Why do RPGs have rules?

[innerdude]

Neither is universally true.

I frequently select rules by asking my players what they'd like to play, having some discussion of options, and abiding by their choice.

There are games that make world building a minigame by the players, of whom the GM is at most one participant.

The act of choosing the rules is not in and of itself a choice of how the rules are negotiated in play. But once chosen, they obviously should be enforced.

 

[pemerton]

So who does the PHB dictate to say what happens in the fiction when it comes to choosing a class?

I don't fully follow the question.

In typical D&D play, choosing a class is not an action declaration made by a player for their PC. (Sometimes it is, eg in some contexts of multi-classing or dual-classing, depending on the edition in question and applicable table norms.)

Typically, when a D&D player chooses a class for their PC, they are establishing that they have certain resources available. The function of those resources, as @aramis erak has set out not far upthread, is to permit the player to make certain suggestions - with varying degrees of authority - about the content of the fiction.

For some choices of class - eg druid, monk, paladin, perhaps magic-user - the player is also establishing certain in-fiction truths about their PC. (This matter is often debated under the description "Are classes an in-world thing in your campaign?")

Choice of class is thus a (reasonably complicated) mechanism to help establish who gets to say what about the shared fiction.

 

[pemerton]

Weird response. I'm saying that ruling at the table become new rules, so "rules light" systems are simply those which have fewer rules to start with, thus requiring more rulings as the chance of encountering a situation outside the book rules goes up.

What RPGs do you have in mind here?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

I'm not sure it is so straightforward, I think @Clint_L is really saying something substantive here. I mean, its kind of a little dubious to say that a completely passive 'thing' is an 'end'. It would be like saying that a Picasso is an end unto itself, but that cannot be right. OTOH the act of painting it, its creation, could be an end in itself. In this case Clint is obviously speaking about the fascination that gamers have with RPGs, their structure, style, etc. as completed artifacts as opposed to tools. I'd note that this perspective does much to explain certain features of the modern RPG industry! I'm certainly sympathetic with the reasons for taking a contrary view though.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

"YOUR FIRST STEP IN PLAYING AN ADVENTURER IN THE Dungeons & Dragons game is to imagine
and create a character o f your own. Your
character is a combination of game statistics,
roleplaying hooks, and your imagination. You
choose a race (such as hum an or halfling) and
a class (such as fighter or wizard). You also
invent the personality, appearance, and backstory of
your character. Once completed, your character serves
as your representative in the game, your avatar in the
Dungeons & Dragonsworld."
--D&D 5e PHB p11

Similar text discusses the other major choice, class.

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.

See above.

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.

It is not something which exists in games like Apocalypse World. If you come to RPGs through one of those games, you will find rule 0 to be odd and unusual.

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.

Can you describe some of these?

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.

I see no such passive construction! For example, PHB P47 describes the Barbarian class (and remember above that picking a class was actively described as a player choice) skills are mentioned as "Skills: Choose two from Animal Handling, Athletics, Intimidation, Nature, Perception , and Survival." This is pretty conclusive! The player is also described as selecting her ability scores, and thus ability bonuses, etc.

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

I am not sure what it does. I don't doubt that SOMEWHERE in the corpus of D&D 5e there's some text that is neutral and to whom it is directed can only be ascertained by construction or context. I don't think this makes the point you think it makes. I think it is merely writing style, possibly in some cases combined with a desire for efficient design (IE not saying the same thing over again for different contexts).

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

And all those nos are, I would argue, 'unwelcome things', and you can cast anything else in the same form, such as "no, you cannot continue to walk around and be alive after being reduced below 0 hit points." Every restriction of this sort, these active denials, are all of this form. And the reason they are often gated through specific rules or subsystems is that it allows the GM to avoid direct responsibility for saying 'no'. It produces what is seen as an even-handed outcome, and thus facilitates the dialog of play.

For the most part we agree on the above point, although I reiterate that predictability is important, not merely so the GM can avoid social opprobrium but so players can make informed decisions about issues their characters would understand without having to play Mother May I, which breaks flow.

