[Rules-light games] And the "you might as well freeform" criticism

[Kiero]

I was prompted to think about this by a comment in another thread. Basically that there's a trend for people to recommend lighter games for newbies, yet they rarely suggest going freeform. Implying that if people really believed in less-crunch, they'd ditch it entirely. I've often seen it said as criticism of rules-light games that people "might as well freeform" rather than play them.

For me, freeform and light aren't analogous, and the why I'll paint with an analogy.

If you go scuba-diving, there's a lot of equipment and training you need. You need a tank, regulator/respirator, weights belt, wetsuit, fins, dive computer, knife, mask and snorkel. You need to know what you're doing with regards to decompression and keep an eye on your time.

That's a lot of messing about which can detract from the experience a little, but it enables you to stay down for quite a long time, and get up close to whatever there is to see on the bottom. You've got technology to aid your movement in your fins. You might even take a motorised unit down with you to pull you along.

That's crunchier games, and for some people the cost of greater complexity isn't really a big deal compared to what they get out of it.

Assuming it's not too deep, you could just dispense with all equipment altogether, and rely on your normal swimming. No messing about, you just get in the water. Except you have to think about your breathing all the time, you can only hold your breath so long, and rougher water means you might have to fight to keep your head above water a lot. Which is tiring. You also have nothing but your raw leg power to push you along, which can also get tiring.

That's freeform - simpler, but no support whatsoever. For some people, that's cool, all that matters is you're doing it.

There are various points in between those two extremes. My favourite one is snorkelling. You've got a mask and snorkel and fins. That means breathing is less of a concern - you can float on the surface and rest with your face in the water, while still being able to breathe normally. That means no fighting for breath as you might do without a snorkel. Fins mean you get around easier (they're optional too - you could choose to leave them out).

And there's no bulky tank, or weights, or worrying about decompression. You can't stay down for any longer than your lung capacity, so you might miss things. Without a wetsuit you'll get cold faster (in colder water you could add a wetsuit). But there's still a lot of freedom.

That's rules-light games. There's trade-off involved, but it still offers a different experience, with more support, than freeform. For some people, that's a best of both worlds - some support (which you can increase or decrease) but some freedom too.

Note there's no judgement here about any of them, either. Snorkelling isn't "better" than scuba, just offers different things for people with different tastes and preferences.

So there we have it.

[elliott20]

well, don't forget, this is by majority, a d20 D&D forum. and MOST gamers out there have not played anything BUT D&D. (D&D being the most the successful at marketing their product, of course)

when d20 is the only thing you've played, and you're so used to it that it comes naturally without having to think about it, having to step outside that boundary requires some experimenting.

rules light games have become my personal favorite because rules light games work well for people who don't have a lot of time to devote to gaming. It means less prep work, less writing, but it still offers a level of structure that helps keep the world more or less consistent.

[Kiero]

well, don't forget, this is by majority, a d20 D&D forum. and MOST gamers out there have not played anything BUT D&D. (D&D being the most the successful at marketing their product, of course)

when d20 is the only thing you've played, and you're so used to it that it comes naturally without having to think about it, having to step outside that boundary requires some experimenting.

It was actually a specific comment on another forum, though I have seen it's like here and elsewhere in the past.


rules light games have become my personal favorite because rules light games work well for people who don't have a lot of time to devote to gaming. It means less prep work, less writing, but it still offers a level of structure that helps keep the world more or less consistent.

This idea of "just enough structure" is the nub of it. For some it seems if you're not going to have the whole shebang, you might as well dump it all; forgetting that there's a spectrum between "high crunch" and "no crunch".

[Kizara]

Good analogies.

As someone that enjoys simulationist and rules-heavy games, I have different desires from my gaming then you do. Nonetheless, I think you have some very apt analogies here.

[Premier]

I have to say I disagree with the analogy in the original post. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it comes across to me saying that while more fiddly compared to snorkeling or swimming, scuba diving is also "better" insofar that it allows you to do things you can't do with other methods - stay there longer, get deeper, see more things.

This, however, I think is a false representation of the RPG rules issue. A rules-heavy system doesn't let you "do more things" than a rules-light one; it lets you do the exact same amount of stuff (which ideally is "everything you can think of that works within the reality of the game), only differently.

It would be more accurate to compare a rules-light RPG to driving 100 miles to another city, and a rules-heavy one to driving out to the airport, taking your private helicopter and flying to the same city. It achieves the exact same thing (and it will even take a similar amount of time with all the paperwork and preparation at the airport). The only difference is that in the first case, only a small part of your attention will be diverted to concentrating on the driving, while in the second, most of your attention will be diverted to the instruments and the various technicalities of flight.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with that - it's simply a matter of preference whether you want to "just get there" while having the freedom of talking to your passengers or looking at the landscape; or whether you take greater enjoyment from working the controls.

[BobVosh]

I like rules heavy games for games that are low-level and/or grittier play. Such as D&D, Warhammer Fantasy, GURPS, and I'm sure you can fill in much more.

I like lighter rules for silly or high power games. Paranoia, Exalted, and a few others I can't remember since noone I play with likes em.

Freeform...never tried it and don't really feel like it because of LARPs. I'll join the SCA before then.

As for your analogy I will disagree. Along with most posts here. For lighthearted or fast pace games rules should be light. For games like D&D where you go through epic (as in LotR style) play it should be rules heavy.

For new players...it doesn't matter one way or another if anyone is there to help em. If not hilarity results.

[Kiero]

Exalted isn't light by any definition.

[Grey Paladin]

Crunch only exists for three purposes:

1) Adding a Gamist side to the game
2) Offering a 'runtime' package of abstractions all players agree upon to save time discussing them
3) Randomly generate results for a more dynamic and unexpected experience

If you stick to RPGs with crunch for a reason other than one of the three mentioned above, it is my personal belief you'd (most likely) be happier playing 'freeform'.

'Freeform' has as much mechanics as any other game, they're just not abstracted.

[Ozymandias]

Crunch only exists for three purposes:

1) Adding a Gamist side to the game
2) Offering a 'runtime' package of abstractions all players agree upon to save time discussing them
3) Randomly generate results for a more dynamic and unexpected experience

If you stick to RPGs with crunch for a reason other than one of the three mentioned above, it is my personal belief you'd (most likely) be happier playing 'freeform'.

'Freeform' has as much mechanics as any other game, they're just not abstracted.

I think you underestimate the importance of "tradition" and "experience".

[Raum]

Afraid I agree with Premier, Kiero. Your analogy implies we have to limit ourselves in order to use lighter systems. Yet, for me, it's exactly the opposite. The system with denser mechanics is more limiting. It simply has more rules to follow and more prerequisites for in game actions. The lighter systems leave more room for imagination.

As for choosing light vs free form, that's easy. I want to game not simply tell stories. In fact I use the game to allow the story to unfold in potentially unexpected directions. Without the framework of a game's rules, the story is all you have. Nothing wrong with that - if that's what you wanted. My preference is to keep 'role play' equal with 'game'.

Choosing between light(er) and heavy systems comes down to a combination of play style and preparation time. Many prefer to have specific options detailed in the text. D&D does an excellent job of providing lots of different options to choose from. Others prefer to start with a base and tailor actions and options to their imagination. As for time - lighter systems take much less time to prepare. Most of my prep time can be dedicated to plot.

[Kiero]

Crunch only exists for three purposes:

1) Adding a Gamist side to the game
2) Offering a 'runtime' package of abstractions all players agree upon to save time discussing them
3) Randomly generate results for a more dynamic and unexpected experience

If you stick to RPGs with crunch for a reason other than one of the three mentioned above, it is my personal belief you'd (most likely) be happier playing 'freeform'.

'Freeform' has as much mechanics as any other game, they're just not abstracted.

