Why do RPGs have rules?

[Maxperson]

It would be interesting to see what happens at a table where players selectively ignore the GM's statements.

GM: Bob, the cyclops throws a building at you. Take 20d20 damage. [Rolls] 234 damage. You're an ink strain on the rock.

Bob: That's not fair. I have Blink. [Rolls] I teleport 15' out of the way instead. The building smashes itself uselessly to pieces beside me.

GM: No you don't. It hits you.

Alice: Bob, cast Great Haste on me so I can blenderize the cyclops.

Bob: Okay. [Rolls] Success! You're great Hasted.

Alice: I run over and stab him in the eye, twice! [Rolls] One hit! GM, does he Dodge?

GM: None of that happens. Bob is dead.

Alice: No, he teleported out of the way with Blink and then Great Hasted me.

Bob: Yeah.

Feels like a Knights of the Dinner Table comic strip honestly. There's a decent chance the GM knuckles under and Bob lives (especially if the GM ruling was ill-founded).

Abuse of authority is abuse of authority. It isn't the same as simply using Rule 0 unilaterally to make a change to the game rules.

 

[pemerton]

I'm citing the GM because my whole point is that rule(state, action) => state'. If you agree that rule in an RPG requires occasional GM input because the rulebook's rule is only a partial function (some actions are unmapped), congratulations, you agree with my point.

You seem to think that Rule(state, action) => state' is a different process depending whether the player or the GM undertakes the action.

Of course if you confine the rules of a RPG to rule governing player action declarations for their PCs you will not have the complete ruleset. One of the things that makes DW complete is that it also has rules governing other ways of changing the fiction, including the ways that the GM may do so.

 

[pemerton]

That isn't at all true. The DM is fully capable of going to get other player to play by those rules. The rules change still happens.

And the players who left that table are completely capable of finding another GM who will run the game the way they want. So the rules change didn't happen!

 

[Maxperson]

And the players who left that table are completely capable of finding another GM who will run the game the way they want. So the rules change didn't happen!

If your only recourse is to quit, you have no authority to say what happens in that game.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Thanks for engaging substantively, Manbearcat. I want to make sure I know where you're coming from on the idea of new rule-like things that still don't count as rules. Since I'm not familiar with Dungeon World terminology, could we examine the same situation (opening a sewer hatch) from the perspective of AD&D to see if these also don't count as rules in your eyes, or if there's something special and different about Dungeon World?

Player wants to open the sewer hatch. DM specifies Open Doors roll at -2 to pull open. Player fails. Ties a rope to the sewer hatch, sets up a pulley system as a force multiplier. DM allows this to give a +6 bonus on the Open Door roll but says that if it fails then that means the rope snapped. Player succeeds and DM gives them a 50% chance of being drenched in sewer water spraying out of the hatch (they roll 2 on a d6 and do get drenched) but this turns out to be a valid back door into the area where the princess is being held hostage.

Same scenario as the Dungeon World custom move for sewer hatches quoted above. Same degree of reasonable extrapolation to cover scenarios not spelled out explicitly AFAIK in the AD&D rulebooks (pulleys and rope strength; probability of getting drenched by a nearby liquid steam).

This ruling works within the unifying structure of the game (success rolls against a value on a table, in this case Str table for a feat of strength). I don't grok the meaning behind your words like "unifying agenda" and "give expression to some aspect of the game rather than subvert it", but I don't think you're saying anything that would make using ropes and pulleys a form of subverting the game. It seems to me that all the things you're saying about Dungeon World apply equally to this AD&D scenario.

Would you say that this scenario also doesn't rise to the level of new AD&D ad hoc rule creation? In my mind when I talk about the need for a GM to improvise rulings and rules to cover gaps, this type of thing (extrapolating how much pulleys multiply your effectiveness) is indeed included, but do you disagree?

Well, the two scenarios differ in one fairly important point. The DW custom move does NOT have anything to do with determining if the hatch opens or not. It is a way of letting the player choose between various options WHEN a hatch is opened. So, the player rolls after saying "I open the sewer hatch", triggering the move. The player then has to decide, do I find a way to my goal (the merchant's daughter) OR do I avoid nasty filth and/or a gelatinous cube? Remember, getting to these hatches may be, in and of itself, a chore which exposes the characters to some danger (we don't know, but its possible). So, lets say I roll a 7, now, I can, at the cost of getting covered in filth and eaten by a GC find the way to my goal. OR I can avoid one of the other consequences, not get the daughter, and go on to a different hatch later, where I will hope to roll a 10+.

I think this is much different from the situation with the AD&D version, which is basically all about task resolution, could leave us with no way through the hatch (I guess we can now go on and invent more rulings related to whatever spell, etc. we try next). There's no question here of a trade off, nothing, its all straight up linear 'open the door or fail'.

However, I don't think any of that really answers the question of what is a rule vs what is a use of the existing rules. In the AD&D case no actual rule was created, there was an adjudication that using a rope and pulley gave a certain bonus on a roll, etc. I kinda feel like this is incomplete rules in that AD&D doesn't really tell us when to use 'open doors' vs 'BBLG' and such things. I mean, I'm OK with someone saying it is just 'using the rules', but the DW case seems FAR less that way.

