Why do RPGs have rules?

[Maxperson]

Since I'm positive that you've played with DMs who make up random encounter tables when they're not built into the modules already, and who fill in rules for jumping when the distance you can jump is unclear (see above), I'm certain that you must simply be in a semantic argument with someone over whether that counts as rule 0 or someone else.

They weren't designing the game in place of something incomplete by creating those random tables for two reasons. One, tables are not required for complete rules. I can't remember the last time I used a random table for an encounter and didn't just pick the monster. Two, since it's a preference and not a lack in the rules, creating a random encounter table is done to make the game the DM's own. It's an improvement to him.

I don't have a horse in that race, but wish to state: you can play chess (for example) without a referee because chess is "complete" in that from a legal game state, the rules will never fail to tell you what the game state is after a legal move. Chess is closed in a way that cops and robbers is not, and which D&D would not be if DMs were not authorized to spontaneously improvise. When someone says Rule 0 is necessary to complete the game ruleset, this is what they mean.

The rules for NFL football are also complete, yet you still need several refs. Referees are not a sign of completeness or incompleteness of the rules.

When the players capture some hobgoblins instead of killing them, and a player says he wants to sit down and talk one of hobgoblins about how cool magic is in hopes of making the hobgoblin want to become essentially his Sith apprentice and learn magic... No 5E rule will tell you the probability of that Hobgoblin eventually becoming a 1st level Sorcerer. And yet it happened! I had to improvise rules for it, and some people will say I did so under Rule 0. Others may call it something else, but whatever you call it, it was necessary because the game was incomplete w/rt the probability and methods of hobgoblins becoming magic-users.

The game provided rules for that, though. There are rules(guidelines) in the DMG for creating new races, classes, etc. for play. That hobgoblins weren't a PC race at the time that happened(presumably) doesn't mean that the rules were incomplete. Further, there were rules for persuasion of NPCs, taking attitudes into account, alignment to help you with the decision, and so on. The lack of a rule stating specifically that if a hobgoblin is asked to become a Sith apprentice there is a 22.6% chance of success isn't a hole in the rules.

As the DM once you used the rules to determine if the hobgoblin was interested, all you had to do was pick the sorcerer class just the same as any other PC. Or go with an NPC sorcerer stat block. In the MM all of the spellcasting NPC statblocks state (any race) which includes hobgoblins.

Rule 0 wasn't necessary to figure that out. Now you may not have been satisfied with the rules provided and wanted better rules, but that's not a sign of incompleteness, but rather of you wanting to make the game your own and improve upon how such a hobgoblin would become a sorcerer.

 

[clearstream]

I wish this were true, but I don't think you can have a coherent discussion about the structure and nature of rules if you don't resolve the question of whether any player should have explicit authority to modify them in real time. The function of rules is very different in a situation with or without that authority. I generally contend such authority is a bad thing inside a game, or more precisely, should live outside both the game, and the meta-game.

In what ways is the function of rules very different with/without the authority to modify rules in real time?

Players can (and do) play board games with houserules that are derived from social contracts absent the rules, ranging from folk-designs of dubious value (i.e. money on Free Parking in Monopoly) to new games derived from existing ones (say, a fan produced board for a scenario not originally covered in a war game) to entirely social agreements (avoiding the known degenerate strategy in a Few Acres of Snow). Those agreements exist on a plane entirely separate from the rules of the game, being placed above the magic circle of the game itself.

The game doesn't need to provide for or even suggest such authority exists, because that authority isn't derived from the rules, it's derived from the agency of people coming together to play a game in the first place, and exists above and before those players bind themselves to rules to enter a game. It acts on the rules, instead of emerging from them. When it's placed into the rules, it corrodes the agency of everyone acting inside that system.

One way I've thought about that is that there is a pre-existing capacity to change rules, so no rules are needed for that; but where rules are potentially needed is to regulate who can change rules and when. So where Monopoly has nothing ruling in or out the changing of rules during play, prelusory goals and the lusory attitude, as well as principles like COWTRA, would suggest that it's not ruled in. (Silence on N must mean that N is not ruled in, otherwise there is no end to the things that are ruled in through silence.)

The Moldvay edition of Basic D&D has this to say -

All of this material has been carefully thought out and playtested. However, if, after playing the rules as written for a while, you or your referee (the Dungeon Master) think that something should be changed, first think about how the changes will affect the game, and then go ahead. The purpose of these "rules" is to provide guidelines that enable you to play and have fun, so don't feel absolutely bound to them.

