RPG Theory - Restrictions and Authority

[Maxperson]

The underlying source of all restrictions is the social contract. That isn’t a very interesting statement though.

Consider this thought experiment. D&D1 has spell X do Y. Now consider there’s a D&D’ that comes out that’s the same as D&D in all respects except that spell X now does Y’.

Ultimately the Players of D&D and D&D’ have the spell be different because the spell rules of their games are different.

I think it’s important to call out actual rules restrictions vs using the social contract to alter the rules and then having those altered rules serve as restrictions.

If you remove the social contract, then there are no restrictions at all for the DM. None.

That the players of D&D and D&D' have made the spell different because the spell rules are different doesn't change that. There's a different framework for each game that alters how other things fit into it, but the DM can change that framework easily. He's not restricted by it in the same way that the other players are. It's not a rules restriction for him.

Perhaps instead of calling them rules restrictions, we just refer to it as rules framework since none of it restricts the DM.

 

[Maxperson]

I think it's a mistake of some order to claim that the DM in D&D has the power to change whatever he likes at a whim. That be notionally true, but what @Maxperson is describing as the social contract at the table restricts what the DM can actually do a fair bit. If anyone thinks that a DM can, say , unilaterally change the effects of the spell on a whim, or muck about other rules in the same way, then I would contend that first they are suffering from a very narrow reading of the rulebook, and second that their opinion doesn't actually match the way that many people not only play the game, but expect it to be played.

The kind of RAW reading needed to support the above idea just doesn't carry water outside of the white room.

It's not a narrow reading of the rulebook at all. At least a half dozen times throughout the 5e rulebook it says that the rules serve the DM, not the other way around. In the PHB it directs the players to ask the DM what rules changes he has made. It says umpteen million times in the DMG that it's the DMs world and provides suggestions for ways that the DM can change the framework(rules) to suit what he wants to build.

As you say, the social contract can do a fair bit. More than that, really. It does pretty much everything when it comes to restrictions. The DM doesn't change rules at a whim, but only because of that social contract. The DM needs to have reasons for changing things, but only because of that social contract. A game where rules change on a whim wouldn't match how the vast majority of people play or expect the game to be played, but only because of the social contract.

If the RAW reading doesn't carry water in the real world, it's ONLY because of the social contract and not the rules.

 

[Fenris-77]

It's not a narrow reading of the rulebook at all. At least a half dozen times throughout the 5e rulebook it says that the rules serve the DM, not the other way around. In the PHB it directs the players to ask the DM what rules changes he has made. It says umpteen million times in the DMG that it's the DMs world and provides suggestions for ways that the DM can change the framework(rules) to suit what he wants to build.

As you say, the social contract can do a fair bit. More than that, really. It does pretty much everything when it comes to restrictions. The DM doesn't change rules at a whim, but only because of that social contract. The DM needs to have reasons for changing things, but only because of that social contract. A game where rules change on a whim wouldn't match how the vast majority of people play or expect the game to be played, but only because of the social contract.

If the RAW reading doesn't carry water in the real world, it's ONLY because of the social contract and not the rules.

That's actually the narrow reading I was talking about. Yes, the rules do serve the DM, but that's not quite the same thing as giving the DM carte blanche to muck about at a whim either. That caveat is generally followed by a statement something like "don't let the rules get in the way". So while, yes, if you read that one statement by itself then I can see where someone might get to ultimate cosmic power, but that's not actually what is meant by that statement. The freedom that rule gives is a freedom from restriction that negatively impacts play (or desired play state, or whatever), something that is made explicit in the rules to some degree or another.. On a related note there's a significant difference between DM selection of DM facing rules prior to play, and DMs changing player facing rules on the fly and on a whim. The DM is, for example, free to chose whatever encumbrance system they want, or restrict lineages or spells available to players, or even (why not) make changes to spells. That's not at all the same as changing the effect of a cast fireball in play. The second example is where we start talking more firmly about the social contract IMO.

I agree about the reasoning behind the RAW thing too, the reason it comes up is because some people give the idea of the social contract at the table no consideration when they read the rules. That's unfortunate because it actually underpins the whole endeavor rather than being an add-on or afterthought.

 

[FrogReaver]

If you remove the social contract, then there are no restrictions at all for the DM. None.

That the players of D&D and D&D' have made the spell different because the spell rules are different doesn't change that. There's a different framework for each game that alters how other things fit into it, but the DM can change that framework easily. He's not restricted by it in the same way that the other players are. It's not a rules restriction for him.

Perhaps instead of calling them rules restrictions, we just refer to it as rules framework since none of it restricts the DM.

without the social contract the dm has no power over anything regardless of what the rules say.

It’s only through the social contract that any authority is ultimately established.

