Why do RPGs have rules?

[Micah Sweet]

Strange, because I have. Nearly all of my games, in fact. We always talked about it as "our game" when I first played in high school because it was the game that our gaming group was collectively playing together. Same was true with my group in college. Likewise, I played Pathfinder 1 with my friends in grad school. We definitely didn't think about it as the GM's game. We thought of it as all of our game because we were friends who were playing a hobby game together as friends. That viewpoint continued when I moved to Vienna and found a new gaming group. It was the group's game that a GM ran rather than the GM's game. These were not people playing "bespoke games" either. We were playing more traditional games in the vein of D&D: i.e, 3e D&D, d20 Modern, Star Wars Saga, 4e D&D, Pathfinder 1, and Numenera. Moreover, this was true whether I was a PC player or the GM player. I think that GM's were possessive about their homebrew settings; however, I think that's different.

I said "functionally" the GMs game. We all thought of our campaigns as "ours" too, but if the GM stopped running any given campaign, we'd start a new one with the same or a different GM, and that would be that. Of course to your second point we never just played a published campaign setting or adventure straight either; it was always homebrewed to a degree.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Is there a reason we have to use such an uncommon word for such a straight-forward concept? Sorry to say this, but it seems very "ivory tower" to me.

Pemerton isn't using it in its generic sense; he's discussing a specific take on play from a guy named Suits who was attempting to define what makes games games. But the word "lusory" itself just means basically "gameplay-related".

What makes it confusing is that the word is being hijacked as jargon: "lusory fabric" probably means something specific to pemerton based on a paper Suits wrote at some point, but without reading Suits' work I couldn't say what. It's not, like, a widely-recognized usage among game designers or anything.

If you do want a good overview of various attempts to define what a "game" is, I can recommend Rules of Play from MIT Press. https://www.amazon.com/Rules-Play-Design-Fundamentals-Press/dp/0262240459 I think Suits' definition has a page or two devoted to it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm unclear if your response means that a rules dispute etc automatically leads to the GM wanting to stop running the game? That seems alien to me, and indicative of childish behavior. In the case of the games I play, the statement of the game being the players' implies that it's a shared endeavor, driven forth by the actions the participants, and that the rules should support fun, consensus play rather than privelege one person's interpretation over others. But maybe I misunderstand your response?

Of course the GM would talk to the players, listen to their concerns, and make adjustments to the game if they accepted the players arguments. But if that ultimately didn't happen (ie; no agreement could be reached), you either go along with the GM or you drop out of the game and wait for the next one, or if enough players want to do that you end the campaign and start a new one, with the same or a different GM. That's the nuclear option, so of course you exhaust every diplomatic solution first.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Pemerton isn't using it in its generic sense; he's discussing a specific take on play from a guy named Suits who was attempting to define what makes games games. (See MIT Press's Rules of Play for a summary of many such attempts.) But the word "lusory" itself just means basically "gameplay-related".

What makes it confusing is that the word is being hijacked as jargon: "lusory fabric" probably means something specific to pemerton based on a paper Suits wrote at some point, but without reading Suits' work I couldn't say what. It's not, like, a widely-recognized usage among game designers or anything.

Yes, this whole discussion is very jargony, to the point of unwelcoming to those interested in the topic but who prefer more natural language (you know, like is actually used in most of the texts under discussion).

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Yes, this whole discussion is very jargony, to the point of unwelcoming to those interested in the topic but who prefer more natural language (you know, like is actually used in most of the texts under discussion).

Absolutely, that's why I'm skipping it myself. I just wanted to answer your question about what lusory means, and provide some context on where it comes from.

 

[Maxperson]

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

That's utterly impossible. A new DM cannot possibly create the same world, decisions, rules, etc. that the original DM did. There are too many variables. No matter how hard the new DM tries he cannot create "that game." His game will be a new one that is his own.

There is absolutely nothing the players can do to affect the game rules of D&D if the DM does not wish to allow it. They have no such authority granted to them by the game. The DM on the other hand does.

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.

It is if the DM wants to treat the game that way. I'm not suggesting that the DM should behave that way. Only that he has the power and authority granted by the game to do so if he wishes. The players do not.

While it may not be mandated, it is the default state. 5e DMG page 9...

"YOUR WORLD IS THE SETTING FOR YOUR CAMPAIGN,
the place where adventures happen. Even if you use an existing setting, such as the
Forgotten Realms, it becomes yours as you set your adventures there, create characters to inhabit it, and make changes to it over
the course of your campaign. This chapter is all about building your world."

"IT'S YOUR WORLD -
In creating your campaign world, it helps to start with the core assumptions and consider how your setting might change them."

DMG page 4...

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

 

[Aldarc]

Yes, this whole discussion is very jargony, to the point of unwelcoming to those interested in the topic but who prefer more natural language (you know, like is actually used in most of the texts under discussion).

