More rules means more roleplay!

Ah, I love that title. It's quite wrong, yet it's basically what I'm about to suggest. And by suggest I mean in a 'I'm experimenting with this idea' way, rather than a 'this is how it is' way.

But first, some kung fu antics! Remember the last time you watch some martial arts fight in a movie (or other types of action scenes). Now, from at the outset you know this is a movie. You know this is choreographed. Then the fists start flying. Punch, block, spin, sweep kick, bam, bam, bam!

As the barrage of moves continues, you are forced to make a decision. It's very important to realise there is a lot of information hitting you, the viewers mind. To keep up with this barrage of moves/information, you need to focus. And focusing in one place means giving up any focus elsewhere. To focus on the action, you are going to have to use the part of your mind which is good for that sort of action orientation. That part of your mind which is not so good for looking at the big picture, the big picture that tells you this is all choreographed, this is just a movie. The part that is good for recognising the big picture, you just turned off when you focused on keeping up with the action.

Of course, you may take the other option. Don't devote any mental resources to keeping up with the action, so the action is just one big blur you can't enjoy (because you can't keep up) but you still get to keep your perspective on this just being choreographed, just a movie. Obviously this is pretty self defeating. Why do that if you already decided to sit down in front of the movie (unless you already decided not to enjoy it, which is pretty perverse)?

Let's call this a perception overload technique. It has some parallels with a magician using attention displacement techniques. It could also be considered a way of adding mystery not to the setting, but to the system itself (which will lend weight to the latter part of the systems share of 'Easy to learn, hard to master').

So how does perception overload apply to RPG's?

Obviously, in an RPG you have a few more options with your pawn/PC than you do when moving any particular chess piece. This encourages roleplay, when your PC is flexible in his actions as you are in real life. Such a dynamic character is easier to relate to and roleplay than a rigid pawn or rook. But what happens when the player inadvertently, and with pure intentions, shoots himself in the foot? What happens when he calculates all the odds of the situation and operates his character just like a pawn across a chess board? His character was just freed of pawnhood only to return to it in the way it was used, each time damning it to something the player is less able to relate to and roleplay with.

So, what happens if he can't calculate all the odds? What if you increase all the probabilities considerably (with various rules, tables, etc). Well, he'll either try to increase his focus on them to be able to calculate all odds OR failing that he'll have to ignore some and decide what's important to focus on. The former is covered in the next paragraph, so we'll now deal with the latter. This method actually encourages roleplay, because in day to day real life we use a similar 'decide what's important, ignore the rest' intuitive method to cope. When you can't use a chess like method to solve situations and instead fall back to what you yourself as a player use everyday, identification with the PC and also with his world is increased considerably.

The other option is to use a certain critical mass of rules that, if he tries to calculate odds, he'll have to focus on the interacting rules and thus remove attention from the big picture (ie this is a game and his PC is a pawn). However, the critical mass isn't so large that highly optimal choices can't be made in it. Obviously this walks a fine line. In addition where the book draws the line on what is critical mass is hard wired into the book and thus it will not suit those players who would do best against other sizes of critical mass. However, it can lead to peaks, where the player is distracted yet also manages to calculate the optimum play. Satisfying both immersion and gaming desires at once. Good times, but perhaps at the expense of only a limited demographic being able to do so from a particular system.

Note: There are reasons that it is suggested that rules are increased rather than items or environment factors (which both have very distinct effects on probabilities). One is that items aren't really separate from the rules, they really are just rules themselves. Therefore you can increase the number of different types of items that exist to try and improve odds. However, their very status as items determines that they are generally absent. They aren't an integral part of a character like its speed or ability to hide behind cover (which increase probabilities and odds), so as a solution they are lacking in that you can't count on them being present to fix the problem. Environment is similar, it can't be relied on to provide the increase. While items and environment can increase odds, you can't rely on them to do so.

Finally, I can't believe I'm advocating adding more rules. I hate proliferation's of them…correction, I hate the way they've been served to me over the years, like I'm supposed to be under the thumb of them. 'Yes, current GM, I'm aware that the odds of my PC being able to do X are low to nil now that I've had the gall to suggest it and you've given me a hard look, but I don't feel bad or terrible for suggesting it, nor do I enjoy your sudden stonewall and chest beating on it, with no compromise suggestions from you'. I'd appreciate being able to do things regardless of rules, with the explicit agreement that I get no 'I did it by the system' bragging rights for this, or such. Then again, negotiating such a thing is best the discussion of another thread entirely.

