Why do RPGs have rules?

[pemerton]

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.

I don't think I fully follow this.

When I'm talking about the rules of a game, I'm talking about rules that tell the players of the game what permissible things they are allowed to do in the game - to use Suits's terminology, I am referring to the permitted "lusory means*.

So in a RPG, these rules tell the game participants - players (in the narrow sense that RPGs use that term) and GMs - what, when and how they can contribute to the shared fiction.

It is possible for a RPG to be incomplete. I discovered this about Classic Traveller a few years ago, when the players declared that their PCs hopped into their ATV to find the enemy outpost somewhere beyond the city's dome, and I reviewed the "rules" for onworld travel and discovered that they do not have anything to say about how to decide who contributes to the shared fiction in response to that action declaration, or how.

The rules of classic D&D are a bit shaky, although probably not quite as bad, if a player declares "I use a block and tackle to open the sewer hatch."

DW, on the other hand, does not have incompleteness: there is not a point at which the rules fail to specify who can add what to the fiction.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

In DW PCs take actions, and then the GM decides if those actions trigger moves or not. The move is simply the named additional 'thing' which provides a specific variation of the standard resolution system (which is basically to say yes unless something is impossible). If its a move, then USUALLY dice are thrown, though there are a few moves which eschew dice. So, there is always an action in DW, that's what PCs do, they act.

So, it would be perfectly right to say that a PC took an action and set up a block and tackle in DW. However, generally speaking, unless there's actual danger or some sort of uncertainty, there's no move to cover an action. 'Set up a Pulley' is not really accomplishing any goal, its not hazardous, etc. so it probably 'just happens' and changes the fiction. The characters may then open the hatch using it, and that might cause the next thing, the results of the now triggered hatch opening move to work a bit differently (IE the slime and the GC probably won't hit anyone because they're at the other side of the room pulling on a rope). So we see that the outcomes of moves do depend on fictional position. Yes, there are many variations and a lot of cases where judgment is used, but as @pemerton says, this is no different from Cricket, which is presumably a 'complete' game.

 

[clearstream]

@Maxperson this DMG 4 text might be one of the clearer expressions of Maxpersonian R0 in 5e

And as a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them.

Does that fit what you are thinking of?

 

[pemerton]

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!

So we've now moved from "complete rules" to "complete systems"? Which would be something like "from a full statement of the rules, every possible state of the system is in principle derivable"?

I didn't know those two phrases were intended to be synonyms. (Nor did @AbdulAlhazred, who distinguished them upthread in more or less the same terms I'm distinguishing them in this post.)

As I think I've made clear, I regard the rules of a game as a complete if, at any game state that is arrived at, they tell the participants how to move to the next game state. DW does this. I've pointed out, just upthread, that Classic Traveller doesn't. And I've pointed out a bit further above that Moldvay Basic is marginal in this respect.

Whether 5e is complete in its rules or not is ultimately for someone else to state, who knows it better than me. The version I'm familiar with is the Basic pdf, and it seems to me to contain instructions that fall short of completeness: for instance, there are rules that say that a die roll is to be called for if the outcome of an action is uncertain, but the notion of "uncertain" is left unexplained, with an unstated implication that the GM is to decide based on their notes, their intuition or both. If I was redrafting it so as to make it more complete, I would say that the rule is "a dice roll is called for if the GM does not want to just stipulate an outcome", and then add some commentary about the bases (notes, intuition, maybe others) that the GM might rely on in stipulating an outcome. (This commentary would parallel the discussion in AW of how the GM can "disclaim decision-making".)

 

[clearstream]

I don't think I fully follow this.

When I'm talking about the rules of a game, I'm talking about rules that tell the players of the game what permissible things they are allowed to do in the game - to use Suits's terminology, I am referring to the permitted "lusory means*.

So in a RPG, these rules tell the game participants - players (in the narrow sense that RPGs use that term) and GMs - what, when and how they can contribute to the shared fiction.

It is possible for a RPG to be incomplete. I discovered this about Classic Traveller a few years ago, when the players declared that their PCs hopped into their ATV to find the enemy outpost somewhere beyond the city's dome, and I reviewed the "rules" for onworld travel and discovered that they do not have anything to say about how to decide who contributes to the shared fiction in response to that action declaration, or how.

