What’s a rule anyway?

Tags

Theory

When people talk about rules in RPGs they often refer to things like stats or dice. But that cannot be the whole of the story. Because in games rules are quite simple there to let us know what to do and what not to do during play. Therefore things like the existence of a GM and what they ought to do must be a rule. How to properly play a character is a rule. 

We can differentiate the following kinds of rules:

Ownership: A player can own a fictional entity. Like a player usually owns a PC and the GM owns pretty much the rest of the fiction. If you own an entity you can mostly do what as you wish with it, unless other rules interfere. Of course ownership can be distributed in many different ways. For example, if the Elf player not only owns their character but also elvish culture, they could make statements about it without being gainsaid. Of course there are lots of games without GM / player split.

Principles: Principles are guidelines on how you should play entities you own and how to act towards other players. (The term I took from Apocalypse World.) Examples might be to fudge dice, talk in first person, ask lots of questions, say yes or roll dice and many more. Principles are often considered tips, like GMing Tips or Player Tips, but by the definition above, they are actually rules. And that’s a good thing. Because if they are rules, we can actively rule them when we make games. Together with ownership, principles constitute a vast design space that is often ignored.

Setting: One principle that is present in every game is to respect established content. There could be no ongoing story if everyone ignored established facts. Many groups and games do a bit more. They accept content wholesale before play even starts. Like, when we play Star Trek 22nd century, we know that there are Klingons but probably no Dominion. We should consider Setting a kind of rule, because when we make a game, we can craft the setting in such a way that it fits our game’s premise. If you want to formulate setting information, it usually works like so: Since elves have pointy ears, do not describe elves having round ears.

Procedures: Also called mechanics or rules in a stricter sense. I like the term procedure, because that’s what they are, step-by-step descriptions of what you should do under certain conditions. We can recognize two important subtypes of procedures. 

• Generative procedures create new instances of a certain type of entity. Like character generation. 
• Interactive procedures come into play when fictional entities interact in a certain manner. Usually when these entities are owned by different players. Combat systems are typical examples, but also when some PC jumps over the GM’s chasm. They are sometimes called “resolution methods”. I don’t really like that term, because sometimes it is doubtful what is actually resolved. Consider a single attack that does 3 HP damage in an ongoing fight.

So if these are all rules that help us to bring about what our game is about, what are RPGs about? I have seen two kinds of answers over the years.

Core Stories

Core stories are roughly what the characters do. The name “core story” is taken from an essay by Mike Mearls called Core Stories in D&D. For D&D the essay has to say:

A party of adventurers assemble to seek fame and fortune. They leave civilization for a location of extreme danger. They fight monsters and overcome obstacles and acquire new abilities and items of power. Afterwards they return to civilization and sell the phat loot. Next week, they do it all over again.

Emphasis on next week and all over. In short, when you’ve read that shiny new game and wonder what should actually happen during a session, that game is lacking a clear core story.

Premises

Premise is one of those big word from Forge Narrativism featuring prominently in this essay by Ron Edwards. In plain words, according to the essay, the game’s Premise is a “problematic human issue”, like:

• A possible Narrativist development of the “vampire” initial Premise, with a strong character emphasis, might be, Is it right to sustain one’s immortality by killing others? When might the justification break down?
• Another, with a strong setting emphasis, might be, Vampires are divided between ruthlessly exploiting and lovingly nurturing living people, and which side are you on?

So a Premise is a kind of question that cannot be solved, only answered. And it’s the players job to do the answering.

If you know any other takes for what RPGs are about, please tell me.

Talking about GMing

Tags

GMing

In the RPG scene we have lots of vocab for all kinds of things. But the common way to talk about GMing is very lacking. It usually revolves around metaphorical terms like Sandbox or Railroading, and terms that were originally intended for criticism like Railroading and Illusionism. That’s bad. Because, if a word is understood to be disparaging, it’s hard to use it in a neutral way. And while metaphor is good, communication is severly lacking, if metaphorical terms become the primary terminology. That is because metaphors can be interpreted in various ways and at a certain point obfuscate things instead of illucidating. Also if one tries to partition such a varied activity as GMing into to two or three boxes, the result will be less than optimal.

In order to get better at talking about GMing, we first need to understand what is central to GMing. And while certain actions are typically done by GMs, they are in no way the defining trait.