To see why, read the rest of page 347! It talks about how this entire thing COULD be handled using Defy Danger. DD is a perfectly reasonable approach, it just doesn't neatly capture the trade offs that the players need to make when they open a hatch. Clearly the GM could say "Oh, you got a 10+ on DD, nothing hurts you" but we won't get the whole "and is the princess here or not" part. Either the GM will have to designate on his map a specific hatch where the Princess is, or some additional narrative will be needed to figure that out. I just see the 'Open the Hatch' move as a way of condensing that. Its more environmental design and adventure design than it is some kind of rule.

So, reasonably, the AD&D one is NOT making a rule, as if it is then pretty much everything the GM says in AD&D is making a rule! Likewise, I don't think its making a rule in DW either, as otherwise every time a GM maps out a dungeon they're 'writing rules' and that surely seems wrong to me.

 

[pemerton]

If your only recourse is to quit, you have no authority to say what happens in that game.

The players didn't quit. They sacked the GM and recruited a new person to be the GM in that game.

I mean, it's obvious that you regard the GM as the owner of "the" game, but that's not mandated by the nature of the game or its rules.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

You seem to think that Rule(state, action) => state' is a different process depending whether the player or the GM undertakes the action.

What seems to be going on here is that you equate action with DungeonWorld's concept of "move", whereas I'm speaking of the underlying action in the gameworld. Setting up a block and tackle/pulley system in order to apply extra strength to opening a sewer hatch is an action, undertaken by a fictional character in a fictional world, and it does not matter whether the GM or one of the (other) players is declaring that action for that fictional character.

I understand that in Dungeon World, it would be count as a Move made by the GM or a player, and you're focusing on the Move, but I'm talking about actions. Somehow this has apparently misled you into thinking that I think Rule is a function of (state, action, player). I don't know how you get there, but I don't.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

If it's not unilateral, then he is not THE authority. It's built into the way it reads.

The DM can and should listen to the players if they disagree. So the players can dispute it that way. If the DM holds fast, though, the only further way to dispute the change is to leave the game. The players have no authority to change a rule against the DM's wishes.

First of all, that quote we are referring to only discusses the 'campaign and its setting', which sounds like WORLD BUILDING to me, not rules! The GM could quite easily be the 'authority' on that, and yet not be the arbiter of all rules in the game who cannot be disputed! I think your way of reading it is fairly reasonable, but I don't think its the only possible reading. Calling someone an 'authority' on some subject is not the same as saying they are in charge of that thing, merely that they know a lot about it. Being 'the' authority simply means you are the most knowledgeable. Its reasonable to read that as "what you say about the campaign and its setting is always considered true." That still leaves the other aspects of the game... The reference to house rules also does not cover NON house rules, so nothing here makes the DM master of the ordinary rules of the game! Other text may (and IMHO does) do that, but not this text.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Well, the two scenarios differ in one fairly important point. The DW custom move does NOT have anything to do with determining if the hatch opens or not. It is a way of letting the player choose between various options WHEN a hatch is opened. So, the player rolls after saying "I open the sewer hatch", triggering the move.

And yet, the manner of opening should logically affect what happens when the hatch is open. If the hatch is being opened via a rope-and-pulley system from a distance, it doesn't make sense for a gelatinous cube to land on the pullers (who aren't nearby) or for sewer water to deluge them. A good GM ought to look at those results, look at the action the character actually took, and refuse to use the Custom Move table as written--it doesn't make sense! GM fiat is appropriate here.

Now, it's possible that in Dungeon World that doesn't happen, that you're simply forced to use the Custom Move table as written or that you're not allowed to do things like set up a pulley system to open the hatch from a distance. I'm interested in Manbearcat's take for this reason. I confess that I don't trust your or pemerton's takes as much because dialogue with you two has just gone in circles with no substantive progress, so please don't feel obligated to spend your leisure time explaining to me your perspective, although if you do it anyway there's always a chance we'll reach some kind of mutual understanding against my expectations.

 

[clearstream]

In DW, there is no need for a custom move to adjudicate opening a sewer hatch. If a player declares "I open the sewer hatch*, the rules tell everyone what happens next: the GM makes a move. The rules also tell us whether that is required to be a soft move, or permitted to be a hard move.

Let's work with @AbdulAlhazred's notion of process complete. DW defines a written procedure for deciding anything not covered by existing structures. D&D also provides a written procedure (e.g. DMG 5.) Dissatisfaction with that procedure doesn't make it not a procedure.

@AbdulAlhazred offered the distinction open versus closed systems. Chess is closed because from a game state for any player there is a finite set of next states that the rules if accepted force them to choose among. DW is open because in a myriad of cases (Ritual gold demands being just one) there is no limit to the possible choices players could make. I call this "incomplete" on the grounds that completeness requires everything necessary to be in place, and here (e.g. in deciding what "a lot" entails) each reader must add something to choose their next game state.

Physical sports are typically incomplete in this sense, which is seen in their 'that which is not forbidden is permitted' approach to rules (something you touched on earlier). Seeing as the human body and real world physics are part of play it's not possible to write complete rules for physical sports.

I'm saying that this quality - of incorporating human imagination into the game system e.g. as linkages from system to fiction - has the same consequence. How much is "a lot"? It's whatever I imagine it to be. What soft or hard move is chosen when Jo prizes a ruby from a statue's eye? It's whatever I imagine. DW supplies constraints on what I ought to imagine, but it does not in such cases supply any list of what I must imagine. The distinction from chess is crystal clear!