If (as a designer) you want a particular effect to occur, is your only means to try and ensure that happens is through the rules that detail how to do it? No, most likely there are ways to support that effect coming about that parallel those stepping stones/rule steps, and support the effect occurring in the same way as reducing the number of stepping stones will support it occurring. Though your own devils advocate reminds me that I'm looking for concrete design rules. For my own purposes, I don't want to try to entice, because this perspective requires me not to think in terms of pleasing but in terms of what I can most definitely do (not what I speculate I can do for the end users). I'll ruminate on that as well.

[M. J. Young]

MJ, do you tend to think that such should be with the rules they explain, or in designer notes in another section? The basic issue being reference-ability vs. intent clarity.

Also, isn't there the threat that the explanation will be even more of a turn off than the rule by itself? That is, doesn't a good rule's intent become apparent by use? Just playing devil's advocate here.

Mike

On the first point, there are pros and cons, of course.

I remember submitting a resume to a guy I knew who was a personnel director, and he commented that he never even looks at the personal stuff at the bottom; now, that might just be him, but it might reflect a lot of personnel directors. If you put your explanations in a separate section, some people are going to decide they don't want to read that section; if you put the explanation right with the rule, they don't have that choice--and thus they get the explanation at the moment they're considering the function of the rule.

More on that in a moment, but your point that a good rule's intent becomes apparent by use requires that the rule is used. I can't honestly say whether weapon speed factors or hit adjustments for armor type benefit OAD&D play, because I never used them. (I didn't because they were more complicated than I could manage when I made the transition from BD&D to OAD&D, and I kind of never got to them.) Telling the player what the rule is going to accomplish for him lets him know what he's sacrificing if he doesn't use it, and why he should try it before he scraps it.

One of the most important lessons I learned from music theory was this: first learn the rules, then learn the purpose of the rules, then you're in a position to break the rules, because you know what you'll get. Most people never get that far (and I frequently see compositions and arrangements that break rules that create effects they probably didn't intend, so it happens quite a bit). If you want people to understand what the rules do, I personally think it best to include those explanations in the text with the rules.

Obviously I don't always do it; but I do it when I'm putting forward rules that are a bit different from what people have seen before, because particularly in those cases I must have had a reason to change it, and if I can communicate that to the reader, it might both make more sense to him and help him to apply the rule effectively.

One point for Callan: obviously, there are often multiple ways to achieve the same result. If I suggest a three-step means of doing so and tell how those three steps move toward the result, and someone else knows how to do that in one step, they can intelligently replace my three steps with their one. (Conversely, if they think three steps will give them better results than my one, they can do that.) If, however, I don't tell them what my steps are attempting to do, they can't intelligently dump them without first trying them, and they're less likely to try them and probably less likely to see what they accomplish in a quick once-through if the point has not been explained.

Got to run; hope this helps.

--M. J. Young

[Mike Holmes]

More on that in a moment, but your point that a good rule's intent becomes apparent by use requires that the rule is used. I can't honestly say whether weapon speed factors or hit adjustments for armor type benefit OAD&D play, because I never used them. (I didn't because they were more complicated than I could manage when I made the transition from BD&D to OAD&D, and I kind of never got to them.) Telling the player what the rule is going to accomplish for him lets him know what he's sacrificing if he doesn't use it, and why he should try it before he scraps it.

OK, let's say Gygax had put in an explanation of why those rules exist. It seems pretty obvious to me, and I'll bet you can intuit what he would have written as well. If he had, would you actually have been more likely to use the rule? That is, even reading a rule, one gets a notion of the intent, usually. That is, one doesn't even need to play to get the basic idea.

Now, is that subject to misinterpretation? Sure, in some cases. But I think the intent is often pretty clear.

Obviously I don't always do it; but I do it when I'm putting forward rules that are a bit different from what people have seen before, because particularly in those cases I must have had a reason to change it, and if I can communicate that to the reader, it might both make more sense to him and help him to apply the rule effectively.

That seems sensible. OTOH, I always say that this needs to be done carefully to prevent the "Methinks she doth protest o'ermuch" effect. That is, first, don't compare, because that says to someone that the method might not be as good as what they're used to. Second, too much explaining, and the person might sense it as self-doubt. Why put in all that stuff to convince us if the rule works fine.

Generally, I think players feel that they should be able to see straight away what the reasoning for a rule is. Because if they don't, chances are that they're not going to see the point in actual use. Again, I'm playing devil's advocate here to an extent.

Is this getting OT?

Mike

[M. J. Young]

I can't honestly say whether weapon speed factors or hit adjustments for armor type benefit OAD&D play, because I never used them. (I didn't because they were more complicated than I could manage when I made the transition from BD&D to OAD&D, and I kind of never got to them.) Telling the player what the rule is going to accomplish for him lets him know what he's sacrificing if he doesn't use it, and why he should try it before he scraps it.

OK, let's say Gygax had put in an explanation of why those rules exist. It seems pretty obvious to me, and I'll bet you can intuit what he would have written as well. If he had, would you actually have been more likely to use the rule? That is, even reading a rule, one gets a notion of the intent, usually. That is, one doesn't even need to play to get the basic idea.

I'm not certain I can intuit what he would have written. I don't know that he was entirely clear on the reason. It is said that he doesn't use one of those rules himself; it may be there merely to appease those who prefer the wargaming concepts of play, and he never thought about whether having it or not having it made a difference.

Of course, there's something a bit unfair about that. He probably was writing for wargamers, people like us who had seen at least a couple of versions of combat systems and would expect some of these factors to be considered. The modern role playing gamer wouldn't have that same expectation, and I question whether our perspective from here can be so clear anymore. I never wondered then why that rule was there; but then, I never wondered about the impact of any of the rules for more than half a decade, really, save perhaps alignment and a couple of others.

It is possible that if there had been an explanation of the rule, I'd have considered how and when to apply it. But that's speculation, really. I was making the transition from the Basic game, remember, and was unaware that this was actually not the same game; things like changing the Armor Class table and the saving throw names took me a few weeks to recognize, because I didn't expect them to be different.

At least if there had been an explanation I'd have had a better idea what I was sacrificing, or perhaps how to implement it without a lot more work. As it was, I'd have had to work out whether it applied, and then how it applied, each time I used it, and probably if I understood the function of the rule I would have been able to reach that conclusion a lot quicker.

--M. J. Young