One of the stronger presences at the Forge is that of developing good narrative-focus games. Good. Most big games out there seem like the anti-narrative to me. I think the game I'm working on will be highly narrative.

So what to do about rules for this game? I took a cue from Yoda (you must unlearn what you have learned) and started backcycling. Eventually I asked myself, "why have a system at all?"

Seems like a cool idea for a thread. Whether or not there are fundamental reasons for having a rule system, I came up with a few for narrative games. I'm stealing some ideas from improv theater experience, which I think has a lot to do with narrative games.

1. To facilitate interaction between players. In improv theater, they used to tell us "don't deny the scene." If another actor creates a premise, you build on it rather than dismiss it. I've seen this one in a few games, mostly directed at the "GM," telling him/her not to reject players' attempts at authoring scenes, as in:

player: I'll grab that torch off the wall.
denying GM: there's no torch there. What are you talking about?


2. To make it easier to tell a long story. Has anyone done this? Ever seen an improv skit that was longer than a couple minutes? I think about scenes in games that can sometimes drag along, and wouldn't it be great to play an interrupt card and cut to another scene? Maybe the current scene was stalling because the GM's well was running dry, or who knows. Maybe you could play another token/card to jump back to it.

3. To make it easy to resolve conflict. Do you need rules to resolve conflict? No, but you might want rules that make it easier to do so. Maybe the narrative subset of this is actually "to keep the conflict feeling as much like a story as anything else." If you have to look up on charts to see if you convinced the guard to let you pass, it takes away from the story feel.

Anyone have any others? Those of you who are creating or who have created narrative-focus games, what did you set out to achieve?

Well, I'd add "encourage the exploration of a theme" to that list. That way you're creating a story with meaning, rather than just having a series of cool events.

-Matt

Matt wrote: Well, I'd add "encourage the exploration of a theme" to that list. That way you're creating a story with meaning, rather than just having a series of cool events.

-Matt

To create information interesting and pertinent to play. Presumably, the Rolemaster crit charts are considered good by certain people (such as myself) because, they create information in use that helps us imagine the in-world events. Often by giving us a description of therm.

The arbitrariness of mechanics, such as this quality exists in a system, helps engender a feeling that the world imagined has a more than completely ephemeral existence. Not that it's real, but it may feel less false because of this effect.

Lot's of other reasons for system, IMO.

This is actually a very old question, that we've never brought up here at the Forge. It's been asked and answered a lot on other sites (check Usenet).

Mike

itsmrwilson wrote:
Good call. Kind of a sister category to "telling a longer story." Any examples of how you'd do this with a set of rules?

itsmrwilson wrote:

Matt wrote: Well, I'd add "encourage the exploration of a theme" to that list. That way you're creating a story with meaning, rather than just having a series of cool events.

-Matt

Good call. Kind of a sister category to "telling a longer story." Any examples of how you'd do this with a set of rules?

I think by "Meaning" Matt was probably referring to mechanics more like Sorcerer's Humanity, or the Animus mechanics in Paladin. Some mechanic that forces the characters to address some interesting issue.

Mike

itsmrwilson wrote: "Why have a system at all?"

• To facilitate interaction between players. In improv theater, they used to tell us "don't deny the scene." If another actor creates a premise, you build on it rather than dismiss it.

• To make it easier to tell a long story. [add "encourage the exploration of a theme"]

• To make it easy to resolve conflict. Do you need rules to resolve conflict?

Mike Holmes wrote:

• To create information interesting and pertinent to play.

• The arbitrariness of mechanics, such as this quality exists in a system, helps engender a feeling that the world imagined has a more than completely ephemeral existence. Not that it's real, but it may feel less false because of this effect.

Le Joueur wrote: As far as 'exploring a theme,' I'm afraid you can quite easily game without doing that; Narrativist or thematically Ambitious play with possibly an accent on the Auteur Approach may need it, but gaming overall?)

Le Joueur wrote: I'm not sure why he's said, "that we've never brought up here at the Forge;" it seems like that's all Pale Fire's been on about lately (and consistency goes way back).