But that’s not interesting in itself. That’s how literally everything functions. What is interesting is when you get into the nuances of how this functions.

 

[FrogReaver]

One interesting example of authority and social contract interactions is in player vs player scenarios.

Sometimes the rules outright ban. Sometimes they outright allow. Often they are silent and the table has to decide how to handle. Sometimes that’s via democracy. Sometimes that’s via ‘elected official- dm’.

 

[Maxperson]

That's actually the narrow reading I was talking about. Yes, the rules do serve the DM, but that's not quite the same thing as giving the DM carte blanche to muck about at a whim either.

My reading doesn't require a whim. Whim is your word, not mine. My reading only requires that the rules not be a restriction upon the DM, and they aren't. He can change any or all of them when he has reason(not whim) to change them. The rules provide ZERO restriction.

That caveat is generally followed by a statement something like "don't let the rules get in the way". So while, yes, if you read that one statement by itself then I can see where someone might get to ultimate cosmic power, but that's not actually what is meant by that statement. The freedom that rule gives is a freedom from restriction that negatively impacts play (or desired play state, or whatever), something that is made explicit in the rules to some degree or another..

No. It is not only "don't let the rules get in the way." The DMG provides the DM the power and authority to completely design his world and the rules of the game. If he wants to design it so that the 3e gestalt rules are in effect for his new campaign, they are in effect. If he wants to make it so that magic is very rare for his new campaign and only there is only a 10% chance that a PC can learn to cast spells, that's what happens. He has the "cosmic power" to reshape, add or remove any rule, because the game gives him that authority.

So yes, while "don't let the rules get in the way" is also in effect, so is the authority to change any rule he wants if he has reason to change it. And again, I'm not talking about changing anything on a whim.

On a related note there's a significant difference between DM selection of DM facing rules prior to play, and DMs changing player facing rules on the fly and on a whim. The DM is, for example, free to chose whatever encumbrance system they want, or restrict lineages or spells available to players, or even (why not) make changes to spells. That's not at all the same as changing the effect of a cast fireball in play. The second example is where we start talking more firmly about the social contract IMO.

If I want fireball to start at 5d6 and gain 3d6 per level instead of 2d6, then I can in fact change the effect fireball has in play. I'm not going to do something like that in mid-campaign, but if I felt it was a better version of fireball, I would let the players know that the change was coming down the pike for the next campaign and my reasoning for the change.

I agree about the reasoning behind the RAW thing too, the reason it comes up is because some people give the idea of the social contract at the table no consideration when they read the rules. That's unfortunate because it actually underpins the whole endeavor rather than being an add-on or afterthought.

I'm not sure they really need to consider the social contract. Whether people think about it consciously or not, it's still present and nearly everyone understands the contract at some instinctive level. We are social animals. A few oddballs won't understand it, but those are the fairly rare bad DM or problem player. The rest may have issues now and then, but those issues tend to go away when a discussion is had.

 

[FrogReaver]

My reading doesn't require a whim. Whim is your word, not mine. My reading only requires that the rules not be a restriction upon the DM, and they aren't. He can change any or all of them when he has reason(not whim) to change them. The rules provide ZERO restriction.

No. It is not only "don't let the rules get in the way." The DMG provides the DM the power and authority to completely design his world and the rules of the game. If he wants to design it so that the 3e gestalt rules are in effect for his new campaign, they are in effect. If he wants to make it so that magic is very rare for his new campaign and only there is only a 10% chance that a PC can learn to cast spells, that's what happens. He has the "cosmic power" to reshape, add or remove any rule, because the game gives him that authority.

So yes, while "don't let the rules get in the way" is also in effect, so is the authority to change any rule he wants if he has reason to change it. And again, I'm not talking about changing anything on a whim.

If I want fireball to start at 5d6 and gain 3d6 per level instead of 2d6, then I can in fact change the effect fireball has in play. I'm not going to do something like that in mid-campaign, but if I felt it was a better version of fireball, I would let the players know that the change was coming down the pike for the next campaign and my reasoning for the change.

I'm not sure they really need to consider the social contract. Whether people think about it consciously or not, it's still present and nearly everyone understands the contract at some instinctive level. We are social animals. A few oddballs won't understand it, but those are the fairly rare bad DM or problem player. The rest may have issues now and then, but those issues tend to go away when a discussion is had.

So, in your opinion, What prevents or restricts the dm from having carte Blanche to muck about on a whim?

 

[Fenris-77]

I think you missed my rather important distinction between prior to play and during play. The first is given by the rules, while the second is far more practically constrained.