I'm not interested in any of those three things out of a system, yet freeform won't:
1) Pace a scene and give me an idea of how it's progressing;
2) Give me a mechanism for determining who gets to go when, and who gets to close the scene.


Afraid I agree with Premier, Kiero. Your analogy implies we have to limit ourselves in order to use lighter systems. Yet, for me, it's exactly the opposite. The system with denser mechanics is more limiting. It simply has more rules to follow and more prerequisites for in game actions. The lighter systems leave more room for imagination.

That's not the implication at all, it's that there are limitations with all of them. With a lighter system you're not encumbered, but don't have as much support. With a heavier one lots more support, but you can't move around as easily.

[Raum]

That's not the implication at all, it's that there are limitations with all of them. Limitations are the implication of the analogy. You even stated "Assuming it's not too deep..." Not to mention the quantitative differences between the types of diving...


With a lighter system you're not encumbered, but don't have as much support. Can you expand on this? From my point of view you have as much support as you are capable of imagining within the rule set. Lighter systems simply paint with a broader brush leaving more open to imagination.


With a heavier one lots more support, but you can't move around as easily.I'm not sure how you're using 'support'. Rules are limitations by definition. They govern behavior.

[Grey Paladin]

Kiero:

1) is answered by a combination of 2 and 3
2) is answered by 2

[Behold_the_Void]

It's been my experience that a number of people on this board aren't particularly versed with or understanding of more abstracted or free-form systems. By RAW is one of the major guiding lights on this forum, which really doesn't work when dealing with more abstract systems.

I remember one of the people who was looking at the anime tabletop system I'm playtesting posted this supposedly by RAW overpowered character awhile back. The character had a number of problems, but chief among them was the exploitation of perceived loopholes which is completely against the spirit of the system in the first place, and that the system is designed with the intent that the GM can and will disallow certain skills and concepts the character was built around whenever it suited them, since the system is giving a set of rules that are extremely malleable depending on the setting the GM wants to run.

[Eclipse]

I've found as you go more rules light, you need more cooperation and maturity between players in order to make the game work. As long as everyone in the group can do this, rules light systems work beautifully.

If you don't have these traits, a rules heavy system lets the GM say "here, look at this, this is why you can't be an ancient dragon." The player might not like it, but it's there in black and white so it doesn't leave much room for dispute. This way, the GM can more easily keep the players in line with each other and on a level where he can keep the game interesting.

Basically, as counter-intuitive as it seems, I'd say rules heavy is easier for beginners, and rules light is better to try out once you have some experience playing rpgs. Which isn't to limit the games to these two groups, as there are certainly other reasons to play rules heavy or rules light games.

[Grey Paladin]

I've found as you go more rules light, you need more cooperation and maturity between players in order to make the game work. As long as everyone in the group can do this, rules light systems work beautifully.

Roleplaying games are Cooperative story-telling, sometimes with wargame elements- by definition cooperation and agreement upon a set of mechanics (as in, the (/meta)physics of the world, not the Gamist term) are required for such a game to be played.

Due to either love for the Wargaming element or unwillingness to spend time and energy on discussing things with the group, most people simply pick a book written by a group who has already gone through this process and state 'this seems reasonable, lets all agree on everything within to save time'.

[Samurai Jill]

This, however, I think is a false representation of the RPG rules issue. A rules-heavy system doesn't let you "do more things" than a rules-light one...
With respect, it often can. If your object is to attain a high degree of realism and internal cause/effect mechanics, for instance, you will, of necessity, need fairly complex rules to mediate events and give appropriate outcomes. Insufficient complexity in the rules forces you to use personal judgement to decide outcome, and that becomes easily subject to ulterior motives and differences of interpretation.

Crunch only exists for three purposes:
1) Adding a Gamist side to the game
2) Offering a 'runtime' package of abstractions all players agree upon to save time discussing them
3) Randomly generate results for a more dynamic and unexpected experience
Gamism is not specifically dependant on crunch- as a rule, gamist players 'accept delays or complex methods only if they can be exploited'. The element of competition (either among players and/or against external adversaries, and friendly or otherwise) is key to gamism, and that does not require especially complex rules.
Usually, crunch-heavy games are associated with simulationist play, but 2 and 3 are certainly valid applications.

[Grey Paladin]

Samurai Jill: Perhaps I've misunderstood the term Gamist.

What I ment with #1 is that sometimes crunch is added because it is seen as an equal part of the game- just as important as cooperative story-telling - and not to support the 'primary' activity.

In other words, crunch is often added for the sake of playing the 'minigame'.


Simulationism is difficult for me to classify- while it could reasonably stand on its own I feel it is a combination of 2) and 3): a set of world physics (in this case, ones that are intended to simulate a certain world) combined with an element of uncertainty (IE a neutral judge- statistics).

[Samurai Jill]

What I ment with #1 is that sometimes crunch is added because it is seen as an equal part of the game- just as important as cooperative story-telling - and not to support the 'primary' activity.
Entirely accurate, (though it's not necessarily a bad thing.)

Simulationism is difficult for me to classify- while it could reasonably stand on its own I feel it is a combination of 2) and 3): a set of world physics (in this case, ones that are intended to simulate a certain world) combined with an element of uncertainty (IE a neutral judge- statistics).
Broadly accurate. The defining feature of simulationism is... impartiality, I guess. There isn't an overriding agenda, such as competition in gamism or premise/theme/story in narrativism. It aims to recreate an internally-consistent reality based on some external template, which, yes, generally mandates a fair amount of 2 and 3.

[Satyr]

I think recommending new players simpler or less complex system is very condescending. It smells like the assumption that new players could not deal with more complex or refined systems. Treating people as if they were stupid is a sure way to disinterest them in the hobby.

Rules have the fuction of a framework for the possbilities what happens in the game. If this framework is too narrow, it allows too little tolerance for own ideas, if the frame is too lose, the game is going to lose its contents in arbitrariness.

This is normally not a question of the system's complexity but the system's focus.
You can have a system whith too few rules, so that you regularly hit the limits of which you can do, what characters you can create and other straightjackets and unneccessary limitations; or you can have a system where too many rules overdetermine the results of the game and surpress the player's creativity or slow down the game flow to a studdering mockery of dynamic.

Likewise, you can have a system where you have rules for nothing no points of orientation and decisions are basicaly arbitrary or determined by the opinion and desire of the gamemaster. In the worst form, this leads to a "you can do anything you wants, but nothing of it matters."

Badly designed rule heavy games have the tendency to offer too little freedoms and slow down the game, but there is no reason to generalise this effect.

But the problem of arbitrariness and too frew options is a very common one with more free-form systems. Badly designed light systems are as much a hindrance ass a badly designed rule-heavy system, if not worse. A complex system becomes faster and easier to apply through rule mastery, but this margin of improvement is minimal with a lmore limited set of rules.

And the worst of them are those systems were the lack of options is painted as a positive experience and praise the lack of commitment as freedom.

The next relevant factor are the details and the grade of abstraction of a system; as a rule of thumb, the more focus on the details are in the system, the more influenntial are the decisions of the players, because even minor details are sgnificant on the mechanical level; the more detailed the game's focus is, the more complex are the rules. The more abstract the rules are, the less important are individual decisions and small adjustments and the granulation of the of the decision-finding process becomes much coarser, but the less complex rules are needed (the truly terrible game will have very abstract and still complex rules, to gain the worst of both worlds).

Me, I prefer a complex system with enough options to represent the campaign or the character I want and that the decisions I do in the game have a significance for the game, whic normally requires a finer granularity of the game's focus.
But I wouldn't say that one form is necessarily better than another one, only on a very subjective level or specified for a certain or campaign mood. There are scenarios or settings that work better with one specific type of systems and there are scenarios which would be seriously crippled (or deconstructed) through the 'wrong' set of rules.