Regardless, it doesn't have to be done with quantity (assuming you want this perception overload effect in a system). It can be done with quality. Well designed rules can have implications far beyond that which they first appear to control. The way they interrelate with other rules in the system sets up probability grids that are quite interesting. Thus they could do the work that would take half a dozen poorly designed rules to do, for example. So in the end, a baroque design isn't required to achieve a perception overload effect.

I very much agree in some ways. What I think needs to happen is not so much more rules, but more use of the rules that exist. It's not that you're using so many rules, IMO, but that you're using them all the time that makes a game engaging. For a long time, I've seen the rules of a game as a method to produce an outcome. To be good, the outcome needs to have several qualities. First, it has to be entertaining, but that's outside our scope. Second to that, however, is quantity. That is, per unit of effort, the system should produce lots of feedback of a high quality nature.

To accomplish this, the system should find ways to interject itself. Most systems go with narration, narration, narration, and then roll for something when the players or GM find a need. This can be improved by having cues that can call for the system to need to be used in a regular fashion. Done correctly, this becomes self-initiating by the system. Note how combat is like this in most games (new round, roll for initiative), but not elsewhere?

Mike

Can you come up with some kind of example for that, Mike? All I'm drumming up is something like, "Anytime someone mentions a dwarf in narration, roll to see if he starts talking about beer," and I don't think that's really what you meant..

Some examples of what I think Mike is referring to include a mechanic to determine who foreshadows a scene, a mechanic that would then determine at what point around the foreshadowing that the character(s) enter the scene, then mechanics for doing things within that scene.

Those are just examples of something that I used on a side project of mine involving tormented spirits attempting to steer nearly inevitable events in an attempt to redeem themselves.

The idea is that the mechanics aren't bulked up around one area of play. Throughout the whole of play you are utilizing the rules and mechanics to determine outcomes of different natures.

At least, that's what I think Mike is talking about. :)

-Chris

Yep, that's an example, Chris. Anything that's pertinent to the game can be a trigger. If the game is organized into tightly timed sessions, you could have mechanics that occur every ten minutes or something. It's hard to say without looking at a particular game with it's design goals.

But, again, think about how regimented combat is in most games. What if all play were something more like that? How about a turn based RPG? Meaning that you take turns all the time, and roll for stuff each turn? MLwM almost goes this direction.

There are probably myriad ways to accomplish this. I always think to Univerasalis where the player has to use a mechanic to interrupt and the like. I really like the notion of the rules empowering players to jump in with the mechanics any time they want to in order to accomplish things in metagame terms.

Mike

might not be relevant, but here it is anyway:
this site http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/decision.html gives a quick rundown of the major findings in the psychology of decision making.
essentially, they're saying people (1) value losses higher than gains (b) make probability estimates based on frequency of occurrence and (c) often are misled by the most salient feature.
Combining the fact that probably anyone can come up with examples of these three "faults" that occured during a RPG, and the fact that these three points are major determinants of imperfect/"irrational" decision making, I'd suggest that the number of rules or their complexity is far less relevant that e.g. environment and style of play. Which is to say, Noon's suggestion -which IMO is terribly clever in itself- might not work out well, because the effect he aims for gets drowned in the more important stuff. I tend to think such would be the case, and it matches with my gaming experience, but as usual YMMV.

Mike Holmes: Oh, I agree and I said above that rules that have more implications than they seem to at first can do the work of perhaps dozens of other less well designed rules. That is the idea, quality rather than quantity.

More use of already existing rules is an interesting one. Your example of more common play is that it's like islands of system surounded by seas of narration, correct?

Now, am I wrong in that what your suggesting sounds like psuedo-item creation. Not tangible game items, but certain obstacles/boons that can have an effect latter, just like items can. For example, if someone drinks poison and passes, it may still create an 'aftereffect' obstacle which would be like drinking a poison potion latter. When it actually triggers leaves some question marks, but otherwise is that roughly the idea?

Would somthing like that be more like a continent with large bodies of narration/water in it? To stretch the metaphor! :)

montag: True. However, I'm looking at it from the systems authors viewpoint, and there isn't a lot he can do about environment and style of play. His field of influence is just the book, which doesn't effect environment and any guidelines he gives to play style are like rules of only a slightly different nature.

