Why do RPGs have rules?

[pemerton]

1e/2e Rule 0 is pretty much accepted in stone. 2e got it from 1e and 1e is where the term comes from.

Can you please cite for me where in the AD&D rulebooks the term "rule zero" is found? I'm fairly familiar with those books and don't recall it.

EDIT:

Yeah. I wasn't suggesting that it was called Rule 0 back during 1e

<snip>

Rule 0 is the wording I quoted, not "Rule 0" the term.

I must have become confused about what you were suggesting - ie that you were suggesting it was called "rule zero" during AD&D - because you said "1e is where the term comes from." That made me think that you were suggesting that 1e is where the term came from, which in turn made me think that you were saying that the term "rule zero" was used in AD&D.

 

[pemerton]

You outline a number of rulings that you find satisfactory. Seeing as I, following the same rules, can produce different rulings (ones that I find satisfactory), we are each relying on something not in the rules to produce our ruling.

On this account, two different cricket captains who field their teams differently are making different rulings in an incomplete game. Which is a silly proposition, and a reductio on your account of whether or not DW is a complete ruleset.

I suggest that a game is complete if, whatever state of play emerges, the rules tell us how to go on. DW meets that criterion. Moldvay Basic struggles with it, although Moldvay has a couple of suggestions at the end of the book (about "there's always a chance" and also the advice on calling for a stat roll) which incline towards meeting it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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):

View attachment 283943
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

Also, Gygax had nothing to do with the 2e DMG.

 

[pemerton]

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

In Monopoly, the rules don't dictate every player decision. For instance, they don't tell a player whether to purchase a property, or to build on a property.

In chess, the rules don't tell a player which piece to move except in a fairly narrow set of circumstances (eg when the player has only a very small number of pieces on the board, one of which is a heavily-constrained king).

 

[Micah Sweet]

Does the 1st edition DMG pg 110 count? Emphasis mine.

Truer words were never spoken.

 

[Micah Sweet]

While rudeness is a concern, my greater issue is the loss of game that comes from employing such a sweeping notion.

Rules set the baseline expectations. Every game, even board games, can be adjusted to suit the players' needs. Consider, for example, how many variant/house rules there are for UNO, many of which players don't necessarily know are house rules and which ger criticized with, for example, the online playable version as being "not real UNO."

So, what to make then of it when something goes out of its way to tell you, "None of these rules matter. They're all diaphanous cobwebs to be brushed aside at any time for any reason." In that context, "game" ceases to have meaning. This is the reason why critics make comparisons to (and I know I'm going to get some flak just for mentioning it) "Mother May I." Because when there are no rules, when structure is made of Play-Doh and someone (be it one person or multiple) can just decide to upend everything because they've found a way they think fits better, you're left having to flounder in the dark for how to act, or (in some ways worse) having to try to read the coordinating player's mind, not just about what is worth doing, but how to even do things in the first place.

Tactical infinity at the cost of zero depth: you can do whatever you want, but you'll have no idea how and even less idea what impact it will have, because the "rules" are merely suggestions and the coordinating player (DM with "unilateral" and "absolute power") takes such pains to remind you of that fact.

And yet somehow players managed to have fun in games where this can happen. For  decades.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Also, Gygax had nothing to do with the 2e DMG.

I know. I was just responding to both points

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I think maybe you're talking about this AW thread where I made several posts about Working Gigs? If so, the posts in question are 55, 216, 225, 231, 237. and 239.

@FormerlyHemlock , so the reason why Custom Moves in Apocalypse World (and derivative games) don't rise to the level of "new rule creation" is because Custom Moves all use the same template for action resolution that every other move in the game makes; Fictional trigger equals go to the dice when you trigger the move by doing the outlined thing (eg when you try to impose your will on your gang) within the fiction and go to the dice equals everyone follows the governing structure of results and evinced principles that undergird and govern every other move in the game.

