Why do RPGs have rules?

[innerdude]

When it say to pick a race in the PHB, who is saying what is true about game state/fiction? The player, the DM or both?

GM, obviously. How many times have you played a game where GM states, "Banned PHB heritages are aasimar, tiefling, gnome, and dragonborn." The declared ban by the GM supersedes the rulebook.

And by association, directly disallows the player from showing up and declaring, "My character is a dragonborn."

Likewise, one would assume that a GM of a My Little Pony RPG disallows a player from stating, "My character is Cobra Commander."

 

[Maxperson]

GM, obviously. How many times have you played a game where GM states, "Banned PHB heritages are aasimar, tiefling, gnome, and dragonborn." The declared ban by the GM supersedes the rulebook.

No. First, that sort of world building(if any) is done prior so at the point of selection the DM isn't deciding that the player will be a cleric. Or a human or other race. Nor is it for only for the player or DM to decide since the DM can make characters, too. Second, the DM who does that is using.......................................Rule 0! That makes any such determination about what races are available the result of rule 0 and not the rule that the only one race and class be selected at 1st level. The rule itself makes no selection about who is saying what about the fiction or game.

 

[innerdude]

No. First, that sort of world building(if any) is done prior so at the point of selection the DM isn't deciding that the player will be a cleric. Or a human or other race. Nor is it for only for the player or DM to decide since the DM can make characters, too. Second, the DM who does that is using.......................................Rule 0! That makes any such determination about what races are available the result of rule 0 and not the rule that the only one race and class be selected at 1st level. The rule itself makes no selection about who is saying what about the fiction or game.

The selection of a rules system at all is a declaration by the GM. "World building" is a set of declarations by the GM.

"Because I, the GM, have no wish to redesign or re-create this set of codified rules, and because those rules generally engender an assumed game state and fiction with which I am happy, I expect you, the players, to make game state declarations in accordance with what I have chosen.

"As such you are now, as players, explicitly allowed to make some declarations about the nature and capability of your character within the fictional game state, and disallowed from making others."

 

[Maxperson]

The selection of a rules system at all is a declaration by the GM. "World building" is a set of declarations by the GM.

But not by the entire system. Rule 0 is the rule involved here. The PC creation rules are not about one or the other saying what happens in the fiction.

"Because I, the GM, have no wish to redesign or re-create this set of codified rules, and because those rules generally engender an assumed game state and fiction with which I am happy, I expect you, the players, to make game state declarations in accordance with what I have chosen.

"As such you are now, as players, explicitly allowed to make some declarations about the nature and capability of your character within the fictional game state, and disallowed from making others."

Due to Rule 0, not the PC creation rules. Pick a class is not a rule that determines who says what as to what happens in the fiction.

 

[innerdude]

Character generation is nothing more than a player declaration, "Based on previously agreed constraints of rules, genre, and GM preference, I declare that my character now has these explicit ways to interact with the fictional game state."

 

[innerdude]

Pick a class is not a rule that determines who says what as to what happens in the fiction.

Of course it is. By selecting the Rogue class at level 1 in D&D, I am explicitly agreeing that until I gain at least 1 and possibly multiple additional levels, I can no longer declare as valid fiction, "I lay my hands on the injured warrior and divinely heal his wounds," "I cast magic missle," and "I hew the bugbear in half with my two-handed greataxe."

I can see, perhaps, that what you're getting at is that there are no explicit rules surrounding how does my level 1 Rogue end up in a fictional position at all to declare either a correct or incorrect action declaration?

Well sure. Because unless explicitly stated in the rules, it is an assumed, unwritten rule that GMs control most of the broader framing. Which is why when a system goes out of its way to call out or modify that long held, unwritten rule, it is perceived as unusual.

Who and what determines if the level 1 Rogue's player is allowed to declare, "I walk into the village of Ardun and speak to the chief of militia"?

All of it is based on agreed "truthy" states in the fiction.

• The character is capable of walking.
• The village of Ardun is physically present in the fiction. (I.e., it hasn't been sucked into an Abyssal vortex and removed from the material plane.)
• The distance to Ardun is reasonable within context. (If Ardun is 3,000 km away, it's a bit presumptuous to declare you walk there without intervening happenings.)
• There are no other external factors preventing foot travel (weather, rock slides, presence of a 5,000 troop army besieging the village).
• There's a person in the village with the title or equivalent of chief militia officer.
• The chief militia officer can be sought and found upon arrival.
• The chief militia officer has any desire to speak to the character.

