Why do RPGs have rules?

[EzekielRaiden]

I feel like PbtA fits with contemporary thinking on information architectures, that avoid complex systems and entanglements across entities formed by rules. Something like a microservices architecture: each move does one job.

I can ask if the current set of rules meets all of my requirements? That is the kind of test my dwarf wizard example represents. If my requirements include a dwarf wizard and the current set of rules doesn't support it, then the set is incomplete as measured against my requirements.

One way to achieve completeness would be to limit my requirements. But TTRPGs like DW are open-ended: I feel able to enumerate requirements endlessly. Thus no finite TTRPG text can be complete by this measure. And describing a procedure for completion does not make it complete. That's what the rough beast slouching in alludes to. GM-fiat can be used as one such procedure.



Above I wrote

So this is a different test of completeness. Above I gave the example of deciding how much is "a lot" in the Ritual move. In this case, it's incomplete because a game parameter is left undefined. It's not that there isn't a move doing the job of Ritual, it's that the move itself is incomplete.

To me, this shows why I should feel comfortable with incompleteness. I agree with your extensible framework characterisation, and that doesn't make Ritual complete. Rather it is the incompleteness of Ritual that gives it versatility.


I would again say that it shows incompleteness is an advantage in TTRPG rules so long as

• What is afforded by the rules meets my highest priority requirements, and
• I have a satisfactory procedure for updating the rules to meet any new requirements

I can like the DW procedure and dislike that in Pathfinder. That doesn't make DW complete and Pathfinder incomplete, but it does mean that if using the latter I have no procedure that satisfies me for sustaining completeness against requirements.

This just tells me you're using a definition of "completeness" that isn't particularly productive. If, in defining a term, you find out that it either doesn't apply to anything, or anything it does apply to would be severely damaged as a result of meeting that standard...maybe it's better to look for something else?

 

[hawkeyefan]

If we're talking 5e that new player would find it at least a dozen times. He just might not recognize it as specifically Rule 0 since the instructions aren't labeled with that term. The concept would be clear, though. The DM has the power alter the rules of the game if he chooses.

I mean most RPGs. They have different takes on GM authority, so acting like Rule Zero applies to all is useless. Even in rule sets like 5E, where there are references to authority often ascribed to Rule Zero (though it’s not really clear) using it as a descriptor doesn’t really help. It doesn’t appear in the text.

 

[Aldarc]

I mean most RPGs. They have different takes on GM authority, so acting like Rule Zero applies to all is useless. Even in rule sets like 5E, where there are references to authority often ascribed to Rule Zero (though it’s not really clear) using it as a descriptor doesn’t really help. It doesn’t appear in the text.

mumble, mumble unwritten rule mumble, mumble

 

[Maxperson]

It doesn't matter whether the changes are horrible or not. It is the declaration that this is a unilateral power from on high that is the problem.

Why? Why is it a problem if I give you something you really love without asking you?

It is this dogged insistence in the utterly unassailable, unmoving, unquestionable sovereignty. I, like Gregory the Anarchist, do not scorn it for being cruel, nor (though I might) for being kind. I scorn it for being dictatorial.

Take it up with the designers. It has been part of the game since 1e or maybe before. This isn't something I am making up.

It is possible for someone to be a benevolent dictator, and certainly a hell of a lot easier to be one when it's just you and a few friends playing pretend elfgames. That does not, in any way, lessen the fact of the benevolent dictator's dictatorial power. And I am opposed to dictatorial power on principle alone.

Then don't play that way. Nobody is making anyone use Rule 0. You don't have to use it, and you don't have to play in a game with a DM that uses it.

 

[soviet]

I mean, I can't think of a clearer example of an incomplete game than one that apparently relies entirely on a principle that it does not even vaguely codify.

 

[soviet]

Why? Why is it a problem if I give you something you really love without asking you?

I can think of many examples that would be bad or unwelcome, yes. Please do not paint all my miniatures for me, revise my writing to make it better, or arrange for me to get a promotion at work.

Take it up with the designers. It has been part of the game since 1e or maybe before. This isn't something I am making up.

It literally is, otherwise you could define it and/or cite the relevant game text.

 

[Maxperson]

I mean most RPGs. They have different takes on GM authority, so acting like Rule Zero applies to all is useless. Even in rule sets like 5E, where there are references to authority often ascribed to Rule Zero (though it’s not really clear) using it as a descriptor doesn’t really help. It doesn’t appear in the text.

Well, yeah. Rule 0 only applies in games that like D&D, give the DM that authority. Just like the people who agree to play and/or D&D agree via the social contract to Rule 0(absent any overt discussion and change), people who agree to play and/or run a game that doesn't have Rule 0 have agreed via the social contract that it doesn't exist(absent any overt discussion and change).

 

[Maxperson]

I can think of many examples that would be bad or unwelcome, yes. Please do not paint all my miniatures for me, revise my writing to make it better, or arrange for me to get a promotion at work.

None of those are examples of you getting something that you love. Clearly you don't like those things.

It literally is, otherwise you could define it and/or cite the relevant game text.

And I have. Multiple times. In this thread even!

 

[clearstream]

Then Suit is just flat out wrong. I've been playing games with Rule 0 since 1983 and not one single time have I ever engaged in just telling the players a story, let alone had that goal.

Since the players in a traditional game can alter the trajectory and insert their own stories via their actions even to the point of invalidating DM prep and switching to a story of their choosing via their choices and the actions of their PCs, at "worst"(in quotes because it's not at all bad) the story is a shared creation.

There are two ways Suits' play can be sustained in an RPG incorporating a rule zero.

One way is that GM has the function of referee and uses rule zero properly in that capacity. For example, from 4e

"Referee: The DM decides how to apply the game rules and guides the story. If the rules don’t cover a situation, the DM determines what to do."

Another way is that there are additional principles and rules that GM voluntarily accepts that limit their use of rule zero. For example, from Mentzer Basic

"You will play the roles of the creatures encountered, but do so fairly, without favoring the monsters or the characters.

Play the monsters as they would actually behave, at least as you imagine them. The players are not fighting the DM! The characters may be fighting the monsters, but everyone is playing the game to have fun. The players have fun exploring and earning more powerful characters, and the DM has fun playing the monsters and entertaining players. For example, it’s not fair to change the rules unless everyone agrees to the change. When you add optional rules, apply them evenly to everyone, players and monsters. Do not make exceptions; stick to the rules, and be fair."

Everyone must agree to the change. Rules you add apply to everyone, and must be fair, which means not favouring monsters or characters.

 

[soviet]

None of those are examples of you getting something that you love. Clearly you don't like those things.

Point taken.
But they are examples of things another person might think I would love.

And I have. Multiple times. In this thread even!

I've seen you produce quotes from 3e and 5e that seem to me to offer a much milder proposition than what you've advocated. I don't think I've seen you show anything from 1e, please correct me if I am wrong.