Noon wrote: True. However, I'm looking at it from the systems authors viewpoint, and there isn't a lot he can do about environment and style of play. His field of influence is just the book, which doesn't effect environment and any guidelines he gives to play style are like rules of only a slightly different nature.

Hmmm, but as I said, items are by their nature, not there. They are rules you can quest for, rather than access instantly. Typically the more intriguing objects occur less frquently. Certainly, it seems a staple rule that characters start with more mundane items or nothing at all. All this suggests that items that increase probabilities just wont be around as much as other rules are.

There's also the contrast problem...while players may be 'misled by the most salient feature', this can blind them too much. If their always using so and so item because they think its the best, then their running their character like a pawn, always the same move and never considering the probability matrix.

The 'barbarian/mage' example is good. The probability grid of someone with all those spells is far more complex and hard to grasp the basics of as opposed to a barbarian. Choice of character is like using a slide bar to indicate how much complexity you as a individual player want. However, it all still meshes...the barbarian can still face magic and have to make desicisions when facing it.

Another element which can be used for this effect is unpredictability. The soon-to-be released space combat wargame Attack Vector: Tactics uses this to the hilt; Ken calls it "The hazards of precision." The movement engine is an instance of the topic's concept of "rules hide exact outcomes" (which I wouldn't characterize using "too many rules" as in the topic post, BTW, since often it often happens due to a few simple rules which hide their direct effects behind layering or other methods - just as long as there's necessarily an investment of thought required, anytime you want to assess the results of an action). Just where will I end up, given my current vector, if I were to (say) pivot ninety degrees and then burn at thrust four? Figure, figure... I'd say an expert player still needs about thirty seconds to arrive at an exact solution for the relevant timeframe.

However, unpredictability holds up the other end of the strut. It takes me that long to work out my own choice, knowing what I'm going to try (down to one or a few choices). The whole thing is open, so I could work out my opponent's actions on the same timescale - at thirty seconds a pop, out of a long list of things he might have in mind. It doesn't happen. It's not worth it. Once in a while, you work out the effects of some specific choice he might make - such as if your ballistics leave him only one maneuver choice which evades them. But between rules opacity (better term than "too many", IMO), and opponent unpredictability, play becomes more intuitive than analytic.

This often needs explaining, to people who are used to other wargames. Hence the phrase, "The hazards of precision." You'd like to wait for range five to fire your lasers, since they max out their damage at that distance. If you fire them now, will they be cool before you reach range five? That depends on what you're planning (hidden mental model of your own trajectory), and on what your opponent plans. In many wargames you'd know one way or the other - yes, I can fire now and still have them back by the time we reach that range, or no, it takes too long to cool off, better to wait. In AV:T, however, you end up intuiting as best you can. The answer is almost always, maybe.

Interestingly, unpredictability has to be carefully moderated for this to work. Limitless unpredictability means that you simply abandon advance planning in that time frame, instead of bothering to intuit it at all. Your opponent's ability to screw up your intuition has to be in the medium-small range, to achieve this design goal. In fact, I think we could express this design spec as "opponent has enough freedom that he can mess up any precision calculations you might make, but not enough that he can easily mess up your intuition." The further into the future this condition remains true, the more "intuit-ahead" your game incorporates.

Rules opacity is one of our best tools for increasing the width of the intuit-timescale, so that it looks enough further ahead than calculation to be worth learning to do. We have others, of course... in fact, one could make a strong argument that dice-uncertainty accomplishes only and exactly this function, to separate the "so near in time that it's knowable" from "so far ahead it's unknowable" and broaden the more interesting timescale wherein it's guessable instead.

Hmm. There may be a tie, here, to my questions a little while back about the role of FATB, FITM, and the like. Thinking in terms of these three "regions of time" may shed light on those usages...

- Eric

First off, I found this idea to be somewhat of an epiphany for me, which is why I haven't posted for a while. I wanted to have a chance to mull things over.

I think what you're getting at Callan is exactly why I've never found "rules-lite" systems to be satisfying for campaign-style play. They're too easily solved in a mathematical sense, where the same behavior works again and again in similar circumstances. I come to see the whole thing as little more than a multi-author story where you optimize your narration rights via the solution for the rules. Multi-author stories are great, but they aren't really role-playing.

