Why do RPGs have rules?

[clearstream]

So the answer is no, you can't show me anything that gives the players authority like those passages give to the DM. You provided not one quote. Hell, you can't even overcome the one single passage in the PHB.

PHB Page 6: "Because there is so much diversity among the worlds of D&D, you should check with your DM about any house rules that will affect your play of the game."

For your position to be correct, the players must all have the memory of a goldfish to have forgotten what house rules they used their authority to get the DM to put in.

On the player side, I feel like the parallel rules are those giving authority over their character. PHB6 and 186. They are very clearly not assigned any refereeing function. While DM is equally clearly assigned that function PHB5 for one example.

 

[clearstream]

No, it’s telling how you see it.

The rules are so open because they were written in natural language rather than technical language. This was almost certainly deliberate because as @soviet points out, they needed to try and get many different groups back with this edition.



It’s never cited as such, this is what started this whole conversation.

Your taking several different snippets from the places they’re scattered around the book and them lumping them all together and calling them Rule Zero.

Wouldn’t it make more sense if this was the designers’ intent that this be presented as a bullet list under a section titled “Rule Zero”? And better yet, that it be in the rulebook that everyone’s more likely to read, the PHB?


But he serves the players. Just as the rules serve him.

If you’re defining “serves” in that way, then I don’t see how your interpretation can stand.

To me what is clear in the 5e text is that DM has a number of functions that players do not have. One of them is as referee saying how the rules apply, another is - again as referee - making rulings when play goes into less-well-defined territory. It's not a literal 3e rule "0.", but is that earnestly at issue here?

(Or maybe it is at issue, and I'm not properly understanding why. If what someone means by "rule zero" is unfettered power to change the rules... that doesn't seem right to me for reasons I've outlined in various posts already. #432 and #435 are examples. And I would agree with @hawkeyefan about the 5e game text, if that's truly the contention.)

 

[clearstream]

I agree on both points. It is not necessary to use the Suits framework to reach the conclusion I did about "GM decides" play. Vincent Baker reached the same conclusion through his contrast of conflict with task resolution: "Task resolution, in short, puts the GM in a position of priviledged authorship. Task resolution will undermine your collaboration."

It wouldn't seem right to say that a referee decides play in a game of football. The players observably enjoy genuine decision-making and in collaboration have decisive impact on the game.

But that openness obviously makes possible the imagining of "realities" about which no one at the table is an expert, or about which no one could ever be an expert. It also invites an approach to the imagined reality in which what would really happen becomes a less interesting question than what exciting or engaging thing might happen?

It seems plausible to say that Tolkien in fact was an expert in the world of Middle Earth. Which is an imagined reality - suggesting it is possible to be "expert" in a non-existent world. Then, when it comes to interesting questions - interest is in the eye of the beholder - I'm mindful of immersionism as a mode of play.

One way a person can be most expert in an imagined world (to the extent that it matters) is if they are the original designer of that world. Another is if they acquire expertise in a world designed by others. A corollary of Baker's concern is that expertise can turn out to be conferred upon one participant in the same way as authority is vested by players in their referee. So that what they say about the world is true because they said it.

When the point of play - the prelusory goal, if you like, or the creative agenda - alters in such a fashion, the whole setup changes. The "judge" is now a participant in play, taking part in the creation of this shared fiction. The notion of the map, board, playing pieces etc as a model of a reality, and of play as essentially reasoning about that reality, is gone. Expertise is irrelevant except to the extent that, among participants, it helps support some suspension of disbelief.

I feel this is a reasonable line to take if one hopes to argue that one participant's power to change rules must disrupt (what I've called) the lusory fabric. I need to bring judge into the game as a player so as to dispose of their otherwise clearly not disruptive conduct as referee. That step can be resisted through saying any or all of

• a person is capable of operating in a plurality of modes in play, so that they can operate as both referee and player
• it is possible for a person to be expert or conferred with expertise in their version of an imagined world
• there's no need to be the most expert to be an effective referee: other qualities are more important
• possessing an agenda for refereeing is not necessarily identical to possessing an agenda for playing: the referee does not share in the prelusory goals of the players... they're more akin to a game affordance for those goals (elsewhere I described the FKR GM as a "font of unnecessary obstacles")

Generally, it seems straightforward and plausible to say that GM can indeed act as referee.