1. GMs often organize games and teach new players. But those things are obviously incidental.
2. GMs arbitrate the rules in certain playstyles, but story games have shown this to be unnecessary.
3. GMs play NPCs, but games like Ars Magica have many secondary characters played by the players instead.
4. GMs create opposition, but in Wraith: The Oblivion one primary source of a PCs opposition, its Shadow, is instead done by another player, not the GM.
5. GMs start scenes and describe scenery, but in games like Primetime Adventures this responsiblity goes round the table, and there still is a GM.
6. GMs do pacing / keep the game flowing, but what does that mean? How does that work?

I say, as a GM your job is to introduce “adventure stuff” at appropriate times. The old term module points into this direction. It’s something you plug into your ongoing play.

GMing style then is about the times new adventure stuff is introduced and the kinds of stuff introduced at that time. So what is that stuff? It can be all kinds:

• Ancient ruins to explore.
• A murderer to catch.
• Ninjas coming through windows.
• A mysterious package arriving.
• Some neighbours arguing.
• Rumors of evil awakening.

The stuff I’m talking about always has some invitation for the players to do something with it. It is not necessarily fighting or opposition. It can be simply exploring or enjoying. It can be an exploitable resource. A weird occurence worth investigating. And many more.

And this is where similarities end and personal style starts. Some questions to consider:

• What are your adventures are typically made of? (places, characters, items, events)
• How many different independent adventures do you have ongoing at the same time?
• Do you imagine certain ways of handling that adventure when you introduce it? If so, do you also imagine alternatives?
• How many steps / sub-adventures does your typical adventure have? How does play move from one to another?
• What happens when players do not address an adventure? (Lie dormant, escalate, reuse material otherwise…)
• How much do you prepare at a time? How do you organize that?

This list is probably not complete and certainly not perfect. My hope is, it serves as talking points. Let me try.

I feel most at home in superhero and urban fantasy genres. My adventures therefore mostly revolve around people: Villains / Plotters, Neighbours / Friends / Dependents. I make sure to have a name and motivation or issue written down for each NPC. That’s mostly it. If the players help in setting up the NPC cast, we might do a relationship map too. I’m not very good with places and scenery.

In a campaign, I usually have a few plots ready, although in various stages. I usually bring them to the forefront one at a time, although the PCs might stumble on others. Sometimes, when the game stalls, I just throw some random item or event in and see what the players do with it.

Many of the adventures I do are pretty short, down to a single scene in some cases. A few will take longer with some buildup.

Of Moves and Procedures

Tags

PbtA, Theory

Last week I posted about various kinds of dice systems and got some very interesting feedback. Several people remarked about PbtA moves and how they might fit in. In case someone is not familiar with these, this is an example from a Star Trek hack I wrote:

When you open fire or throw punches, roll +Aggressive. On a 10+, choose 2, on 7-9 choose 1.

• You hold them at bay.
• You don’t suffer heavy retaliation.
• You take something from them or disable one of their systems.
• You allow an ally to move into an advantageous position.

If you are in an advantageous position or if your specialty is in security, you may also choose:

• Take them out.

A move always starts with a trigger, that tells you when to execute it. On a success, it might offer some choices like this, have a direct effect or ask another player to detail something. Effects on a miss are usually not detailed. If they are not the GM is free to make things go wrong. PbtA games usually have some guidelines called “GM Moves” or – for better differentiation – “Reactions”.

So what’s the point? Isn’t that just some formalized way to write down a rule? We’ll come back to that in a moment. The thing about PbtA games is that unless there is move for that situation, you do not roll. Typical PbtA games come with up a dozen moves and that list is final (except for house rules). In terms of the last article’s methodology, PbtA looks like this:

• When to roll: When a move comes up.
• What to roll: What the move tells you to. Sometimes nothing.
• What happens then: What the moves says. Usually some direct effect, some choice or asking some player to detail an element of the fiction.
• When to roll again: When the next move triggers (can be immediate result from this move).

This is indeed different from any pattern we have seen in the last article. Let’s call them Move Sytems. The chronologically first one I found is not Apocalypse World, but My Life With Master. Note that by this strict definition Defy Danger from Dungeonworld is not a Move.

As I said before, what moves do isn’t all that special. Let’s write some other rules in a move-y way:

• When the adventurers camp in the wild, roll 2d6 on the following table to find a wandering monster.
• When you create a character, follow these seven steps… (each involving some choices or dice rolling or detailing).
• When combat starts, roll initiative and… switch your whole playstyle over to what I called Move And Target in the last article.

I call rules like this procedures. They have some conditions when they become active and then a step by step description on how to resolve them. Procedures can be used to add almost any subsystem to a game. As long as you have a clear entry point, almost anything goes.