In some systems the GM has assumed, unilateral authority to dispute the "truthiness" of any of those claims. In the case of many PbtA games, depending on context and how a player move was just resolved, the GM may have zero authority to dispute those declarations.

But ultimately the "truthiness" of any or all of the claims is based on negotiation between the group*. And that negotiation can be strictly interpersonal or mediated by rule. *Edit: often with an assumption that one member of the group has ultimate approval or veto power.

Sometimes that rule is, "As GM, I sometimes desire to remain fully impartial in rulings, and shall defer to an operator of chance in many instances."

 

[Clint_L]

This thread is not solely, or even primarily, about D&D.

But anyway, I don't think that the goal of D&D - at least taken at fact value - has typically be to produce a great shared storytelling experience.

I would say that one goal of 4e D&D is to produce a thematically compelling shared fiction. But not shared storytelling. Classic D&D doesn't seem to me to have either of these goals (as per the OP). Post-DL AD&D, 3E and 5e I make no comment on in this post.

My idea, and the reason I bring up D&D, is that rules might be the point in themselves.

Much of this discussion is on rules as a means to an end. Which makes obvious, intuitive sense. But what I am mulling is that D&D, likely inadvertently, created a set of rules that are an end unto themselves. This makes it difficult to compare it, or games built in its image, to games that are more "elegantly" designed, e.g. where there is a clear continuum from rules to game. Rules as means.

So in direct response to the thread title, I am postulating that one reason for many of the rules in RPGs, going back to the first RPG, is that rules are fun. In themselves. Outside of whatever other goals the designer may or may not have had in mind.

I think this is clear distinction between games like DW, MH, Fiasco, etc. and games like D&D.

 

[innerdude]

So in direct response to the thread title, I am postulating that one reason for many of the rules in RPGs, going back to the first RPG, is that rules are fun. In themselves.

I don't think this is true. At all. Rules only exist in gaming contexts to serve a purpose. In the arena of sport, it prevents one side from unilaterally declaring they won a contest that was never played. If I can declare I won a game of pick up basketball when I lost by six points, what's the point of rules for scoring?

Rules in board games always serve to allow players to collectively agree upon what is a valid board state, and what are valid moves based on that board state.

The "fun" from rules doesn't come from having them, it comes from mastering them in ways that stimulate thinking processes. And the thought stimulation comes from achieving the highest level of game state mastery.

If D&D rules are "fun in and of themselves," is only because they point to this element of process mastery --- that the rules can be mastered, and that greater mastery provides a benefit of execution of the rules in context.

Can someone claim to have enjoyed mastering the player build rules of 5e by exhaustively reading the source books over the past decade, yet never have played a single session? I suppose, but that seems to be an odd edge case.

I'm not saying that doing so is bad or wrong. But it doesn't shed light on the purpose of the rules as they apply in play.

 

[Maxperson]

Of course it is. By selecting the Rogue class at level 1 in D&D, I am explicitly agreeing that until I gain at least 1 and possibly multiple additional levels, I can no longer declare as valid fiction, "I lay my hands on the injured warrior and divinely heal his wounds," "I cast magic missle," and "I hew the bugbear in half with my two-handed greataxe."

Of course you are. That's not the relevant part to what I'm saying, though.

The rule itself is not saying that you the player are the one who can declare fiction, though. The rule simply says that a PC can only have 1 class at level 1. It applies equally to both players and DMs creating NPCs with PC levels. There is no inherent distinction in that rule about who dictates the fiction. That rule is not about WHO declares what is happening in the fiction. It's simply a tool with no statement about who uses it to declare fiction. It's neutral.

An example of a rule that states who declares what is happening in the fiction can be found on page 174 of the DMG.

"For every ability check, the DM decides which of the six abilities is relevant to the task at hand and the difficulty of the task, represented by a Difficulty Class."

If a rule does not dictate who decides, it is not a rule about who specifically is declaring what is happening in the fiction.

I can see, perhaps, that what you're getting at is that there are no explicit rules surrounding how does my level 1 Rogue end up in a fictional position at all to declare either a correct or incorrect action declaration?

Well sure. Because unless explicitly stated in the rules, it is an assumed, unwritten rule that GMs control most of the broader framing. Which is why when a system goes out of its way to call out or modify that long held, unwritten rule, it is perceived as unusual.

It's written, at least in D&D, as Rule 0. I think why it's viewed as unusual in some other systems by some people is that D&D was first and that colors the views of people who started with D&D. I don't think a group who starts with one of those newer systems would view it as unusual.

