Why do RPGs have rules?

[clearstream]

1e/2e Rule 0 is pretty much accepted in stone. 2e got it from 1e and 1e is where the term comes from. I'm not 100% that 4e actually had it, though, since I really didn't play that edition.

The term itself comes from 3e, although the idea has been present for much longer.

This article outlines it.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The term itself comes from 3e, although the idea has been present for much longer.

This article outlines it.

2E basically says that you should play the rules as written but change them when you feel it improves play (can’t remember the exact phrasing but it is early in the revised DMG—-can’t remember what the 1989 edition said). Also the other half of the 2E DMG is Campaign Sourcesbook and catacomb guide and seem to recall it getting into some of this.

One thing worth pointing out is these earlier editions were all written before the internet became now, and it’s easy to forget that the present day very established online schools of thought, weren’t quite a thing. So they are often addressing different problems and taking positions that aren’t going to fall neatly into one camp or the other

 

[Maxperson]

The term itself comes from 3e, although the idea has been present for much longer.

This article outlines it.

Yeah. I wasn't suggesting that it was called Rule 0 back during 1e, only that it came from that edition(or maybe Basic). That's why trying to claim that 5e doesn't have it because the books don't explicitly say "Rule 0" doesn't work. Rule 0 is the wording I quoted, not "Rule 0" the term.

 

[Maxperson]

2E basically says that you should play the rules as written but change them when you feel it improves play (can’t remember the exact phrasing but it is early in the revised DMG—-can’t remember what the 1989 edition said). Also the other half of the 2E DMG is Campaign Sourcesbook and catacomb guide and seem to recall it getting into some of this.

One thing worth pointing out is these earlier editions were all written before the internet became now, and it’s easy to forget that the present day very established online schools of thought, weren’t quite a thing. So they are often addressing different problems and taking positions that aren’t going to fall neatly into one camp or the other

1e also said that you should use the rules as written, and also that you shouldn't. Gygax was notoriously inconsistent and contradictory. 2e is saying the same thing. Don't change it unless you feel it would make things better, which presumably is why any DM is changing rules. 2e still gives that ability solely to the DM.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Then you've all agreed not to use it, which I covered.

No, that’s not what’s happening. We don’t interpret the rules that way, so there’s no agreement, implied or otherwise, to use rule zero or not.

They don't have to call it "Rule 0." That's like saying that my saying "here's a hershey bar" only indicates that it has chocolate in it, it doesn't actually say it's chocolate, so it doesn't really count. It's also like saying that just because I talk about milk chocolate, you talk about dark chocolate and someone else talks about tempered chocolate, that we all have different ideas about what chocolate is, so using the term chocolate isn't useful.

No it’s not. Chocolate is a thing that is clearly defined. There are subsets of chocolate… dark, milk, and so on, as you’ve pointed out. If a recipe calls for milk chocolate, it means a specific thing.

Rule zero is not a specific thing.

To run with the chocolate analogy, rule zero is dark chocolate and GM authority is chocolate. It is, perhaps, a type of GM authority, or at least a phrase to refer to it.

However, given that others clearly have different ideas of what it means, it’s hard to say for certain.

I don't have to cite "Rule 0" the term. 5e says very clearly no less than a dozen times that the DM can do what he wants with the game, it's his. That's Rule 0 whether it uses the term or not, and I can cite those dozen times all day long.

I interpret those passages very differently than you do. This is likely a case of my preference and mindset influencing my interpretation, I know, but such is the problem with the natural language approach of the 5e books. As the countless threads have shown us, people can interpret things radically different from one another, even when language is more precise. When it’s not, all bets are off… and that’s the case with 5e.
This is all before we try to apply the idea of rule zero to other games, many of which it does not suit at all.

 

[Bedrockgames]

1e also said that you should use the rules as written, and also that you shouldn't. Gygax was notoriously inconsistent and contradictory. 2e is saying the same thing. Don't change it unless you feel it would make things better, which presumably is why any DM is changing rules. 2e still gives that ability solely to the DM.

I wasn't contradicting your point. I was just talking about the particular line of text. And yes, I agree Gygax was inconsistent. That is one of the most enjoyable DMGs to read and crammed with interesting advice and ideas, but you can tell either certain ideas were not fully threaded together or he was perhaps at times thinking out loud. I think in the end though, and I would have to re-read it again to be honest, the spirit carried into the 2E text is there.

This is the line from the 2E DMG by the way (there is plenty of other stuff in the PHB too but this seems like the most direct in the rules portion about it):

My point about the period in which these were written was just about how they weren't really invested in a lot of concerns driving debates here on forums like this these days

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

This just tells me you're using a definition of "completeness" that isn't particularly productive. If, in defining a term, you find out that it either doesn't apply to anything, or anything it does apply to would be severely damaged as a result of meeting that standard...maybe it's better to look for something else?