There is nothing and no one in this thread stopping you from using natural language should you so choose. Just because someone uses a word that you don't understand doesn't mean that they have any design on excluding you or others from a conversation other people are having among themselves. FWIW IMHO, it often gets to this point because the "natural language (you know, like is actually used in most of the texts under discussion)" fails or proves inadequate for more precise discussion in said topic. Natural language is not always that great for expressing and talking about complex ideas.

So now that "lusory" has been explained to you, what "natural language" would you use to express the ideas discussed thus far?

 

[Micah Sweet]

There is nothing and no one in this thread stopping you from using natural language should you so choose. Just because someone uses a word that you don't understand doesn't mean that they have any design on excluding you or others from a conversation other people are having among themselves. FWIW IMHO, it often gets to this point because the "natural language (you know, like is actually used in most of the texts under discussion)" fails or proves inadequate for more precise discussion in said topic. Natural language is not always that great for expressing and talking about complex ideas.

So now that "lusory" has been explained to you, what "natural language" would you use to express the ideas discussed thus far?

I explained above, but my view is that in D&D style gaming, and many (but by no means all) others, it is the GMs game ultimately. They can and should listen to the players and their concerns, give them the opportunity to change the GMs mind, even add content to parts of the setting that haven't yet been interacted with if such addition are to the GM reasonable, and make changes if they are convinced, but the decision to do so or not is the GMs. If a dispute occurs, and no agreement can be reached, either the player goes with the GM, the player leaves, or the game ends, to be restarted as a new game under the same or a different GM.

 

[Maxperson]

I don’t think those passages grant unilateral authority in all ways.

I realize you do. But I disagree. And I think that’s precisely why they wrote the rules that way.

So here...

DMG page 4: "And as a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them."

DMG page 4: "The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game."

DMG page 9: : "The rules of the game are based on the following core assumptions about the game world." and "IT'S YOUR WORLD - In creating your campaign world, it helps to start with the core assumptions and consider how your setting might change them."

This is about naming, but the idea is still there.

DMG page 36: "It's a good idea to establish some ground rules with your players at the start of a new campaign."

DMG page 59: "Each plane's description includes one or more optional rules that you can use to help make the adventurers' experiences on that plane memorable."

DMG page 235: "The rules serve you, not vice versa. There are the rules of the game, and there are table rules for how the game is played."

DMG page 235: "For instance, players need to know what happens when one of them misses a session. They need to know whether to bring
miniatures, any special rules you've decided to use..."

DMG page 235: "This section gives recommendations for table rules you can establish to help meet that goal."

DMG page 235: "You might need to set a policy on rules discussions at the table."

DMG page 237: "Remember that dice don't run your game-you do. Dice are like rules."

DMG page 263: AS THE DUNGEON MASTER, YOU AREN'T LIMITED by the rules in the Player 's Handbook, the guidelines in this book, or the selection of monsters in the Monster Manual. You can let your imagination run wild."

DMG page 263: "Before you add a new rule to your campaign, ask yourself two questions: • Will the rule improve the game? • Will my players like it?"

There are 12(not an exhaustive list) instances where the rules tell the DM to decide on the rules and rules changes. Hell, that last one from page 263 tell the DM to consider the players, but there's no actual requirement for the DM to do so.

The following are two more passages granting the DM sole authority, but do like the one on page 263 suggest, but don't require, that the DM talk to the players.

DMG 34: "Feel free to change or ignore rules to fit the players' roleplaying needs, using the advice presented in part 3 of this book."

DMG page 34: "What's the right way to run a campaign? That depends on your play style and the motivations of your players. Consider your players' tastes, your strengths as a DM, table rules (discussed in part 3), and the type of game you want to run. Describe to the players how you envision the game experience and let them give you input. The game is theirs, too. Lay that groundwork early, so your players can make informed choices and help you maintain the type of game you want to run."

That last one there is the strongest in your favor, but even then it doesn't limit the DM's authority or require him to do those things. It just voices the obvious(which I strongly agree with) that the DM should take the players and their desires into consideration when altering rules.

So I've provided more than a dozen examples of the DM having total authority over the rules and any changes. Can you provide even a single instance where the game says that the players have ANY authority to change the rules or stop the DM from making changes? Even one?

My interpretation is based on more than a dozen passages that say what I am telling you. What is yours based on other than just how you want it to be?

 

[Aldarc]

I explained above, but my view is that in D&D style gaming, and many (but by no means all) others, it is the GMs game ultimately. They can and should listen to the players and their concerns, give them the opportunity to change the GMs mind, even add content to parts of the setting that haven't yet been interacted with if such addition are to the GM reasonable, and make changes if they are convinced, but the decision to do so or not is the GMs. If a dispute occurs, and no agreement can be reached, either the player goes with the GM, the player leaves, or the game ends, to be restarted as a new game under the same or a different GM.

I disagree with the notion that it's ultimately the GM's game for reasons that I have discussed already. Now what do you have to say?