What can rules actually contribute?

[Callan S.]

Specifically fortune orientated ones here (though quite likely it can apply to all the other types). What can they actually contribute?

I'm wondering if there are really only two things:
1. Contributing nasty results we might otherwise not have inflicted on our play.

Now we all know players will screw their own PC over more than the GM ever would. But dice/fortune systems can perform a screw over that just wasn't expected and thus isn't something the player would land on themselves. Not because they wont do themselves in that bad...the dice might even be nicer to their PC than they would be as a player. It's because the damage/combination of nastyness the dice incur is usually unexpected. This means dealing with something outside of what you would have created (in terms of nastyness), which is worth while engaging with in the same maner as you get together in a group to engage other peoples creativity and not just your own.

Anyway, I like this quote from a recent Capes actual play:

I don't think we would ever consciously have created as humiliating a defeat as the dice forced us to, and that would have been a tremendous loss

2. In a similar vein, it can add combination of events that one wouldn't have considered putting together otherwise.

It's doesn't perfectly fit as an example, but They fight crime is a good one none the less.


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

[TonyLB]

Somewhere along the line (can't remember where), somebody told me their philosophy of the importance of the I-Ching.  It stuck in my mind.  What I heard was this:  "Random noise + human perception = startling meaning"

The fundamental act (IMHO) is not the rolling of the dice but the interpretation of the results.  Particularly with an unexpected roll or sequence of rolls the players get rapidly engaged in "How does this play out in the game world?"... in creating meaning out of random noise.  It's a tremendous creative resource, and an almost sure way to bypass writers block.

[Alan]

The well designed use of Fortune in the middle can prompt creativity.  An  unexpected result invites reinterpretation of the initial declared intent.

[lumpley]

The only worthwhile use for rules I know of is to sustain in-game conflict of interest, in the face of the overwhelming unity of interest of the players. Read this to include the in-game conflicts that drive Gamist and Simulationist play too, not just the Narrativist ones.

Any rules that don't do it, you're just as well off if you ditch 'em and play freeform. Lots and lots of RPG rules don't reliably do it.

Startling or very bad outcomes are pointless, sometimes disruptive, if they don't serve the game's conflicts. Hence fudging. Very good outcomes, or even very expected outcomes, vindicate the group's use of the rules, if the outcomes serve the game's conflicts.

You know the thing that happens where a group starts out playing Ars Magica (say) by the book, but gradually rolls dice and consults the rules less and less, until the character sheets sit in a folder forgotten? At first the rules served to build the players' unity of interest, so they used 'em. Now that the group's got unity of interest, it doesn't need the rules anymore. The only thing that's going to win that group back to using rules is something better than unity of interest.

Unity of interest plus sustained in-game conflict is better than unity of interest alone.

Here's when I knew that Dogs in the Vineyard was good: I was showing Meg the dice mechanic. We played through the conflict in the book - does your brother go and shoot the woman? She knocked her brother down and took away his gun, but their back-and-forth suggested an essential follow-up conflict. Meg was psyched. She was diggin' it. Now you know that Meg and I are happy long-time freeformers, and Meg especially doesn't have any patience for noncontributing rules. She launched straight into the follow-up conflict and reached for the dice.

edit: I should say that I don't disagree with anybody who wrote before me. I just think that really taking on the question - why have rules? - requires a broader look than at the moment-to-moment.

-Vincent

[Galwinganoon]

Rules are also used for purposes of keeping balance and consistency.  

By this, I do not strictly mean that it keeps the players on equal grounds, rules also keep the GM in check.  It could be argued that a good GM does not need to be kept in line and I would agree with that most of the time, but even good GMs can have bad days and bring their spite with them into the game and be needlessly harsh to the PCs.  This works the other way as well, a GM could be in a good mood and be nice to the PCs.  The GM could always play favorites with certain players and not be as strict with them as they are to the other players.  

Being in books, rules are always available to double-check when needed.  This grants a game more consistency, for if the aforementioned GM allowed something one day that he/she did not allow during a previous meeting, players would begin to question the consistency of their world.  The rules allow players and GMs to check a set of rules for the game that they are playing and enforce them in order to keep the game consistent.    

Chance allows us to include a random element that will sometimes disrupt and thwart the wishes of the players.  Failure is necessary in gaming and having it sometimes occur when it shouldn't and sometimes not occur when it should makes gaming more interesting.  The rules obviously allow us to monitor and interpret chance in a consistent way that everyone agrees upon before playing the game.

