Why do RPGs have rules?

[Bedrockgames]

This thread needs a sacrificial lamb to take all of our blame away

 

[Micah Sweet]

(1) You are free to ask me questions without fully-loading your questions, unlocking the safety, and pointing them at my face.

(2) I would say that it's less about expressing a negative opinion about things other people like and more about how you choose to do it.


I don't think that people have questioned whether the GM isn't the primary rules arbiter or facilitator for running the game. It's more about what we mean by "the GM's game functionally." And I think that your statement risks equivocating between those different understandings that have cropped up in this thread.


Considering your abrasive language here, I'm curious what kind of game you think I'm espousing, Micah, because I'm genuinely worried that you are dangerously close to an argumentative strawman concerning views I have expressed in this thread. My contributions in this thread have been fairly limited to discussing the vagueries around Rule 0 and about how gaming groups I've played in viewed games as the group's game rather than the GM's game. So you may want to walk back your strongs claims here and dial your attitude down a notch.




Posts like this also make things needlessly passive aggressive. You may as well say the quiet part of your posts here out loud and make the personal attack accusing @pemerton of being an arrogant, elitist a-hole instead of beating around the bush about it.

Sorry for the anger. I REALLY don't like being memed.

 

[Aldarc]

Sorry for the anger. I REALLY don't like being memed.

Noted.

By the way, @Micah Sweet. You may actually enjoy this article (and other articles from the same XP University website) talking about "What is the Lusory Attitude?"

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, as I posted upthread I think it's obvious where Suits's concern with a "lusory attitude" comes from, in the context of post-War English language philosophy (which is his field).

I believe there is another author in "gaming studies" (I can't recall the name) who uses the more metaphorical phrase "magic circle".

I'm no expert on the 'magic circle', the Wikipedia 'lusory_attitude' article linked to a "Magic Circle" article, and I did skim it earlier. They don't appear to be the same thing at all, IMHO. I mean, if you are playing an RPG, there is presumably a shared imagined world, and then it has a 'boundary' in some sense which is the 'magic circle' as I understand it. So 'crossing the magic circle' is a way of saying "participating in the shared imagined world" with a kind of notion of some degree of consistency, structure, and extended duration to that world (or at least those which lack those traits are not really analyzable).

What these terms are trying to point to is that (i) playing a game involves treating some norms as salient and binding, and yet (ii) there is non non-arbitrary reason for accepting those norms as salient and binding. The players pretend, in some fashion, that the rules of the game resemble legal, moral, social etc norms even though they don't!

Sure

I don't think that that particular point is very important for discussing RPGing - as I've already said, it is @clearstream who introduced the notion and the whole framework into this discussion, and my taking up of the terminology has been as a courtesy to him, as it is easy enough to deploy even if in my view not particularly necessary.

I can see that the points "players agree to a set of rules which they treat as binding on them when they join a game" and "games have rules and processes which define them as such" as being kind of fundamental building blocks of ideas about games. I agree though, they're so basic that they are not going to tell us much in general. Your use of these concepts to question the 'gameness' of RPGs with omnipotent (unbound by the rules) GMs was kind of amusing. It made sense as an argument and seems like a useful observation, but it was hardly necessary to get so technical to arrive at what is a common observation in many circles.

The relationship between "lusory attitude" and "rule zero" could be described this way: if the GM is at liberty to suspend or change the rules of the game, then isn't the real rule GM decides. @clearstream's response to this (see eg post 435 upthread) is that the GM's decision-making is constrained by social norms etc - what Vincent Baker calls "social contract". Applying the lens of the OP, this is the view that RPGs don't need rules after all, as social contract can do the work without the mediation and easing of negotiation that (according to Baker) rules provide.

Right. And obviously that simply brings us to a matter of taste really, is an informally defined game sufficient? I think I'm personally willing to allow it the label of 'game' (or else my gaming activity only started many years after I thought it did!). Taste is another matter... I think, frankly, being old and not wanting to memorize and process extensive rule sets anymore, I really appreciate the elegance of highly efficient/elegant statements of game structure, like Dungeon World, which spends basically about 20 pages explaining its rules (and those pages are probably equal to maybe 10 pages laid out like 5e is). I gotta read 500 pages of 5e to try to suss out the same thing, and then burn brain cells assembling it all in my head into a coherent whole, and fill in the (maybe small) inevitable gaps myself. Well, I guess I could just run red box Basic, it is probably equally simple, but it seems like DW is still a stronger general construct.

 

[Maxperson]

Chess is closed because there are a finite number of states that can exist AT ALL in chess, formally that they are 'countable', and that each state is objectively distinct in ways that the rules fully describe. A game of chess is always entirely occupying one of these states, unambiguously, and we can even generate random game states and in at least some cases evaluate whether they could potentially arise by following the other rules of chess from the well-defined starting state. That's a closed game.