To me, "rule zero" seems like a cludge that has the purpose of achieving the second sort of thing without having to change your basic presentation of the game (rules, procedures of play, etc) from what they were when play was aimed at the first sort of thing. Whereas Dungeon World (and many other RPGs) don't even pretend to be oriented towards the first sort of thing, and set out procedures of play and rules that are designed from the ground up to achieve the second sort of thing. This is how they become complete rule sets for open play.

The way I would reframe what you say here is that there are multiple RPG modes, and in some of those modes GM is intended to be a player. In those modes, it's intuitive to picture that anyone with rule-forming-and-modifying authority must adopt a lusory attitude that forestalls their waving aside all unnecessary obstacles. There are then a subset of rules, the "why" of which is just that. Those rules are not necessary in a refereed game.

Rule zero is not a fix for that mode. Rather it is available and suitable (heh) in just those cases where GM is assigned the function of referee. If I set out to assess rule zero against the standards of a mode in which GM is player, then it's almost inevitable I will have concerns about limits on its use.

I would not personally go ahead and argue that all possible modes of RPG necessitate GM as player so that there is no such thing as GM as referee, not least because GM is characterised as referee in numerous game texts. To me, that is a radical and somewhat implausible argument that needs to be supported by more than has been so far laid out.

EDIT Rereading your "When the point of play" paragraph, I can see that can be taken as a conditional: if it is like this, then etc. If that's what you intend, my final paragraph just above should be ignored and we might turn out to be saying similar things. It's unclear to me whether "invites" in the paragraph preceding that one indicates something you view as inevitable - it leads us to X - or possible - we're invited to consider X.

 

[aramis erak]

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.

AD&D 1E notes that the game exists in the campaign. The campaign is explicitly the DM's creation; the players' characters inhabit that setting. The player impact is purely in the DM's hands.
Traveller, specifically CT 2e, is less explicit, but, unlike AD&D, does not give advice to fudge rolls. Given the 175,000 core sets sold between 1977 and 1987, that was a significant market share, tho' folks like me with two copies do make the penetration into the market a bit lower. (I was gifted both Deluxe and TTB at the same time. I never got starter, but prefer it to the other two formats for CT.)

But, the main thrust of the game has been that of refereed or umpired scenarios and campaigns. The use of a separate, independent referee allows a large degree of flexibility and continuity often not possible of the players themselves control the game. In addition, the referee inserts some measure of uncertainty in the minds of the players as they travel through the universe.

The Campaign: Several players manipulate their characters on a continuing, linked adventures in a consistent universe. The referee should generate the basic facts of his universe before play begins. If no referee is used, the universe may un-fold randomly using the world generation tables in Book 3. While the scenario is like a science-fiction novel, the campaign is like a continuing S-F series, as the same characters continue to act together through a variety of situations.
As the campaign unfolds, the players may range far and wide through the universe, perhaps beyond the referee's original boundaries. In such cases, the campaign may be temporarily halted as the referee expands his data (or, the referee may be forced to work through the night getting ready for the next day's adventures).
Traveller is primarily written with a view to a continuing campaign, and these books deal primarily with that end. Sufficient information is included to facilitate the creation of scenarios and solitaire games as well.

(Editing note: I removed the end-of-line hyphens in copy and paste)
Note the reference to "his universe" - that's a possessive term.

Oh, and Pemerton? The official rules for ATVs are in DA2 Across the Bright Face.
Failing that...

In any case, the referee can make or break a campaign, as it is his imagination which the other players use as a springboard to adventure.
The referee is responsible for maintaining the master maps and charts of the universe, and for determining the various effects of natural forces, chance, and non-player characters on the adventures. He must settle disputes concerning the rules (and may use his own imagination in doing so, rather than strictly adhering to the letter of the rules). He also acts as go-between when characters secretly or solitarily act against the world or their comrades.