Mike Holmes wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: I'm not sure why he's said, "that we've never brought up here at the Forge;" it seems like that's all Pale Fire's been on about lately (and consistency goes way back).

What we haven't brought up here at the Forge is the age old debate between whether or not system has any merit at all. Many Freeformers will tell we "traditional" gamers that system is not at all necessary and only gets in the way. They have a point, but it's one of preference, IMO.

We here seem to prefer system to no system almost universally. I doubt that we'd have a reason to debate the topic.

Mike Holmes wrote: What we haven't brought up here at the Forge is the age old debate between whether or not system has any merit at all. Many Freeformers will tell we "traditional" gamers that system is not at all necessary and only gets in the way. They have a point, but it's one of preference, IMO.

simon_hibbs wrote: Except that freeforms 9at least the one's I've been in) quite definitely do have a system and game mechanics. They're lightweight, but definitely there.

There was this thread, which I drifted pretty aggressively into system/non-system play.

-Vincent

Hello,

A comment on this thread in general: I'm pretty sure the original post is not referring to what we call Narrativism. In fact, I think this thread would be improved a lot if itsmrwilson would clarify exactly what he means by "narrative-focused games." What would such a thing be or look like during play?

People have said some good and interesting things so far as statements & replies, but reading the thread from the beginning, frankly, the actual discussion itself isn't focused on anything.

As for why system itself is an issue in role-playing, I think Vincent nailed it.

Best,
Ron

Ron Edwards wrote: Hello,

A comment on this thread in general: I'm pretty sure the original post is not referring to what we call Narrativism. In fact, I think this thread would be improved a lot if itsmrwilson would clarify exactly what he means by "narrative-focused games."

It's Mr. Wilson wrote: By narrative-focused games I meant games where the mission of everyone involved is mostly to tell a good story. If that's what you set out to do, why do you need to have rules? Just start tellin' the story.

Mike Holmes wrote: Oops, terminology problem, here. ...

Fang has a point. Systemless play often occurs in well established universes. For example, people play inthe SW universe a lot. ...

itsmrwilson wrote:
By narrative-focused games I meant games where the mission of everyone involved is mostly to tell a good story. If that's what you set out to do, why do you need to have rules? Just start tellin' the story.

In the discussion about 'what does a system do' my point of view is that if the system is bringing something extra to the game then it's not worth the overhead in metagaming, OOC concerns or just time.

Game, btw, is a term that I use to refer to what happens in the make believe world. It's a bit like the what 'story' means.

For example, the SAN system in CoC is fine for a basic idea but in the games I've played in recently the players have been responsible for just roleplaying their descent into horror. This allows for much more player expression, a wider variety of responses and more finesse. No system was used at all, just personal judgement and, the big one, trust.

I think in many cases systems are a replacement for trust.

Similarly in a recent game of Dying Earth I ran, the players had taglines but they were already playing in the DE style, and were coming up with better lines anyway. The tagline rule (placing your tagline and getting a laugh is the only way to get XPs) was redundant so I just ignored it.

Another case in point was a systemless game I ran about 10 years ago. It was mostly for 2 players but on one occasion just one player. It was a modern magic/horror game.

The PCs had becomed involved in the magic(k) underground (in this case actually based in the London Underground - damn that Neil Gaiman). They had each acquired a magical power that they had chosen and a concomitant geas that I had imposed on them.

One of the players' gift was being able to always be able to get what he needed, his geas was to never refuse anyone who asked him for something. There were no rules as to what these two statements actually meant. This is how they were expressed in the game so they had to be explored in the game. As it was the only question a PC had was, 'What happens if I break my geas?' to which the answer was, 'What d'ya mean? You just don't, alright.'

Thus the character of the game was actually enhanced by not having some metagaming construct to refer to.

Obviously this does tie in with my predeliction for prizing the character role in the game, but isn't that what rpgs are about? Roles?

GB Steve

GB Steve wrote: For example, the SAN system in CoC is fine for a basic idea but in the games I've played in recently the players have been responsible for just roleplaying their descent into horror. This allows for much more player expression, a wider variety of responses and more finesse. No system was used at all, just personal judgement and, the big one, trust.