However, I don't think the number of rules relates directly to greater involvement with the character. I think it's the number of potentially-effective options. Weighing these options is where real role-playing happens. For example, if knocking a guy out is as effective as shooting him or running away, it makes sense to look at your character and see how he feels about needless death.

Chess isn't a role-playing game, but if a game's rules were like chess', you'd see a small number of rules with a high degree of complexity providing many options that seem equally viable.

For example, my favorite rule in my own game is an interrupt action that lets characters literally jump in ahead of whichever character has the current action. If a bad guy turns to shoot at you, you can interrupt to dive behind a table, try to shoot him first, or whatever other options the situation provides you with. Very simple rule, but it provides many options (especially over several rounds of combat) that all make an equal amount of sense tactically.

I think this is exactly where you go at the end of your post when you're talking abotu well-designed rules that interact with each other.

jdagna wrote: I think what you're getting at Callan is exactly why I've never found "rules-lite" systems to be satisfying for campaign-style play. They're too easily solved in a mathematical sense, where the same behavior works again and again in similar circumstances.

However, I don't think the number of rules relates directly to greater involvement with the character. I think it's the number of potentially-effective options. ....

simon_hibbs wrote:

jdagna wrote: I think what you're getting at Callan is exactly why I've never found "rules-lite" systems to be satisfying for campaign-style play. They're too easily solved in a mathematical sense, where the same behavior works again and again in similar circumstances.

Yet this happens all the time in D&D, GURPS and many other games with complex rules systems. The players use the same combinations of options over and over again. It's one of the reasons I like rules-light, narativist games in rich settings, so our experiences are contradictory.

However, I don't think the number of rules relates directly to greater involvement with the character. I think it's the number of potentially-effective options. ....

I agree, often there are two ways to win a conflict in a roleplaying game. One method is using the game rules to achieve your objective. Another method is often to use resources in, or attributes of the setting. For example in Star Trek you might defeat the Klingons in corridoor by corridoor phaser battle, or some other method using game rules to your advantage. Alternatively you might win using attributes of the setting, such as by obtaining some tribbles and releasing them into the air vents.

The game mechanics aren't the only system by which you can achieve character goals, often you can also use the setting itself. This is something I've expounded before. It handily explains why games with bland settings tend to have complex game systems, and why games with rich setting tend to have (or can better get away with) rules-light systems.

Simon Hibbs

Point.

test

Noon wrote: I can't imagine anyone who repeditively makes the same character and uses the same options will have his habits changed by use of a rules light system and rich setting. It would certainly frustrate his attempts to do so, but that eliminates the symptom, not the problem. And the problem is with the player.

I don't think so, if the game makes it objectively advantageous to select certain options (dual wield for Rangers; When multiclassing as a thief always take the level of Thief first; Always give your GURPS combat character Combat reflexes, etc, etc), players fell forced into taking those options and either feel cheated by the syustem if they don't do that, or arm-twisted if they do.

I disagree with you that it's the player's fault - it's the game system designer's responsibility for creating the problem in the first place. Yet complex systems seem to always end up with these optimal sets of choices. Simple systems aren't immune form this, but it's much easier to avoid such problems.

The other way is that it is something the GM shares with the players through narration, but most interaction with objects is done by interacting with the GM directly, a GM-centric method.

Basically, the fewer rules there are, the more this method works on faith. The players either have faith in that the GM runs all interactions through some sort of rules set in his head, or they don't have faith and see it as a 'please the GM to do anything' method.

That analysis completely ignores richness of setting as a source of 'rules'. I've never yet seen a Stra Trek game with rules for the effects of Tribbles on Klingons (they may exist, but I haven't come across them), yet the fact that they do is part of the setting. it's mentioned in the LUG game, but no rules are provided. Using transporters to tacticaly deploy people or material is hardly a rules issue, but the fact that transporters exist and work as they do is a 'rule' of the Star Trek universe. Game settings can offer resources and options that characters can use to resolve conflicts indently of the game system.

Ok, using the transporters might require a 'Transporter Use Roll', but for most characters that should be trivial. Characters in the game should fail at such things about as often as characters in the TV series do - i.e. practialy never.

The issue of faith is an oft-disputed one. Without faith in the GM, roleplaying games are doomed to imminent failiure. The idea that the game system offers protection from the ravages of an un-trustworthy GM is a particularly ephemeral fig leaf. Maybe the combat system gives you a fair chance to defeat an orc that the GM might otherwise deny you, but what's to stop the GM throwing two orcs at you, or ten? Game ballance is ever in the GMs hands whatever game system you use.

