Why do RPGs have rules?

[hawkeyefan]

A ruling by the DM can involve negotiation, but it absolutely doesn't require it. It's just that some people really want it to.

It depends on how you look at it. I was only speaking about my game, not all games, and in my game and those I play in, that negotiation (or at least the possibility of it) is expected.

Though yes, it is because we want it to be that way. On that, you're correct.

I don't necessarily agree with that. The group has agreed before the first game session via the social contract that the DM has the ability to make these rulings and that absent some sort of abuse of power or major mistake, it will be accepted. For games other than D&D or games where the DM is playing a non-standard version of the game, this might not hold true as a different social contract has been agreed to for those.

I don't know if the social contract is always so explicit. Nor do I think the DM's authority is actually clearly defined in the books, at least not definitively enough to say this will always be true. Certainly not in the way we all understand that in Monopoly, when you pass Go, you get $200.

I also don't think it takes an abuse of power or a major mistake to invite such a negotiation. I've questioned casual rulings and had my casual rulings questioned. From things as simple as DCs for ability checks to spell interpretations and so on. Expectations can sometimes differ pretty significantly, even absent some kind of abuse or major misstep. I'd much rather have a discussion and work it out than simply declare my decision as "right".

 

[Micah Sweet]

It depends on how you look at it. I was only speaking about my game, not all games, and in my game and those I play in, that negotiation (or at least the possibility of it) is expected.

Though yes, it is because we want it to be that way. On that, you're correct.



I don't know if the social contract is always so explicit. Nor do I think the DM's authority is actually clearly defined in the books, at least not definitively enough to say this will always be true. Certainly not in the way we all understand that in Monopoly, when you pass Go, you get $200.

I also don't think it takes an abuse of power or a major mistake to invite such a negotiation. I've questioned casual rulings and had my casual rulings questioned. From things as simple as DCs for ability checks to spell interpretations and so on. Expectations can sometimes differ pretty significantly, even absent some kind of abuse or major misstep. I'd much rather have a discussion and work it out than simply declare my decision as "right".

I will say that to me, more important than how the ruling is reached is that it is applied consistently to similar situations moving forward. This is why folks should write down their house rules, even the ones they make up on the spot.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I will say that to me, more important than how the ruling is reached is that it is applied consistently to similar situations moving forward. This is why folks should write down their house rules, even the ones they make up on the spot.

Sure, but saying this acknowledges that not everything can be addressed ahead of play as has been suggested.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Yup, and what you call 'structure' consists ENTIRELY of "who can say what is true about the game state and fiction at this time and what they can say." Period, end of report. Name me ANY rules of any RPG and we can see that this is the case, either directly, or by way of setting up some kind of process, or expounding some general principles that are followed to do so.

This LOGICALLY MUST BE SO because the playing of an RPG consists entirely of deciding what happens next! There's no other activity going on (at least not one that is strictly part of the game, pizza eating is not a literal part of our RPG).

I think this puts too much emphasis on the metagame (actual players) at the expense of the gameworld. You're emphasizing "who" is "saying" something, which often isn't important compared to what happens.

There is no rule in D&D 5E that says for example that saving throws must be rolled by the GM. "Anyone within 30' who fails a DC 18 Con save takes 3d6 necrotic damage" doesn't care if players roll their own saves and damage, or have the GM do it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure, but saying this acknowledges that not everything can be addressed ahead of play as has been suggested.

Rulings are still important, of course. That's why I don't believe there are rules-light games. There are just games with fewer rules in the book and more opportunities for (hopefully consistent) rulings to be made, developing a corpus of rules over time.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

But even regardless of that, the principle holds true. Play cannot continue until all parties agree upon the current game state.

If only this were true! Many difficulties arise when it turns out that parties have not agreed on the game state, without realizing it.

GM: twelve screaming cannibals are still chasing you through the castle yard. What do you do?

Player: I hop over the edge of the cliff, eat the 6d6 falling damage, and run to the boat.

GM: wait, 6d6? It's a 20d6 fall.

Player: wait, I've been assuming all this time that it was a 60 foot fall.

GM: no. It's a 60 foot elevation difference, but there's a 140 foot moat.

Player: wouldn't my character have known that?

GM: yeah. What do we do now?

 

[aramis erak]

When it say to pick a race in the PHB, who is saying what is true about game state/fiction? The player, the DM or both?

If the GM says, "These are the rules" and the player agrees to them, both.

There is an implicit social contract to a game group - that they're there for some combination of hanging out, telling a story, playing a game, and usually, the intersection of those.

If any party is insincere or outright deceptive about consent, it can create serious strains.

For persons like myself, who judge characters based upon understanding the meanings of the scores, playing according to rules is essential for me to not stress out. (This is even more true for me as a GM than as a player.) Not that I don't houserule... but my reference sheets for a given game make note (usually by purple text) anything changed from the reference edition (including obvious errata items such as misplaced decimals or missing entries). When I'm playing, rather than running, I expect to know if any of my character's abilities are affected by houserules before I take them.

GM, obviously. How many times have you played a game where GM states, "Banned PHB heritages are aasimar, tiefling, gnome, and dragonborn." The declared ban by the GM supersedes the rulebook.

You're leaving out the player implied consent. Now, if the player shows up with a character outside the GM's expressed preferences, a problem exists, and the reaction of the rest of the group likely matters... if everyone else says, "WTF, dude!" at the offending player, the GM can likely say no. If, instead, the group, or at least most, say, "Hey, let him play it!" it's iffy; if several say, "Let him play it or I walk," all the rules provided authority goes out the window...

Likewise, one would assume that a GM of a My Little Pony RPG disallows a player from stating, "My character is Cobra Commander."

Not going to be that hard, now that they going to be using the same system, and it's level-based, with Cobra Commander being 15th level+... on the other hand, a Cobra Commando is that much easier... as is a Autobot/Decepticon.

Renegade doing the kids series RPGs (Transformers, GI Joe, MLP, and Power Rangers may be forming a "fifth column" situation, like Palladium in the late 80s to mid 90s - played widely, but often by groups who had only played that ecosystem.

 

[Clint_L]

I’m a bit behind, so I just saw this as I’m catching up. The purpose of having defined character customization in D&D (or any other game) is to provide a shared understanding of the rules elements they embody. I don’t think D&D was designed with rules as an end unto themselves (even if people have fun playing with them).

I 100% agree. I think it is an emergent phenomenon.

 

[pemerton]

How many races you can play has nothing to do with who can say what about the fiction.

Doesn't it?

In that case you seem to be describing a board game (or war game), not a RPG.

How many classes you have says nothing about it, either. Much of the combat rules, the vast majority of the spells, and more also say nothing about that. They don't tell you that the DM can say it or that the player can say it.

Ditto.

But in fact, at least in my experience, these are all components of action resolution and hence do establish who can say what, and when, about what happens next in the shared fiction.

EDIT: reading on, I see I've been massively ninja'd by @innerdude.

 

[pemerton]

Play cannot continue until all parties agree upon the current game state.

If only this were true! Many difficulties arise when it turns out that parties have not agreed on the game state, without realizing it.

GM: twelve screaming cannibals are still chasing you through the castle yard. What do you do?

Player: I hop over the edge of the cliff, eat the 6d6 falling damage, and run to the boat.

GM: wait, 6d6? It's a 20d6 fall.

Player: wait, I've been assuming all this time that it was a 60 foot fall.

GM: no. It's a 60 foot elevation difference, but there's a 140 foot moat.

Player: wouldn't my character have known that?

GM: yeah. What do we do now?

I don't understand how this is supposed to be a counterexample. It seems like an illustration of the point!