I think in many cases systems are a replacement for trust.

Simon makes a good point. The rules are informative. They tell the player what they should be doing in the game. If that can be conveyed successfully without rules, then the rules are redundant as Steve points out, except insofar as people just like rules (some people just do).

That said, I think that a bit of framework goes a long way to ensuring that players are on the same sheet to the extent that Trust can exist more easily. Systems have their place.

Mike

'What happens if I break my geas?' to which the answer was, 'What d'ya mean? You just don't, alright.'

I think, to some extent, the system is just a part of the social contract that forms the basis of the game. Everyone agrees, before the game starts to abide by a certain set of norms, whether they are behaverol, govern how to roll dice, are written down in the rulebook, or are just plucked out of the air.

A good point was made that all conflict is inter-player conflict at the core. Systems are about how to make compomises. You can win now because the results are random and I might win later. Or you can win now because it serves the purposes of the story. Or you can win a little and I can win a little. Or we both lose.

Ultimately, there are no fundamental differences between a GM and a player. They are both participants in the story. It's just written into the fabric of most social contracts that the GM is given more control over the story than the players are. This need not necessarily be the case, of course, as umpteen billion games have now proved. The GM is usually charged with overseeing the application of the social contract and making sure everyone follows through with their agreement, but this needn't be the case either.

So basically, the system vs. no-system vs. lots of system vs. minimal system discussion is all about trust, as it has been mentioned. How much can you trust everyone to abide by the social contract? Do the tenants need to be written down? How clearly does everyone understand what they've agreed to? How much freedom are individuals willing to give up for the good of the story? Or, more often, how much freedom are players expecting (and maybe even WANTING) to give up to the GM? How much responsibility are people able to handle? How much can you trust people with the responsibilites that have been assigned to them?

This, in my mind, is what we do when we create games: we write social contracts that allow people to tell stories.

If you think of it that way, the ultimited options of how that can be done become quite clear (and included everything from computer RPGs to LARP to collaborative storytelling to playing make-believe).

Thoughts?

Later.
Jonathan

Hi Jonathan,

Absolutely. This is precisely what Vincent's driving at in the concurrent rant thread: all of the process is social and human; rules are means by which we apportion who gets to say what, when.

That also matches with GNS, in which the largest or most all-inclusive portion of the model is the social interaction level among real people.

The only quibble I have with your phrasing is the use of the term "story," which as I've explained in my essay is far too proprietary and vague for people to get much out of, when comparing views. I'd substitute "in-game content" or "imaginary events" - in which case even role-playing for which "story" is almost entirely irrelevant gets to be included in your construct.

Best,
Ron

nipfipgip...dip wrote:

'What happens if I break my geas?' to which the answer was, 'What d'ya mean? You just don't, alright.'

This is a rule. Its not written down or defined in terms of 'humanity' or 'power loss' or whatever, but it is a rule. If this was published as a game, this would be written down, and everyone would say it is a rule in the system. As non-crunchy as it gets, but a rule.

I think one reason for rules that they are a valuable aid for the weaker player. Maybe in your gaming group everyone is a great person who plays amazingly and in that case, yah, the rules might be useless. Personally I happen to like some rules no matter what, although I find myself attracted to simpler systems these days.

Generally a simple set of rules can help a novice player get a handle on what they can and cannot do. No rules and things can be indimidating and the player won't do anything, or they can go hog wild and be unintentionally disruptive. Now if the rules get too complicated they tend not to help much. After all the player is trying to get a handle on this here roleplaying thing, and all these strange terms and ways of rolling dice and what exactly does this mean here? adds a real barrier to entry. But for instance Over the Edge has a great set of simple rules you can explain in a few minutes but give some grounding on what could be done.