That's pretty close to the OSR "rule 0" but not quite the same...
Essentially, if one hasn't DA2, that it's given a range, an endurance, and a speed, (all in Bk 3) one can be expected to be able to get that range and speed overland.
It can be read (and Marc has said to people) make the call and move on.

CT has a number of specific case rules buried in adventures.

Loren apparently edited out Marc's initial universal mechanic of nD6 fopr (att+skill) or less... it showed up in T4 aka Marc Miller's Traveller. (Based upon Marc's claim that He's "always used that mechanic." One such reference survived Loren's editing into a CT module: 3d6 vs total strength of the characters attempting to open a given door.

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?

Darkbard,

Players arguing rules are one of the big drawbacks of GMing. I can't speak for many others, but the guys I've discussed it with, if players are arguing the agreed upon rules, it's time to tell them to find a different group.

Note: agreed upon. If I'm playing (rather than running; a rarity these days), I expect the rules agreed to to be the rules in force.

As a GM, I strive to be consistent. I make houserule notes on my reference sheets - since I do them to learn the game, they serve well as in play references, as well... i only put things to vote when changing rules mid campaign. If I'm interpreting, i don't allow more than a minute or two in session - but we can talk it over at the end of that session, or beginning of the next.

Also, the rules authority is, in all the early games, the DM/GM/Referee/Judge. (By Early, I mean up to about 1982... this includes Palladium's first 5 games (Mechanoid trilogy, Palladium Fantasy, Valley of the Pharaohs), AD&D 1E pre-UA, Classic Traveller, RuneQuest 1e & 2E, Moldvay & Cook BX D&D, Gamma World, Tunnels and Trolls 1st-5th, The Fantasy Trip (original edition), C&S 1E, a dozen or so local offerings... all are DM as final rules arbiter.

Traveller was at least demanding fairness of them. Games of that era also usually lacked interpersonal skills other than modifying a reaction roll (TFT and AD&D); Traveller's Carousing and Bribery were notable exceptions.
And,, when I realize that having played most of those games, tho' not all of those editions... the one commonality was the GM was the one who "owned the world" and picked which rules to use, how to use them, and what the setting was... and sadly, that often led to horrible mismatches of system and setting... and the dozens of nifty but ultimately forgotten heartbreakers. I should dig out my copy of Dreams and get it up on RPGG...

 

[Aldarc]

To me what is clear in the 5e text is that DM has a number of functions that players do not have. One of them is as referee saying how the rules apply. It's not a literal 3e rule "0", but is that earnestly at issue here?

I think that it's fine to acknowledge and engage these various functions of the GM in the context of the text. I believe that @hawkeyefan has done a good job in at least acknowledging the surrounding context in which these excerpts are contained. The danger IMHO is pretending that these different functions exist with any meaningful reality under a concrete, unstated Rule Zero and then equivocating between these different functions (and additional GMing assumptions smuggled in for good measure) under the guise of Rule Zero.

Would you say that Tolkien was an expert in the world of Middle Earth? An imagined reality. And is it right to say that you are skeptical of immersionism as a mode of play?

I'm not sure if I would ever claim expertise about any of my homebrew worlds prior to any introduction of its lore into play. I'm perfectly aware that in my own creative processes and JRRT's, by even his own and his son's account, that until "the notes" are actually published and become the fiction, a lot of the lore is actually quite nebulous and in a constant state of flux. This was a problem that Christopher Tolkien discussed when it came to deciphering his father's notes for the Silmarillion and other associated tales that took place in the First Age.

 

[darkbard]

AD&D 1E notes that the game exists in the campaign. The campaign is explicitly the DM's creation; the players' characters inhabit that setting. The player impact is purely in the DM's hands.
Traveller, specifically CT 2e, is less explicit, but, unlike AD&D, does not give advice to fudge rolls. Given the 175,000 core sets sold between 1977 and 1987, that was a significant market share, tho' folks like me with two copies do make the penetration into the market a bit lower. (I was gifted both Deluxe and TTB at the same time. I never got starter, but prefer it to the other two formats for CT.)