Open games lack some of the features of closed games, they don't have countably many well-defined game states. RPGs pretty much all fall into this category because the fiction is part of the game state and fiction is not well-defined. Even if it was well-defined in terms of saying "this fiction differs from this other fiction" there are practically speaking no limits to the number of fictions we could imagine and that would be feasible to reach in play by following the rules.

Practically speaking, there's no difference between a closed game of chess and an open game of D&D as far as possible game states. The closed game of chess has an estimated(by a computer since we can't count that high without one) 10 to the 120th power possible games of chess. And while this second estimate does include illegal game states, but excludes legal states after promotions and following captures, there are about 10 to the 43rd power possible game states.

The sheer variety of "closed" game states and the number of game states possible in an "open" game of D&D are such that if you weren't told one was open and one was closed, you couldn't tell the difference. The number of states available in each are such that you won't ever be able to touch more than a miniscule fraction of either.

 

[Maxperson]

Hard disagree, for reasons I've explained many times to you and others.

We agree on a lot of things, but I'm finding it hard to figure out how you can have a shared fiction without at least two people sharing the fiction via their imagination.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm against it because your claim implicitly devalues worldbuilding IMO, and as I've said many times before, it is to me the most enjoyable part of the RPG experience.

I haven't followed your complete conversation, but @pemerton's characterization of it a few posts ago as a resource used to help create the shared fiction seems right on point. It's a very important resource, but it's still only a resource used to help create the shared fiction.

 

[hawkeyefan]

DMG page 4: "And as a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them."

DMG page 4: "The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game."

This is introductory stuff, and although it talks about the role of the DM, it doesn't say how to achieve those goals. I feel like your quotes, and especially your bolding, cherry picks comments, removing them from the larger context in which they are presented, in order to achieve the interpretation you want.

It also mentions that the DM is meant to "create a campaign world that revolves around their (the players) actions and decisions, and to keep your players coming back for more."

I mean, we can just as easily interpret the DM as having failed if he does not keep his players coming back for more. So if a DM says "no elves in this game" and a player says "well I want to play an elf, and if I can't then I'm not going to play" then that DM has failed at the job as described.

DMG page 9: : "The rules of the game are based on the following core assumptions about the game world." and "IT'S YOUR WORLD - In creating your campaign world, it helps to start with the core assumptions and consider how your setting might change them."

This is all advice on creating a setting. The offer a list of core assumptions that are kind of the default expectation, but they say that you can change those assumptions if you like.

DMG page 36: "It's a good idea to establish some ground rules with your players at the start of a new campaign."

This is about disclosing ground rules with players at the start of a new game. This isn't really about authority at all.

DMG page 59: "Each plane's description includes one or more optional rules that you can use to help make the adventurers' experiences on that plane memorable."

I don't really consider deciding to use optional rules or not to be indicative of absolute power.

DMG page 235: "The rules serve you, not vice versa. There are the rules of the game, and there are table rules for how the game is played."
DMG page 235: "For instance, players need to know what happens when one of them misses a session. They need to know whether to bring
miniatures, any special rules you've decided to use..."
DMG page 235: "This section gives recommendations for table rules you can establish to help meet that goal."
DMG page 235: "You might need to set a policy on rules discussions at the table."

Again, nothing here is about granting absolute authority.

The section starts off with "Rules enable you and your players to have fun at the table." It's explaining what rules are for. It then makes it clear that if a rule is problematic in some way, or isn't fun for your group, you can change it.

DMG page 237: "Remember that dice don't run your game-you do. Dice are like rules."

This section is so wishy-washy that it basically says nothing.

Again, though, the part you've cherry-picked removes the larger context of that passage. Here is the rest: "They're tools to help keep the action moving. At any time, you can decide that a player's action is automatically successful. You can also grant the player advantage on any ability check, reducing the chance of a bad die roll foiling the character's plans. By the same token, a bad plan or unfortunate circumstances can transform the easiest task into an impossibility, or at least pose disadvantage."

To me, this section is more about considering the fiction and what's been established when deciding how to handle a roll of the dice. It's not about establishing the DM's absolute authority.

DMG page 263: AS THE DUNGEON MASTER, YOU AREN'T LIMITED by the rules in the Player 's Handbook, the guidelines in this book, or the selection of monsters in the Monster Manual. You can let your imagination run wild."

Yeah, this is the section called the Dungeon Master's Workshop. It's about creating new monsters or alternate rules and so on. I don't think anyone would argue that a DM can introduce new rules and so on. But that's different than the absolute authority you're invoking with your take on Rule Zero.

DMG page 263: "Before you add a new rule to your campaign, ask yourself two questions: • Will the rule improve the game? • Will my players like it?"

This is advice to be deliberate and consider the outcomes before making a rule change. And when you combine it with the following stuff from page 34

DMG 34: "Feel free to change or ignore rulesto fit the players' roleplaying needs, using the advice presented in part 3 of this book."
DMG page 34: "What's the right way to run a campaign? That depends on your play style and the motivations of your players. Consider your players' tastes, your strengths as a DM, table rules (discussed in part 3), and the type of game you want to run. Describe to the players how you envision the game experience and let them give you input. The game is theirs, too. Lay that groundwork early, so your players can make informed choices and help you maintain the type of game you want to run."