At this point we have come full circle. The patterns described in the last article appear to be procedures, too. Albeit usually with a rather fuzzy trigger (Provisions excluded). It therefore seems that you can get away with a fuzzy condition on your encompassing system. We can then look at games like PbtA like this: They forego such an encompassing system and subsystem everything.

P.S.: Some people unhappy with my depiction of Please Roll systems in the last article. Criticisms included…

• Players could ask for rolls.
• Games can include detailed rules for certain actions, making GM calls less central in these cases.

So, like other games Please Roll systems can include other kinds of systems as procedures. But they are in fact more open for this than other setups because of the GM’s central role. The GM in these games mediates between the written rules and the playing group. And if the GM regularly calls for the same rolls under the same conditions, well, they could as well have been officially parts of the rules. Players will come to expect them and may in fact ask for them.

Dice Systems that really matter

A few days ago Black Cat posted a somewhat ranty article about how in many RPGs dice rolling doesn’t really matter, because the GM controlls the occasion when dice are rolled, the stats to be used, the difficulty of the roll and then interprets the results. And while I do think that this methodology has its place and can do great things, I agree with the author that minor adustments to this general formula, like whether you use 1d20 or a d6 dice pool, do not change the game much. Messing with dice and numbers like this is probably the least impactful tool we have in our game design toolkits. So this is a list of things, that other people have done with dice. We will look at the following criteria:

• When to roll?
• How do we determine what to roll?
• What happens then?
• When to roll next?

I use “rolling” as a short hand for engaging the mechanism. It applies equally to handling cards or other tokens. I will also give example games as appropriate and try to list where this mechanism shines and where not.

Please Roll Sytems

This is the aforementioned methodology. In this system a person, usually called GM, can ask for rolls. On a good result the player generally gets what they were trying to accomplish. On a bad result they don’t. The GM will interpret the details.

• When to roll? – When the GM tells you to.
• How do we determine what to roll? – The GM names relevant stats, modifiers and difficulties.
• What happens then? – The GM interprets the result in terms of the established fiction.
• When to roll next? – When the GM tells you to.

This mechanism has been present in RPGs right from the beginning, when D&D came up with ability checks. It is indeed well suited for moving around in a challenging environment designed by a GM. It is present most RPGs to this day. Because it relies on the GM to this degree, it can easily incorporate aspects of most of the systems following.

Decision Cards and Pseudo Tarot

This mechanism takes away some of the variables used in Please Roll Systems, namely stats, modifiers and difficulties. Instead you just flip a card from the stack and look what it says. This makes for some democratization because there are no hidden variables. Everyone has all the information there is and can give input for interpreting the card. That also means that players will sometimes just draw a card to find out how their character will act. This system is often favored by players who like their play mostly freeform. GMs are not required for this system, although games might have them of course.

The two main varieties for this type include decision cards with texts like “Yes!”, “Yes, but…”, “No!” etc. and tarot like cards that just show image with a concept like the major arcana in tarot. While using proper tarot is theoretically possible, the meaning of the cards is often opaque and may be hard to use at the gaming table.

• When to draw? – When you feel like it or another player asks you to.
• How do we determine what to draw? – Just draw.
• What happens then? – The card is interpreted in context of the established fiction.
• When to draw next? – See above.

Forgian Stake Resolution

Popularized by games like The Pool or Primetime Adventures this system twists Please Roll in another direction. The main part is that before dice are rolled there is an explicit discussion on what the character wants, the stakes in question. The stakes should be done in such a way that they move the story forward in a way. When different characters are in a scene, they should get their separate stakes. Let’s say a paladin and their squire defend a village from vile demonspawn. The paladin might roll to defeat the demons and the squire might roll not to look stupid. Or the paladin might roll to save most of the villagers and the squire rolls to save the paladin. Or whatever. It’s up to the negotiated stakes.

This system therefore relies on an active interest of the players to spin the story forward. Since stakes are tailored to the individual character, this system can gracefully handle a character’s personal and psychological issues. It doesn’t do detailed action scenes due the the tendency to zoom out.

• When to roll? – When a character wants something really bad.
• What to roll? – The prototypical games with this system have freeform traits so the player can choose the trait they consider fitting. The GM might influence the difficulty, but is not expected to follow any conceiveable idea of realism. In The Pool the GM can just do as the will, in Primetime Adventures the Director has a budget.
• What happens then? – On a succesful roll, whatever is negotiated. Games might assign a player who fills in details based on the die roll. Games vary on whether the result on a miss are made explicit during negotiation. If they are, they are referred to as counter-stakes.
• When to roll next? – Usually it’s one roll per scene. If the scene does not bring about a conflict worth rolling, why play it?