It is productive for contrasting TTRPGs with other things, like CRPGs, chess, or Monopoly.

I think we're all talking about different things here, EzekielRaiden. I am getting the sense that maybe your point is that dictators are bad, and that a DM who says something like "starting now, Fighters roll HP on 1d20" is bad because it's unilateral, and players are given no recourse beyond quitting the game. If your point is that that's rude, yeah, I agree. It wasn't clear to me before that that's what you were trying to say, if indeed it is. If it's not, could you please rephrase?

 

[Maxperson]

No, that’s not what’s happening. We don’t interpret the rules that way, so there’s no agreement, implied or otherwise, to use rule zero or not.



No it’s not. Chocolate is a thing that is clearly defined. There are subsets of chocolate… dark, milk, and so on, as you’ve pointed out. If a recipe calls for milk chocolate, it means a specific thing.

Chocolate is as clearly defined as , "This is your game and you can do what you want with it." and "You the players need to check with the DM to see if HE changed any rules."

You guys can misinterpret the DM being granted the power to unilaterally alter the game all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that the game gives that power to the DM.

Rule zero is not a specific thing.

Yes it is. It's specifically the DM having the ability to unilaterally alter the game. Google it.

However, given that others clearly have different ideas of what it means, it’s hard to say for certain.

That's entirely irrelevant. Rule 0 is defined, so if they are getting it wrong, then they got it wrong. It doesn't mean that Rule 0 isn't defined.

I interpret those passages very differently than you do. This is likely a case of my preference and mindset influencing my interpretation, I know, but such is the problem with the natural language approach of the 5e books. As the countless threads have shown us, people can interpret things radically different from one another, even when language is more precise. When it’s not, all bets are off… and that’s the case with 5e.

There is no viable interpretations of those passages that don't involve the DM having the authority to unilaterally alter the game. There are misinterpretations that do so, though. I mean, just look at it.

"Your DM might set the campaign on one of these worlds or on one that he or she created. Because there is so much diversity among the worlds of D&D, you should check with your DM about any house rules that will affect your play of the game. Ultimately, the Dungeon
Master is the authority on the campaign and its setting, even if the setting is a published world."

That's unilateral authority in all viable interpretations. Your DM might... You should check with(not discuss with) your DM... The DM is the ultimate authority...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Analysing what is / is not covered by rules in PbtA is interesting for several reasons.

I think about cases such as - without multiclassing, can I play a dwarf wizard? If so, what's my starting move? I haven't yet spotted rules to cover this... but then I'm not nearly as familiar with the DW game text as I am with others.

Well, technically, no you cannot. Remember, playbooks in DW are not intended to represent 'classes of people'. In DW you are THE Wizard, not 'a wizard'. While I understand the question still arises of 'what if I want my wizard to be different than what the playbook says', well then you need to invent a variant playbook! This would clearly be a 'homebrewing' activity, and people do it all the time! There are 100's, maybe even 1000's of variant DW playbooks out there you can find. In fact I think the standard playbook 'pack' that you can download from the DW site even has a couple extra variants in it. I'd think making up a dwarf wizard playbook would take roughly 2 minutes though, you just need one or two alignment and bond statements to cover it, basically. In fact, in my copy there's actually a 3rd blank space under 'race' after 'Human', implying that the player can simply make something up. I'd assume the other players/GM may have suggestions.

Assuming it's a lacuna, one way of addressing that is to say that DW is closed. Not only the system, but the fiction, just doesn't contain any first level dwarf wizards. I read a DW player proudly describing their dwarf bard, which makes me feel that some groups imagine a world where there are first level dwarfs of classes other than cleric and fighter.

As I say, the 'fiction' of DW contains "THE Wizard" not 'wizards generally', though I think its fair to assume that the GM's duty to 'portray a fantastic world' in DW will probably motivate them to invent NPCs of the same ilk. The 'Folk of the Realm' section of the rules has an entry for 'Hedge Wizard' for example. This entry is basically just an NPC resource, it has no combat stats, just 2 GM moves that let him/her "Cast almost the right spell (for a price)" and "Make deals beyond their ken". I believe there are also monstrous 'casters' like a Sorcerer or something like that.

My point is, the PCs are kind of specific characters, it wasn't the intention of the rules to produce a compendium of all possible dwarves, wizards, clerics, fighters, etc. but to provide a few specific working character types. Naturally players will desire to stray from these types, and it appears that such is at least anticipated in the character sheets.

But I think it would be odd to call the game 'incomplete' because it doesn't provide statistics for, say, every imaginable monster that could possibly exist, or every imaginable PC that could possibly exist either.

I believe there are a host of - what I'll call - structural rules where doubts can lie. One such case I've seen folk express doubts about is figuring out the precise implications of rules for rations. There are many places where a move requires DM to dial-in a parameter e.g. for rituals how much exactly is "a lot of money" and should that scale with effect power?

