Just a quick question or three: What is the take of people here on RPG's which ask for users to assign mechanical resources without system guidance? Say, like a game which has some combat rules and stuff but some guy, usually the GM, is to draw up a dungeon for it (a dungeon, or whatever material suits the setting and angle of the game).

Do you see these as complete games? And so I'm not starting an opinion poll, what's the reasoning behind your answer?

If you picked up one of these games and had a fun time playing, would you attribute that result to the game? What are the reasons for your answer?

Also, what do you think about the resource structures of games and what sort of effects newly added resources have on system (and how it matters)?

I don't know what you mean by "complete as games," which makes it hard to answer.

If you asked me, without further context, "Is freeform RPG, with no rules whatsoever, a game?" I'd say "Yeah, of course... you can see people playing it, in ways that are strongly reminiscent of all sorts of other games, like Truth or Dare."

If, on the other hand, you asked me "Is D&D a mathematically closed system, such that the behaviors of the system itself can be understood in logistical terms without reference to black boxes from which unpredictable numbers arise seemingly at random?" I'd have to ask "Are people faithfully running pre-published scenarios, or are they making up their own dungeons and monsters?"

But "complete game"?  Does my first answer mean that freeform RPGs are complete games?  Does my second answer mean that D&D isn't?  I don't know how you want to use the term, and I don't want to leap in to saying something that can easily be read as an indictment of one type of system.

Good clarification questions! Freeform is a complete game, I agree.

By complete I should have indicated written RPG's (in whatever format/paper/PDF/etc) which specify that they are complete and portable. As in the rules are written out and another group could follow them to successfully play the game as intended by the designer, rather than some/all of the rules being in certain peoples heads and you'd need to play with them if you want to play the game.

Also, complete refers to the designers insistance that it is indeed complete. In that the game has no footnote indicating that the game is actually incomplete or a draft.

Okay then, by that definition, the game is complete if there is no footnote saying it's not complete.  My opinion doesn't have any bearing.

It feels like you're fishing around, hoping to find somebody who will argue that such games aren't complete... and using such a vague definition that the person who bites at your bait will have to clarify what "complete" means, in order to make a thesis that they can argue.

Honestly, I'd much rather hear whether you think that such games are complete.  What's your opinion?

Callan wrote: By complete I should have indicated written RPG's (in whatever format/paper/PDF/etc) which specify that they are complete and portable. As in the rules are written out and another group could follow them to successfully play the game as intended by the designer, rather than some/all of the rules being in certain peoples heads and you'd need to play with them if you want to play the game.

Tony, I'd like to say my opinion but let's give non bias one more shot. The clarification isn't a definition, it's an example of 'written RPG's which specify that they are complete and portable'. The games text itself says that as an assertion (it's not me making a definition, I'm just paraphrasing what these texts suggest). Feel free to debate this assertion in any answer you give.

Shreyas, I'm not sure why your making the distinction there (I can see a distinction, but can't see why it matters). Are you saying something along the lines that "it is not possible to fail to play the game as the designer intended" just isn't possible in a design (to which I agree)? And further you might be saying that the more permissive requirement is thus inclusive of play that has the GM doing alot of unguided resource assignment? If I'm well off, can I get some more info from you about it?

I'm suggesting that the more permissive requirement is so permissive that it's close to meaningless for the purposes of this discussion.

Callan,

OK, let me break this down: we've got a game that consists of "combat system etc." and then requires GM (or someone) effort to build a MECHANICAL (meaning just exactly what, here?) resource-containing environment for play.  But there is no "system guidance" for doing so.  Is that a complete game?

The main place I'll look is at that "system guidance" question.  What does that mean?  If the game text says something off-hand about not killing characters in the first room, is that "system guidance"?  I think the answer is yes, and thus, I guess as long as there's something like that, the game is "complete".  So I think an incomplete game is an excedingly rare thing - the "NO system guidance" qualifier basically never happens.  But a more interesting question is how much guidance, and in what form, works best to reliably produce enjoyable play? (I think we get many different answers, based on the tastes and CA's of those involved)

That's where I think you'd have to look as far as attributing the fun, too.  To what degree was that explicit and/or implicit guidance an important part of facilitating the fun?  A lot?  Then lots of attribution to the game.  A little?  Then some more attribution to the players than to the game.  It'll pretty much always be a mix, just a question of the portions involved in the mixing.