Also, and probably importantly, under section 3 Master of Rules (p 5) the DMG says this: As a referee, the DM acts as a mediator between the rules and the players. The 'rules' there, which I happily grant are whatever the DM decides to use for that campaign or game, quite obviously have weight and function outside the whim of the DM once they hit the table. (Yes, I'll keep using whim because it directly indexes what I'm talking about here). That quote is closely followed by this one: The rules don't account for every possible situation that might arise during a typical D&D session. [...] How you determine the outcome of this action is up to you. It's quite clear that rules are there to be followed (read adjudicated if you like) except when they don't cover something or cause problems. That is the basic expectation of play.

What I'm getting at is that the agency the DM has to change rules is specifically given when it's service to the game, rather than their own whim. The contract and expectations that come along with mediation and the stated goal of create a campaign world that revolves around their actions and decisions, would suggest that the wiggle room for DM authoritarianism over previously agreed-upon rules at the table is enormously more constrained than you seem to want it to be. Just to be clear, I'm not talking about what parts of the rules the DM decides to use prior to play, only DM agency once play has begun and (mostly for what I'm talking about) currently in progress. Once play begins the rules (whatever set is being used) in and of themselves are a significant part of the 'contract' at the table - they are then a set of mutually agreed upon guidelines for the mechanical adjudication of actions.

This whole issue is made somewhat fuzzy here because the 'rules' are not all created equal. Entirely DM facing stuff has far less constraints on change than player facing stuff, and that really describes a spectrum rather than a binary.

As for the last bit, with no social contract you don't have a game, so yeah, the rules need to consider it. How explicitly they do so, or how well or usefully they do so, is an entirely different problem. Personally, I think the D&D rules are crap there, but that's just my opinion.

 

[Maxperson]

So, in your opinion, What prevents or restricts the dm from having carte Blanche to muck about on a whim?

Only the social contract. The rules don't differentiate between whim and planned out changes. They just give the DM the authority to make any change. That's why, even if it's not interesting, you can't really take the social contract out of a discussion on restrictions on the DM.

Without the existence of the social contract, the DM could and would change things on a whim. There would literally be nothing stopping him and the players wouldn't leave the game if he did. The offense taken by players at playing in a game where the DM changes things on whims is rooted in the social contract and the expectations it provides.

 

[Maxperson]

I think you missed my rather important distinction between prior to play and during play. The first is given by the rules, while the second is far more practically constrained.

Also, and probably importantly, under section 3 Master of Rules (p 5) the DMG says this: As a referee, the DM acts as a mediator between the rules and the players. The 'rules' there, which I happily grant are whatever the DM decides to use for that campaign or game, quite obviously have weight and function outside the whim of the DM once they hit the table. (Yes, I'll keep using whim because it directly indexes what I'm talking about here). That quote is closely followed by this one: The rules don't account for every possible situation that might arise during a typical D&D session. [...] How you determine the outcome of this action is up to you. It's quite clear that rules are there to be followed (read adjudicated if you like) except when they don't cover something or cause problems. That is the basic expectation of play.

What I'm getting at is that the agency the DM has to change rules is specifically given when it's service to the game, rather than their own whim. The contract and expectations that come along with mediation and the stated goal of create a campaign world that revolves around their actions and decisions, would suggest that the wiggle room for DM authoritarianism over previously agreed-upon rules at the table is enormously more constrained than you seem to want it to be. Just to be clear, I'm not talking about what parts of the rules the DM decides to use prior to play, only DM agency once play has begun and (mostly for what I'm talking about) currently in progress. Once play begins the rules (whatever set is being used) in and of themselves are a significant part of the 'contract' at the table - they are then a set of mutually agreed upon guidelines for the mechanical adjudication of actions.

This whole issue is made somewhat fuzzy here because the 'rules' are not all created equal. Entirely DM facing stuff has far less constraints on change than player facing stuff, and that really describes a spectrum rather than a binary.

As for the last bit, with no social contract you don't have a game, so yeah, the rules need to consider it. How explicitly they do so, or how well or usefully they do so, is an entirely different problem. Personally, I think the D&D rules are crap there, but that's just my opinion.

I think we are closer in position than it might seem.

Most of the changes I make are in-between campaigns. Most of those changes are talked over with my players and if a majority don't agree, the change typically doesn't happen. Sometimes if I feel strongly enough about it, it will happen anyway.

I agree with you that once the campaign begins, the DM is much more constrained with regard to changes. That constraint, though, is entirely from the social contract, not the rules. There have been rare times when during game play something breaks the campaign in some way, or some combo that I've never seen is so unbalancing that it becomes disruptive and I announce a change in the rules mid campaign. It's not a whim, because I don't change things on a whim, but it is a mid campaign unilateral change by me. I can do that because the rules not only don't stop me, but actually empower me with the authority to do so.