[Samurai Jill]

I think recommending new players simpler or less complex system is very condescending.
So, in theory, might be assuming they have mountains of free time to read up on complicated settings or mechanics.

Rules have the fuction of a framework for the possbilities what happens in the game. If this framework is too narrow, it allows too little tolerance for own ideas, if the frame is too lose, the game is going to lose its contents in arbitrariness.

...But the problem of arbitrariness and too frew options is a very common one with more free-form systems.

...And the worst of them are those systems were the lack of options is painted as a positive experience and praise the lack of commitment as freedom.
Not neccesarily. I mean, leaving things to personal judgement or ulterior motives isn't a problem if everybody has the same ulterior motives- e.g, addressing a particular thematic premise. Problems result if the GM and players have no single higher 'target' to aim towards when deciding how to resolve conflict. A conflict in narrativist play isn't there to provide win/loss conditions for progression, it's there to help define the character.

If you look at a lot of rules-lite narrativist systems, the conditions for various forms of outcome resolution seem maddeningly vague and easy to abuse- but this doesn't present a problem, because the players aren't looking for strict accuracy or competitive advantage. I mean, saying that having detailed mechanics grants players more power over outcomes is completely superfluous if you just say that "success will grant you a lot of power over the outcome", and have balanced player resources for rationing that influence.

The problem with the systems you describe isn't the vagueness, it's that you're approaching them as a simulationist- you want outcomes to be deterministic, precise, and concrete. And for that purpose they are indeed terrible. But you are not their intended audience.

[Eclipse]

Roleplaying games are Cooperative story-telling, sometimes with wargame elements- by definition cooperation and agreement upon a set of mechanics (as in, the (/meta)physics of the world, not the Gamist term) are required for such a game to be played.

Due to either love for the Wargaming element or unwillingness to spend time and energy on discussing things with the group, most people simply pick a book written by a group who has already gone through this process and state 'this seems reasonable, lets all agree on everything within to save time'.

Very true. However, I know a lot of people who like to compete while playing rpgs, and in such cases, there is less cooperation even if it is a cooperative endeavor in the end. Having stricter rules can make sure no one feels like they're getting the short end of the stick whenever a resolution doesn't fall in their favor, since it's in the book and not at the whim of the GM.

If this isn't an issue in a given group, then what I said doesn't really apply.

[Satyr]

So, in theory, might be assuming they have mountains of free time to read up on complicated settings or mechanics.

I assume they have at least enough time to get into a new hobbie. That will also need time to play it.
And good settings are impossible without a cxertain complexityas they require several layers and facettes which also require a certain volume.
And again, I wouldn't ecommend anymone anything I recognize as inferior, only because it is easier for them to spend the evening in front of a TV instead of a book.


Not neccesarily. I mean, leaving things to personal judgement or ulterior motives isn't a problem if everybody has the same ulterior motives- e.g, addressing a particular thematic premise. Problems result if the GM and players have no single higher 'target' to aim towards when deciding how to resolve conflict. A conflict in narrativist play isn't there to provide win/loss conditions for progression, it's there to help define the character.

I think that a group of aporxiamately five individuals without different motives and interests is either impossible or very, very dull. A fixed premise will not lead to uniformity, only to a base line - or if the premise does actually lead to uniformity, it is restrictive and limiting as it leads no individual adaptation and smothers creativity.
Uniform groups are not only quite unlikely (I have never seen one), I think they are also extremely undesirable, as this would negate the leway for different positions and interests to form a synthesis of the different individual influences.


If you look at a lot of rules-lite narrativist systems, the conditions for various forms of outcome resolution seem maddeningly vague and easy to abuse- but this doesn't present a problem, because the players aren't looking for strict accuracy or competitive advantage.

So these systems would fail for any game were the competition between players and 'the game' (or between players) or the detailed implementation of results are meant to be relevant. Like I said before, not every set of rules fit into every campaign.


I mean, saying that having detailed mechanics grants players more power over outcomes is completely superfluous if you just say that "success will grant you a lot of power over the outcome", and have balanced player resources for rationing that influence.

Finer granularity make individual decisions more significant, because more details are going to be affected. The more abstract a system is, the less influence has a single outcome or decision. When it makes a significant difference if you use one of the options the system grants you, you have a choivce. If the system does not offer you any options, or if the choice of the options does not measurably influence the outcome, you have less influence on what happens in the game, because your personal choice is not as relevant.


The problem with the systems you describe isn't the vagueness, it's that you're approaching them as a simulationist- you want outcomes to be deterministic, precise, and concrete.

I refuse to be pigeonholed into a category like simulationist.
I don't invest much thought into exact, deterministic results, I only think that wat matters are the options the player - which often means in proxy the character have and this includes that it can influnce the outcome of a situation. I really don't care, if these options come from advanced charbuild-fu and rule mastery, rhetorical wit and method acting or a realisitc representation of ntural and social circumstances; that are only different flavors of different characters and clearly secondary influences on the game play.

[Raum]

With respect, it often can. If your object is to attain a high degree of realism and internal cause/effect mechanics, for instance, you will, of necessity, need fairly complex rules to mediate events and give appropriate outcomes. What prevents a group playing with a light, or even freeform, system from simulating a coherent world? You don't need rules forcing you to play a heroic fantasy game when that's what everyone wants to play. That may well be the issue though...too many GMs don't set expectations up front or don't talk to the players to see what they're interested in. Instead of looking for voluntary style and genre compliance they rely on printed rules to force compliance.

There are plenty of valid reasons to use detailed rule sets, but using rules as a club to force style and genre compliance isn't really one of them. Players would be far better off agreeing on game conventions up front.


Insufficient complexity in the rules forces you to use personal judgement to decide outcome, and that becomes easily subject to ulterior motives and differences of interpretation.Eh? That's out of the blue. In my experience it's far more difficult to find odd interpretations or loopholes in simple rule sets. As for ulterior motives, I prefer to game with people who are there to have fun. No matter what system is being used. If a player has other motives it can cause issues in any game.

[Samurai Jill]

What prevents a group playing with a light, or even freeform, system from simulating a coherent world? You don't need rules forcing you to play a heroic fantasy game when that's what everyone wants to play.
Again, it all comes down to impartiality. It is virtually impossible to exclude the element of human self-interest from decision-making- even if you all have the same expectations from play, that just means events are uniformly distorted in a single direction. If that direction of distortion is in favour of thematic exploration or 'story', then what you have is narrativism.

Realism, in particular, demands a lot of complexity, because reality is complex, and achieving a halfway-decent approximation needs a lot of structure. There's no way of getting around it. Holding all the genre conventions 'in your head' simply means an increased likelihood of confusion and conflicting expectations, if pure accuracy is your top priority.

That may well be the issue though...too many GMs don't set expectations up front or don't talk to the players to see what they're interested in. Instead of looking for voluntary style and genre compliance they rely on printed rules to force compliance.
Putting the rules up-front IS looking for voluntary style and genre compliance. That's what the rules, in such cases, are for. If you don't like them, you simply don't play, and the rules are good to the extent that they conform with style and genre expectations, and reproduce them accurately during play. The rules are there as a concrete manifestation of social contract.

Eh? That's out of the blue. In my experience it's far more difficult to find odd interpretations or loopholes in simple rule sets. As for ulterior motives, I prefer to game with people who are there to have fun...
This isn't about loopholes- which, yes, are harder to find in simpler rule sets- it's about the requirement for personal judgement to 'fill in the blanks' when it comes to fine-scale details. For some people, fine-scale details are important, perhaps paramount to their idea of fun, and too vital to leave to ad-hoc arbitration. That's simulationism. Also, for some people, seeking personal performance advantage IS their idea of fun. That's gamism.
There's nothing wrong with either of these, but there are rules which suit them and rules which don't.

