Quote from: MaddmanAnalagies to chess and monopoly are inapplicable, because RPG rules are not just games. They are games, but they are also attempts to model a fictional reality.

Yes, they're not like chess or monopoly.  Although there are other non-RPGs that also attempt to model a fictional reality...

I want to take a step back and talk a bit more about what kind of game people think RPGs actually are in another thread.

Well, Goedel's Theorem is probably true for a game about mathematicians doing proofs; I'm not convinced it literally applies to RPGs in general.

But I have to admit I thought of Goedel when I wrote some of the stuff I did above. Metaphorically, you could say that any RPG which is nontrivially complete (in the sense that it has a rule for everything) is likely to be inconsistent (in the sense that there are going to be some occasions when the rules spit out an undesirable result).

Of course you need to defined "desired". It's hard enough to create mechanical rules based on a standard of simulating an external (but notionally objective) reality. I'd think it'd far harder to mechanically satisfy the aesthetic sensibilities of a group of people who can't even all agree if Revenge of the Sith was a good movie.

But if we skip over that problem, I'll again point to the idea that RPGs can and are designed with big areas of incompleteness just so that the humans can exert control over "results". For example, in Polaris, nothing happens that isn't suggested by at least one player at the table. You could view this as a bit of a cop out--basically, games like this give up on the whole idea of "simulating a reality" and just regulate a set of social relations, leaving it up to the players to make their own reality. But it works for many people who've tried it.

Quote from: Elliot WilenBut I have to admit I thought of Goedel when I wrote some of the stuff I did above. Metaphorically, you could say that any RPG which is nontrivially complete (in the sense that it has a rule for everything) is likely to be inconsistent (in the sense that there are going to be some occasions when the rules spit out an undesirable result).

Are you talking about a game where storytelling (in its entirety) emerges as the result of the rules, rather than being the method by which the players impact the rules?

In practical/example terms:  One is a game where you can only say (and must say) "And then I swing from the chandelier" if you have a successful acrobatics roll, a chandelier of specific structural integrity already on the map, and your token within moving/swinging distance.  The other is a game where you say "And then I swing from the chandelier" because narrating derring-do gets you +1 on your Make-'em-Swoon roll, and you don't need any more justification than that.

I expect that most games have a complex intertwining of the two:  There are some things that you can narrate only as a result of the game, and other things that you narrate as method of impacting the game, and they create a give-and-take feedback among all of the participants.

But if the Goedel-completeness thing applies to anything other than the "results-only" extreme then I'm going to need some help in seeing how.

I know someone who fudged a dice-roll during DitV. I know someone who house-ruled Sorcerer. This person is a Forge poster, understands GNS, and is a huge fan of Narrativist gaming (which, you know--may seem like a contradiction with the above ... my jury is still out but I know how the absolutist would judge him).

So those games (which are at the top of my list for being played "perfectly by the rules" along with D&D--which gets houseruled so much it's not even worth a mention) aren't 'perfect' for everyone.

But can a rule-set be perfect for a group for a time period? I assert that "yes they can" and often are. I know people who played GURPS and for many, many sessions there was no deviation from the rules (I can't speak to all sessions--but certainly many). Does that make GURPS perfect?

I don't think so. I think the question is badly posed.

If people have an absolutist view of the rules (we'll never fudge a roll, we'll never change a printed rule) then they may be far more picky about what rule-set they choose and what their requirements for a rule-set are than someone with a less absolutist view of the rules.

-Marco

I'm agreeing with Marco.

Last year around this same time there was a fairly pervasive meme that if you changed even one rule in the slightest, then you weren't even playing the same game anymore. And this was presented in a judgemental way- the ideal was to never change anything, and never have to.

The ideal examples given were always a certain type of Forgy game.  The 'culprit' examples given were always a certain extremely popular game.

This was one of the most ham-handed and false promotional efforts I've ever seen.

I like this rule:  
"You can change any rule in the game, as long as all the player's agree to it, and it remains consistent for the entire game."

This meta-rule makes almost any game "perfect" for the specific people playing it.

Quote from: StuartI agree with the second, but disagree with the first.

No human-manageable set of rules can cover anything you could possibly conceive of and simulate anything and everything.  I've heard some pretty grand claims about one or two particular RPG that might fit the bill... but I've never seen one myself.

However, very few RPGs are designed with the goal of providing rules to facillitate you doing anything you want.  The rules are designed around helping you simulate a rather specific subset of things.  Hand to hand combat.  Magic.  Avoiding Traps.  Diplomacy. D&D is a great game, but if you're trying to use it to run a campaign about Wall Street Stock Brokers... really, that's not what those rules are for and you'd been much better looking for a game that does focus on those things.

Well, that's not entirely what I meant by that.  Of course you look for a game that's expressly designed for what you want to do, but even if it is, I've found it pretty much never happens that you find such a game that doesn't have a few flaws here and there, or the occasional game situation where if followed to the letter, the rules would result in something stupid happening.