Resource structures?  Actual play always ends up being about this, in both obvious and inobvious ways.  Newly added resources can totally screw a previously-working system, or they can be a cool and fun-enhancing addition - the factors involved seem, off-hand, incredibly varied and tied to particular systems and circumstances.

As to the effect upon HOW system matters - I'm not seeing anything there.  Resource matters to system generally, and system matters to play generally, though in neither case is the first the whole of what matters to the second.  Nothing immediately occurs to me as unique about newly-added resources.  I mean, if less thought is put into the newly added stuff, then maybe you're more likely to create problems, but again that's a general truism, not a particular problem with newly addd resources.

Hope that's the kind of response you're looking for, and I join Tony in saying "hey, tell us what YOU think!"

Callan wrote:
Tony, I'd like to say my opinion but let's give non bias one more shot.

This seems like a leading question.

Why are you asking it?  Why does it matter?

I'm confused.

I'll also mention, just for the record, that D&D is actually better than most games of this type, because of the random encounter tables. There are fairly concrete guidelines.

But this topic is actually way way more complicated than I thought a few months ago, so I'll shut up now.

Okay, the reason I haven't stated my own opinions is because I already wrote a rant in word about this. Then I looked at it and realised I was only explaining one side (a negative side) and not asking for discussion on it. This negtive side I proposed in the rant, was a 'emporers new clothes' type illusion. However, trying to burst the illusion with a post wouldn't help me understand it any better/learn how to burst it more effectively. You can't examine an illusion at the same time your shredding it apart in a thread.

That didn't work out. So as asked for, my opinion is that despite the authors assertions, these are NOT complete games. However, the authors strong assertion that they are grants an illusion for players that thier own mechanical input (adding numbers and items) is part of the game. It's an illusion along the same lines as genuine 'my guy' sydrome, where the player isn't using that to conciously manipulate the game but instead really see's his characters actions as something not of his own making.

I'll give some room for right of reply to my opinion, before responding to posts given so far.

Callan,

At the moment I'm still having trouble understanding your initial question.  You say you're talking about games that require players to assign mechanical resources without guidance.  You then say you're talking about games that are, either directly or by omission, claimed to be "complete" or "portable" (which strike me as two radically different concepts).

Clarification questions:  Dogs in the Vineyard requires the GM to assign values to NPCs and provides a section on how to do this.  Is that assigning mechanical resources with guidance?  D&D 3.5 requires the DM to come up with adventures/dungeons and populate them with obstacles.  It includes Challenge Ratings and level-loot tables and the like.  Is that assigning mechanical resources with guidance?  So, perhaps an example of what you're talking about would help since I'm still not entirely sure what you mean.

You later clarify "complete" by saying that you're talking about games that self-identify as complete.  Is this in addition to providing no guidance for mechanical assignment?  It seems that you might be saying that you don't consider any roleplaying game to be complete.  I don't think so, but it might be what you're saying.

Also, "portable" and "complete" seem to be radically different concepts to me.  Are you making them synonymous here?  Are you intending that claims of "completeness" be claims of "portability" for the purposes of this discussion?

Thomas

Callan wrote: So as asked for, my opinion is that despite the authors assertions, these are NOT complete games.

Mechanical resources
A healing potion is described as having a deep blue hue, with strange swirling shapes. At a purely mechanical resource level it recovers 1D8+1 HP.

Complete and portable
Here's an example: Someone writes a recipe for almond cake, which lists the ingredients, the measures involved and the way to cook it. They hand someone else that recipe and that other person follows the recipe and makes another almond cake. I'd call that recipe complete and portable. Now, if another guy writes up an almond cake recipe but skips writing down half the ingredients before handing it on. I'm not sure someone else would end up making almond cake, even with a picture to work from. I'd call that recipe incomplete and given the differing results, not portable from one individual to another.

Gordon wrote: But a more interesting question is how much guidance, and in what form, works best to reliably produce enjoyable play? (I think we get many different answers, based on the tastes and CA's of those involved)

LS wrote: You later clarify "complete" by saying that you're talking about games that self-identify as complete. Is this in addition to providing no guidance for mechanical assignment?

Now that you've designed your terms, I can provide answers to your question.

What is the take of people here on RPG's which ask for users to assign mechanical resources without system guidance? Say, like a game which has some combat rules and stuff but some guy, usually the GM, is to draw up a dungeon for it (a dungeon, or whatever material suits the setting and angle of the game).

