Why do RPGs have rules?

[FormerlyHemlock]

I'm not at all sure I'm comfortable assigning this as the explicit or implicit purpose of rule zero. That's a frequent defense, but I don't think it's clearly necessary, and I think you can design a rulesets that is comprehensive for most purposes. This is usually an argument at the edges that gets elevated as if it's the primary use result of rule zero, when I think it's actually one of the more rarely used functions.

In rulesets that are relatively complete for most purposes, GM fiat is invoked more infrequently IME, and usually to patch one of the infinite-but-relatively-infrequently-encountered holes in that ruleset.

I honestly can't think of a better way to use GM fiat, which we're apparently calling Rule Zero in this thread.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Okay but that is a house rule. That isn't the same as a player suddenly deviating from expectations of play and the it being the norm for the table to accommodate that action

Yeah, in Monopoly if you get put in jail, and then on your turn you say "I fake being sick so the jailer will come in, and then I punch him in the throat and run out of jail," nothing happens except that everyone rolls their eyes and tells you to just roll the dice already. You can't go outside the rules (even if those rules include Free Parking money by common consent).

In an RPG you can, but that necessarily involves rule creation on the fly, via GM fiat, which we're calling Rule Zero on this thread.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I think that HEAVILY depends on your definition of 'incomplete'. You could, and probably would, play a game like Dungeon World, and never, in any situation which would arise in the game, find that the rules didn't tell you how to proceed. I cannot imagine any situation that can arise which would be defined as 'playing DW' where the rules, as written, are insufficient.

I haven't played Dungeon World, but if you're using "sufficient" the way I think you are, meaning "no creativity or rule interpolation/creation" is required, I find that claim hard to believe. I hear dungeon worlders talking about making up "custom moves," with defined prerequisites and effects, and that sounds like rule creation to me.

It's unavoidable. Players will always want to occasionally try sometime the rules don't explicitly allow, and you'll have to make up a reasonable result or system for producing results. Have I misunderstood you or do you genuinely think that Dungeon World has rules and outcomes defined already for every conceivable player action from plunging a toilet to digging mile-long tunnel? I suspect you're going to come back with something that says the GM or the player will make something appropriate up, in which case I'm going to say "that's just GM fiat, a.k.a. Rule Zero, extended to be shared with the players." That wouldn't count as an absence of fiat.

 

[pemerton]

I haven't played Dungeon World, but if you're using "sufficient" the way I think you are, meaning "no creativity or rule interpolation/creation" is required, I find that claim hard to believe. I hear dungeon worlders talking about making up "custom moves," with defined prerequisites and effects, and that sounds like rule creation to me.

It's unavoidable. Players will always want to occasionally try sometime the rules don't explicitly allow, and you'll have to make up a reasonable result or system for producing results. Have I misunderstood you or do you genuinely think that Dungeon World has rules and outcomes defined already for every conceivable player action from plunging a toilet to digging mile-long tunnel? I suspect you're going to come back with something that says the GM or the player will make something appropriate up, in which case I'm going to say "that's just GM fiat, a.k.a. Rule Zero, extended to be shared with the players." That wouldn't count as an absence of fiat.

In DW the rules are clear: if you do it, you do it - and a player-side move is resolved - and otherwise the GM makes a move, soft unless the conditions for a hard move are satisfied.

The function of custom moves in DW, AW and similar games is not to "allow for things the rules don't explicitly allow", because there is no action that is feasible within the fiction that the rules don't explicitly allow.

 

[clearstream]

Honestly, that seems significantly different from the way many are discussing it in this thread.

100% agree. One interesting difference between 3e and 3.5e game text is that the "0." disappears. (The rest of the text is still there, but it's no longer designated as rule "0".)

I'm conscious of the source rule zero text, but believe that what folk mean when they invoke "rule zero" is something different. Perhaps more an expression of an ideology, which potentially includes some underpinning assumptions about GM-as-referee versus GM-as-player.

There's a good article here about it. I don't agree with the author's characterisation of some texts, but I found it to be a helpful overview.

 

[clearstream]

In DW the rules are clear: if you do it, you do it - and a player-side move is resolved - and otherwise the GM makes a move, soft unless the conditions for a hard move are satisfied.

The function of custom moves in DW, AW and similar games is not to "allow for things the rules don't explicitly allow", because there is no action that is feasible within the fiction that the rules don't explicitly allow.

Analysing what is / is not covered by rules in PbtA is interesting for several reasons.

I think about cases such as - without multiclassing, can I play a dwarf wizard? If so, what's my starting move? I haven't yet spotted rules to cover this... but then I'm not nearly as familiar with the DW game text as I am with others.

Assuming it's a lacuna, one way of addressing that is to say that DW is closed. Not only the system, but the fiction, just doesn't contain any first level dwarf wizards. I read a DW player proudly describing their dwarf bard, which makes me feel that some groups imagine a world where there are first level dwarfs of classes other than cleric and fighter.