I've noticed such lacunae in many rule sets.

The rules of classic D&D are a bit shaky, although probably not quite as bad, if a player declares "I use a block and tackle to open the sewer hatch."

DW, on the other hand, does not have incompleteness: there is not a point at which the rules fail to specify who can add what to the fiction.

This might reveal that we can choose a facet and discuss its completeness even if other facets are incomplete: it's not all or nothing.

If the facet is "who can add what to the fiction" then on that first part "who" DW and 5e both give definite answers. If it is "what" can they add, I think we will not agree on that. I gain a sense that you see the "what" as complete if it must fit some notional type.

As an aside, pursuing my physical sports discussion above, it may come down to observing that the referee is a means of sustaining completeness through supplying a means to address any doubt.

 

[pemerton]

This might reveal that we can choose a facet and discuss its completeness even if other facets are incomplete: it's not all or nothing.

If the facet is "who can add what to the fiction" then on that first part "who" DW and 5e both give definite answers. If it is "what" can they add, I think we will not agree on that. I gain a sense that you see the "what" as complete if it must fit some notional type.

As an aside, pursuing my physical sports discussion above, it may come down to observing that the referee is a means of sustaining completeness through supplying a means to address any doubt.

Doubt as to what?

In any event, someone could add to Classic Traveller the following rule: if no other rules answers the question of whose job it is to add to the shared fiction, then the referee (this is the CT term for GM) can say something that they regard as consistent with the established fiction.

I personally think that that is obviously a terrible rule, because (to use Suits's terminology) it is not well-suited to the endeavour of voluntarily choosing to pursue unnecessary ends by the use of less efficient means.

You imply that my idea of constraining "what" by reference to some notional type is arbitrary or unwarranted. But without some sort of constraint then the rules fail as lusory means, because nothing stops the GM using the most efficient means possible, namely - and as I noted above - telling the players a story. At which point, by Suits's standards at least, the activity ceases to be a game.

 

[clearstream]

As I think I've made clear, I regard the rules of a game as a complete if, at any game state that is arrived at, they tell the participants how to move to the next game state. DW does this. I've pointed out, just upthread, that Classic Traveller doesn't. And I've pointed out a bit further above that Moldvay Basic is marginal in this respect.

The immediately subsequent edition appoints a referee, so your doubt with Traveller might not be an example of incompleteness according to your definition.

Whether 5e is complete in its rules or not is ultimately for someone else to state, who knows it better than me.

5e is complete by your definition. Basic Rules appoint a referee so perhaps that covers it.

The version I'm familiar with is the Basic pdf, and it seems to me to contain instructions that fall short of completeness: for instance, there are rules that say that a die roll is to be called for if the outcome of an action is uncertain, but the notion of "uncertain" is left unexplained, with an unstated implication that the GM is to decide based on their notes, their intuition or both. If I was redrafting it so as to make it more complete, I would say that the rule is "a dice roll is called for if the GM does not want to just stipulate an outcome", and then add some commentary about the bases (notes, intuition, maybe others) that the GM might rely on in stipulating an outcome. (This commentary would parallel the discussion in AW of how the GM can "disclaim decision-making".)

There's a sense here of a Goldilocks standard for having everything necessary and appropriate. Too many such guidelines would be cumbersome. You're identifying the Basic rules as having too few. I don't mean this pejoratively.

 

[clearstream]

In any event, someone could add to Classic Traveller the following rule: if no other rules answers the question of whose job it is to add to the shared fiction, then the referee (this is the CT term for GM) can say something that they regard as consistent with the established fiction.

I personally think that that is obviously a terrible rule, because (to use Suits's terminology) it is not well-suited to the endeavour of voluntarily choosing to pursue unnecessary ends by the use of less efficient means.

The referee is not a player, so may be well suited. Especially for the kinds of games that by my definition are incomplete. It's may be an effective way to ensure that inefficient means are followed in cases that fall outside the written rules.

You imply that my idea of constraining "what" by reference to some notional type is arbitrary or unwarranted. But without some sort of constraint then the rules fail as lusory means, because nothing stops the GM using the most efficient means possible, namely - and as I noted above - telling the players a story. At which point, by Suits's standards at least, the activity ceases to be a game.