Example:  Werewolf is quite possibly my overall favorite of the WoD games.  It's high-powered modern fantasy about big fucking wolf people who can rip guys in half.  And by and large the mechanics do a masterful job of portraying that, especially the big freakin' dice pools you get when you go all buffed out Chrinos form, with one key flaw:  The botch system.  Statistically, as those dice pools get to a certain largess, you reach a point where do to the critical failure system you are actually more likely to fail the better you are at a given skill/attribute combination.

The rest of the mechanics are fine, and I quite like.  So, the sane decision to me is to toss that mechanic out the fucking window.  And in fact, so many players did, that eventually after a few editions the stubborn ass designers finally just yanked it from the game.  I sometimes think it was deliberately designed the way it was, to try and discourage the high-powered play they claimed the games weren't about.  There was just no excuse for a broken-as mechanic to stick around so long despite so much universal distaste for it.  

QuoteBut I think the "you" in there should be all the people playing the game.  Not just one or two people.

Of course.  When I speak of doing things to encourage fun, I always mean the whole group.  The DM role however, is generally called upon to make these sorts of executive decisions more often because that is traditionally his role at the table.  He is the judge, and sometimes that means declaring a rule or a result "unconstitutional", in the sense that it violates the right to fun.  

QuoteEdit:  Golden Rule?   "treat others as you would like to be treated."   Is that what you mean?  If so -  I agree!

I use the term Golden Rule because it's how I've often seen it referred to in games.  It shares not necessarily similarity to the rule itself, but the nature of it's fundementality.  The Golden Rule of Morality is the core part of every system of morality it appears in.  Christ called it the most important commandment of all.  Similarly, the Golden Rule of Roleplaying is the most fundamentally important lesson and rule in all gaming:  That fun trumps all, and the rules are only there to facilitate that fun.

Quote from: J ArcaneI use the term Golden Rule because it's how I've often seen it referred to in games. It shares not necessarily similarity to the rule itself, but the nature of it's fundementality. The Golden Rule of Morality is the core part of every system of morality it appears in. Christ called it the most important commandment of all. Similarly, the Golden Rule of Roleplaying is the most fundamentally important lesson and rule in all gaming: That fun trumps all, and the rules are only there to facilitate that fun.

The Golden Rule is "treat others as you would have them treat you".  It doesn't sound very close to "fun trumps all" with one person in the group "the judge" who makes decisions for everyone else about what would be fun...

Quote from: StuartThe Golden Rule is "treat others as you would have them treat you".  It doesn't sound very close to "fun trumps all" with one person in the group "the judge" who makes decisions for everyone else about what would be fun...

And again your GM paranoia manages to twist everything I said to your neurosis . . .

In the front of every guardians of order product is a single rule. They call it their Manifesto. Other games have called it other things... like 'Golden Rule', a few have ignored it or only implied it. I know AD&D had it. I know Hackmaster included it by means of specifically violating it... Synnibar did NOT allow it, and we all know what happened to Synnibar.

The Manifesto, which is too long to quote in full, explicitely says that 'the rules are not written in stone' and that the 'Game master may change them whenever he wants'...

I know my old, coverless DMG from way back in the day included a line about changing rules if they didn't work. God forbid you halfwits make me dig it out of storage and quote you page, paragraph and line.

Quote from: StuartI like this rule:  
"You can change any rule in the game, as long as all the player's agree to it, and it remains consistent for the entire game."

This meta-rule makes almost any game "perfect" for the specific people playing it.

This is called Rule 0, and it is very specifically hated by the forgies. Although they usually attempt to reinterepret it into "this means the GM can just change anything on a whim".

Quote from: J ArcaneAnd again your GM paranoia manages to twist everything I said to your neurosis . . .

I'm usually the GM.  I'm not talking about disempowering the GM.  I'm talking about treating your players fairly by giving them a voice in whether the rules of the game everyone agreed to play get changed.  Before you continue to accuse me of being in favour of GM disempowerment, read my comment in this thread .

Quote from: J ArcaneExample: Werewolf is quite possibly my overall favorite of the WoD games. It's high-powered modern fantasy about big fucking wolf people who can rip guys in half.

Do you still want to talk about psychology and issues with power?

Quote from: StuartI'm usually the GM.  I'm not talking about disempowering the GM.  I'm talking about treating your players fairly by giving them a voice in whether the rules of the game everyone agreed to play get changed.  Before you continue to accuse me of being in favour of GM disempowerment, read my comment in this thread .



Do you still want to talk about psychology and issues with power?

No, frankly I'm sick of talking about anything with you.  It has become utterly and completely clear to me that you are not capable of rational discussion on these matters.  

You have a problem, and you need help.  If there were therapy for gamers, I'd recommend you seek some.  

I apologize for having argued with you at all. It's clear you have issues you need to work out, and it seems that despite all my efforts, all I'm doing ids feeding further into them, so I'm done.

Do you think if there were therapy for gamers that they'd use roleplaying therapy?

Quote from: StuartI'm usually the GM.  I'm not talking about disempowering the GM.  I'm talking about treating your players fairly by giving them a voice in whether the rules of the game everyone agreed to play get changed.  Before you continue to accuse me of being in favour of GM disempowerment, read my comment in this thread .

Oh, good so you agree that games should apply by all the rules, including every iteration of Rule 0 every time it comes up in one of these rulesets.

Great, that means we've finally reached accord.