[timfire]

If you're willing to talk about things in broad abstract terms, I believe the above points can be condensed into a single idea: Rules guide play in directions that they may not go if it were up to the players alone.

Speaking a bit more concretely, I think another 'purpose' or 'benefit' of rules is that they take some of the creative pressure off of the players. Rules can contribute both to the content of a game (adding setting, situation, character, etc) as well as contribute to the flow of the story/game/whatever.

[Roger]

In my opinion, fortune-based resolution rules in RPGs bear a close resemblance to the fortune-based rules of another human endeavour: gambling.

The psychology of gambling is complex, but it is widely accepted that gamblers display a phenomenon described by conditioning theory as "partial reinforcement extinction effect" (PREE).

PREE, more or less, means that behaviours which are rewarded only some of the time take longer to disappear than behaviours which are rewarded all of the time, if the rewards stop coming.

I believe that fortune-based rules result in a similar learning pattern in some players.



Cheers,
Roger Carbol

[Alan]

The only worthwhile use for rules I know of is to sustain in-game conflict of interest, in the face of the overwhelming unity of interest of the players.

Bingo.  If you're going to play tennis, everyone aims to get the ball to the other side, they also agree to have a net.  The net, (and boundaries, raquets, etc.) provides an environment with multiple options for actions, and adds uncertainty to the result of each volley.

[Doug Ruff]

I'm in general agreement with all the above.

One other possible use for die-rolling: the anticipation of the result of a roll can create suspense. For example, you have one chance to save yourself, or a colleague from a nasty fate. Everyone's going to be watching those dice as they roll.

Of course, you don't need a randomiser to generate suspense, but it's hard to narrate a risk like this into a story if the outcome is certain.

[M. J. Young]

Welcome to Galwinganoon, who has said something that I think touches on what I would say. I'm actually surprised that Vincent didn't see it, but then as he says he's a happy freeformer from way back, so this probably is in a blind spot for him.

Rules serve as an authority to support the credibility of the participants. That's their function.

"I'm sorry, dude, but your character can't swim if he doesn't have the swimming proficiency. It's right here in the Wilderness Survival Guide."

Credibility settled. The character cannot swim.

"You need to roll at least a fourteen to hit that guy, and you rolled a twelve, so you missed."

Credibility settled. The character missed.

If you don't have any problem with distribution of credibility on the difficult questions, you don't need rules. Most of us do have such problems, and that's what rules are for.

Noon, I'm surprised you didn't pick up one aspect specifically of fortune-based mechanics (which seems to be the focus of your question): fortune-based mechanics can produce incredibly good results which we might hesitate to produce for ourselves without the support of the dice. Thus when a player in my Multiverser game rolls a 3 on a general effects roll, I'll often tell him that he just rolled a one in a thousand best possible result, so why doesn't he tell me what sort of absolutely unexpected over-the-top good luck might just have befallen him. I sometimes make it better than he suggests, because even with the encouragement of great dice rolls, we're often hesitant to narrate almost unbelievably good outcomes for ourselves.

--M. J. Young

[lumpley]

Oh no, MJ, that falls tidily into what I meant by "unity of interest." Absolutely rules serve as an authority to support the credibility of the participants ... but any rules can do it, and the group can do it easily enough without rules. (Depending on the group.) That's the dear old limply pimply.

My suggestion is to move beyond the Lumpley Principle. To see what a particular set of rules really contributes, you have to look beyond how it distributes credibility. You have to figure out how it parlays inter-player agreement into in-game conflict.

And if it doesn't do that - if it doesn't do it consistently and reliably - it wasn't worth the design time. We already have more instances of that game than we could possibly want.

And yes, welcome, Galwinganoon!

-Vincent

[GB Steve]

Here's something interesting from systems thinking that has some bearing on the purpose of rules:
http://www.systems-thinking.org/uwrules/uwrules.htm

In the various diagrams, you might replace "unwritten rules" by "GM".

As an operational researcher, I get to use this kind of thing in my work.

I think there's probably many ways that systems thinking can be applied to roleplaying, not least in exploring the interaction of different roleplaying styles.

I suppose the sort of thing I use it for is to see whether I think the rules that I have written enforce the kind of behaviour I want to see.

[Roger]

Rules serve as an authority to support the credibility of the participants. That's their function.

I think there might be something else going on, on a social level, though.  Let me see if I can illustrate with a couple of examples.

With Rules
"I'm sorry, dude, but your character can't swim if he doesn't have the swimming proficiency. It's right here in the Wilderness Survival Guide."

Player's Internal Dialogue:  Oh well.  I guess I should have taken that proficiency.


