Why do RPGs have rules?

[Maxperson]

I mean, it probably sounds more . . . mentally intensive than it actually is at the table, but yes. Anything that modifies anything about anything in the fiction is, ultimately, a negotiation. It's just that 95-99% of the time, there's no particular emphasis needed for the negotiation, because the changes to the fiction are common-sense follow on from a previously established bit of fiction.

Player A's declaration, 1) "My character walks from one side of the tavern to the other," can and likely will be instantly analyzed, reviewed, and accepted as fictionally canonical in all participants' heads. The negotiation is instant and unspoken. The GM previously described the characters as being in the tavern, gave no sense of threat or description of an obstacle that would stop such a declaration, and all participants can immediately re-frame the fiction in their minds to fit the change. Player A's character is now on the north end of the tavern rather than the south.

I strongly disagree. There's typically no analysis and review going on. The players simply accept that the player is going inside. There's no negotiation happening. At least not in the vast majority of D&D games. I suppose there are games where the players make some sort of agreement to go over each thing declared to see if they want to object, but it's FAR from common.

Until . . . 2) Player B says, "I grab Player A's character by the arm to stop her." Or the GM says, 3) "A hulking figure rises from a table in the middle of the tavern as you approach." Or the GM says, 4) "A barmaid drops a tray of mugs, covering the floor in beer. Make a DEX check to see if you slip." Or Player C says, 5) "Just as Character A walks away, I draw my sword and shout, 'In the name of the Legendary Highway Robbers of Mulgast, give me all your coin and jewelry if you want to live!"

I mean that doesn't really fit the definition of negotiation, but interaction between people is there when those things happen.

But all 5 numbered cases ultimately require assent from all participants. So yeah, there's constant negotiation around each re-framing of scene/situation on every action declaration. It's just that the negotiation doesn't mean that the required assent is contentious or lengthy. It just has to happen. 99% of the time it's instantaneous and silent.

Silence isn't negotiation. Hell, silence can't even be assumed to be consent. A player could very well not agree with the ruling, but just remain silent. Negotiation is a discussion aimed at reaching an agreement. That means that if the DM makes a ruling and all 5 players remain silent, they may or may not be agreeing with the ruling.

Agreement, silent or otherwise =/= negotiation. If I say to you, "Go pick up that rock over there." and you do it either by verbal agreement or remain silent, we have not negotiated anything. There was no discussion.

 

[Maxperson]

"YOUR FIRST STEP IN PLAYING AN ADVENTURER IN THE Dungeons & Dragons game is to imagine
and create a character o f your own. Your
character is a combination of game statistics,
roleplaying hooks, and your imagination. You
choose a race (such as hum an or halfling) and
a class (such as fighter or wizard). You also
invent the personality, appearance, and backstory of
your character. Once completed, your character serves
as your representative in the game, your avatar in the
Dungeons & Dragonsworld."
--D&D 5e PHB p11

That applies to the DM as well.

See above.

How does a rule specifically calling the DM out as the one to make the decision about ability checks have anything to do with the above beyond "PCs have ability scores and proficiencies."

Can you describe some of these?

That is the description as spelled out on page 6. I'm not sure what you are asking for exactly.

I see no such passive construction! For example, PHB P47 describes the Barbarian class (and remember above that picking a class was actively described as a player choice) skills are mentioned as "Skills: Choose two from Animal Handling, Athletics, Intimidation, Nature, Perception , and Survival." This is pretty conclusive! The player is also described as selecting her ability scores, and thus ability bonuses, etc.

It's not just a player choice. It's also a DM choice.

DMG page 92.

"You can create an NPC just as you would a player character, using the rules in the Player's Handbook. You can even use a character sheet to keep track of the NPC's vital information."

The problem with trying to use the language in the PHB as being for the players only is that if you do that, there are literally 0 rules for the DM. All of the rules for running the game are in the PHB. The DMG is entirely advice and guidelines, with the exception of some optional rules.

 

[clearstream]

Here's the entirety of the rules in Swashbuckling!

Spoiler

View attachment 283469

It fits on a half of a A4 page, it surely does exist, and the play process doesn't involve making any "rulings" of any kind.

So, yeah, rules-light games do exist.

Nice design: I'm fond of one-page TTRPGs! Would one call it a "ruling" if the Action! rule was flipped so that MC asks you what results your action will have and says if they like what they hear or not. Only if they like what they hear does what you described happen. Is that a "ruling"?

One motive for asking that is to see if I can understand if the player is making a ruling there under Action!? What counts as liking what I hear? I feel that's essentially a ruling (what I hear fits with my rules for liking what I hear.)

 

[loverdrive]

Nice design: I'm fond of one-page TTRPGs! Would one call it a "ruling" if the Action! rule was flipped so that MC asks you what results your action will have and says if they like what they hear or not. Only if they like what they hear does what you described happen. Is that a "ruling"?