Setting aside the case that GM is a player, so they share in being constrained by lusory means. What prevents a football referee dissolving any unnecessary obstacles preventing their favoured side from scoring goals?

EDIT I'm not saying unwarranted, rather I'm aiming to identify what is said. There is a notion of a standard that performance can be compared with or measured under.

 

[pemerton]

The immediately subsequent edition appoints a referee, so your doubt with Traveller might not be an example of incompleteness according to your definition.

I don't know what you are getting at here.

Classic Traveller has a referee - a GM, in more contemporary parlance. That person is a player, who with the other participants (players in the RPG-nomenclature sense) adopts the lusory attitude of treating the rules of the game as binding so as to achieve the pre-lusory goal (which includes, as one of its attributes, overcoming unnecessary challenges).

This doesn't make the game rules complete. For instance, it doesn't help with the issue I described.

5e is complete by your definition. Basic Rules appoint a referee so perhaps that covers it.


There's a sense here of a Goldilocks standard for having everything necessary and appropriate. Too many such guidelines would be cumbersome. You're identifying the Basic rules as having too few. I don't mean this pejoratively.

I am positing some minimum standards to count as "lusory means".

As per Suits, these must (i) be less efficient means, and (ii) be candidate objects of a lusory attitude.

Telling someone to call for a die roll if an action is uncertain doesn't seem to meet that threshold. I mean, in what way is it a less efficient means?

And in what way is at a candidate object of a lusory attitude? What normative requirement are the participants treating as binding? The only ones I can see are (i) roll when the GM tells you to and (ii) accept as part of the shared fiction what the GM tells you to. Is this really what we're saying that 5e D&D players are committed to, in virtue of playing 5e D&D?

The referee is not a player, so may be well suited. Especially for the kinds of games that by my definition are incomplete. It's may be the best way to ensure the inefficient means are followed!

The referee of Classic Traveller absolutely is a player of the game. They participate very directly in helping to establish the shared fiction - they introduce information about worlds, about animals and people, about what those beings are doing, etc. There are quite elaborate subsystems to support all this (world generation, animal encounter generation, patron encounters, other encounters with persons, etc).

Setting aside the case that GM is a player, so they share in being constrained by lusory means. What prevents a football referee dissolving any unnecessary obstacles preventing their favoured side from scoring goals?

A football referee does not adopt the lusory attitude towards the rules of football. They adopt the attitude of a professional arbiter. For them, the rules are not voluntarily adopted: they provide a standard by which the professional, and perhaps even lawful, conduct of the referee can be adjudicated.

The attitude of the football referee thus has far more in common with Hart's "internal point of view" than it does with Suits' "lusory attitude", which is adopted voluntarily and solely for the purpose of pursuing the prelusory goal.

 

[clearstream]

I don't know what you are getting at here.

Classic Traveller has a referee - a GM, in more contemporary parlance. That person is a player, who with the other participants (players in the RPG-nomenclature sense) adopts the lusory attitude of treating the rules of the game as binding so as to achieve the pre-lusory goal (which includes, as one of its attributes, overcoming unnecessary challenges).

This doesn't make the game rules complete. For instance, it doesn't help with the issue I described.

I am positing some minimum standards to count as "lusory means".

As per Suits, these must (i) be less efficient means, and (ii) be candidate objects of a lusory attitude.

Telling someone to call for a die roll if an action is uncertain doesn't seem to meet that threshold. I mean, in what way is it a less efficient means?

So where we will not agree is that the referee is, or is solely, a player. It is in performance of their function as referee that they suspend their lusory attitude and make whatever rulings are required.

A football referee does not adopt the lusory attitude towards the rules of football. They adopt the attitude of a professional arbiter. For them, the rules are not voluntarily adopted: they provide a standard by which the professional, and perhaps even lawful, conduct of the referee can be adjudicated.

The attitude of the football referee thus has far more in common with Hart's "internal point of view" than it does with Suits' "lusory attitude", which is adopted voluntarily and solely for the purpose of pursuing the prelusory goal.

That's what I had in mind.