Which obviously rules-in changing the rules, and - what's interesting to me - that players and referee may both do that. As for whether it's corrosive, I would not characterise it that way from my experience, but equally I cannot speak to your experience.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The game provided rules for that, though. There are rules(guidelines) in the DMG for creating new races, classes, etc. for play. That hobgoblins weren't a PC race at the time that happened(presumably) doesn't mean that the rules were incomplete. Further, there were rules for persuasion of NPCs, taking attitudes into account, alignment to help you with the decision, and so on. The lack of a rule stating specifically that if a hobgoblin is asked to become a Sith apprentice there is a 22.6% chance of success isn't a hole in the rules.

As the DM once you used the rules to determine if the hobgoblin was interested, all you had to do was pick the sorcerer class just the same as any other PC. Or go with an NPC sorcerer stat block. In the MM all of the spellcasting NPC statblocks state (any race) which includes hobgoblins.

Rule 0 wasn't necessary to figure that out. Now you may not have been satisfied with the rules provided and wanted better rules, but that's not a sign of incompleteness, but rather of you wanting to make the game your own and improve upon how such a hobgoblin would become a sorcerer.

No really, the game doesn't give rules for it. The DMG gives guidance for making rules for creating a hobgoblin character from whole cloth, but doesn't say for example what % of hobgoblins have magical talent, how long the training period is, how likely a given hobgoblin is to become a sorcerer vs. a wizard vs. a warlock, or anything of that nature. You're clearly completing the rules in your head in a different way than I did, which is valid AND an indication that the rules weren't already complete in this dimension.

I'm not saying that incomplete rulesets are a sign of a bad product or anything like that. (It can be a sign of a bad product, if it's incomplete in certain ways, but the mere fact of incompleteness isn't.) I'm saying that rulesets do not have infinite detail. As far as I can tell, the ability to play with an incomplete ruleset by improvising on the fly is the "killer app" for why we play TTRPGs in the first place. Incompleteness is inevitable and is (part of) why you can play chess without a ref but cannot play D&D without a DM (unless you have a procedure to take the DM's place such as voting).

The rules for NFL football are also complete, yet you still need several refs. Referees are not a sign of completeness or incompleteness of the rules.

I'm saying A -> B is true. You're saying B -> A is false. Apples and oranges.

Standing in the rain makes you wet but being wet doesn't mean you're standing in the rain.

 

[Maxperson]

No really, the game doesn't give rules for it. The DMG gives guidance for making rules for creating a hobgoblin character from whole cloth, but doesn't say for example what % of hobgoblins have magical talent, how long the training period is, how likely a given hobgoblin is to become a sorcerer vs. a wizard vs. a warlock, or anything of that nature. You're clearly completing the rules in your head in a different way than I did, which is valid AND an indication that the rules weren't already complete in this dimension.

Why does the game need to give us the % chance for every race and monster to have magic? At some point you're asking for way too much detail, especially since simply making the hobgoblin a sorcerer means that it HAS magical talent. Justify it somehow later.

If you want a rule for literally everything, then there's no such thing as a complete RPG.

In any case, even if you do "complete" RPG rules sometimes, Rule 0 was not created for that purpose. It's purpose was to allow the DM to tinker with the rules and make the game his own. That's the primary purpose of Rule 0 and to call it a travesty and then blame that travesty on incomplete rules is completely missing the point of the rule. And wrong to boot.

I'm not saying that incomplete rulesets are a sign of a bad product or anything like that. (It can be a sign of a bad product, if it's incomplete in certain ways, but the mere fact of incompleteness isn't.) I'm saying that rulesets do not have infinite detail. As far as I can tell, the ability to play with an incomplete ruleset by improvising on the fly is the "killer app" for why we play TTRPGs in the first place. Incompleteness is inevitable and is (part of) why you can play chess without a ref but cannot play D&D without a DM (unless you have a procedure to take the DM's place such as voting).

I'm saying A -> B is true. You're saying B -> A is false. Apples and oranges.

Standing in the rain makes you wet but being wet doesn't mean you're standing in the rain.

I posted to counter the incorrect notion that, "Rule 0 is a bad piece of design, and a worse piece of rhetoric. As a design point, it's primarily an abdication of the need to build a complete ruleset."

It's wrong that it's a bad piece of design and it's wrong that it's primarily an abdication of the need to build a complete ruleset. Especially since you can't make a complete ruleset without some very broad rules that cover so much that they themselves are an abdication of the need to build good rules. Rules that broad don't cover specific areas anywhere near well enough.

 

[pemerton]

So to explain my thought a bit further, in 1978 a philosopher name Bernard Suits introduced the concept of the "lusory attitude" to game studies. As he put it -


There are virtues and flaws with that view (the latter hopefully won't matter here). Anyway, one thing one might say about players as players is that it suits them to adopt a lusory attitude (heh) and if they could change the rules on the fly that might put them in breach of Suits' observation. Traditionally, GM has been appointed to change rules, presumably not putting them in breach as they're not a player.

