Why do RPGs have rules?

[pemerton]

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.

If a participant is at liberty to suspend the lusory attitude and change the available lusory means, what would it even mean to say that, at some particular time, they have adopted the lusory attitude? This strikes me as a recipe for dysfunction (at best).

Apart from anything else, what is the meaning of "are required"? This just seems a version of White Wolf's Golden Rule, or the passage @Bedrockgames quoted from the DMG2 upthread, about departing from the rules if it improves the game.

To link this back to the question asked in the OP, a "game" structured in the way you posit is one without rules - that is to say, without limits on lusory means to which the participants commit (ie by adopting the lusory attitude).

There are some people who like RPGing without rules, and so their answer to the question posed would be there is no need for RPGs to have rules. But we don't need to dress that up in the somewhat obscure language of "rule zero".

 

[clearstream]

@FormerlyHemlock I feel that a picture is emerging of what some would count among necessary and appropriate, i.e. complete.

The concern - not expressed exactly like this - is that to whatever extent GM is player and to whatever extent they are referee, that there be agenda, principles, and rules in place so that they will not disrupt the lusory means or lusory attitude. Whether this means they should share in those things, or that they should have standards of conduct that ensure they preserve those things for others, is a matter for further reflection.

If accepting concerns about the lusory fabric (as I do) this joins arguments about completeness to skepticism about rule zero (i.e. that in raw form it must strain the fabric.)

A game text is then counted incomplete if it fails to constrain the conduct of the GM in all of their functions in ways that preserve the integrity of the lusory fabric. Elsewhere I briefly referred to the "institution" of GMs. It's possible that advocates of a rule zero approach to completeness would want to have in mind standards for conduct that are not contained in the text for any given RPG, but are nevertheless in force.

 

[clearstream]

If a participant is at liberty to suspend the lusory attitude and change the available lusory means, what would it even mean to say that, at some particular time, they have adopted the lusory attitude? This strikes me as a recipe for dysfunction (at best).

Thinking about football, player behaviours seem able to move in and out of the lusory attitude. For example, when a fight breaks out they set aside concern for inefficient means... and then successfully return to it. The famous "hand of God" is another case, where efficient means was adopted. Miguel Sicart argues that players sustain a dual nature: self as subject to game, and self as member of ones culture. Players seem able to look at themselves playing the game to make judgements about how they play, that are outside the lusory attitude but don't necessitate breaking it.

Apart from anything else, what is the meaning of "are required"? This just seems a version of White Wolf's Golden Rule, or the passage @Bedrockgames quoted from the DMG2 upthread, about departing from the rules if it improves the game.

Yes, it could cover those things. The most common case to my observation is to make rulings where rules fall short during play.

To link this back to the question asked in the OP, a "game" structured in the way you posit is one without rules - that is to say, without limits on lusory means to which the participants commit (ie by adopting the lusory attitude).

There are some people who like RPGing without rules, and so their answer to the question posed would be there is no need for RPGs to have rules. But we don't need to dress that up in the somewhat obscure language of "rule zero".

My view is that RPG without written rules still follows unwritten rules. Players observably sustain a lusory attitude: they don't seek to just help themselves to the outcome they want. GM is able to serve as a font of unnecessary obstacles.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

@FormerlyHemlock I feel that a picture is emerging of what some would count among necessary and appropriate, i.e. complete.

The concern - not expressed exactly like this - is that to whatever extent GM is player and to whatever extent they are referee, that there be agenda, principles, and rules in place so that they will not disrupt the lusory means or lusory attitude. Whether this means they should share in those things, or that they should have standards of conduct that ensure they preserve those things for others, is a matter for further reflection.

If accepting concerns about the lusory fabric (as I do) this joins arguments about completeness to skepticism about rule zero (i.e. that in raw form it must strain the fabric.)

A game text is then counted incomplete if it fails to constrain the conduct of the GM in all of their functions in ways that preserve the integrity of the lusory fabric. Elsewhere I briefly referred to the "institution" of GMs. It's possible that advocates of a rule zero approach to completeness would want to have in mind standards for conduct that are not contained in the text for any given RPG, but are nevertheless in force.

Mmmm. I must confess that I'm not a fan of Suit's framing--it's not totally wrong but it's ultimately one guy's perspective on a complex subject--and I have zoned out and skipped over all of the "lusory attitude" posts in this thread.

To me, if I said "lusory attitude" I would be talking about the way we artificially limit ourselves during games: we set goals and then achieve them using deliberately suboptimal means. We don't let ourselves prevent the football from going through the goal by secretly coating the quarterback's gloves with glue; we don't let ourselves kill the dragon by bringing the GM's favorite pizza to create a social debt so the GM feels a need to reciprocate. But when y'all start talking about disrupting the lusory attitude/means/fabric, you seem to be talking about something else, and I haven't spent any effort to figure it out.

Sorry but I'm not part of that particular sub-discussion.