Imagine playing a 5E wizard trying to decide between preparing Haste and Invisibility before infiltrating a hobgoblin citadel, but you don't know any of the rules of 5E so you are reduced to asking your GM for educated guesses about what the different spells might do in hypothetical scenarios, and his answer is usually "it depends." It's hard to meaningfully roleplay a wizard when you don't know the things a wizard should logically know!

But that's only because sometimes the universe says no. (I don't care what you call it, "unwelcome truths" or whatever, the point is that the rule exists to do the opposite of saying "yes, and" a la improv comedy.) If the universe never says no then you can just pick in your head how you want your magic to work, and it will, no consultation with the GM needed.

 

[pemerton]

Clint is obviously speaking about the fascination that gamers have with RPGs, their structure, style, etc. as completed artifacts as opposed to tools. I'd note that this perspective does much to explain certain features of the modern RPG industry!

So here's a question: is a person who purchases a jersey or hoodie that carries the logo of their favourite sports team participating in sport?

From the point of view of an athletics association, or a public health bureaucracy, the answer seems to be no.

From the point of view of the team's accountant, or a commercial league, the answer is probably yes. At least, the fan is contributing to their coffers.

What's the real answer to the question? There isn't one. It depends on how we want to carve things up.

Likewise for playing RPGs. Is a person who whiles away a few hours generating Traveller characters just for the fun of it, with no intention that they ever be used in play, playing a RPG? In some sense, yes - they're playing (in the sense of engaging themself in an amusing pastime), and they're using a RPG to do so.

But clearly in an equally straightforward sense, they're not playing a RPG at all, because they're not sitting around with other people creating a shared imaginative space in which interesting things happen to participant-controlled protagonists.

The OP, in asking Why do RPGs have rules?, was thinking more in line with that second sense of what it means to play a RPG.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't necessarily agree with that. The group has agreed before the first game session via the social contract that the DM has the ability to make these rulings and that absent some sort of abuse of power or major mistake, it will be accepted. For games other than D&D or games where the DM is playing a non-standard version of the game, this might not hold true as a different social contract has been agreed to for those.

I think it is MUCH less clear cut than that! I mean, many of the people I play with and GM for these days are EXTREMELY experienced. It is not unusual for me to run a game at a table where the players have collectively CENTURIES of experience playing RPGs, and more often than not at least some of them I've shared a good bit of that experience with. You better believe there's a negotiation about EVERYTHING! It may be very implied, very low key, very much just passing most of what I've said on with no comment and simply playing it straight. When someone does raise their hand, there is a meeting of equals wherein I feel relatively sure there's substance on the other end of that.

I find I'm quite unlikely to give ANY player less than full weight at a table. Obviously there is some degree of situational awareness here. If I'm GMing for some rowdy teens who want to show up their knowledge of the rules, I might go about that differently than I would with David, Mike, or Krystal if they bring something up. Still, I have no interest in being in charge, just in helping to bring a good game.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think this puts too much emphasis on the metagame (actual players) at the expense of the gameworld. You're emphasizing "who" is "saying" something, which often isn't important compared to what happens.

There is no rule in D&D 5E that says for example that saving throws must be rolled by the GM. "Anyone within 30' who fails a DC 18 Con save takes 3d6 necrotic damage" doesn't care if players roll their own saves and damage, or have the GM do it.

I think the fixation, which @Maxperson also has evinced, with who tosses the dice, is a bit misplaced. The GM asks the player to save. PHB P180 contains the save rule, and it certainly SEEMS written with the assumption that the player is making saves, but if the GM did roll the dice, I can't say this would 'break a rule'. OTOH it IS the rules which have told the GM to require a save, in most cases (arguably all, but my guess is there's a "you can keep stuff hidden from the players" option in the DMG somewhere). At worst we might say "sometimes the rules don't explicitly state who says X, but conventions exist, and are generally only set aside for specific reasons."

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I don't understand how this is supposed to be a counterexample. It seems like an illustration of the point!

How long did it take before the lack of agreement was discovered? What might have happened differently if the lack of agreement had been discovered sooner?

Some disagreements luckily turn out not to matter or are never discovered (player doesn't know the GM thinks he took 6d6 damage from evil runes earlier; GM never realizes that the player doesn't realize) but this example was constructed so that both GM and player discover and frankly discuss the disagreement.