As has been mentioned before rules also help even out the quiet and louder players. Yes the louder and more boisterous players will get more play attention time, that is a fact of life. But rules can be effective. The quiet player gets a chance to use the rules to use a skill, or make some sort of attempt, and then the focus is on them. It gives them a chance to speak, to be heard, and hopefully do more than just roll the dice and say "aie, I failed!" Similarly when a player is being loud and wont dorp sometihng, having some rule that says, no you didn't do it, please be quiet and let the other players do stuff is an effective way to move on without hurting feelings.

Hi Forgers,

Even when we think a game has no rules, it does.

One branch of anthropology that looks at culture as a collection of unwritten rules or guidelines for different social interactions in different contexts. The details of the rules in a given context depend on the values of the cultural group and the purpose of the interaction.

In particular, an RPG is a subset of a kind of social interaction called a "game" which sets out to create excitment and tension in a social "safe" way - usually by creating a fictitious conflict. A game has some basic assumptions and objectives: that participants are there to have fun, that every player has equal opportunity to play, and so on.

Central to the play of an RPG is the creation of shared imaginary events. Rules, both written and unwritten exist for negotiating who gets to add content, when, and what kind.

In the example in a previous message of the game where Sanity is player "without rules" - well, rules actually do exist, agreed on by social negotiation, they just haven't been made explicit.

The rules (written and unwritten) of an RPG shape the social interaction of the players, the player's relationship to content, and the style and kind of content. Players will usually discover that they enjoy the results of one set of rules over another.

To reproduce these results, an RPG author has to write down all the key rules, including those that have been "unwritten" up to that point. An elegant set of written rules presents only those rules that "frame" the game enough to give it the distinctive elements developed by the designers. The frame has to leave players enough room to play a field, while also providing the tension that makes the game fun.

Ron Edwards wrote: The only quibble I have with your phrasing is the use of the term "story," which as I've explained in my essay is far too proprietary and vague for people to get much out of, when comparing views. I'd substitute "in-game content" or "imaginary events" - in which case even role-playing for which "story" is almost entirely irrelevant gets to be included in your construct.

GB Steve wrote: Jonathon:I don't see why PC conflict has to be Player conflict. In fact the opposite can be true. The players may be using the PC conflict to serve the needs of the game. This happened in the Delta Green game I played recently at GenCon. The players recognised the conflict that would arise between the characters and played on this to make the game work. And it did, excellently.

the following is edited for conciseness:

Alan wrote:
Even when we think a game has no rules, it does.

In particular, an RPG is a subset of a kind of social interaction called a "game" which sets out to create excitment and tension in a social "safe" way - usually by creating a fictitious conflict.

Central to the play of an RPG is the creation of shared imaginary events. Rules, both written and unwritten exist for negotiating who gets to add content, when, and what kind.

To reproduce these results, an RPG author has to write down all the key rules, including those that have been "unwritten" up to that point. An elegant set of written rules presents only those rules that "frame" the game enough to give it the distinctive elements developed by the designers. The frame has to leave players enough room to play a field, while also providing the tension that makes the game fun.

Emily Care wrote: So a game may be mechanicless (have no written rules) but by definition it has rules, so it cannot be systemless.

Mike Holmes wrote: I would say that system is the complete set of mechanics. So a game can be systemless, but still have rules.

Seth L. Blumberg wrote: Emily's definition is closer to the sense used in the GNS essay.

What's the definition of a mechanic?

Or is this drifting into a new thread?

I actually tend to adopt a rather extreme position, which is that "the game" is a social event. Any published material or formally adopted rules are a tool for the facilitation of the social event. As such, "rules," "system," and "mechanics" are all synonymous, and refer to the social rules applying to the event in question. There is no difference between a rule that says "Roll 2D6, add your skill, and compare the result to the target number" and a rule that says "The other players pay for the GM's pizza"; both are part of System.

While I agree sorta philosophically, Seth, there would seem to be a division in use. That is, some people like what is commonly called mechanics to be included as part of the rules of the game, and some do not. So, in order to make a distinction between these preferences, I'd like to have some sort of term that covers these things.

And mechanics surely does not refer to strictly speaking social agreements. That is, if we agree between us players not to use profanity, that's not a mechanic, is it? So, yes, mechanics fall under the set of "rules" agreed to by the participants, but they are a particular sub-set.