Do you see these as complete games? And so I'm not starting an opinion poll, what's the reasoning behind your answer?

If you picked up one of these games and had a fun time playing, would you attribute that result to the game? What are the reasons for your answer?

Callan, I don't believe I have followed a cooking recipe exactly since I was ten.  My wife is also a pastry chef, and so she tells me all sorts of things about different ovens' heat distribution, the size and shape of pans and how they affect how things bake, the effects of altitude and humidity on yeast (there's a reason San Fransisco has good sourdough), and the ten thousand different kinds of flour, sugar, and salt that we 'amateurs' use interchangably as if they were all the same thing.  You can't reproduce the same cake by using the same recipe.  It doesn't work that way in cooking, and it doesn't work that way in gaming.  The players will always be bringing different things to the table, and they will ignore the published rules in favor of their way of doing things.

Additionally, to extend your analogy to the breaking point, I don't want to enjoy eating the cake, I want to enjoy making the cake -- roleplaying is not just a product to be appreciated but an activity that all the players take part in.  It's the doing that is the fun part, not sitting back and enjoying what already happened.

But I think the main thrust of your topic concerns games that offer something like 'currency budgets' for the players, to delimit how much in-game 'oomph' they can throw at a situation and to what extent they frame conflicts.  Players get so many skill points, the GM gets so many monster points.  That way the GM doesn't overpower the players.  Yes, that's simplistic, but it can be expanded outward, to include sources from which players and GM can draw their material, techniques that they can use to affect the game in the ways they like, and so on.  A clear, explicit, and public outline of player and GM powers, rights, and responsibilities.

I'm writing a lot of this sort of thing into FLFS, but I'm writing it with the patent expectation that vast reams of it will be totally ignored.  Playing 'by the rules' the entire playgroup sits down and discusses what kind of game they want to play before they even choose who will be the Game Master -- like that is going to happen in 90% of the playgroups out there in the gaming world!  In fact I am pretty conflicted about including so many pages of material that will not find its way into a given customer's actual play that I've adopted a few dodges and tricks.  I list out options that can be taken rather than make dictates that will not be followed anyway (Troupe Play, Round Robin GMing, Bluebooking, etc).  I provide more than one way to scale the same mountain (credibility is explicitly transferred, but players have some strong control over it once it's in their hands).  And lastly, everything on how the game is setup and run is (supposedly) discussed and agreed upon by the players in the First Session.  That clear, explicit, public outline of player powers is created by the players, not dictated by the book.

But then, I don't think that it will ever happen any other way -- every playgroup comes to some sort of agreement, either implicitly or explicitly, when they sit down and start playing.  Maybe they play 'by the book', maybe they agree to do that thing that they liked from the last game, maybe they 'just use the system, but not the setting' or vice-versa.  Thing is, the players will always decide this.  The game designer never will.  This is the piece that makes the game 'complete' and it is not a piece that the game designer can ever include.

Hi again, Joshua,

I think the cake analogy's been overextended until it broke. Instead, take the card game 'Lunch Money'. Actualy play accounts can be incredibly varied and different from one another, all as a result of player input while using the system. However, despite the variety of play, they are all manipulating resources in exactly the same way - under the guidance of just one system. The players didn't need to add resources without system guidance, to get varied and interesting play.

Is unguided resource assignment by GM or player the only way for players to give input?

Hi Vaxalon,

They're as complete as any other roleplaying game.  My reasoning is that resources are only one of many things that participants bring to a game.  Some games ask for more of one thing, some games ask more of another.  You always have to contribute something to an RPG.

They're important in the same way that "Community Chest" cards are important to a game of Monopoly.

Callan wrote: The players didn't need to add resources without system guidance, to get varied and interesting play.

emphasis mine

Callan wrote:
Just a quick question or three: What is the take of people here on RPG's which ask for users to assign mechanical resources without system guidance? Say, like a game which has some combat rules and stuff but some guy, usually the GM, is to draw up a dungeon for it (a dungeon, or whatever material suits the setting and angle of the game).

Do you see these as complete games? And so I'm not starting an opinion poll, what's the reasoning behind your answer?

If you picked up one of these games and had a fun time playing, would you attribute that result to the game? What are the reasons for your answer?

Also, what do you think about the resource structures of games and what sort of effects newly added resources have on system (and how it matters)?

Joshua,

If you're trying for "game is potentially complete if you gamer monkeys don't muck with it" the question hangs on who determines that "need". The players? The designers? Different groups will have different standards of what they consider "acceptable and needs no mucking with."