(Editing note: I removed the end-of-line hyphens in copy and paste)
Note the reference to "his universe" - that's a possessive term.

Oh, and Pemerton? The official rules for ATVs are in DA2 Across the Bright Face.
Failing that...

That's pretty close to the OSR "rule 0" but not quite the same...
Essentially, if one hasn't DA2, that it's given a range, an endurance, and a speed, (all in Bk 3) one can be expected to be able to get that range and speed overland.
It can be read (and Marc has said to people) make the call and move on.

CT has a number of specific case rules buried in adventures.

Loren apparently edited out Marc's initial universal mechanic of nD6 fopr (att+skill) or less... it showed up in T4 aka Marc Miller's Traveller. (Based upon Marc's claim that He's "always used that mechanic." One such reference survived Loren's editing into a CT module: 3d6 vs total strength of the characters attempting to open a given door.


Darkbard,

Players arguing rules are one of the big drawbacks of GMing. I can't speak for many others, but the guys I've discussed it with, if players are arguing the agreed upon rules, it's time to tell them to find a different group.

Note: agreed upon. If I'm playing (rather than running; a rarity these days), I expect the rules agreed to to be the rules in force.

As a GM, I strive to be consistent. I make houserule notes on my reference sheets - since I do them to learn the game, they serve well as in play references, as well... i only put things to vote when changing rules mid campaign. If I'm interpreting, i don't allow more than a minute or two in session - but we can talk it over at the end of that session, or beginning of the next.

Also, the rules authority is, in all the early games, the DM/GM/Referee/Judge. (By Early, I mean up to about 1982... this includes Palladium's first 5 games (Mechanoid trilogy, Palladium Fantasy, Valley of the Pharaohs), AD&D 1E pre-UA, Classic Traveller, RuneQuest 1e & 2E, Moldvay & Cook BX D&D, Gamma World, Tunnels and Trolls 1st-5th, The Fantasy Trip (original edition), C&S 1E, a dozen or so local offerings... all are DM as final rules arbiter.

Traveller was at least demanding fairness of them. Games of that era also usually lacked interpersonal skills other than modifying a reaction roll (TFT and AD&D); Traveller's Carousing and Bribery were notable exceptions.
And,, when I realize that having played most of those games, tho' not all of those editions... the one commonality was the GM was the one who "owned the world" and picked which rules to use, how to use them, and what the setting was... and sadly, that often led to horrible mismatches of system and setting... and the dozens of nifty but ultimately forgotten heartbreakers. I should dig out my copy of Dreams and get it up on RPGG...

I don't have time for a more detailed response, but I'm not disputing the historical role of GM across all games and all time. I'm saying that now, in 2023, in games that I play (including a recent version of D&D), shared/distributed authority is the norm and that the human beings I play with are genuinely interested in playing a fun, challenging game by the rules as understood by group consensus.

Further, if a rule hasn't seen application in play, and when it arises there are competing interpretations as to its meaning, it is nothing like what you propose as "players challenging an agreed-upon rule." It is the group working out some ambiguity or logical inconsistency. No one person's interpretation outweighs the majority in such situations. Each party makes its case, and whatever makes most sense for the group is what is decided moving forward, without acrimony or anyone picking up their stuff and stomping off. Such efforts are attempts at clarity and consistency, not battles of will to be won.

 

[clearstream]

I think that it's fine to acknowledge and engage these various functions of the GM in the context of the text. I believe that @hawkeyefan has done a good job in at least acknowledging the surrounding context in which these excerpts are contained. The danger IMHO is pretending that these different functions exist with any meaningful reality under a concrete, unstated Rule Zero and then equivocating between these different functions (and additional GMing assumptions smuggled in for good measure) under the guise of Rule Zero.


I'm not sure if I would ever claim expertise about any of my homebrew worlds prior to any introduction of its lore into play. I'm perfectly aware that in my own creative processes and JRRT's, by even his own and his son's account, that until "the notes" are actually published and become the fiction, a lot of the lore is actually quite nebulous and in a constant state of flux. This was a problem that Christopher Tolkien discussed when it came to deciphering his father's notes for the Silmarillion and other associated tales that took place in the First Age.