 

[clearstream]

Mmmm. I must confess that I'm not a fan of Suit's framing--it's not totally wrong but it's ultimately one guy's perspective on a complex subject--and I have zoned out and skipped over all of the "lusory attitude" posts in this thread.

To me, if I said "lusory attitude" I would be talking about the way we artificially limit ourselves during games: we set goals and then achieve them using deliberately suboptimal means. We don't let ourselves prevent the football from going through the goal by secretly coating the quarterback's gloves with glue; we don't let ourselves kill the dragon by bringing the GM's favorite pizza to create a social debt so the GM feels a need to reciprocate. But when y'all start talking about disrupting the lusory attitude/means/fabric, you seem to be talking about something else, and I haven't spent any effort to figure it out.

Sorry but I'm not part of that particular sub-discussion.

To put it a different way, our shared aim is to play a game. Some posters are concerned that assigning any participant unfettered power to change the rules would forestall that ends. Thus they count into their completeness condition for game texts the inclusion of the necessary fetters. Note that the fetters envisioned are voluntarily accepted for the sake of achieving our shared aim.

What I point out is the institution of GMing that provides fetters a GM can voluntarily accept. By institution I refer to a culture of game-mastering found in debate, exposition, social behaviours, etc: the received norms of proper conduct. In virtue of which satisfactory procedures are in place.

I consciously use the word "satisfactory" to remind of its subjective nature - satisfactory to who?

 

[Bedrockgames]

If a participant is at liberty to suspend the lusory attitude and change the available lusory means, what would it even mean to say that, at some particular time, they have adopted the lusory attitude? This strikes me as a recipe for dysfunction (at best).

I'm only vaguely familiar with this term, but seem to remember it when I wrote a history paper on a sporting event (and had to get into the history of both games and sports). So forgive me if my usage here is flawed. I think here I would see the GM's role as different when you are incorporating this notion of he or she having the ability to alter, change or ignore rules in the broader interests of play, than regular players. The GM is effectively part of the system, so it is the players who arrive at the table with the lusory attitude towards the system (which would include GM rulings in a game like this). I actually think that is pretty fundamental, among some other considerations, to whether this approach actually does become dysfunctional (it can become dysfunctional on the GM side if the GM for reasons that have been explored in these threads, but it can become dysfunctional on the player side too if they adopting a lusary attitude to GM's having this power is a nonstarter (and for some players it is a nonstarter, which is fine, but you won't have a very functional table if there is that deep a disagreement over something so fundamental to the style of play being adopted by the rules).

Also in fairness, I would agree this approach can lead to dysfunction (I think other approaches can too, but I don't have enough experience with a system like Dungeon World to know if or how that particular approach would). But like I said before it is very much a question of how people react to that dysfunction, not whether they have encountered it (who here hasn't encountered issues stemming from a GM misapplying their authority?). I think for some people, avoiding that dysfunction becomes a priority. But for others it is just seen as something that can happen and to strive to avoid, because the benefits of playing with a feature like rule zero (and here I am just defining that as the GMs ability to alter, change, ignore rules) are worth it.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Thinking about football, player behaviours seem able to move in and out of the lusory attitude. For example, when a fight breaks out they set aside concern for inefficient means... and then successfully return to it. The famous "hand of God" is another case, where efficient means was adopted. Miguel Sicart argues that players sustain a dual nature: self as subject to game, and self as member of ones culture. Players seem able to look at themselves playing the game to make judgements about how they play, that are outside the lusory attitude but don't necessitate breaking it.

Something very key to consider here is activities like football, checkers and hangman, are competitive. RPGs can be, but they aren't really about the players competing against each other (in fact competitive campaigns are often frowned upon---especially if the competition involves PCs fighting one another). There is a style of play where they are competing against the GM but adversarial GMing is also generally frowned upon and I think most groups take a more cooperative approach. Even me, I run games with the kind of GM authority we are talking about but I have no issues asking players for input, being transparent about my rulings, etc. For me the aim isn't to beat the players.

 

[clearstream]

Something very key to consider here is activities like football, checkers and hangman, are competitive. RPGs can be, but they aren't really about the players competing against each other (in fact competitive campaigns are often frowned upon---especially if the competition involves PCs fighting one another). There is a style of play where they are competing against the GM but adversarial GMing is also generally frowned upon and I think most groups take a more cooperative approach. Even me, I run games with the kind of GM authority we are talking about but I have no issues asking players for input, being transparent about my rulings, etc. For me the aim isn't to beat the players.

That's true, albeit here my focus is to think about how well participants might switch modes during play? For instance, 4e appoints DM both player and referee (they are characterised as both.) Is that a mis-characterisation, or is it right and a participant can indeed switch between modes of engagement in the game?

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

This is a strange concept to me. I have never played in, ran, or heard of a game that wasn't functionally the GMs.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

The way I read it, in these kinds of games the world doesn't really exist outside of player and GM moves. Its my biggest problem with that style. To me, it really hits the, "you're in a holodeck" vibe hard.