[Matthew]

What exactly are these "ulterior motives?" It seems to me that if the game master has "ulterior motives" then that needs to be addressed, not the rule set he is using. One of the primary functions of the game master is impartiality. Complex rule sets are not inherently better at modelling perceptions of reality, nor do they have the potential to do it better than lighter rule sets. From my point of view, what they generally result in is a fixed complex model with lots of moving parts, which is no better a representation of reality than what a fluid model can achieve.

[Samurai Jill]

I assume they have at least enough time to get into a new hobbie. That will also need time to play it.
Yeah, but if they don't like the rules, it would be nice to be able to discover that by being able to read them quickly. Otherwise, that's time wasted, and just assuming you know what's good for them beforehand is, again, a little condescending.

And good settings are impossible without a cxertain complexity...
Again, you are assuming that all this complexity needs to come from one person/one source, or that it all needs to be laid out and established in advance.

I think that a group of aporxiamately five individuals without different motives and interests is either impossible or very, very dull.
Oh, characters may have entirely different motives in play, but that's very distinct from their players, whom, in narrativist play, must be devoted to addressing a particular thematic premise. Otherwise, you just get ouija-board role-play. Characters' reactions to that premise can vary wildly, but they're all giving honest answers to the same question. That's the unifying factor.

So these systems would fail for any game were the competition between players and 'the game' (or between players) or the detailed implementation of results are meant to be relevant. Like I said before, not every set of rules fit into every campaign.
Absolutely. They do not work well for gamist play, and would probably not work for most simulationist play either. (However, it depends on the genre expectations- Wushu, for instance, is a rules-lite system that effectively simulates conventions of action movies, because realism (or even plausibility) is not a top priority in such a genre.)

Finer granularity make individual decisions more significant, because more details are going to be affected.
This is only significant when you care about the details. Some people do not. They just want to know 'what are the large scale stakes in this conflict?' have a fair system for resolving conflict over such stakes, and roll the dice (as the case may be.) Whoever wins gets to impose their version of events.

I refuse to be pigeonholed into a category like simulationist...
I don't invest much thought into exact, deterministic results...
You clearly do, since fine-scale details are what matter to you during task resolution. Faithfulness to genre expectations as a strong priority, high-detail rules and settings to define parameters of play, frustration at small-scale vagueness and ambiguity, disdain for attempts to leverage rules for personal advantage- I would certainly say that simulationist describes you best.

[Samurai Jill]

What exactly are these "ulterior motives?" It seems to me that if the game master has "ulterior motives" then that needs to be addressed, not the rule set he is using.
Of course the GM has ulterior motives in most RPGs, because he's charged with directing the story without full participation of the players or their knowledge of exactly what's going to happen.

Complex rule sets are not inherently better at modelling perceptions of reality, nor do they have the potential to do it better than lighter rule sets.
'Perceptions' of reality? The whole point to accuracy as a top priority is that 'perception' doesn't come into it. The reality is the reality, and once you get down to the fine-scale details, to insure an impartial resolution you need rules to cover the full range of possible outcomes. Leaving it to the GM's good intentions does not always work.

[Ridureyu]

I must be weird, then.

I like rules-based D20 games.

I also freeform online.

[Matthew]

Of course the GM has ulterior motives in most RPGs, because he's charged with directing the story without full participation of the players or their knowledge of exactly what's going to happen.

No, that is not the role of the game master. You are confusing "story teller" with "game master". The role of the game master is to convey an impartial environment to the players, who then interact with it.



'Perceptions' of reality? The whole point to accuracy as a top priority is that 'perception' doesn't come into it. The reality is the reality, and once you get down to the fine-scale details, to insure an impartial resolution you need rules to cover the full range of possible outcomes. Leaving it to the GM's good intentions does not always work.

Yes, perceptions of reality, because when you rate a character as having 17 strength, 35% firearms, or whatever, you don't model reality, you create an arbitrary reference point. You cannot model reality in a game the way you are implying here. Certainly, leaving it to the game master does not always work, but neither does leaving it to the system. Indeed, all systems rely on the interpretation of the players to one degree or another. It is always a compromise, the question is only ever where you place the emphasis, and who bears responsibility for the successes and failures.

[Samurai Jill]

Oh, standard disclaimer- there are certainly people capable of more than one style of play. You just can't adhere to two or more of them at the same time in the same game (at least, not as equal priorities.)

Again, I'm not saying that any given style is superior to others- there isn't a meaningful basis for comparison. But Satyr and Raum are making declarative statements about being setting-lite or rules-heavy which are actually completely dependant on a given player's priorities.

[Samurai Jill]

No, that is not the role of the game master. You are confusing "story teller" with "game master". The role of the game master is to convey an impartial environment to the players, who then interact with it.
I'm sorry, but in many RPGs that is exactly what the GM is explicitly exhorted to do, and in a great many others is what s/he winds up doing by habit. (Sometimes s/he has the courtesy to hide the fact, in which case you have illusionism.) D&D, historically, has generally fallen into this category.

Yes, perceptions of reality, because when you rate a character as having 17 strength, 35% firearms, or whatever, you don't model reality, you create an arbitrary reference point.
There's nothing arbitrary about such reference points if the mechanics spit out results that closely approximate what they profess to model on a given level of detail. Which, for some players, is essentially the point, and there are certainly RPG systems which achieve this for specific purposes, such as melee combat or Wuxia conventions. If your rules are incapable of this, then accuracy is obviously not their strong point.
Obviously, perfect modelling of reality is an impossibility, but in simulationist-realist play, the balance of compromise is way, way in favour of accuracy at the cost of succinctness. It's just a case of priorities made manifest.

This isn't to say you can't have reasonable realism with a rules-lite system and cooperative players, it just can't override all other concerns in play.

[Matthew]

I'm sorry, but in many RPGs that is exactly what the GM is explicitly exhorted to do, and in a great many others is what s/he winds up doing by habit. (Sometimes s/he has the courtesy to hide the fact, in which case you have illusionism.) D&D, historically, has generally fallen into this category.

You don't have to be sorry, you just have to recognise the difference. The game master in wargamer parlance is the referee who ensures fair play in a given scenario or campaign. In RPGs that is also his role. In more storylike games (sometimes referred to as voluntary railroads) the game master becomes the "story teller" and may have ulterior motives. Point is, there is a distinction and it needs to be noted.



There's nothing arbitrary about such reference points if the mechanics spit out results that closely approximate what they profess to model on a given level of detail. Which, for some players, is essentially the point, and there are certainly RPG systems which achieve this for specific purposes, such as melee combat or Wuxia conventions. If your rules are incapable of this, then accuracy is obviously not their strong point.
Obviously, perfect modelling of reality is an impossibility, but in simulationist-realist play, the balance of compromise is way, way in favour of accuracy at the cost of succinctness. It's just a case of priorities made manifest.

This isn't to say you can't have reasonable realism with a rules-lite system and cooperative players, it just can't override all other concerns in play.

Arbitrary is admittedly too strong a word for it, as there usually is a game logic behind the numbers selected. The game logic, however, usually takes priority over real world logic. People don't have 35% firearms skill or a strength of 17, these are constructs for playing the game.

Certainly, a given level of rules detail may be desired for a given game, but detail does not by default create a more realistic game. The onus for creating "realism" is simply moved from the game master to the game designer, and trust is given over to the system he has designed, rather than to the ability of the game master to play fairly.

In a rules light system, the level of realism is largely dictated by the participants, in a rules heavy game the level of detail is largely dictated by the system. There is no difference in what they can accomplish, only how they accomplish it.