Within Suits's framework, the GM also adopts the lusory attitude: they also give normative credence to the rules (including whatever rules they make up in the course of play) simply for the purpose of getting to play the game.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Why does the game need to give us the % chance for every race and monster to have magic? At some point you're asking for way too much detail, especially since simply making the hobgoblin a sorcerer means that it HAS magical talent. Justify it somehow later.

If you want a rule for literally everything, (A) then there's no such thing as a complete RPG.

In any case, even if you do "complete" RPG rules sometimes, Rule 0 was not created for that purpose. It's purpose was to allow the DM to tinker with the rules and make the game his own. (B) That's the primary purpose of Rule 0 and to (C) call it a travesty and then blame that travesty on incomplete rules is completely missing the point of the rule. And wrong to boot.

I posted to counter the incorrect notion that, (D) "Rule 0 is a bad piece of design, and a worse piece of rhetoric. As a design point, it's primarily an abdication of the need to build a complete ruleset."

It's wrong that it's a bad piece of design and it's wrong that it's primarily an abdication of the need to build a complete ruleset. Especially since you can't make a complete ruleset without some very broad rules that cover so much that they themselves are an abdication of the need to build good rules. Rules that broad don't cover specific areas anywhere near well enough.

(A) [emphasis added] Yes! That's exactly the point being made. RPGs need GMs because their rulesets are not "complete" in the same sense chess is. Can we move along now?

(B) I disagree. You can change the rules of chess to make it your own, but no one talks about Rule 0 in chess because in the absence of incompleteness it isn't as important.

(C) An argument could be made that an RPG which is incomplete in certain specific ways has a lazy design, but I'm currently discussing the larger point. If someone called something a "travesty" I missed that part, and while I have a low opinion of D&D 5E it wouldn't be fair for me to bash it since I no longer play it (Dungeon Fantasy RPG is superior, and if anyone wants to talk about where DFRPG's ruleset is incomplete I'm interested in doing so).

(D) [emphasis in original] I liked the post that sentence came from, but agree with you to the extent that that particular sentence is a bit of a mess, since it's not clear what it means to call Rule 0 a "piece of design" (it's not), a "design point", or a "piece of rhetoric". I think they were trying to say that the existence of the thing commonly called Rule 0 doesn't excuse lazy design but I am not sure. I agree with you that it's probably not possible to design an enjoyable TTRPG which doesn't have some reliance on Rule 0 if you drill down far enough; I disagree with you about point (B).

 

[Maxperson]

(A) [emphasis added] Yes! That's exactly the point being made. RPGs need GMs because their rulesets are not "complete" in the same sense chess is. Can we move along now?

Sure, but that wasn't what the discussion is about. This discussion is about Rule 0 and what it is for, not whether an RPG needs a DM and/or why.

(B) I disagree. You can change the rules of chess to make it your own, but no one talks about Rule 0 in chess because in the absence of incompleteness it isn't as important.

Role 0 is an RPG device. It doesn't apply to Chess or Monopoly.

(C) An argument could be made that an RPG which is incomplete in certain specific ways has a lazy design, but I'm currently discussing the larger point. If someone called something a "travesty" I missed that part, and while I have a low opinion of D&D 5E it wouldn't be fair for me to bash it since I no longer play it (Dungeon Fantasy RPG is superior, and if anyone wants to talk about where DFRPG's ruleset is incomplete I'm interested in doing so).

5e was deliberately designed to bring rulings to the forefront. It wasn't lazy design. It was design that some just don't agree with. For those who like lots of rules for every little thing, 5e isn't their game. 3e is.

3e and the rule for everything design brought rules lawyers and player arguments with DMs to a huge degree, so they backed off of that design in order to allow the DM more flexibility to make the game his own and keep the rules arguments to a minimum.

(D) [emphasis in original] I liked the post that sentence came from, but agree with you to the extent that that particular sentence is a bit of a mess, since it's not clear what it means to call Rule 0 a "piece of design" (it's not), a "design point", or a "piece of rhetoric". I think they were trying to say that the existence of the thing commonly called Rule 0 doesn't excuse lazy design but I am not sure. I agree with you that it's probably not possible to design an enjoyable TTRPG which doesn't have some reliance on Rule 0 if you drill down far enough; I disagree with you about point (B).

They called it bad design and corrosive. I'm pretty sure that person wants it gone and they blamed incomplete rules for its existence.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

5e was deliberately designed to bring rulings to the forefront. It wasn't lazy design. It was design that some just don't agree with. For those who like lots of rules for every little thing, 5e isn't their game. 3e is.

I can't speak for 3E (never played it except for IWD2 and ToEE, both CRPGs), but AD&D 2nd edition does a great job at having rules or optional rules for most important PC-relevant activities, and Dungeon Fantasy RPG does too. When you use optional rules it's generally clear both what the rule is and why you'd want to use it. The GM or DM is still the one who decides whether they want to use it, but if they do the work is done for them. E.g. there's no way I could come up with rules as good as GURPS Martial Arts for modeling martial art styles like Jeet Kun Do and Krav Maga, nor as good as GURPS Low Tech for medieval Chinese gunpowder weaponry like bombs, guns, and flamethrowers.

