Why do RPGs have rules?

[Bedrockgames]

And, as noted, most folks do not realize they are house-ruling Monopoly.

I think this because people don't read the rules of games before playing them. This is something I've seen with my own games. You get a lot of who either skim or read half paying attention, and then end up projecting features of other systems onto the system you are describing. With monopoly I think very few people actually read the rule book as they think they know the rules already (and I suppose you could make an argument that the version with Free Parking is the real version I suppose, as it is the one most people know and play).

 

[Aldarc]

But that concern is kind of the point. Again, my take on rule zero and why it is important is so you can accommodate what the players are trying to do. I am not saying this is the one and only way, that rule zero is the only way to conceptualize it, but there does seem to me to be something in play in RPGs where by their nature you kind of have to go beyond the rules, bend the rules, change them, etc if you really want to prioritize the ability of players to fully inhabit their characters and the setting.

Sure, like I said, there are plenty of ways people approach this. I don't think I would say it is likened to santa clause though. It is just a handy way to describe the fact that the GM and the players are not beholden to the text when the text is disruptive, feels strange to what is going on, or just doesn't make sense. And this is something that crops up naturally in play, whether rule zero is explicitly stated or not. Like I said, since I first started playing it was a phenomenon you saw, even in the most comprehensive systems, and it was something I personally welcomed.

All that said, some people don't like this. I get that. And I am not saying there is anything wrong with ditching rule zero and taking another approach (I think it is likely rule zero will still emerge in various ways, but if you can find or build a system that satisfies you and doesn't need it, I say that is a good thing).

In your defense of Rule 0, you are projecting on Rule 0 the ability, need, or desire for game players to affect change in the fiction in ways that may exist outside or in conflict with the pre-existing rules. You are still talking about Rule 0 as if it says a singular thing. It doesn't. This again is one of my problems with Rule 0. As it is commonly used in the TTRPG sphere, Rule 0 is not just the one thing that you want to project Rule 0 to be. Rule 0, whether as a term or general principle, has a wide multitude of other meanings and uses. People appeal to Rule 0 for a variety of other things, including a GM's unquestionable authority. IME, this results in an egregious degree of equivocation regarding Rule 0, particularly when others appeal to its value.

Why do we need to pretend that this is a by-product of an imaginary Rule 0 and not some other principle or game element that may more accurately describe the phenomenon with a greater degree of accuracy and less obfusication?

 

[Baron Opal II]

Rule Zero

0. CHECK WITH YOUR DUNGEON MASTER
Your Dungeon Master (DM) may have house rules or campaign standards that vary from the standard rules. You might also want to know what character types the other players are playing so that you can create a character that fits in well with the group.

– Character Creation, Dungeons & Dragons Player’s Handbook, Third Edition (2000).

Might be wrong, but pretty sure.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Rule Zero

0. CHECK WITH YOUR DUNGEON MASTER
Your Dungeon Master (DM) may have house rules or campaign standards that vary from the standard rules. You might also want to know what character types the other players are playing so that you can create a character that fits in well with the group.

– Character Creation, Dungeons & Dragons Player’s Handbook, Third Edition (2000).

Might be wrong, but pretty sure.

Honestly, that seems significantly different from the way many are discussing it in this thread.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Well, it has been 20+ years. Much like Session Zero, it has taken a life of its own.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Well, it has been 20+ years. Much like Session Zero, it has taken a life of its own.

But session zero has a clear definition, one that makes sense and is intuitive.

Most folks aren’t going to argue about what session zero is.

I will say that I think it would be good if it’s cited directly in the books. Many games do this, or else make it clear that the first session is about character creation and setting the stage.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I believe the lyric TTRPG We Are But Worms exemplifies your point. It has one rule (two counting the title.) It's potentially as narrow as an RPG could be, while raising an unlimited number of questions. The explicit extension of TTRPG rules into language, imagination and meaning, mandates incompleteness. TTRPGs are necessarily incomplete. If you see a game that is not, then it's not a TTRPG (this is implied by Baker's observations regarding fiction and fictional position.)

I think that HEAVILY depends on your definition of 'incomplete'. You could, and probably would, play a game like Dungeon World, and never, in any situation which would arise in the game, find that the rules didn't tell you how to proceed. I cannot imagine any situation that can arise which would be defined as 'playing DW' where the rules, as written, are insufficient. People might argue aesthetic judgments about whether or not some scene was framed in a way that they LIKED or if it met everyone's criteria for a scene that the GM was 'supposed' to frame, but the rules are clear, the GM frames a scene, and we know what framing consists of. This goes with what @pemerton is saying, it isn't incompleteness that is necessary to constitute an RPG, not at all. It is open-ended FICTION which makes it an RPG (along obviously with the centrality of assuming the roles of characters). Complete and 'closed' are not synonymous!

 

[pemerton]

I think that HEAVILY depends on your definition of 'incomplete'. You could, and probably would, play a game like Dungeon World, and never, in any situation which would arise in the game, find that the rules didn't tell you how to proceed. I cannot imagine any situation that can arise which would be defined as 'playing DW' where the rules, as written, are insufficient. People might argue aesthetic judgments about whether or not some scene was framed in a way that they LIKED or if it met everyone's criteria for a scene that the GM was 'supposed' to frame, but the rules are clear, the GM frames a scene, and we know what framing consists of. This goes with what @pemerton is saying, it isn't incompleteness that is necessary to constitute an RPG, not at all. It is open-ended FICTION which makes it an RPG (along obviously with the centrality of assuming the roles of characters). Complete and 'closed' are not synonymous!

Agreed. I don't know what @clearstream means by saying that RPGs are necessarily incomplete, or how this relates to fictional position. There is no practical (and perhaps no in principle) limit to fictional positions that may arise in RPGing, but that doesn't mean the game need be incomplete. I mean, there is no practical limit to team positions and plays in a typical field sport, but that doesn't mean those games are incomplete.

When it comes to adjudicating actions such as @Bedrockgames has described - eg jumping counters and attacking people - some RPGs don't have rules to resolve that and hence need some sort of "rule zero" (eg AD&D is rather narrow in some of these respects). But other RPGs do. You've given DW as an example; upthread I mentioned Wuthering Heights and In A Wicked Age.

 

[pemerton]

<delete post>

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Agreed. I don't know what @clearstream means by saying that RPGs are necessarily incomplete, or how this relates to fictional position. There is no practical (and perhaps no in principle) limit to fictional positions that may arise in RPGing, but that doesn't mean the game need be incomplete. I mean, there is no practical limit to team positions and plays in a typical field sport, but that doesn't mean those games are incomplete.

When it comes to adjudicating actions such as @Bedrockgames has described - eg jumping counters and attacking people - some RPGs don't have rules to resolve that and hence need some sort of "rule zero" (eg AD&D is rather narrow in some of these respects). But other RPGs do. You've given DW as an example; upthread I mentioned Wuthering Heights and In A Wicked Age.

Right, Dungeon World's rule for 'jumping over a counter' is simple, the GM first decides if the character's fictional position is coherent with 'jumping over a counter', and the other people at the table can then decide to argue the point if they wish. Assuming it is coherent then the GM decides if a specific move has been triggered. If not, then the character jumps over the counter, pure and simple! At that point the GM might choose to make a move of some sort, its up to them, they could also request that another player declare what they do, or the GM could end the scene. These are all possibilities that are clearly spelled out in the rules. Possibly a specific move needs to be resolved, and we go to the rules for that move/moves in general. There's really nothing MECHANICALLY open about it, and there's no need to make up new rules. It isn't like D&D where a completely novel situation literally has to be resolved with some novel procedure.