Well, again though, DW is not intended to be a 'simulation', so there isn't a rule that says how many days of short rations/hunger/thirst will have exactly what effects. The GM can make moves here, like imposing penalties, or simply decreeing that because your character was very hungry he stumbled, or even simply allocating some hit point loss due to extreme thirst. The rules don't actually touch on ANY situation of a similar type! There's no rules about how far you can jump, march, see, how long a light source lasts, etc. That being said, the Make Camp move requires a ration, you cannot camp if you can't eat! Undertake a Perilous Journey also has a ration rule, which at least implies that you cannot travel a distance greater than your rations (it says that trips are measured in units of rations, not distance). This implies that the move cannot be executed if you lack sufficient supplies, either you simply cannot try, or else you are in 'free wandering' mode where you just make camp each day (at least until you lack the rations to do so anymore). What happens then is up to the GM, but I would not want to be that party!

So, essentially, when people make this sort of claim about DW, my response is that they're focused on the wrong sort of completeness! DW is not about how much gold you have, or how long your rations will last, etc. It is about determining who will say what happens next, and if that will be an evolution of the narrative in favor of the PCs goals, or a setback/defeat/complication, or possibly a mix of the two. Running out of food will clearly be at least a complication, and may become much more serious as the GM makes more moves based on it.

Another category of doubt is that much as I appreciate that doing something in the fiction that doesn't invoke a move is resolved in view of positioning (a canonical example is prising a ruby from a statues eye: GM rules that it just happens) these resolutions seem quite difficult to crisply differentiate from GM decides.

How is the GM deciding? The player prized out the ruby. THEY decided that they considered it a feasible action (or why take it) and if the GM arbitrarily decides 'no' then THE TABLE decides (or typically just acquiesces if its a healthy table). Obviously GMs are free to make moves of their own in situations like this, but you cannot make a move that doesn't FOLLOW FROM THE FICTION. So, if the GM hasn't established that this statue is imbued with some sort of magic or that traps are likely, etc. then there isn't much option here! He could make a soft move and basically say "as you prize out the eye you see a flash of light, and a strange mark appears on your hand!" That would be fair, stealing treasure from mysterious statues is not without risk, but blasting the character with lethal damage, that would not be cool unless it had been somehow hinted at before. So, what you will find, is that the principles are remarkably thorough in terms of guiding the GM's creation of new fiction. Again, this is the job of the rules!

Thoughts like these make me wonder what each poster means by complete versus incomplete? In the context of this thread I take it to mean that the rules do not state precisely what comes next so that from a given game state two GMs G and G' might say different things. It's incomplete because some additional principle, unwritten rule, or thought is guiding them to their (differing) answers.

I would call this "openness", the game COMPLETE and OPEN. It always tells you what procedures to follow next in order to move forward, and at the same time there are no hard and fast prescriptions as to how anything will turn out or what choices will be made.

One can say - well, it still falls within the defined game processes. Slouching then onto the stage is that rough beast, rule zero.

Rule zero is simply not relevant for a discussion of games like Dungeon World. The GM does not need, nor does the GM have, any sort of special rules authority. The GM does have some degree of story authority, quite a lot actually, which lacks any procedural check on it (IE there is no check on what sort of scene a GM can frame next, procedurally. DW doesn't say players can demand that the GM frame a different scene instead). Obviously scene framing is governed by the non-procedural rules, the principals and agenda, just like moves are. So, we have a powerful GM, but also fairly powerful players. The GM can certainly make up new GM moves, I think even unilaterally, but these are not 'covering gaps' or 'creating authority', they are simply devices the GM uses to regulate herself. In fact DW describes ALL GM moves as simply "what you do anyway" implying that they are useful, but not even really 'rules'. I don't think a GM can make up new player side rules arbitrarily and unilaterally though. I've never had this come up, but I see no part of the game which implies this would be the case, or procedure which calls for it to happen.

Anyway, perhaps debate is needed on what is meant by incomplete before it would be possible to agree that a given game text has / does not have that quality.

I'm certainly not averse to the discussion. I feel like my "process complete" definition is a pretty solid one.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

My point is that if Suit's is saying that the DM is telling a story to the players, he's wrong. The only way to accomplish that is really to be railroading the players to such a degree that nothing they say matters. That's not how you play a traditional game. If you play the game as the rules are written, no story is being told TO the players. It is a collaboration to some degree. Some traditional games greater than others.

If your point is that it's possible for good play to generate stories, emergently, but the story isn't pre-known to the DM... I agree.

Slightly off-topic, but this is why destinies and oracles are relatively hard to use in RPGs. A DM or GM can theoretically roleplay an omnipotent being but not an omniscient one! You wind up having to fake prescience by e.g. offering the players a rollback opportunity over the next 24 game hours on the grounds that "that's what would have happened."