The One Ring both explicity characterises LM as "referee", and provides them with this advice for how to manage the world-expertise aspect of LMing.

Canon and the lore master
Fans of the literary works of J.R.R. Tolkien have long debated the existence of a consistent canon — as described in The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and later publications — that firmly defines the world and history of Middle- earth. This has often been cited as one of the major hurdles to roleplay-ing games set in Middle- earth, claiming as it does that the Player- heroes’ adventures will ‘interfere’ with the actions of the sagas’ known protagonists and ‘break’ the canon’s consistency. The quick and easy answer to such concerns is that ‘there is no such thing as an established Tolkien canon’; however, it is interesting to delve a little further into the subject, because a Lore master can learn a great deal from tackling this apparently insurmountable obstacle.

AN ‘UNRELIABLE NARRATOR’
One of the ways a Lore master can deal with the dilemma of altering facts perceived to be part of the Tolkien canon is to consider the information in the stories not as the words of an infallible, all- knowing narrator, but those of witnesses to the events — individuals who are subject to errors and personal bias (for example, The Hobbit relates the content of Bilbo Baggins’ memoirs). This literary device served Tolkien well as he strove to create a believable ‘ancient history’ which included the inev-itable inconsistencies that arise in a narrative composed by different chroniclers over time, and there is no reason why a Lore master cannot do the same, especially if there is a need to change an ‘established’ date or the details behind a known ‘fact’ or ‘historical’ figure. To get an idea of how much the perspective of an unre-liable narrator can distort perceptions — and possibly facts — one need look no further than the books themselves. Readers of The Lord of the Rings often find it difficult to rec-oncile the image of Gimli, the redoubtable axe-wielding warrior of Erebor, with the Dwarven companions of Bilbo in The Hobbit, who, captured by Trolls, Goblins, Spiders, and Wood- elves, more often than not end up being saved by their Hobbit burglar.

Anyway, all I am making is the mild claim that GM can operate as referee, and that their expertise in canon (or whatever fields of knowledge are felt relevant) is not an obstacle to that. From my own experience, I can also list three ways that as GM I was expert-in-effect

1. Where I created my own world and therefore was the preeminent expert in that world
2. Where I used a world that I knew far better than anyone else at the table
3. Where my opinion was deemed expert by virtue of an agreement with players

Above I describe only how I have acted as expert in imagined worlds in modes of play where we've chosen not to be collaborative. I don't hold that to be the best or only way to manage it and am currently playing in a markedly different mode.

EDIT Rereading your last paragraph, we again run into a definitional problem - this time what is meant by "expert". I grasp the nettle of your problem with nebulousness by saying that one crucial function of expertise is the ability to say what is most likely to be found true.

 

[aramis erak]

I don't have time for a more detailed response, but I'm not disputing the historical role of GM across all games and all time. I'm saying that now, in 2023, in games that I play (including a recent version of D&D), shared/distributed authority is the norm and that the human beings I play with are genuinely interested in playing a fun, challenging game by the rules as understood by group consensus.

for 3E or 5E, you're experiencing houseruling, since 5E explicitly puts the DM in charge of rules interpretation.

 

[pemerton]

Oh, and Pemerton? The official rules for ATVs are in DA2 Across the Bright Face.

I have it and have read it. It doesn't tell me how to resolve the action declaration "We leave the dome to find the enemies' hideout." It assumes that I will have a map and resolve things in a hexcrawlish fashion - a terrible assumption for a game of interplanetary travel and exploration.

 

[pemerton]

It seems plausible to say that Tolkien in fact was an expert in the world of Middle Earth. Which is an imagined reality - suggesting it is possible to be "expert" in a non-existent world.

There is no difference between "being an expert on my imagined world" and "being the authoritative teller of fictions about my imagined world".

And as I've said in several posts, the latter is what to me seems to be the upshot of "rule zero".