Perhaps we might define 'incomplete' as "directing players to allocate resources without providing explicit rules for doing so"?

Callan wrote:
Vaxalon: In that community chests do what for you in play?

Tell me if I'm wrong, but I think your looking at this from the entire end users perspective. It's like looking at a little girl who hugs and cuddles and has tea with her dolly. From your perspective of the overall experience, the dolly is only part of it (next to the hugging, the affection show, the tea ritual, etc). However, the dolls designer can only impart a doll to someone. The doll is the entirety of the designers contribution. The importance of the doll could easily be discounted given that it's only one thing amongst a whole bunch of other interesting stuff stuff (the cuddling, the having tea, etc). How much are you focusing on the overall experience?

Callan wrote:
Do you think these unguided resources have an effect on how the game rules work? And do you think these resources which the game directed the players to allocate, are part of the game? As in how the game designer intended play to occur?

According to Will Wright, his Sim City is not a game at all, but a toy. Wright offers a ball as an illuminating comparison: It offers many interesting behaviors, which you may explore. You can bounce it, twirl it, throw it, dribble it. And, if you wish, you may use it in a game: soccer, or basketball, or whatever. But the game is not intrinsic in the toy; it is a set of player-defined objectives overlaid on the toy.

Just so Sim City. Like many computer games, it creates a world which the player may manipulate, but unlike a real game, it provides no objective. Oh, you may choose one: to see if you can build a city without slums, perhaps. But Sim City itself has no victory conditions, no goals; it is a software toy.

A toy is interactive. But a game has goals.

Hi John,

Just looking at your comments about toys, the pennies drop aplenty (thanks so much for introducing this!). Earlier in the thread I was trying to think of an analogy to describe what I meant. Ron's "Ouija-board" analogy came to mind. Then I read that part of the nar essay again and realised that he'd described almost exactly what I was trying to get at. I'll introduce it now and quote the nar essay.

Ouija-board role-playing

Here's another outcome for the faulty Simulationist-makes-Narrativism approach. Actually, it's the same phenomenon as Simulationism-makes-Gamism, which I discussed in "Gamism: Step On Up" (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/) as "the bitterest role-player in the world." I consider the Narrativist version to be the "most deluded role-player in the world."

How do Ouija boards work? People sit around a board with letters and numbers on it, all touching a legged planchette that can slide around on the board. They pretend that spectral forces are moving the planchette around to spell messages. What's happening is that, at any given moment, someone is guiding the planchette, and the point is to make sure that the planchette always appears to everyone else to be moving under its own power.

Taking this idea to role-playing, the deluded notion is that Simulationist play will yield Story Now play without any specific attention on anyone's part to do so. The primary issue is to maintain the facade that "No one guides the planchette!" The participants must be devoted to the notion that stories don't need authors; they emerge from some ineffable confluence of Exploration per se. It's kind of a weird Illusionism perpetrated on one another, with everyone putting enormous value on maintaining the Black Curtain between them and everyone else. Typically, groups who play this way have been together for a very long time.

Callan wrote:
Now take roleplay games, which as you say are more toylike - a mix of toy and game rules. When it's like this, can you distinguish between the goals the game presents and the goals you've invented from toy play? Where does one end and the other begin? Any uncertainty and inability to distinguish that allows a black curtain to be created. That's exactly how the ouija board works "Did Jim just move the planchette then? I can't be sure and because of that *shiver* perhaps it really was a spirit!!". And in the same way "Did Jim just decide to spring those Ogres on us? He's using an awful lot of dice rolls and such and because of that *shiver* perhaps it's system in action!".

Callan wrote:
Where players excitement creates the game goals and drives play. But they attribute it to system. So next time they gather to play, they don't think the onus is on them to push game goals, since they assumed 'system does that'. This means they bring less excitement/game goals to the table. This leads to less exciting play, which means their less excited for the next time they play. Repeat this a few times and eventually excitement/game goal contributions drop so low you hit "Bitterest gamer in the world" or "Most deluded gamer in the world" levels.

Callan wrote: Do you think these unguided resources have an effect on how the game rules work? And do you think these resources which the game directed the players to allocate, are part of the game? As in how the game designer intended play to occur?