Who and what determines if the level 1 Rogue's player is allowed to declare, "I walk into the village of Ardun and speak to the chief of militia"?

All of it is based on agreed "truthy" states in the fiction.

• The character is capable of walking.
• The village of Ardun is physically present in the fiction. (I.e., it hasn't been sucked into an Abyssal vortex and removed from the material plane.)
• The distance to Ardun is reasonable within context. (If Ardun is 3,000 km away, it's a bit presumptuous to declare you walk there without intervening happenings.)
• There are no other external factors preventing foot travel (weather, rock slides, presence of a 5,000 troop army besieging the village).
• There's a person in the village with the title or equivalent of chief militia officer.
• The chief militia officer can be sought and found upon arrival.
• The chief militia officer has any desire to speak to the character.

In some systems the GM has assumed, unilateral authority to dispute the "truthiness" of any of those claims. In the case of many PbtA games, depending on context and how a player move was just resolved, the GM may have zero authority to dispute those declarations.

In D&D it's spelled out clearer than that.

The How to Play rules on page 6 state that...

1) The DM describes the environment. This includes the village of Ardun and the existence of the chief militia officer.

2) The players describe what they want to do. This would be when the player declares, "I walk into the village of Ardun and speak to the chief of militia."

3) The DM narrates the result of the adventurers' actions. This is when the DM determines(presumably via rules, notes and/or whatever else) whether the chief militia officer wants to talk to the PCs. This is also the beginning of the new step 1 as the environment has changed slightly with the narration.

Then the process repeats with steps 2 and 3. Over and over and over.

Which rules come into play on the side of the player and/or DM(if any) will vary with each repetition of the play process. Some rules will be player facing(declaration of PC actions) and be about how the players are the ones that are determining what happens in the fiction. Some will be DM facing, such as the DC rules and will be about how the DM is the one who is determining what happens in the fiction. The vast majority of rules, though, are PC/DM neutral and are not about who determines what is happening in the fiction, but rather are used to help figure out how the few other rules that are about who is determining what is happening in the fiction are resolved.

For example. The rule about the player declaring what his PC does is enacted by the player to affect the fiction by saying, "I walk over and try to climb up the back of the building to get onto the roof." The rule about the DM deciding DCs is enacted by the DM to affect the fiction by the DM saying, "Okay, it will be a DC 15 climb check." The rule that allowed the player pick proficiency in athletics was neutral about who decides what in the fiction, but is consulted to help figure out the resolution.

Hopefully that makes what I'm saying a bit clearer.

 

[kenada]

Following up: and I think this can be very frustrating to folks who are looking at this from a design perspective, because the behaviour seems illogical. If the point of the game is to produce a great shared storytelling experience, then the design of D&D could be (and has been) improved in so many ways. But I don't think that's really what the game is about. Or not all of it - not even close.

Or, you know, I'm totally wrong and just spinning in circles. One of my problems is that I tend to think like a scientist (e.g. observe a phenomenon and try to hypothesize) but I'm trained in the humanities (with a bit of biology) and my math kind of sucks. Maybe I married a scientist to try to make up for my shortcomings.

People are generally pretty curious and like figuring things out. An RPG with a complex system of customization is perfect for that. You can analyze the rules, put together a character, then see how it works in play (and get enjoy when you unlock some new feature or find an item you wanted). I don’t see that as in conflict with what Baker is saying. In fact, what he’s saying is complementary. If a customization option eliminates unwanted or unwelcome outcomes, it should be regarded as potentially problematic. Making sure customization options play together nicely means players can have a lot of neat to build characters that don’t break the game (or are at least less likely to do so).

Consider the problem of spell casters versus non-casters. When magic can replace non-magical effects that have risk with spells with little or no risk, it diminishes the role of non-magical specialists in the party. They’re effectively just minions the caster brings along to save on resources. For example, knock in classic D&D has no downside other than the spell slot. That may be a high cost in older editions, but it’s gotten progressively less of one, and there are ways around it. The way newer editions and games have addressed it is by adding an additional cost (essentially, potentially unwanted or unwelcome outcomes).

• 5e makes knock create a loud sound. That creates a risk of ruining surprise, and you might attract unwanted monsters or patrols.
• Pathfinder 2e still requires a Thievery check, which you can make at a bonus as part of the casting action or delegate to the party lock-picker (also with the bonus).
• Other games make casting less reliable or require a check. Shadowdark and Dungeon World do the former while (I expect) my homebrew system will do the latter (using your mage rank).