One motive for asking that is to see if I can understand if the player is making a ruling there under Action!? What counts as liking what I hear? I feel that's essentially a ruling (what I hear fits with my rules for liking what I hear.)

If this counts as a ruling, then when I was ordering my latte this morning, I made a ruling. I guess every decision can be called "ruling"? But I don't really see a point in doing so.

The way I see it, a ruling implies a binding precedent. If in a dnd game, I say that a character who was transformed into a giant can wield a greatsword with only one hand, then it introduces a new rule (that may or may not be formally codified): "giants can wield two-handed weapons in one hand". Sounds like a ruling to me. If in the same dnd game, I'll say that picking this specific lock has DC 15, no new rule is introduced. I made a decision, yeah, but a ruling? Probably not.

Micah Sweet previously said

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.

which seems to support this point of view.

 

[clearstream]

Are you then abandoning the formulation that says rules are about determining who gets to say what when? That's what I'm pushing back on. If you're willing to concede that only a minority of rules are about who says what (a metagame concern), and a majority are merely about what happens, then we are in agreement and can stop talking about "who".

In broad brushstrokes I could say a game is a set of rules, some parameters, and a state (the state of those parameters). Some rules say what the parameters are and what their initial state is. Many others are functions upon those parameters and upon other rules. So that from a given state, by applying the rule we reach a next state. To reiterate, the state of the rules can be considered part of the game state.

TTRPG is then exceptional (as VB pointed out) for explicitly extending the game state into the imagined fiction (neurological states) of the participants. Perforce the parameters of TTRPG, through extending into fiction, are vaguely or incompletely defined. When I say explicitly, I am thinking about functions that are intended to update from physical parameter to fictional parameter (and vice versa).

It might be an oversight to elide physical-state to physical-state functions and produce the conclusion that all rules are about what to say next. Some rules are about how to reach the next physical-state. @Umbran pointed out that player intention can be addressed to those mappings. The "why" of such rules is partly in view of what they will ultimately allow players to say next, but also in view of how they update the physical game state and any potential introduced for manipulation of that.

Game texts focus of different facets of this whole mechanism. PbtA is most interested in the eventual translation back to what players say. D&D combat presents a tactical game that is indeed interested in interplay of rules, physical states, and mappings to further physical states. Perhaps the physical state itself can be looked at semantically - i.e. as an assemblage of symbols - and through ritual behaviours amounts to a form of expression in itself? If so, one could include expressions represented in the physical assemblage as player speech acts in an extended ludic-language.

 

[clearstream]

If this counts as a ruling, then when I was ordering my latte this morning, I made a ruling. I guess every decision can be called "ruling"? But I don't really see a point in doing so.

It's more to get at what is in character different about decisions one is calling "rulings", and decisions that one does not call "rulings" in order to see if that's largely a preference or is compelled in some way? Either way, to understand what the justification is. I think there should be - in principle at least - a concept of player-rulings.

The way I see it, a ruling implies a binding precedent.

Whether or not rulings should imply binding precedents, it seems obviously possible to make a ruling without doing so.

If in a dnd game, I say that a character who was transformed into a giant can wield a greatsword with only one hand, then it introduces a new rule (that may or may not be formally codified): "giants can wield two-handed weapons in one hand". Sounds like a ruling to me. If in the same dnd game, I'll say that picking this specific lock has DC 15, no new rule is introduced. I made a decision, yeah, but a ruling? Probably not.

Good example. In Swashbuckling! I would be doing the former, right? Do you picture that MC must be consistent with their likes? [EDIT In a mirror-game where roles are flipped.] For example

Jo - I leap from the balcony where we are standing to the chandelier, swing across and exit through the tall windows.
MC - Love it!
Flo - I leap from the balcony where we are standing to the chandelier, swing across and exit through the tall windows.
MC - Nope, I dislike that.

Micah Sweet previously said

which seems to support this point of view.

Having run a lot of rules-light games, it is true that we tend to remember how we ruled last time. Often however, the only rulings that are persisted are those recorded as truths about characters (by their players, as notes in their character folios.)

Anyway, it's fair to say that if your definition for "rulings" is that they shall form binding precedents (perhaps by virtue of being recorded) then so long as no one writes down what they liked in Swashbuckling! you avoid counting anything said as a ruling. For now I feel like I can make rulings that are still rulings even though I don't write down or otherwise persist them. Further conversation might change that of course!

 

[loverdrive]

Jo - I leap from the balcony where we are standing to the chandelier, swing across and exit through the tall windows.
MC - Love it!
Flo - I leap from the balcony where we are standing to the chandelier, swing across and exit through the tall windows.
MC - Nope.