I believe there are a host of - what I'll call - structural rules where doubts can lie. One such case I've seen folk express doubts about is figuring out the precise implications of rules for rations. There are many places where a move requires DM to dial-in a parameter e.g. for rituals how much exactly is "a lot of money" and should that scale with effect power?

Another category of doubt is that much as I appreciate that doing something in the fiction that doesn't invoke a move is resolved in view of positioning (a canonical example is prising a ruby from a statues eye: GM rules that it just happens) these resolutions seem quite difficult to crisply differentiate from GM decides.

Thoughts like these make me wonder what each poster means by complete versus incomplete? In the context of this thread I take it to mean that the rules do not state precisely what comes next so that from a given game state two GMs G and G' might say different things. It's incomplete because some additional principle, unwritten rule, or thought is guiding them to their (differing) answers.

One can say - well, it still falls within the defined game processes. Slouching then onto the stage is that rough beast, rule zero.

Anyway, perhaps debate is needed on what is meant by incomplete before it would be possible to agree that a given game text has / does not have that quality.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

In DW the rules are clear: if you do it, you do it - and a player-side move is resolved - and otherwise the GM makes a move, soft unless the conditions for a hard move are satisfied.

The function of custom moves in DW, AW and similar games is not to "allow for things the rules don't explicitly allow", because there is no action that is feasible within the fiction that the rules don't explicitly allow.

I found this custom move on a Dungeon World wiki:

When you open a sewer hatch, roll+STR:
On a 10+, choose 2.
On a 7–9 choose 1.
You avoid being covered in feces and rotting animal entrails from the sewers above.
You avoid having a gelatinous cube land on you.
You find a secret back entrance to where the merchant’s daughter is being held.

As I predicted; sounds like rule creation/fiat exercise to me.

 

[Aldarc]

Earlier, I made mention of the magical thinking of Santa Claus and Rule 0. However, I think that a more apt comparison may be what I would call "Rule Thor."

This is to say, that every time it storms there will be those who attribute this to Thor. It doesn't matter if the people in the lands worship or believe in Thor or not. Believe in Zeus? Jupiter? Indra? Baal-Hadad? Marduk? Nope. It can only be Thor. If it storms, then Thor must be the cause and thanked for it. Without Thor there would be no storms.

Think that there are better explanations for the storms than Thor? Too bad. We know Thor is real because we can experience storms. People deny that Thor exists? If Thor didn't exist, then how does it storm? It's even storming now! It storms nearly everywhere! How do you explain that without Thor? Checkmate, anti-Thorists.

No one can deny that it storms. Storms happen. However, people do deny that Thor makes it storm and deny the power of Rule Thor in either a descriptive or normative explanatory function. But discussing Rule Thor with its proponents feels a bit absurd like the above. I'm sorry, but I can't help but see Rule Thor as magical thinking, with its proponents almost talking about it with almost theological or dogmatic undertones.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Thoughts like these make me wonder what each poster means by complete versus incomplete? In the context of this thread I take it to mean that the rules do not state precisely what comes next so that from a given game state two GMs G and G' might say different things. It's incomplete because some additional principle, unwritten rule, or thought is guiding them to their (differing) answers.

I think that's a pretty good working definition. I would hope that G and G' are both consistent enough that the transform from State to State' via Unwritten Rule will be consistent from today to tomorrow, but for proving incompleteness it's enough to show that there's no existing unique mapping from State to State'.

When a player says "I tie the magic sword to a long wooden shaft to produce a magic polearm", does it work? When a player says "I use my knowledge of bagpipes and a bunch of lamp oil to make a flamethrower," does he get a flamethrower, and if so how does it work? Some RPGs might be complete w/rt these specific examples but no RPG I know of is; I doubt any RPG is complete (in the sense clearstream has defined) w/rt all examples.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Earlier, I made mention of the magical thinking of Santa Claus and Rule 0. However, I think that a more apt comparison may be what I would call "Rule Thor."

This is to say, that every time it storms there will be those who attribute this to Thor. It doesn't matter if the people in the lands worship or believe in Thor or not. Believe in Zeus? Jupiter? Indra? Baal-Hadad? Marduk? Nope. It can only be Thor. If it storms, then Thor must be the cause and thanked for it. Without Thor there would be no storms.

Think that there are better explanations for the storms than Thor? Too bad. We know Thor is real because we can experience storms. People deny that Thor exists? If Thor didn't exist, then how does it storm? It's even storming now! It storms nearly everywhere! How do you explain that without Thor? Checkmate, anti-Thorists.

No one can deny that it storms. Storms happen. However, people do deny that Thor makes it storm and deny the power of Rule Thor in either a descriptive or normative explanatory function. But discussing Rule Thor with its proponents feels a bit absurd like the above. I'm sorry, but I can't help but see Rule Thor as magical thinking, with its proponents almost talking about it with almost theological or dogmatic undertones.

Semantic arguments are boring. What's the substantive difference underlying this analogy? Apparently you believe that it's important whether "that which causes storms" is called "Thor" or "Zeus". Why, and what actual point are you trying to make about game rules?