[Raum]

Of course the GM has ulterior motives in most RPGs, because he's charged with directing the story without full participation of the players or their knowledge of exactly what's going to happen.If you're playing a game, the GM doesn't know exact outcomes any more than the players do. If the GM is directing a story, he's not a game master...he's a story teller.

Telling stories, cooperatively or not, isn't a problem...unless you're baiting and switching players by telling them to expect a game.


Again, I'm not saying that any given style is superior to others- there isn't a meaningful basis for comparison. But Satyr and Raum are making declarative statements about being setting-lite or rules-heavy which are actually completely dependant on a given player's priorities.Huh? I've said style of play is not dependent on rule complexity. I've also said players (including the GM) with differing concepts of the game's style will screw up any game, no matter what the rules say. Is that what you're referring to?


I'm sorry, but in many RPGs that is exactly what the GM is explicitly exhorted to do, and in a great many others is what s/he winds up doing by habit. (Sometimes s/he has the courtesy to hide the fact, in which case you have illusionism.) D&D, historically, has generally fallen into this category.That's seldom done in the games I've stayed with for long. You are correct about it being endemic to certain games though...hence the constant ranting against railroads also endemic to those games. :smallannoyed:


There's nothing arbitrary about such reference points if the mechanics spit out results that closely approximate what they profess to model on a given level of detail. Which, for some players, is essentially the point, and there are certainly RPG systems which achieve this for specific purposes, such as melee combat or Wuxia conventions. If your rules are incapable of this, then accuracy is obviously not their strong point.
Obviously, perfect modelling of reality is an impossibility, but in simulationist-realist play, the balance of compromise is way, way in favour of accuracy at the cost of succinctness. It's just a case of priorities made manifest.

This isn't to say you can't have reasonable realism with a rules-lite system and cooperative players, it just can't override all other concerns in play.In my experience simulating realism depends far more on player choice and role play than on rules. They have to choose to treat the weapon as threatening. They have to act afraid of the dagger...or the dragon. They have to choose to follow the local laws. Rules are generally an imperfect replacement for players choosing to act outside of style and genre conventions.

[Kiero]

Limitations are the implication of the analogy. You even stated "Assuming it's not too deep..." Not to mention the quantitative differences between the types of diving...

People are getting hung up on some of the particulars of the scenario I chose in which scuba, snorkelling and swimming are all equally valid.


Can you expand on this? From my point of view you have as much support as you are capable of imagining within the rule set. Lighter systems simply paint with a broader brush leaving more open to imagination.

I'm not sure how you're using 'support'. Rules are limitations by definition. They govern behavior.

Support as in the rules providing a structure and means by which you can resolve conflicts. Possibly pacing and regulation of who-goes-when and who gets to say what happens.

This is what distinguishes light from freeform - freeform has no formal structure at all. Which means you have to do everything yourself.


Kiero:

1) is answered by a combination of 2 and 3
2) is answered by 2

No they don't. Pacing isn't "a runtime distraction", and who gets to say what isn't about randomness. There's plenty of non-random means of doing that.



I really wish people wouldn't bring GNS into this. It doesn't help given Narrativism is basically "stuff Ron likes", Gamism is basically "stuff Ron isn't keen on, but can understand" and Simulationism is "everything else that didn't fit neatly into his model, so has been dumped together even though it doesn't make sense".

[Grey Paladin]

Pacing, if rules exist for it, is the result of statistics/Player-character qualities determining the time it takes to perform a certain action.

If 'who getting to say what' isn't random or Player(/character)-Quality derived, I fail to see how its a mechanic.

[Raum]

People are getting hung up on some of the particulars of the scenario I chose in which scuba, snorkelling and swimming are all equally valid.I'll suggest we're getting hung up on it because it doesn't work for us...


Support as in the rules providing a structure and means by which you can resolve conflicts. Possibly pacing and regulation of who-goes-when and who gets to say what happens.Hmm, I see where you're going I think. There is a fine line between a structure to resolve conflicts and limitations on how you can resolve conflicts. At some point, probably different for each user, rules become constraints rather than supports. My threshold is low enough that I prefer light to medium crunch games. I'll play in heavier crunch games when that's what friends prefer - but I won't GM them.


This is what distinguishes light from freeform - freeform has no formal structure at all. Which means you have to do everything yourself.I suspect most freeform has some structure...even if it's just "comply with genre conventions". :)


I really wish people wouldn't bring GNS into this. It doesn't help given Narrativism is basically "stuff Ron likes", Gamism is basically "stuff Ron isn't keen on, but can understand" and Simulationism is "everything else that didn't fit neatly into his model, so has been dumped together even though it doesn't make sense".Glad I'm not the only one who thinks the GNS model has some...shortcomings.

[Kiero]

In my experience simulating realism depends far more on player choice and role play than on rules. They have to choose to treat the weapon as threatening. They have to act afraid of the dagger...or the dragon. They have to choose to follow the local laws. Rules are generally an imperfect replacement for players choosing to act outside of style and genre conventions.

I have to agree with you there. I'm really not convinced rules can achieve anything if the players aren't bought into the premise of the game being realistic, and try to act in accordance with that.


Pacing, if rules exist for it, is the result of statistics/Player-character qualities determining the time it takes to perform a certain action.

Nope, I'm not talking about task-level pacing. I'm talking about conflict/scene-level pacing.


If 'who getting to say what' isn't random or Player(/character)-Quality derived, I fail to see how its a mechanic.

Who gets to declare what happens is usually the point of any mechanic (it's the end-point of resolution). It doesn't have to be random, though.

Doesn't even have to be player-derived either, some systems have all sorts of ways of handling that which work in unusual ways.


I'll suggest we're getting hung up on it because it doesn't work for us...

Maybe. I just think the clear distinctions between them are more important than the conditions of the scenario.


Hmm, I see where you're going I think. There is a fine line between a structure to resolve conflicts and limitations on how you can resolve conflicts. At some point, probably different for each user, rules become constraints rather than supports. My threshold is low enough that I prefer light to medium crunch games. I'll play in heavier crunch games when that's what friends prefer - but I won't GM them.

By providing a mechanism to resolve, there's necessarily the closing down of an avenue to resolve it in a similar, but subtly different way. Because it's more effort than it's worth to redesign something similar to what's already been provided.

More to the point, the more mechanisms in place to aid resolution, likely the more resistance you're going to get going off-piste and doing things in your own novel way, rather than using what's been stipulated.

For clarity, I prefer ultra-light games, though of late I've been playing (but could never run) medium-heavy ones (WFRP, soon Saga Edition). But just as support can be limiting, so can lack of it as well. It can lead to feelings of everything being a bit nebulous and ephemeral, and not very real. Handwavium and all that. Not a problem for me personally, but I do know it's an issue others who like a bit more meat report.


I suspect most freeform has some structure...even if it's just "comply with genre conventions". :)

Don't get me wrong, genre conventions most certainly are a structure, but they're rarely codified into the rules themselves. Or at least not in an explicitly-stated "these are the conventions the rules are supposed to enforce" way.

Complying with conventions can be a structure, but unless it's agreed it's no more true of freeform than any other level of complexity. You can see examples of when that goes wrong on many of the totally freeform RPGs that take place in chat and such.


Glad I'm not the only one who thinks the GNS model has some...shortcomings.

I could go on at length about how none of them recognise anything remotely interesting to me about playing an RPG. My goal of "emulationism" has very little in common with simulationism.

[Samurai Jill]

If you're playing a game, the GM doesn't know exact outcomes any more than the players do. If the GM is directing a story, he's not a game master...he's a story teller.