I'd say that the DM is bound to consider the players' desires whenever exercising their authority. Just as these passages talk about the rules and the dice serving the DM, the DM is meant to serve the group.

So again, I think you're taking specific sentences, ignoring the larger context of the paragraphs in which they appear, and then interpreting them to deliver the conclusion you want.

I wouldn't argue that the DM in 5e is given significant authority... but very clearly, when the entirety of the text is taken into consideration, that authority is meant to serve the group. The fact that in the above passage you choose to bold anything about the DM's tastes or preferences, even though they are presented right along with mentions of the players' tastes and preferences, displays how biased your reading is.

My interpretation is based on more than a dozen passages that say what I am telling you. What is yours based on other than just how you want it to be?

The entire book, especially the parts I've cited above, which you either left out, or else chose to ignore.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'm against it because your claim implicitly devalues worldbuilding IMO, and as I've said many times before, it is to me the most enjoyable part of the RPG experience.

No it doesn't. It literally states what world building is for in terms of an RPG.

This to me confirms the ivory tower attitude I suggested above.

What makes Rule Zero perfectly fine to use, but a word like lusory is somehow problematic?

 

[soviet]

This is introductory stuff, and although it talks about the role of the DM, it doesn't say how to achieve those goals. I feel like your quotes, and especially your bolding, cherry picks comments, removing them from the larger context in which they are presented, in order to achieve the interpretation you want.

It also mentions that the DM is meant to "create a campaign world that revolves around their (the players) actions and decisions, and to keep your players coming back for more."

I mean, we can just as easily interpret the DM as having failed if he does not keep his players coming back for more. So if a DM says "no elves in this game" and a player says "well I want to play an elf, and if I can't then I'm not going to play" then that DM has failed at the job as described.



This is all advice on creating a setting. The offer a list of core assumptions that are kind of the default expectation, but they say that you can change those assumptions if you like.



This is about disclosing ground rules with players at the start of a new game. This isn't really about authority at all.



I don't really consider deciding to use optional rules or not to be indicative of absolute power.



Again, nothing here is about granting absolute authority.

The section starts off with "Rules enable you and your players to have fun at the table." It's explaining what rules are for. It then makes it clear that if a rule is problematic in some way, or isn't fun for your group, you can change it.



This section is so wishy-washy that it basically says nothing.

Again, though, the part you've cherry-picked removes the larger context of that passage. Here is the rest: "They're tools to help keep the action moving. At any time, you can decide that a player's action is automatically successful. You can also grant the player advantage on any ability check, reducing the chance of a bad die roll foiling the character's plans. By the same token, a bad plan or unfortunate circumstances can transform the easiest task into an impossibility, or at least pose disadvantage."

To me, this section is more about considering the fiction and what's been established when deciding how to handle a roll of the dice. It's not about establishing the DM's absolute authority.



Yeah, this is the section called the Dungeon Master's Workshop. It's about creating new monsters or alternate rules and so on. I don't think anyone would argue that a DM can introduce new rules and so on. But that's different than the absolute authority you're invoking with your take on Rule Zero.



This is advice to be deliberate and consider the outcomes before making a rule change. And when you combine it with the following stuff from page 34



I'd say that the DM is bound to consider the players' desires whenever exercising their authority. Just as these passages talk about the rules and the dice serving the DM, the DM is meant to serve the group.

So again, I think you're taking specific sentences, ignoring the larger context of the paragraphs in which they appear, and then interpreting them to deliver the conclusion you want.

I wouldn't argue that the DM in 5e is given significant authority... but very clearly, when the entirety of the text is taken into consideration, that authority is meant to serve the group. The fact that in the above passage you choose to bold anything about the DM's tastes or preferences, even though they are presented right along with mentions of the players' tastes and preferences, displays how biased your reading is.



The entire book, especially the parts I've cited above, which you either left out, or else chose to ignore.

Thanks for doing the detailed review on this, I agree with what you say. As much as rule zero is often invoked as a guiding principle of D&D play it seems to have very little textual support. As you say there are vague sentences about the role of the GM but they are hardly a full-throttle endorsement of the position that gets commonly espoused. I think it's fair to say that 5e is hardly a model of clear game design or statements of intent but none of the other editions AFAIAA have had anything substantially clearer either.

it occurs to me also that if one were to accept the full viking hat GM interpretation of the scattered sentences quoted above, that would be a shocking abdication of instruction even by 5e standards. Here is the guiding principle of the game, the foundation on which everything else rests, a veto card over every other word in these three big books, the printed permission for the GM to do whatever they think is best whenever they wish... and the text only sort of alludes to it, but not clearly, in a couple of footnotes here and there, with no discussion about how to use it, when to use it, why to use it, how to deal with the consequences. It's like 'Page 263 of the third book, oh by the way everything we just said is only a suggestion, do whatever, K THX BYE'.