MC doesn't say "no" (this reminds me, I probably shouldn't do translations in the middle of a night just because I found a cool font that only supports latinic), MC describes what consequences an action would have, and if the player likes them, the play just continues. Otherwise, Duel! rules are invoked.

Swashbuckling! works like this:
Jo: I want to leap from the balcony where we are standing to the chandelier, swing across and exit through the tall windows.
MC: Sure. You make your escape, and find yourself on the wall of the fort, everyone else is scrambling to pursuit you. What ya gonna do?

or

Jo: I want to leap from the balcony where we are standing to the chandelier, swing across and exit through the tall windows.
MC: If you do that, Lorenzo will draw his pistol and shoot the rope! You are not escaping him this easily.
Jo: That actually sounds pretty badass!
MC: You plummet down, the chandelier crushes a bunch of soldiers under its weight, but you are unharmed. Lorenzo jumps over the balcony, and engages you in a fight! What ya gonna do?

or

Jo: I want to leap from the balcony where we are standing to the chandelier, swing across and exit through the tall windows.
MC: If you do that, Lorenzo will draw his pistol and shoot the rope! You are not escaping him this easily.
Jo: Nah, ain't happening. He shoots like a dairy farmer (implied: challenging MC to a duel)
MC: How appropriate, you move like a cow.
[...]
Flo: Sorry, MC, Jo was wittier.
Jo: So, anyway, I swing on the chandelier and disappear through the tall windows. See you later, Lorenzo! You'll never catch Jo the Jolly!

Anyway, it's fair to say that if your definition for "rulings" is that they shall form binding precedents (perhaps by virtue of being recorded) then so long as no one writes down what they liked in Swashbuckling! you avoid counting anything said as a ruling. For now I feel like I can make rulings that are still rulings even though I don't write down or otherwise persist them. Further conversation might change that of course!

I think there's two factors that distinguish a "normal" decision from a ruling (at least one needs to apply):

1. A ruling breaks, or at least, bends the rules
   1. Player: "I cast Heal Wounds on myself"
      GM: "OK, restore 1d8 HP"
      is not a ruling, it's just applying rules
   2. Player: "I cast Heal Wounds on myself"
      GM: "You just fell four stories, you are dizzy, your head is spinning, you barely have strength to breathe, yet alone do magic. Make a Constitution check, DC 15 first."
      is a ruling, as normal rules don't require any con check
2. A ruling is presumed to be consistent, even if the situation where it would be relevant will never arise again

 

[clearstream]

MC doesn't say "no" (this reminds me, I probably shouldn't do translations in the middle of a night just because I found a cool font that only supports latinic), MC describes what consequences an action would have, and if the player likes them, the play just continues. Otherwise, Duel! rules are invoked.

Apologies for muddling my example. I was still investigating what happens if powers are flipped, i.e. is there scope for inconsistency?

I think there would be. Flo isn't obliged to like what Jo likes even if MC describes the same results to the same action, right? Player-rulings (if that is what they are) need not be consistent across players. And the same applies to Flo's likes and dislikes over time (Flo can like MC's description in Tuesday's session, and dislike that same description when repeated in Friday's session.)

I think there's two factors that distinguish a "normal" decision from a ruling (at least one needs to apply):

1. A ruling breaks, or at least, bends the rules
   1. Player: "I cast Heal Wounds on myself"
      GM: "OK, restore 1d8 HP"
      is not a ruling, it's just applying rules
   2. Player: "I cast Heal Wounds on myself"
      GM: "You just fell four stories, you are dizzy, your head is spinning, you barely have strength to breathe, yet alone do magic. Make a Constitution check, DC 15 first."
      is a ruling, as normal rules don't require any con check
2. A ruling is presumed to be consistent, even if the situation where it would be relevant will never arise again

What is that latter ruling consistent with? What happens in the first instance of a ruling? Is GM2 obliged to follow GM1's rulings?

I believe folk might normally say written rules ought to apply across games. While rulings are not. I think you are saying that rulings ought to apply at all times subsequent to making the ruling. Whether they ought to or not, it seems obvious that I can make a ruling that doesn't. If I don't write it down, it seems probable that a ruling could fail to prove binding across sessions.

 

[loverdrive]

What is that latter ruling consistent with? What happens in the first instance of a ruling? Is GM2 forced to follow GM1's rulings?

GM2 isn't forced to follow GM1's rulings (otherwise, it wouldn't be a ruling, it would be a rule)

The latter ruling is, really, consistent with nothing (as I made it up), but if it were a real game, there would be a reasonable expectation that acting after sustaining a lot of damage will require a constitution check.

But now I'm thinking about it, establishing a binding precedent is probably not actually important. The fact of breaking the existing rules is.

 

[clearstream]

But now I'm thinking about it, establishing a binding precedent is probably not actually important. The fact of breaking the existing rules is.

Do you mean avoiding breaking them, or breaking them?