The game master in wargamer parlance is the referee who ensures fair play in a given scenario or campaign. In RPGs that is also his role. In more storylike games (sometimes referred to as voluntary railroads) the game master becomes the "story teller" and may have ulterior motives. Point is, there is a distinction and it needs to be noted.
In RPGs, I think you're making a distinction without a difference. Insofar as the two roles have been apportioned to one person at all, they wind up in the same hands.

In a rules light system, the level of realism is largely dictated by the participants, in a rules heavy game the level of detail is largely dictated by the system. There is no difference in what they can accomplish, only how they accomplish it.

In my experience simulating realism depends far more on player choice and role play than on rules. They have to choose to treat the weapon as threatening. They have to act afraid of the dagger...
Here, again, is the distinction between feeling like it's realistic and actually being realistic- how threatening is that dagger? Does your weapon have greater reach? What's your stance and footing? How practiced/skilled/proficient is each opponent with their blade of choice? Unless you keep explicit track of all these factors and can synthesise them objectively, you basically have to either (A) make up the result, in which case excluding self-interest is impossible, or (B) rely on a method of task/conflict resolution where the range of possible outcomes, plotted by frequency, is a relatively poor representative of what would happen in the real situation. It's not enough that the outcome be plausible, it has to precisely model the range of what could genuinely transpire. This is a tall order with a high price, but certain games do achieve it, and they need comprehensive rules to do so. This is not about superficial ambience, this is about nuts-and-bolts reproduction of an original.

[Kiero]

Here, again, is the distinction between feeling like it's realistic and actually being realistic- how threatening is that dagger? Does your weapon have greater reach? What's your stance and footing? How practiced/skilled/proficient is each opponent with their blade of choice? Unless you keep explicit track of all these factors and can synthesise them objectively, you basically have to either (A) make up the result, in which case excluding self-interest is impossible, or (B) rely on a method of task/conflict resolution where the range of possible outcomes, plotted by frequency, is a relatively poor representative of what would happen in the real situation. It's not enough that the outcome be plausible, it has to precisely model the range of what could genuinely transpire. This is a tall order with a high price, but certain games do achieve it, and they need comprehensive rules to do so. This is not about superficial ambience, this is about nuts-and-bolts reproduction of an original.

There's a real question here around whether just because it's more complicated it might seem more realistic, but isn't. I don't think I need to point out some of the unrealistic, or even just plain unresearched assumptions built into some systems. Or the complicated rigmarole you have to go through to get realistic outcomes in others.

Never mind that mathematically "realistic" systems actually just tends to mean they can reproduce the middle of the bell curve time and again. The extremes that happen in real life far too often to account for those probabilities are often impossible.

Furthermore you've got design goal and play issues. Real life firefights tend to involve a lot of suppressive fire, and very few hits. Yet a game of that would probably be quite boring.

As far as I'm concerned, any game featuring what it purports to be "realistic" combat, without any consideration of the psychology of what's going on is talking nonsense. Most people, even those trained, have difficulty overcoming their inbuilt restraint against killing (unless drunk, drugged, or otherwise judgement-impaired). That's the purpose of a lot of military induction training - to break down the conditioning most of us (barring natural sociopaths, who are rare) have which stops us hurting others.

The only combat system I've seen which I consider "realistic" is Unknown Armies. Most PCs freak out and lose it when trying to fight, especially up close and in someone's face.

[Matthew]

In RPGs, I think you're making a distinction without a difference. Insofar as the two roles have been apportioned to one person at all, they wind up in the same hands.

I think that if you cannot perceive the significance of the distinction, then there is little probability of a mutual understanding being achieved. Whose hands the roles end up in is irrelevant. You may get some cross over between the game master and storyteller in individuals, but the two roles are distinct and the former can be exclusive of the latter.



Here, again, is the distinction between feeling like it's realistic and actually being realistic- how threatening is that dagger? Does your weapon have greater reach? What's your stance and footing? How practiced/skilled/proficient is each opponent with their blade of choice? Unless you keep explicit track of all these factors and can synthesise them objectively, you basically have to either (A) make up the result, in which case excluding self-interest is impossible, or (B) rely on a method of task/conflict resolution where the range of possible outcomes, plotted by frequency, is a relatively poor representative of what would happen in the real situation. It's not enough that the outcome be plausible, it has to precisely model the range of what could genuinely transpire. This is a tall order with a high price, but certain games do achieve it, and they need comprehensive rules to do so. This is not about superficial ambience, this is about nuts-and-bolts reproduction of an original.

Again, and as Kiero points out, these mathemtaical formula are less concerned with modelling reality than they are in constructing a playable game system that feels verisimilar. A game cannot be a realistic model, it can only ever feel real; an individual game may strive to be more of a simulation in one regard than another, but having hundreds of explicit rules to govern as many concievable situations as possible is not the same thing as constructing a detailed model of reality. In a model of reality, all that matters is that the result of actions x, y and z result in an objectively (usually mutually agreed) realistic result. The granularity of how it is reached is tangential to the actual result itself.

[Kiero]

Again, and as Kiero points out, these mathemtaical formula are less concerned with modelling reality than they are in constructing a playable game system that feels verisimilar. A game cannot be a realistic model, it can only ever feel real; an individual game may strive to be more of a simulation in one regard than another, but having hundreds of explicit rules to govern as many concievable situations as possible is not the same thing as constructing a detailed model of reality. In a model of reality, all that matters is that the result of actions x, y and z result in an objectively (usually mutually agreed) realistic result. The granularity of how it is reached is tangential to the actual result itself.

Which is why I agree with one of Raum's earlier points. A group of people with an eye to realism are probably going to achieve a much greater degree of it than trying to bash a system not designed for it into churning it out.

[RPGuru1331]

In RPGs, I think you're making a distinction without a difference. Insofar as the two roles have been apportioned to one person at all, they wind up in the same hands.
Gonna have to agree here. Making the words "GM" say something else doesn't really change the role.

[Poison_Fish]

I think that if you cannot perceive the significance of the distinction, then there is little probability of a mutual understanding being achieved. Whose hands the roles end up in is irrelevant. You may get some cross over between the game master and storyteller in individuals, but the two roles are distinct and the former can be exclusive of the latter.

You do realize there is absolutely no difference between the roles when applied to a roleplaying game except your own impressions being attached to them? Your the one making the distinction, there is no actual difference however. The DM/GM/Storyteller/(wo)man behind the curtain perform the exact same function.

In fact, the only difference between these terms in function is that DM signifies D&D, GM is a general term, and Storyteller signifies White Wolf's Storyteller System.

As a further edit: Your using the term Game Master as an old definition. Current usage of what your impression: In say tabletop war gaming or card games, is no longer Game Master. It's just Judge or Ref.

[Kiero]

As a further edit: Your using the term Game Master as an old definition. Current usage of what your impression: In say tabletop war gaming or card games, is no longer Game Master. It's just Judge or Ref.

What I do when running RPGs is categorically not being a judge or referee.

[Matthew]

Gonna have to agree here. Making the words "GM" say something else doesn't really change the role.

Actually, it is the changing of the words "game master" to mean storyteller that is the impetus for the distinction. That another word was coined to describe the difference in role is significant, but the reason I chose to distinguish using "game master" is because I have seen significant resistance to using the word to describe a "story teller" (from self described story tellers).



You do realize there is [I]absolutely no difference between the roles when applied to a roleplaying game except your own impressions being attached to them? Your the one making the distinction, there is no actual difference however. The DM/GM/Storyteller/(wo)man behind the curtain perform the exact same function.

Words tend to only have the meaning they are given. If you have access to an authorative and universally accepted definition of "game master" somewhere, then I would be interested to hear about it. However, the significance of the distinction does not turn on the nomenclature used to describe it.



In fact, the only difference between these terms in function is that DM signifies D&D, GM is a general term, and Storyteller signifies White Wolf's Storyteller System.