Without Rules
"I'm sorry, dude, but your character can't swim."

Player's Internal Dialogue:  The GM is a big mean jerk.  C'mon, everyone can swim a bit.  He just hates me.


This isn't a credibility issue, per se -- in both cases, the player agrees that the GM has sufficient credibility to make the determination.

This sort of appeal-to-authority occurs all over in non-rpg settings, too.

"I'm sorry, ma'am, but it's our policy not to accept returns."

"Look, dude, I don't want to repossess your car, but the bank told me to, and I'm just doing my job."

"I didn't want to, but I had no choice."


It could be called the Buck Stops Over There effect, and I think it has some significance.





Cheers,
Roger

[Eric Provost]

Hello all,

I'd like to add on a bit to what Roger had to say if I might.

My wife and I recently had a discussion similar to this, shortly after I suggested the possiblitiy that the dice just got in the way in certain games.

What we came down to were two things:

1)  Responsiblity

and

2)  Gambling

It's the responsibility part that strikes me as a GM, and the gambling bit that strikes me as a player.  See, in the games we're used to, the GM is the final arbiter on success or failure.  On win or loss.  He's got the authority and responsibility to arbitrate in a fair and entertaining manner.  So, in the cases of extreme gain or loss, it becomes easier to lay the authority and responsiblity on the fortune system.  If I may present an example;

The scene is set as the PC watches someone fall into deep water, and for one reason or another, the PC knows that that someone will not make it back up on their own.  So, the player, empathizing with their PC, announces; "I won't be able to live with myself if I don't -try- to save that poor soul.  I know I might drown too, but I simply have to jump in and try to save them."

Well, now both the player and the GM have a dilemma on their hands.  Unless the rescuing PC has some attribute that makes them an uber-swimmer, the PC risks death.  A pretty big risk.  Now, if we're playing fortuneless, then someone at that table has to make the decisions.  In my particular circle of gamers, that's a decision none will want to make.  No one will want to condemn the PC that made the selfless rescue attempt, but then, if if the decision is made that the PC is successful simply because no one wants the PC to die, then there's no risk, is there?

So, maybe I'm just coming full-circle to the Gambling point of view.  My players enjoy a bit of a gamble now and then.  And no one wants to be the one to be held responsible for great gains or losses, so we give the dice that job.  

And sometimes we blame and punish our dice for our failures.  :)

-Eric

[M. J. Young]

I think there might be something else going on, on a social level, though.  Let me see if I can illustrate with a couple of examples.

With Rules
"I'm sorry, dude, but your character can't swim if he doesn't have the swimming proficiency. It's right here in the Wilderness Survival Guide."

Player's Internal Dialogue:  Oh well.  I guess I should have taken that proficiency.


Without Rules
"I'm sorry, dude, but your character can't swim."

Player's Internal Dialogue:  The GM is a big mean jerk.  C'mon, everyone can swim a bit.  He just hates me.


This isn't a credibility issue, per se -- in both cases, the player agrees that the GM has sufficient credibility to make the determination.

I see the distinction you're drawing, Roger; but I think it's still a credibility issue.

In the with rules situation, it's clear that the rules establish the answer. The credibility of the referee at that point comes to enforcing the rule within the game, and deciding how it applies. Does the character drown in six feet of water if he's seven feet tall? What if he's five feet tall? Does the rule apply  here? If he says it does, then that's how his credibility is used.

In the situation without rules, you suggest that the player thinks the referee is a jerk. What does the referee think? He almost certainly recognizes that if he says the character can't swim, the player isn't going to be happy with that; but if he says the character can swim if he tries, his clever water trap has just become a meaningless bit of window dressing for the place. The player, meanwhile, is assessing whether he wants to play with this referee, and the referee knows it, so the pressure is on, and it pushes both ways. Will the player internally challenge the referee's credibility if swimming is disallowed as a solution to the problem? Conversely, if swimming is allowed and the threat is so easily eliminated, will the player begin to think that the referee's games aren't that interesting, and so start the deterioration of the referee's credibility on that count? The referee actually needs more credibility to make the call either direction if there aren't any rules. The authority of the rules supports his credibility, because there is something to which he can point to bolster his position.

So what you're seeing is the negotiation of credibility in action, really. Push that player a bit harder, and it will become vocal. Oh, come on, everyone can swim at least a little. My dog can swim. Throw a baby in a pool, and it will swim. Of course my character can swim a little. Cut me a break here, all right? You're looking at how we internalize that negotiation.

And Vincent, I agree--any rules, even no voiced or written rules, can do it.

--M. J. Young