There's an old argument that all roleplaying games are largely diceless. If you actualy look at what characters do in a typical game session, they do huge numbers of things that could resonably be determined using dice, yet are fudged by the GM and players for convenience. It's merely a matter of taste and convention that certain activities are routinely resolved using mechanics and others aren't. For example D&D has only the most rudimentary rules for interpersonal interactions (relationships, passions, persuasion, social taboos), and even so many D&D groups ignore what rules there are and run most interpersonal interractions entirely dicelessly.

Classic D&D and AD&D had almost no rules for this, and so all such situations were excercises in diceless gaming, relying entirely on trust and using techniques advocated in games such as Amber without any concious awareness of that fact. I've seen it done in even the most traditional old-style games from Traveller (negotiations with patrons, trade deals, blackmail, etc) to Rolemaster (pleading for the life of a coptive due for execution). Those situations were determined 'Amber style'. Some modern games such as HeroQuest provides lightweight rules for resolving any conflict, including ones of this sort, so at least they're consistent.


Simon Hibbs

Simon's point is pretty much what I was saying earlier, and the point about what makes Attack Vector work. It's not so much that there are many, many different rules. It's that you use them a lot. Hence why D&D isn't as good as HQ in this regard. With D&D, each rule has to be learned separately. That means that the Search and Handling time for their use is higher. Meaning that your Fun-per-unit-time is reduced.

The solution is to have an easy to use system, and to have it be complex in it's application. Hence why Chess and Go are good games this way. A starting chess board has only 18 starting moves (many of which are crap). It's a simple game in that way to learn. What's complex about chess is that the overall strategy is hard to discern. Go even moreso - simpler yet harder to master.

So in terms of use, the simpler game is better on the -per-unit-time end of the fraction. All you have to do is to ensure that the Fun part is just as good, and you have the superior game. Fortunately the situation of the narration provides the color that makes chess a more interesting game than go to some.

Now, that said, lots of rules can be fun too if they're really done well. But the more rules, the harder it is to make them work together to stay at the high level of output. So it's the harder spec. But not impossible.

Given a particular design, however, I think that the fastest way to greater reliability in fun production is to simply make the use of system more prevalent. As Noon says, Continents instead of islands. Or something like that.

There is a threat of overload in terms of feedback as well, however. At some point it all blurs and you don't get anything from it. I'd posit that the optimum point stops a bit short of doing nothing but using mechanics. There has to be some cool interspersal of narration in there at a rate that keeps that interesting.

Mike

simon_hibbs wrote:
I don't think so, if the game makes it objectively advantageous to select certain options (dual wield for Rangers; When multiclassing as a thief always take the level of Thief first; Always give your GURPS combat character Combat reflexes, etc, etc), players fell forced into taking those options and either feel cheated by the syustem if they don't do that, or arm-twisted if they do.

I disagree with you that it's the player's fault - it's the game system designer's responsibility for creating the problem in the first place. Yet complex systems seem to always end up with these optimal sets of choices. Simple systems aren't immune form this, but it's much easier to avoid such problems.

The other way is that it is something the GM shares with the players through narration, but most interaction with objects is done by interacting with the GM directly, a GM-centric method.

Basically, the fewer rules there are, the more this method works on faith. The players either have faith in that the GM runs all interactions through some sort of rules set in his head, or they don't have faith and see it as a 'please the GM to do anything' method.

That analysis completely ignores richness of setting as a source of 'rules'. I've never yet seen a Stra Trek game with rules for the effects of Tribbles on Klingons (they may exist, but I haven't come across them), yet the fact that they do is part of the setting. it's mentioned in the LUG game, but no rules are provided. Using transporters to tacticaly deploy people or material is hardly a rules issue, but the fact that transporters exist and work as they do is a 'rule' of the Star Trek universe. Game settings can offer resources and options that characters can use to resolve conflicts indently of the game system.

Ok, using the transporters might require a 'Transporter Use Roll', but for most characters that should be trivial. Characters in the game should fail at such things about as often as characters in the TV series do - i.e. practialy never.

The issue of faith is an oft-disputed one. Without faith in the GM, roleplaying games are doomed to imminent failiure. *snip*