Move and Target Systems

This is something you are probably all familiar with. It does combat of small units and does it well. Each character gets a tracker that determines when they are out of action. On your turn move your character, choose a target in range and attack them. A character may have different forms of attacks and further combat relevant actions. It is important to attack the right opponent in the right way and figuring out what that is can be part of the fun. Other options and win conditions may become possible due to terrain as determined by the GM, merging this system with Please Roll.

• When to roll? – When it’s your turn.
• How do we determine what to roll? – Pick one of the actions on your character sheet and do what it says. If you want something else ask the GM how to do it.
• What happens then? – As determined by the action in question.
• When to roll next? – When your turn next comes up, unless you’re taken out or the fight is over.

The good thing about this system is that it does one thing very well. The problem is that it does nothing else and this therefore rarely used alone. So called “social combat system” often take part of this system, the health tracker, but without moving and choosing targets, it’s just not fun.

Wushu Skilled Group Actions

Well, that is a bit of a weird name, but this mechanism has been invented several times over. It is present in mook fights in Wushu, skill challenges in D&D4e and, I was told, extended group actions in Mutant Year Zero. (I haven’t read the latter.) This mechanism assumes a group of PCs working together to achieve some goal. To achieve this goal a certain number of succesful actions is required. Each player is free to contribute to the collective result as they fit and roll an appropriate stat.

• When to roll? – When there is such a kind of extended conflict going on and you’re up.
• How do we determine what to roll? – Think about how your character can contribute, then roll an appropriate skill. The GM, if such a person is around, might name difficulties or modifiers.
• What happens then? – A succesful action is counted for towards total conflict. Failures might have various consequences as determined by the individual game.
• When to roll next? – Depends very much on the game in question. There might be regular turns similar to a combat system or a more freeform approach.

This system is very good for what would be a montage in a movie. Characters doing different things in different places in different ways contributing to the same goal. It is notably the main system in Wushu.

Pick A Fight Systems

Games with this approach are Dogs in the Vineyard and With Great Power…, which provided me with the name for this pattern. With Great Power also has a Forgian Stake System for non-action scenes. Pick A Fight systems handle entities in conflict. They can be used for Humanoid vs. Nature, if nature is treated as an opposing entity. If several PCs are in the conflict agains the GM, this is handled as parallel one on one conflicts.

Pick A Fight systems are usually done in turns. They rely on the participants choosing what they are willing to invest in the conflict. Whicht resources you burn, how much pain you are willing to incur. They therefore require explicit methods to gracefully give up. I very much recommand reading both DitV and WGP. They can teach a lot about game design. Sadly both are out of print.

• When to do the thing? – When you pick a fight with someone or someone picks a fight with you.
• How do we determine what to do the thing with? – You take action to make your opponent concede. Say what you do. Say what you invest.
• What happens then? – Your opponent must choose whether to go on or give. You may suffer fallout from your action regardless.
• When to do the thing next? – If the fight is still going, decide if you are willing to continue etc.

State of the World Systems

The main trait of these systems is that the whole group shares dice or tokens which remain on the table and show something about the world. Examples are Durance and Kingdom where the dice and markers on the table inform the group about the state of the prison or community. The result is less about individual actions, but when you narrate something you should take the current layout into account.

In Dread the single marker is a jenga tower and “rolling” is just drawing a stone. The tower shows the rising tension in a horror movie and when you toss it over your character dies.

• When to roll? – When the responsible player (which might be anyone) or general rules says so.
• How do we determine what to roll? – Varies.
• What happens then? – Generally nothing much. Things go as intended. Certain combinations, like a toppled tower, can have special meaning. Nevertheless you should respect the current layout when you add to the fiction.
• When to roll next? – See above.

Provisions systems

This is found in Fiasco and Conquer the Horizon (pdf). At the beginning of the game all the dice are in the middle of the table. At certain times as determined by rules you will take a die from the pile and give to another player or keep it yourself. The game is generally over when there are no dice left. Dice may be rolled at certain times as the determined by the rules.

• When to roll? – You move and roll dice when the rules tell you to.
• How do we determine what to roll? – The dice. Just the dice.
• What happens then? – The rules will tell you.
• When to roll next? – See above.

That’s it for now. As you can see a game might use several of these systems and of course their are games which do not fit a category neatly, like Polaris or Capes. Both games do their very own thing and I do recommend them.