Further, I also make distinction between what I refer to as "Hard" and "Soft" mechanics. The previous mening a mechanic in which some actual arbitrary action is taken in response to a set of particular circumstances. For example, if a system calls for a roll when the GM says that there is a task needing to be resolved, that is a "Hard" mechanic. As opposed to a mechanic that says something like "The GM should monitor players during CharGen and ensure that they only create appropriate characters." Which is more suggestive than specific, and hence "Soft".

Mike

Okay, I joined in *really* late and confess to reading about 1/3 of the posts and skimming the others, so if what I'm saying has been covered, shoot me.

I think that some of us--or at least me and mine--have systems because we like them. It's part of what makes it "a game." Storytelling is fun, but it isn't "a role-playing game" *to me.* It might be to someone else, and that's another thread.

To me the rules, the system, the character sheet, the dice, the tables and all the trappings are bells and whistles on a storytelling machine. They make it more fun (if they don't, then we throw them out). I know I'm not being too specific here, but that is the merit of a system to me. Does it make what I'm doing more fun? There'a wee bit of a gamist in me (Ron says I'm competive all the time) and I love a simulationist-style game engine (if it's "well done," which is, of course, completely arbitrary), and I love "narrativist" gaming...it's the camp I'm most firmly devoted to. But I have feet in other areas, and the system that a game has caters to these different areas in different amounts and ways. That's why we play lots of games and not just "our one favorite game"--because we hunger at times for degrees of those other areas that we may or may not know we actually like.

I think that a lot of us here are good examples of this kind of gamer. Mike and Ralph wrote Universalis--which seems to have very narrativist-minded goals, but love Rolemaster charts and Pendragon and sponsor Gamist Iron Chef contests.

We need it all, I think, in different amounts, and the system measures it out for us in large degree. We find a "favorite" game when we find the one that measures it the way we want it to without much tweaking...at other times we'll binge on what sounds good at the moment.

Okay, so I ranted.

Jake

Don't feel bad, Jake. I'm starting even later and I didn't even read your post. Gee I hope I'm actually adding something useful. But this struck me just now and I remembered this thread and thought it might be of interest.

To me, it seems that one of the purposes of rules/system/mechanics/whichever, I'm not going to untangle that knot, is when a player is unmotivated or otherwise not actively participating, the system carries them along anyway. At least this appears to be one of the purposes. A player can just mechanically roll whatever dice they're told and not think too heavily on what they're doing or even what they want their character to be doing.

I don't think this is at all what any game designer intends to happen when they write an RPG, but it is something that can and does happen, moreso in some games than others I suspect. It may have something to do with what some call a slavish attention to detail which covers every base so there's little left for the players to do. Well, maybe it's that. It could be other factors like maybe the GM's boyfriend should just watch the ball game in the other room like he wants instead of trying to play an RPG like he doesn't.

The effect, as I see it is a lot like movement on the Monopoly board. The pieces all move in one direction, so the players have no choice there, and how many spaces it determined by dice rolling, so there's no choice there either. The overall effect, in my mind makes the players redundant, unnecessary. A single person could move all of the pieces arounf the Monopoly board just as easily, rolling the dice and moving each piece in turn. There is, of course, more to playing Monopoly than that and hopefully there's more to playing an RPG as well. But I can see how it's easy to just mechanically throw dice, quickly make the decision to buy the property or not (or pay the rent) and pass the dice to the next player.

Seth L. Blumberg wrote: As such, "rules," "system," and "mechanics" are all synonymous, and refer to the social rules applying to the event in question. There is no difference between a rule that says "Roll 2D6, add your skill, and compare the result to the target number" and a rule that says "The other players pay for the GM's pizza"; both are part of System.

M. J. Young wrote: Mike has already noted some of the distinctions that this blurs; I'm going to add that it eliminates the distinction between system and setting. There is a sense, certainly, in which "this game takes place on star ships in another galaxy" and "events in this game occur in medieval kingdoms" are rules; but they are a different kind of rules from the mechanics, and we tend to call them setting in contradistinction to system.