As a further edit: Your using the term Game Master as an old definition. Current usage of what your impression: In say tabletop war gaming or card games, is no longer Game Master. It's just Judge or Ref.

Whether the terminology can be conflated (and I am not denying that it can) there is a significant difference between the role of the "referee" and "story teller". The difference is in approach to the game. Given that you recognise that such a distinction exists, and judging from what you write above you do see a distinction between a "judge or referee" and a "story teller", then you must recognise that the nomenclature is not what is at issue here. To go back to the original point of contention, a "game master" (in the wider sense) need not have ulterior motives.

[Poison_Fish]

What I do when running RPGs is categorically not being a judge or referee.

Indeed, and you don't need to be. The only judging you should be doing is when rules issues come out.

[Kiero]

Indeed, and you don't need to be. The only judging you should be doing is when rules issues come out.

I'd rather not even do that. Fortunately my system of choice almost never involves such, since it's ridiculously simple.

[RPGuru1331]

Actually, it is the changing of the words "game master" to mean storyteller [i.e. someone who is not impartial] that is the impetus for the distinction. That another word was coined to describe the difference in role is significant, but the reason I chose to distinguish using "game master" is because I have seen significant resistance to using the word to describe a "story teller" (from self described story tellers).

Resistance from who? Yourself? I freely use the term GM for everyone, when being completely free from system (Though I use game specific terms when discussing those games).

Game Masters aren't impartial, outside of the Wargaming context, anyway.

[Matthew]

Resistance from who? Yourself? I freely use the term GM for everyone, when being completely free from system (Though I use game specific terms when discussing those games).

No, from other people encountered on the internet and in the world at large. Something about the implications of the "master" element of the title.



Game Masters aren't impartial, outside of the Wargaming context, anyway.

Well, that is what is being contested here; game masters (in the general sense that you prefer) are not universally impartial, but that doesn't mean that no game masters are impartial. Hence the disagreement here with the idea that a game master must have ulterior motives (whether they influence his decision or not) when making a ruling.

[Poison_Fish]

Words tend to only have the meaning they are given. If you have access to an authorative and universally accepted definition of "game master" somewhere, then I would be interested to hear about it. However, the significance of the distinction does not turn on the nomenclature used to describe it.

Then I suggest reading most roleplaying books and looking at what they define as who runs the game. Despite whatever words they use, the definition of what the GM/DM/Storyteller does is mirrored in all aspects.

I'm saying your attaching more meaning and taking that as an approach. I'm saying that's not actually the case with the terminology when it was created for specific use in a roleplaying game.


Whether the terminology can be conflated (and I am not denying that it can) there is a significant difference between the role of the "referee" and "story teller". The difference is in approach to the game. Given that you recognise that such a distinction exists, and judging from what you write above you do see a distinction between a "judge or referee" and a "story teller", then you must recognise that the nomenclature is not what is at issue here. To go back to the original point of contention, a "game master" (in the wider sense) need not have ulterior motives.

While there is a difference between being a "Judge" and a "story teller" (Vs. being The Storyteller, which is exactly the same as being The Dungeon Master), the role that's applied to a roleplaying game in specific is the same. I think the distinction your making is entirely related to styles of game mastering, not with the terms themselves. However, nowhere does it say that the Game Master for a roleplaying game must be impartial. That's your own gaming style being implied. How I use the term GM is entirely different then you, as it simply means the one running the roleplaying game. It is devoid of any sort of method for game running.

[RPGuru1331]

No, from other people encountered on the internet and in the world at large. Something about the implications of the "master" element of the title.
I've seen exactly one person complain; You. Most people seem to just accept GM as the standard word for the dude who runs the game. In fact, this is the first time I've ever seen this contested.


Well, that is what is being contested here; game masters (in the general sense that you prefer) are not universally impartial, but that doesn't mean that no game masters are impartial. Hence the disagreement here with the idea that a game master must have ulterior motives (whether they influence his decision or not) when making a ruling.
They don't necessarily need ulterior motives. It just seems entirely standard, even outside of what you seem to believe to be the only place that has it, storytelling games like Exalted or Nobilis. Even DnD ones generally do, it's just more along the lines of "I want to see the stuff I made get thrown out there, in some form."

[Matthew]

Then I suggest reading most roleplaying books and looking at what they define as who runs the game. Despite whatever words they use, the definition of what the GM/DM/Storyteller does is mirrored in all aspects.

I'm saying your attaching more meaning and taking that as an approach. I'm saying that's not actually the case with the terminology when it was created for specific use in a roleplaying game.

The nomenclature is of little interest to me, I am only interested in clarity of discussion, and am happy to defer to your definitions for the purposes of this discourse.



While there is a difference between being a "Judge" and a "story teller" (Vs. being The Storyteller, which is exactly the same as being The Dungeon Master), the role that's applied to a roleplaying game in specific is the same. I think the distinction your making is entirely related to styles of game mastering, not with the terms themselves. However, nowhere does it say that the Game Master for a roleplaying game must be impartial. That's your own gaming style being implied. How I use the term GM is entirely different then you, as it simply means the one running the roleplaying game. It is devoid of any sort of method for game running.

I think you are misunderstanding me. I don't give a monkeys about the terminology or what style of play people want to use. I am only interested in distinguishing between these two types.



I've seen exactly one person complain; You. Most people seem to just accept GM as the standard word for the dude who runs the game. In fact, this is the first time I've ever seen this contested.

Yes, I gathered that.



They don't necessarily need ulterior motives. It just seems entirely standard, even outside of what you seem to believe to be the only place that has it, storytelling games like Exalted or Nobilis.

I think you are reading way too much into what I am saying here. The point of making the distinction is to contest the assertion that all game masters have ulterior motives. I am not judging any particular style of play, and I don't regard one as absolutely better than another, nor do I view them as restricted to particular games.

[Poison_Fish]

Ok then, let's move with your point then. Your claiming GM's don't need ulterior motives, correct? Or not all GM's should have them? (Am I right on that or did I miss it?)

But isn't keeping everything impartial an ulterior motive in itself?

[Matthew]

Ok then, let's move with your point then. Your claiming GM's don't need ulterior motives, correct? Or not all GM's should have them? (Am I right on that or did I miss it?)

But isn't keeping everything impartial an ulterior motive in itself?

Here is the course of the discussion so far, as I understand it:

1a) Rules heavy games have the capacity to be more realistic than rules light games
1b) I don't agree, the degree of realism is not reliant on whether the events of the game defer to the system or the game master.
2a) The game master is incapable of being impartial because he has ulterior story based motives
2b) Eh? No, the game master can be impartial, he doesn't need to be the story teller, he can be the referee.

As you can see, the "ulterior motives" are in this context ulterior to impartiality.

[TheElfLord]

While I have never played in one of these, my understanding of "sandbox" games leads me to think they are the best example of the distinction between "GM" and "Storyteller" In a sandbox game the GM is there to referee the PCs interactions with the world. He is not guiding them on a prepared story, and in fact it is the PCs, not the GM who are the main creators of the story. A Storyteller, on the other hand, is mainly concerned with telling the game's story, with the help of the PCs.

There is a lot of overlap and intertwining between the two roles, but they are two roles and it is possible to separate them.

[Jayabalard]

I've seen exactly one person complain; You. Most people seem to just accept GM as the standard word for the dude who runs the game. In fact, this is the first time I've ever seen this contested./shrug. I've seen plenty of people make a distinction between a story teller and a game master.

[AKA_Bait]

/shrug. I've seen plenty of people make a distinction between a story teller and a game master.

I have as well. I've also seen the distinction phrased as 'good dm' and 'bad dm'. The arbiter or story teller is either good or bad depending upon the play style preference of the speaker at the time.