It wouldn't be fair to bash on 5E because I no longer play it, so that's all I want to say right now.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, then I think you're wrong to call it a "misplaced fixation", as in:

You acknowledge here that the rule doesn't care "who" rolls the dice ("I can't say this would 'break a rule'"), and though you don't acknowledge it, it doesn't matter who dictates the result ("Bob loses 3d8 HP"). The GM can override the rule, and is in fact the only one allowed to override the rule ("In this case Bob only loses 3d8/2 HP because he's underwater"), but Rule 0 is the only rule which says they can do so. The vast majority of rules in the game are unlike rule 0 and don't say anything about who can say what when. There are a minority of rules that are about the metagame and "who", such as (paraphrased) "the player can opt to spend inspiration in order for the character to gain a advantage on a save". But as for the claim that "a MAJORITY of all rules, probably a vast majority, are QUITE clear about whom they enable to speak!", nope. Count 'em. Not a majority.

P.S. If you play storygames like Hillfolk the distinction may become clearer to you because these games do care quite a lot about "who" may say what when. E.g. player A declares the next scene and who's in it and what the agenda is, player B may spend a drama token to avoid being in the scene, after the scene everybody votes on whether A's emotional agenda was achieved and that determines who gets a drama token, etc. D&D isn't like that.

Again, consider the baseball example I gave. Many times rules and informal usage of those rules differ somewhat. The actual processes are quite clear if you stop to think about them. You and I both know that GMs call for ability checks and saves. This is fundamentally a consequence of the basic play loop. It need not be repeated everywhere in the rules to be true, and in actual play it is likely that people often assume that they're being asked to make a save, just like in many cases players start tossing dice for ability checks before the GM even got to tell them what the check was. Heck, this is frequently cited as being an annoyance or even source of misplay.

Let me make it clear, what I'm saying is: FOR EVERY SITUATION IN THE GAME, there is a rule which will state who will tell us what happens next, or how it will be determined in some fashion. That is NOT THE SAME THING as saying "every rule in the book states which participant uses it." The RULES IN TOTAL always define this, that is THE ONLY thing the rules actually do at a fundamental level! In fact, I would postulate that anything which does NOT do so, is not really a 'rule'. I think you will find that a LOT of the text in RPG books falls into this category. I did a lot of question answering in the WotC 4e Q&A forum, and we quickly determined that much of the 4e text doesn't really constitute rules, to the level where I actually have a 4e PHB and DMG that have actual effective rules text highlighted, as it made answering questions FAR easier!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

So to explain my thought a bit further, in 1978 a philosopher name Bernard Suits introduced the concept of the "lusory attitude" to game studies. As he put it -


There are virtues and flaws with that view (the latter hopefully won't matter here). Anyway, one thing one might say about players as players is that it suits them to adopt a lusory attitude (heh) and if they could change the rules on the fly that might put them in breach of Suits' observation. Traditionally, GM has been appointed to change rules, presumably not putting them in breach as they're not a player.

Some ideas about rules, in particular how and by whom they might be changed during play, seem to skirt either making GM a player, or voiding the lusory attitude. At the very least, some sort of balancing acts or constraints probably need to exist. So let's suppose that GM becomes a player and thus loses their making-rulings power... what then?

Why do we even need to hypothesize about that? I'm running Dungeon World, what rulings am I empowered to make? I know of none. The closest there is to an edge case is a custom move, but it is still bound to all the existing rules as strictly as anything else. The table still decides if my decision to make it apply is appropriate or not.

So, given the above, then if I approach your question, I am not sure what you mean by 'becomes a player'. Surely someone fills a role of GM in most RPGs, and the position surely cannot be vacant. So I think what you mean is "what if they are constrained to simply play by the rules?" We can see that there are features of PbtA's design pattern which make this work. All actions are dealt with using a single procedure which is unambiguously applied. Said application must conform to strict constraints, and that application is generally subject to a call for consensus to confirm/reject it. GMs have a lot of power, but it doesn't arise from power over rules, it arises from having wide latitude in scene framing, consequence introduction, and their own prep (these vary from game to game somewhat).

I mean, certainly it is possible to hack a PbtA and create new rules, and I guess you could reasonably say that something like a danger/monster is a sort of 'ruling' (IE orcs are defined as doing N damage, and a GM might consistently apply X damage every time you fall into a fire). but in terms of GMs having a 'ruling power', not really. I mean, if the players think that Fredegar the Great falling into the fire is a fatal situation, I'm pretty sure Fredegar is toast...