Why do RPGs have rules?

[Enrahim2]

I don't have a problem with it, I just don't need it to be absolute.



I think this is the problem. People are insisting that the authority is absolute, but then pointing out how it's really not. "I could do this, but I never would". Then you can't do it. It seems to be a matter of semantics.

To me, if you're going to argue for absolute GM authority, then you're going to exercise absolute GM authority.

I actually think everyone agree that the GM shouldn't have absolute authority in it's "real sense". I believe everyone arguing for granting the GM absolute authority are doing it due to lack of an established better alternative. The problem is that if you try to list positively all authorities a GM should have, a GM having experienced the freedom of "full authority" will generally find something they have used to good effect not being available. On the other hand starting out with full authority and trying to list exceptions tend to still leave very obvious ways to abuse that power. As such the act of trying to restrict power might actually make novices more prone to abusing those loopholes, as it give them a sense of having done something "clever".

As such declaring full authority in the formal text, for it to then be modulated by the much more subtle, nuanced and complex restraints of social expectations might seem like the lesser of several evils. We quite simply haven't figured out how to write a rules text that both preserves all well known tools GMs can use to provide a certain kind of good experience, while not at the same time opening for horrible abuse. And maybe the medium of a rules text just isn't up for that job at all?

 

[Aldarc]

Yup, because learning new jargon for a different game that is of questionable validity to your game is always going to have little worth to some folks. Applicability depends on your game.

But you said that anything past the late 90s was "new"! Rule Zero only enters jargon in D&D in 3e (2000)! You should be railing against Rule Zero by your own metrics and criteria!

 

[Thomas Shey]

And the same folks who accept Rule Zero and similarly trad-based jargon will wail about Forge Waffle, no matter how clear and applicable it may be.

And? Is it someone helping to do the same in reverse, or does it just make it look like its a case of who's ox is gored?

Like it or not, in an environment like this that's dominated by trad players and GMs, they're going to get to dominate the terminological sphere. Like I said, getting worked up about that is fighting the tide, no matter how legitimate you complaint.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But you said that anything past the late 90s was "new"! Rule Zero only enters jargon in D&D in 3e (2000)! You should be railing against Rule Zero by your own metrics and criteria!

I have never used the phrase "Rule Zero" in my life to the best of my knowledge. But the straight-forward, expressed in natural language  idea that the GM controls everything except the PCs and their choices is one I have no problem with, even with the occasional exception.

Please stop trying to prove I'm a hypocrite. Nobody's perfect.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yup, because learning new jargon for a different game that is of questionable validity to your game is always going to have little worth to some folks. Applicability depends on your game.

His legitimate point is that they, on the other hand, expect it the other way around.

 

[Micah Sweet]

His legitimate point is that they, on the other hand, expect it the other way around.

What does that mean? Is it not reasonable to expect in a very heavily D&D (and its derivitives) based and frequented forum that most posters here are familiar with D&D idioms and terminology, and that this might not be true for other games? This is a general RPG thread, but not a PbtA and the Forge thread (all evidence to the contrary).

 

[hawkeyefan]

It was a Star Trek reference, for Landru's sake!

If you can't explain your point without resorting to niche jargon, then IMO there's something wrong with your point, or your actual point is that you know something other people don't.

I don't know who or what Landru is, so I don't understand the reference! I blame you!

 

[Aldarc]

I don't know who or what Landru is, so I don't understand the reference! I blame you!

We are on a D&D forum. You cannot expect people to understand Star Trek references.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't know who or what Landru is, so I don't understand the reference! I blame you!

It's from the Original Series, first god-like being off the top of my head. I apologize if my ppp culture reference was confusing, and re-dedicate myself to natural language over jargon.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I actually think everyone agree that the GM shouldn't have absolute authority in it's "real sense". I believe everyone arguing for granting the GM absolute authority are doing it due to lack of an established better alternative. The problem is that if you try to list positively all authorities a GM should have, a GM having experienced the freedom of "full authority" will generally find something they have used to good effect not being available. On the other hand starting out with full authority and trying to list exceptions tend to still leave very obvious ways to abuse that power. As such the act of trying to restrict power might actually make novices more prone to abusing those loopholes, as it give them a sense of having done something "clever".

As such declaring full authority in the formal text, for it to then be modulated by the much more subtle, nuanced and complex restraints of social expectations might seem like the lesser of several evils. We quite simply haven't figured out how to write a rules text that both preserves all well known tools GMs can use to provide a certain kind of good experience, while not at the same time opening for horrible abuse. And maybe the medium of a rules text just isn't up for that job at all?

I think it can be a trade off, yes. Have I ever used my full authority as a GM to useful effect? Absolutely. Would I lose such an opportunity if my authority was limited. Yes, I could.

However, I think my game has gained far more for me to perform my role as a GM in a principled and consistent manner. So while I lose the option of hiding a DC from the players (using that technique to heighten the sense of the unknown), what I gain by always sharing every DC more than makes up for it. That’s just a base example, but I think it’s broadly applicable.

I think if folks actually examine their preferences instead of just insisting upon them, perhaps we can drill down a bit into the reasons for those preferences. And I know when I did that, it was enlightening.