[Raum]

If you're playing a game, the GM doesn't know exact outcomes any more than the players do. If the GM is directing a story, he's not a game master...he's a story teller. In RPGs, I think you're making a distinction without a difference. Insofar as the two roles have been apportioned to one person at all, they wind up in the same hands.
Gonna have to agree here. Making the words "GM" say something else doesn't really change the role.
You do realize there is absolutely no difference between the roles when applied to a roleplaying game except your own impressions being attached to them? Your the one making the distinction, there is no actual difference however. The DM/GM/Storyteller/(wo)man behind the curtain perform the exact same function.

In fact, the only difference between these terms in function is that DM signifies D&D, GM is a general term, and Storyteller signifies White Wolf's Storyteller System.

As a further edit: Your using the term Game Master as an old definition. Current usage of what your impression: In say tabletop war gaming or card games, is no longer Game Master. It's just Judge or Ref.Please note my original text. Neither "game master" or "story teller" were capitalized. I was discussing actions and functions not position titles.

It doesn't matter what you call it, if you're directing actors in a story with a predetermined outcome you're not playing a game. You're telling a story or acting in one. That can be a very rewarding activity but it's not a game (http://www.costik.com/nowords.html). Or at least the "players" aren't playing one, they've become an audience or, at best, actors.

[Matthew]

Having taken a bit more time to mull over what Samurai Jill is trying to convey, I think I may now see the source of the misunderstanding. There are basically three dichotomies at work here:

1) Rules Light/Rules Heavy
2) Abstraction/Simulation
3) Realistic/Unrealistic

In the case of the first two, we appear to be in general agreement as to their meaning and significance. The problem comes with relating them to the last. From what I gather, Samurai Jill considers simulation and realism to be fundamentally tied together [i.e. the more that you accurately simulate, the more realistic the game]. I (and if I understand them correctly, Raum and Kiero also) am opposing the idea that a significant amount of simulation via a rules heavy game is required to create a very realistic game. Rather, I consider an abstract and rules light game to be equally suited to creating a very realistic game.

The problem lies in our definition of "realism". For Samurai Jill this means a very granual game where as many factors as possible are considered and micro managed in an attempt to simulate events so that they have realistic resolutions as a result of a realistic simulation. I suspect that she does not recognise the possibility of an equally realistic abstraction because she largely defines realism as simulation; the more granular and detailed the simulation the more "realistic" the game.

This conflation of simulation with realism is the source of the disagreement, I believe.

[Raum]

Having taken a bit more time to mull over what Samurai Jill is trying to convey, I think I may now see the source of the misunderstanding. There are basically three dichotomies at work here:

1) Rules Light/Rules Heavy
2) Abstraction/Simulation
3) Realistic/Unrealistic

In the case of the first two, we appear to be in general agreement as to their meaning and significance. The problem comes with relating them to the last. From what I gather, Samurai Jill considers simulation and realism to be fundamentally tied together [i.e. the more that you accurately simulate, the more realistic the game]. I (and if I understand them correctly, Raum and Kiero also) am opposing the idea that a significant amount of simulation via a rules heavy game is required to create a very realistic game. Rather, I consider an abstract and rules light game to be equally suited to creating a very realistic game.Pretty much. I'd simply rephrase it to state I think quantity / weight of a rules system is completely unrelated to a game's realism or narrative style. Additionally, they're only related to the abstraction / simulation category in a metagame sense. Inside the context of a game, my actions and narrative may well simulate the genre, setting, or reality I'm aiming at. To me, saying a light game system cannot simulate life in the middle ages because it lacks mechanics to do so is tantamount to saying a novel can't represent it either...the novel doesn't have enough mechanics!

Game mechanics force certain things and occasionally support a specific genre emulation. Lack of mechanics doesn't prevent a group from complying with genre conventions on their own.

[Samurai Jill]

There's a real question here around whether just because it's more complicated it might seem more realistic, but isn't. I don't think I need to point out some of the unrealistic, or even just plain unresearched assumptions built into some systems. Or the complicated rigmarole you have to go through to get realistic outcomes in others.
Oh, there are certainly a million different ways to get such a system wrong, and very few to get it right. No question there. This is one of the major drawbacks of simulationist design. But, for example, the Riddle of Steel has actually been certified by a professional fencing association as giving a good approximation of how genuine swordplay works out. It's pretty damn close to the genuine article, and I don't think there's a viable way to do that without similarly complex rules. (And tRoS isn't even pure-simulationist- it's narrativist with a simulationist undercarriage, thanks to Spiritual Attributes.)

Your other criticisms are perfectly valid. Nonetheless, for some people, getting the gritty details right- even within a limited context- is more-or-less the point.

I think that if you cannot perceive the significance of the distinction, then there is little probability of a mutual understanding being achieved.
I'm perfectly capable of understanding the significance of the distinction, which is why ulterior motives are significant here- the fact the two roles are combined in one guy/gal makes them unavoidable. Again, I'm sorry, but you're assuming the GM is some kind of secular saint impervious to human temptation- this does not follow.

...In the case of the first two, we appear to be in general agreement as to their meaning and significance. The problem comes with relating them to the last. From what I gather, Samurai Jill considers simulation and realism to be fundamentally tied together [i.e. the more that you accurately simulate, the more realistic the game].
I consider the pursuit of realism, when done above and beyond all other considerations, to be a subset of simulationism. And again, I am making a distinction between all players being convinced that this is a realistic formulation of outcomes, and actually guaranteeing it's the Real McCoy. You seem to have limitless faith in human impartiality (not to mention math skills) in this respect. I don't.

I mean, I'm not even particularly hung up on stark realism myself- I'm perfectly happy to accept outcomes that are more-or-less plausible, fair to the players, and don't blatantly violate the laws of physics and biology (or whatever rules prevail under genre conventions.) But you seem to be confusing the ambience or feel of realism with the actual mimcry of reality. It's like the difference between a 2-dimensional painting and a 3-dimensional sculpture of the same model.

[Matthew]

I'm perfectly capable of understanding the significance of the distinction, which is why ulterior motives are significant here- the fact the two roles are combined in one guy/gal makes them unavoidable. Again, I'm sorry, but you're assuming the GM is some kind of secular saint impervious to human temptation- this does not follow.

I could equally say that you are assuming that the game master is incapable of continuously making decisions where the chief concern is achieving a realistic outcome; if realism is the only concern, then there are no ulterior motivations. The problem is not that you are not discerning between the two roles, but that you are assuming that they must be conflated together in such a way as to mandate that a game master must combine the role of storyteller and referee. These are base assumptions that I do not accept.



I consider the pursuit of realism, when done above and beyond all other considerations, to be a subset of simulationism. And again, I am making a distinction between all players being convinced that this is a realistic formulation of outcomes, and actually guaranteeing it's the Real McCoy. You seem to have limitless faith in human impartiality in this respect. I don't.

I mean, I'm not even particularly hung up on stark realism myself- I'm perfectly happy to accept outcomes that are more-or-less plausible, fair to the players, and don't blatantly violate the laws of physics and biology (or whatever rules prevail under genre conventions.) But you seem to be confusing the ambience or feel of realism with the actual mimcry of reality. It's like the difference between a 2-dimensional painting and a 3-dimensional sculpture of the same model.

Yes, I think we have lately identified that you have a definition of "more realistic" that is probably better described as a "realistic simulation". Certainly, a rules heavy game is potentially better suited to achieving a simulation that is realistic (though I consider such a rule set to be as unreachable as limitless impartiality). What I don't agree with is your contention that a "realistic simulation" has the potential to be more realistic than a "realistic abstraction" by virtue of being a simulation. To put it simply, I do not consider realism to be a subset of simulation, and do not agree that by creating ever more detailed and accurate simulations you actually achieve increased realism relative to a realistic abstraction.