* Custom Moves do not move outside of the unifying structure of the game engine. The expressly work within it.

* Custom Moves do not move outside of the unifying agenda and principles that undergird, govern, integrate the game engine, its conversation, and their outputs (which yield play experience). They expressly work within them.

* Custom Moves work to give expression to some aspect of the premise of the game rather than deviate from it or subvert it.

Outside of AW, Vincent discusses the matter on his fantastic blog post on concentric game design (where Custom Moves are the 4th layer). At the bottom, he calls out what will happen if you don't use Custom Moves or Countdowns for your Threats (which indicates that their deployment is orthodox Apocalypse World and not "making new rules" or working outside of the system):

"Don't want to make custom moves and countdowns for your threats all the time? That's cool. You're missing out, but the threat types, impulses, and threat moves have got you covered."

Thanks for engaging substantively, Manbearcat. I want to make sure I know where you're coming from on the idea of new rule-like things that still don't count as rules. Since I'm not familiar with Dungeon World terminology, could we examine the same situation (opening a sewer hatch) from the perspective of AD&D to see if these also don't count as rules in your eyes, or if there's something special and different about Dungeon World?

Player wants to open the sewer hatch. DM specifies Open Doors roll at -2 to pull open. Player fails. Ties a rope to the sewer hatch, sets up a pulley system as a force multiplier. DM allows this to give a +6 bonus on the Open Door roll but says that if it fails then that means the rope snapped. Player succeeds and DM gives them a 50% chance of being drenched in sewer water spraying out of the hatch (they roll 2 on a d6 and do get drenched) but this turns out to be a valid back door into the area where the princess is being held hostage.

Same scenario as the Dungeon World custom move for sewer hatches quoted above. Same degree of reasonable extrapolation to cover scenarios not spelled out explicitly AFAIK in the AD&D rulebooks (pulleys and rope strength; probability of getting drenched by a nearby liquid steam).

This ruling works within the unifying structure of the game (success rolls against a value on a table, in this case Str table for a feat of strength). I don't grok the meaning behind your words like "unifying agenda" and "give expression to some aspect of the game rather than subvert it", but I don't think you're saying anything that would make using ropes and pulleys a form of subverting the game. It seems to me that all the things you're saying about Dungeon World apply equally to this AD&D scenario.

Would you say that this scenario also doesn't rise to the level of new AD&D ad hoc rule creation? In my mind when I talk about the need for a GM to improvise rulings and rules to cover gaps, this type of thing (extrapolating how much pulleys multiply your effectiveness) is indeed included, but do you disagree?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

In Monopoly, the rules don't dictate every player decision. For instance, they don't tell a player whether to purchase a property, or to build on a property.

In chess, the rules don't tell a player which piece to move except in a fairly narrow set of circumstances (eg when the player has only a very small number of pieces on the board, one of which is a heavily-constrained king).

I cannot imagine why you are telling me this true but immaterial fact. Did you think I said otherwise? I did not. Player action is an input to the game state transformation function (function: mapping of input to unique output).

 

[Maxperson]

Not so sure, actually... It just says the GM is "the authority", it doesn't say they have any sort of unilateral power to go with it.

If it's not unilateral, then he is not THE authority. It's built into the way it reads.

It is useful here to contrast the Latin terms 'potestas' and 'auctoritas'. Rule 0 in the classic form you postulate is an absolute grant of the former, that is 'potency of action', the ability to carry out some act. Auctoritas refers to the concept of the social recognition of power. So that phrase you emphasized may well simply mean "the GM is the socially recognized authority on the campaign world" which could be construed as a MUCH milder statement than "the GM has absolute power to say anything about the campaign world and cannot be disputed at all, ever!"

The DM can and should listen to the players if they disagree. So the players can dispute it that way. If the DM holds fast, though, the only further way to dispute the change is to leave the game. The players have no authority to change a rule against the DM's wishes.