That's a good example of what I am discussing. A parking rule is not binding in itself, it is binding because it is enforced. It's easy to see that we can park where we like - the rule doesn't make us park in accord with it - rather it is our concern to avoid a fine that secures our consent to the rule. (Or we may feel a sense of civic duty, etc.)
Normally, in theorising about rules and other normative phenomena, we distinguish
is binding from
is followed. That's why it is possible to break a rule. Whereas if
not followed entailed
is not binding then it would follow that no rule can be broken.
As I posted upthread, it may be - in the context of leisure activities like games - that some degree of compliance is necessary to make it true that a rule exists at all. But that degree of compliance is not 100%.
As to
why people follow rules, the range of possible answers is as varied as the details of human psychology: fear; a sense of duty; habit; a desire to get the benefits of following the rule; a desire to go along with everyone else who is following the rule; not knowing any better; etc. In the case of games, a desire to participate, with others, in the activity that the rules underpin must be one common explanation for conformity to rules.
What the Tortoise Said To Achilles. I was thinking of that paper as I wrote, up-thread. It's not quite apposite in my view, but in any case, I felt that the infinite regress is headed off by social contract.
<snip>
It strikes me to ask, are you thinking of a different paper? What the Tortoise Said to Achilles points out an infinite regress. I don't think Carroll supplied any answer to it. If he did I would like to read that. I suppose the answer implied is - Carroll's regress is only headed off by situating the answer to it outside of the regress.
I think it's widely accepted that Carroll didn't really think that inference is impossible. Rather, his point is that rules of inference do not themselves constitute premises in the argument. Frege made a similar observation, I think.
Hart makes a comparable point in the context of legal rules - ie there must be a rule which grounds the system that is not part of the system. (He called it the rule of recognition.)
We're speaking to a conversation about rule zero versus every other rule in 5e, and I am saying that none of those rules are inherently binding. They are binding because of norms and penalties, anticipated benefits, etc, that bring us to accept/enact them for ourselves. This makes
@Thomas Shey's argument exactly right: a GM could wield Rule 0 in an unhelpful way - any participant could wield any rule in an unhelpful way - but they do not because they don't follow the rule just because of the existence of that rule. They follow that rule because of (and in the way that satisfies) the shared-ethos and the benefits the group desire that rule to have.
I find this hard to follow. But you seem to be positing that
because adherence to rule X is motivated by reason Z, it is therefore permissible, or even desirable, to suspend or override rule X
whenever someone believes that doing so will better advance reason Z.
The claim I have just stated - which, as I've said, is the best sense I've been able to make of what you're saying - is highly controversial.
First, there's the issue of
whose belief.
Second, there are issues of
timelines. Few people enjoy losing in the immediate moment of loss - does that mean that we may, or should, suspend the rules that dictate that they have lost, and the consequences of their loss? Question of fairness, the significance of pre-commitment, etc all become relevant here.
A further thing that is relevant, and that feeds into a third way in which the claim above is controversial, is that it often very far from clear that
permitting the purposes for which a system of rules exists to be a relevant consideration within the system of rules is
the best way to achieve those purposes. To repost:
As far as the relationship between rules and "fun", I would strongly suggest considering Rawls's famous paper "Two concepts of rules".
The point of promising, roughly, is to secure among human beings the benefits of cooperation grounded in reliability. Promising, as a practice, secures that benefit by allowing someone, here-and-now, to oblige themselves to do something for another person in the future.
Once someone has made a promise, they are bound to keep it. The obligation can be defeated, but it is not relevant to the existence or the defeat of the obligation
that breaking the promise might better secure the benefits of cooperation grounded in reliability. That is to say, the
purpose of the institution does not figure within the permissible moves of the institution.
The same things applies in ball sports: the referee can't confer an extra goal on one side just because they think that will make the match more even, or more exciting, and hence better at achieving the goal of ball sports as a practice.
And the same thing applies at least to gamist RPGing as
@Manbearcat has described it. We are engaged in "stepping on up". We do that for fun; but no one can appeal to "fun" as a basis for changing the nature of the "arena' here and now in the middle of the challenge. If I'm playing Moldvay Basic, and I have to roll a save vs poison for my PC, I'll probably have more fun if I make the save than if I fail it: having a character die is disappointing, and rolling up a new one is a chore. That doesn't give anyone a reason to fudge or ignore the die roll!
Rule zero is not an uncontroversial, natural, or inevitable reflection of the fact that rules only take effect by being taken up (in some fashion) by those whom they govern. It is a
particular authority structure in respect of the shared fiction of a roleplaying game. There are other candidate authority structures - one can see them in games that are otherwise as different as (say) Fate, Burning Wheel, Marvel Heroic RP and Agon 2nd ed.
my intuitive response is that purple GM fiat circle was jarring. Any interpretation which makes it GM fiat - I felt - just makes it fiat all the way down.
So "fiat" in this context is being used to mean
an exercise of power, not
an arbitrary exercise of power.
@Campbell has explained how it need not be arbitrary, and may even be very disciplined. That doesn't stop it being fiat.
Look at Vincent Baker's example of the fight to try and get to the departing ship on time. The player (via the play of their PCs) wins the fight - their PC "kicks the other guys butt". But does the player get to the ship? In Classic Traveller, 5e D&D, Rolemaster and CoC - just to point to a few example systems - that question is answered by a GM decision. The decision may be made in various ways, and typically may have regard to the PC having kicked the other guy's butt, but the GM makes the decision.
Now consider a 4e skill challenge, where the stated goal is
to get to the ship before it departs. Winning the fight will count as a success in the challenge. So the connection between winning the fight and getting to the ship before it departs is not hostage to GM decision-making.
Or consider Marvel Heroic RP. There would be a Scene Distinction - The Ship is About to Depart or Get to the Ship! - with an initial rating (from D6 to D12) set by the GM that reflects both
the fiction and
the drama. Actions declared by the players can, among other things, step down the Scene Distinction, and once it drops below D6 the ship is not departing without the PCs, or the PCs are on the ship. Conversely, if the scene ends with the Distinction still in play then the ship got away! In this case, the presence of an opponent who needs to be fought will introduce extra complications into the scene, making it harder to step down the Distinction. Again, whatever the precise details, the player's intention in fighting - ie so that they can get to the ship - will be reflected in determining whether or not winning the fight lets them get to the ship.
Or consider Burning Wheel.
I run to the ship, cutting down whoever gets in my way! There are various ways that can be resolved - the simplest might be PC Speed (
I run) vs NPC Pilot (
the ship is departing), perhaps with the PC FoRKing in Sword (
I cut down whoever gets in my way) and the NPC being helped by Seamanship or Rigging from the crew. It could be more complex - eg maybe the fight is resolved via Bloody Versus, or even Fight!, with success counting as a linked test to the Speed test. (These different choices about how to frame it are driven by concerns of theme and pacing, not concerns about how to best "model" the ingame fiction.) Whatever the details, the player's intention in fighting - ie to make it to the ship in time - will be reflected in determining whether or not winning the fight lets them get to the ship.
These contrasts between systems illustrate the difference that
@Campbell, and John Harper's diagrams, are speaking to.
Sometimes an ability check resolves a scene. There's nothing in 5e that I can think of that prevents it.
What is the force of the
sometimes. If the GM announces in advance, then the framework is similar to a test in BW. (Sometimes checks in RM resolve a scene, because that is how the chart for that particular skill or activity is set out.)
But that is not the norm in 5e. My evidence for the preceding sentence is (i) how the rules present the function of checks, and (ii) how they are presented in published adventures, and (iii) how I see them discussed among 5e players on these boards.