Hi again John,

Well, if we're talking about stocking a dungeon in D&D or creating supervillains in Champions -- I don't think that's "unguided". The rules have advice about how to create something which will challenge but not overwhelm the PCs. D&D has pretty explicit guidelines, even, on the mix of CRs to give. In Champions, supervillains are made on a point scale comparable to PCs which makes it clear.

Ah ha!  I think I'm seeing what you're getting at -- how is level of challenge determined?  Are you interested in this question, Callan, or the slightly-larger question of determining a game's scope, which includes level of challenge as well as what questions the game can address and how far outside player comfort zones the game can go?

Level of challenge can be dictated by the game design, although I think any hard-and-fast rule will quickly be ignored or turned into a guideline.  I don't know how much of the rest you can really determine in game design without any recourse to the social contract of the actual players.

Callan wrote:
Perhaps the illusion isn't so much that system moves the planchette. But with all the advice and challenge ratings and points and guidelines, the illusion is that other people will invent goals that match yours. Particularly as GM, that after you've done your prep/invented your goals outside of play, in play players will invent their own goals that match yours.  For example, say the GM thinks a series of  PL+4 challenges are great, but the players would prefer numerous PL +2, except for one player on the right who would prefer PL + 0.

Callan wrote:
What is needed are pre-existing rules which let one player interact with another, by using the rules to push the other player a little outside their comfort zone. Toy play or discussion just don't provide that.

I think my stab at "Only system moves the planchette" design is a stab out how these sorts of rules just aren't provided, while all the advice, guidelines and numbers try and make it appear they somehow fill in for the absent rules.

I was having a very deep think about what I, myself, wanted when I wrote that. Ironically what I didn't add is "What is needed for me is". When your chasing what you want dearly for yourself, you forget to leave signposts for others to show your doing that.

This sort of play is exploratory, and I think it very well has the potential of pushing players outside of their comfort zone depending on the social dynamic.  I certainly have experienced many times that play with others will push boundaries given players who enjoy that.  As I said, it's certainly true that toy-like design is less specific and depends more on the group.  So if you want dependability and regularity of experience, then more game-like specificity is warranted.  But you should be aware that many people enjoy toys which don't tell them how to play with them, which they can try out different goals with. 

I'll put myself on the line a bit more by outlining a quick and dirty design (with gamism in mind).

1. The GM attaches a challenge point (CP) to various introduced resources. If the players take or use that resource, the GM gets the CP. For example, he might say "In the newly opened locker you find an ammo clip. But it's got a CP attached! Do you take it?"

If the players choose not to take it, they are to invent the game world reasons why "Oh, the clip was old and rusted and would have done more damage to our weapons than to the enemy!"

Each CP is worth a D6 to the GM. You'll see how the dice work in step 2.

Psychology note: This relies on the GM not attaching CP to every single resource introduced. That'd be pretty lame. The motivator I imagine to stop this is no one would admire his skill at luring the players into giving him a point. Attaching a CP to everything would ensure he get's CP, but I'm banking on the human feedback/appreciation is worth more than that. However, if at some point the CP he can get will produce some even stronger human feedback, this psychological limiter will go down the crapper. Though possibly players could simply turtle until they bore the GM into changing. Or at certain points of play, the players might even like the danger of everything having an attached CP cost.

2. Play continues as normal. If a player feels a challenge placed on him is too much, he calls a challenge number (CN). This number can be as high as the player likes.

Each CP the game master has is worth 1D6. The GM now chooses how many dice to apply to the challenge number, or may choose to apply none. Sixes are exploding (roll a six = add on six, roll again and add that on. Repeat for every six rolled). Each die that rolls a 1, removes one CP from the GM's score. These dice are rolled in front of everybody of course. May as well skip these rules if you don't.

If the roll beats the players CN, then the challenge stays. If the roll fails, the challenge is removed. The player can call another CN if he feels the challenge wasn't removed adequately.

For example, he called a CN on falling down a rather deep pit because of the damage of the fall. The damage is removed (a previous, dead victim broke his fall), but the GM gleefully reminds him it's a snake pit full of the most venomous vipers. The player calls another CN on falling at all, because he feels this challenge is too much, he shouldn't have to check for traps when walking in the front door of the local bar! Side note: However, the player hopes the trap isn't narrated away…he'd like to catch some of those vipers…great poison! Extra side note: The GM will probably get blindsided by that, but if he's sharp he'll attach a CP cost to an obtained viper!

Psychology note: This relies on the player not calling a CN to every vaguely interesting challenge introduced. That would be pretty lame though and again, peer feedback would be more valuable. Also, it's a trust building exercise. No doubt after awhile, they would let the GM get one CP. They'd then notice nothing that bad happens. They might let him get two, and start to see how many CP they can let him have, while still toughing it out "I had a GM with 10 CP and my PC survived!" "Mine had 12 and I survived! Beat that!".

Overall notes: I'm not sure how far this would get you toward pushing players out of their comfort zones (or even GM's out of their comfort zones). As a player it would still be possible to monitor your comfort zone and juggle the numbers to keep you there. However, there are more opportunities to make mistakes tracking just what your comfort zone is and also in juggling the numbers to keep you there. Mistakes which will get you into delightfully horrible situations! It's the sort of thing I do in the PS2 game, Mercenaries ( http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=14575 ). Sort of just drive/fly around the landscape, shooting at stuff, making more and more little mistakes until the odds caught up with me and thunk! I got thrown into quite the fun little pickle.

Callan,

I'm a bit confused.  Are you saying that your little design sketch is (basically) a complete game?  Sure it would have to be fleshed out, but would you say that what you have here is a game that (basically) completely guides resource allocation?

Thomas

No, it's not complete.

I started to shift ground on the first page:

Hmm, perhaps I'll explicitly shift ground here as my thoughts do: Perhaps the illusion isn't so much that system moves the planchette. But with all the advice and challenge ratings and points and guidelines, the illusion is that other people will invent goals that match yours. Particularly as GM, that after you've done your prep/invented your goals outside of play, in play players will invent their own goals that match yours.

Callan, as I read this, you want a solid social contract dictated by the game book, or at least strongly suggested.  Is this what you are calling for?

So a lot of this comes down to differing experiences, I think.  In my experience, the games which most pushed the comfort zones of the players have often been largely freeform -- notably several of the experimental Swedish larps which I played in.  I found that the expectation to drop out of character and discuss issues (which is often the case in tabletop games) means that people can and will do so if their comfort zone is approached.  This isn't a bad thing, I think.  There are most certainly dangers in allowing comfort zones to be pushed without immediate feedback. 

Callan wrote:
Again, in context with my own needs, the bolded text does not work out that way. Without agreement prior to play, you can't push someone outside their comfort zone. It's like a social contract rule that says no mobile phones at the table...but then you take a call. That isn't zone pushing, it's just breaking a rule. Unless you agree prior to play that it's okay to take important calls, the rule can not be flexed. An agreed rule has to be also agreed to be flexible, if someone is to be legitimately taken out of their comfort zone by it's flexing.

Toy play just can NOT anticipate what SC game rules will need to be flexible, in order to zone push. You just don't know what sort of game goals your going to come up with.

Callan wrote:
Side note: On D&D Challenge Ratings, your right, it does give a fixed distribution. It was a bit of a poor example from me, because what I was getting at is that those players would want different CR because of different intervening conditions. For example, you can do PL +3 repeatedly if your party can rest for any number of days after each encounter. Who's in charge of whether they can rest? The GM. What does this do to the CR distribution chart? Renders it pretty meaningless in comparison to the GM's input. Who's the most effected by not having rest? That'll be effected by the GM's choice too.

Joshua,

Not sure of your wording. I don't want, or even think the book can dictate any agreement. But it can provide some rules people can choose to agree to.

Mechanically the important thing is to have an agreement which is higher in rank than any resources introduced by the GM. By higher rank I mean it controls those resources.

Hi Kim,

Well, I even play chess by ear. But if I detect the other person is in discomfort, I know it's not because I made up some rules and then described them as if they were something the player agreed to when he said he'd like to play chess. If I choose to hold back, it'll be because I think I'm pushing them too far rather than because I think I may have broken the agreed rules. I'm really pretty sick of trying to push gamism, but hold back for fear of breaking a rule...it leads toward bitterest roleplayer in the world status, since your afraid to push for any challenge as it might break a rule. When I've GM'ed, sure I've had monsters that have slapped PC's down into the negs. But it's been after literally hours of "There's a monster...now your actions take you closer...your even closer now...if you keep going, you'd be agreeing to a fight". It's just story that's scrabbling for permission. I'd really like to just scene frame into the middle of a fight, but no agreement means no go.

With D&D, it's left to the GM to decide if they can retreat and whether they can rest for the night. But it's a fairly moot point now since as I said, making a complete game is just one way of getting what I wanted (the hard way).