Why do RPGs have rules?

[clearstream]

@pemerton Would you say that - for game texts that include it - an explicit GM agenda could set up prelusory-goals as an essential first step toward bringing GM into the game as player?

When I think about GM as player, I quickly reach a dissolution of the distinct role altogether: leaving players with complementary, asymmetrical roles. You have potentially described something like that with turn-about BW GMing.

That is where GM does not retain distinct GMly functions that must be managed by wearing multiple hats, or by not being counted among the players.

If agenda establishes prelusory-goals - if that is the effect it necessarily has - then that could be used in examination of game texts to see if anything like an agenda puts such goals in place. I'm not sure of course that it necessarily has that effect. What do you think?

 

[Aldarc]

I made pancakes this morning for my wife to celebrate Mother's Day. They were indeed delicious.

"Happy Mother's Day. I ate the pancakes I made in your honor!"

 

[clearstream]

"Happy Mother's Day. I ate the pancakes I made in your honor!"

and which
you were probably
saving
for breakfast

Forgive me
they were delicious
so sweet
and so warm

 

[hawkeyefan]

Maybe you just don't like GM authority.

I don't have a problem with it, I just don't need it to be absolute.

To me this touches on a problem with the vagueness of the label. No one exercises Absolute GM Control: there are always additional principles and rules that limit unadorned rule zero. Up-thread I found this comment striking -


Absolute GM Control appears to be being advocated, but turns out to be limited by the social contract. They may feel that they could abolish the contract, but they never would. Principles and rules aren't all equal: they're categorically weighted... some more entrenched than others.

My R is expressed in austere terms to allow examination. It's not what folk typically label as rule zero. It's common to see half-a-dozen rules bundled up into one and still find that's not the end of what's included. The claims folk make about their games rest upon those additional elements: they cannot be assessed unless one first in each individual case teases out everything included under and bearing on the label.

I think this is the problem. People are insisting that the authority is absolute, but then pointing out how it's really not. "I could do this, but I never would". Then you can't do it. It seems to be a matter of semantics.

To me, if you're going to argue for absolute GM authority, then you're going to exercise absolute GM authority.

 

[Micah Sweet]

"Happy Mother's Day. I ate the pancakes I made in your honor!"

She ate first, wiseacre.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Oh I really don’t care what terms people use. It’s just interesting to me what jargon gets accepted, and what doesn’t.

Clearly, I get what Rule Zero is commonly code for. It’s not something I think is universal to RPGs nor even to D&D. I’m not a fan. I also think it’s application renders false a lot of other claims folk make about their games.

I have distinct mixed feelings about it myself, but its still a thing and usually people have at least some degree of overlapping understanding of what it refers to. It very much isn't universal to the hobby, but its common enough to trad games to be treated as so for most purposes; the fact some people consider it virtuous and some very much not is another issue.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I have distinct mixed feelings about it myself, but its still a thing and usually people have at least some degree of overlapping understanding of what it refers to. It very much isn't universal to the hobby, but its common enough to trad games to be treated as so for most purposes; the fact some people consider it virtuous and some very much not is another issue.

And the same folks who accept Rule Zero and similarly trad-based jargon will wail about Forge Waffle, no matter how clear and applicable it may be.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And the same folks who accept Rule Zero and similarly trad-based jargon will wail about Forge Waffle, no matter how clear and applicable it may be.

Yup, because learning new jargon for a different game that is of questionable validity to your game is always going to have little worth to some folks. Applicability depends on your game.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yup, because learning new jargon for a different game that is of questionable validity to your game is always going to have little worth to some folks. Applicability depends on your game.

My man, you commended someone on their use of Latin a few pages back, but complained about ivory tower language not long before. So forgive me if I disregard your concerns about language.

Whether or not something may be applicable to you personally doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed.

 

[Micah Sweet]

My man, you commended someone on their use of Latin a few pages back, but complained about ivory tower language not long before. So forgive me if I disregard your concerns about language.

Whether or not something may be applicable to you personally doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed.

It was a Star Trek reference, for Landru's sake!

If you can't explain your point without resorting to niche jargon, then IMO there's something wrong with your point, or your actual point is that you know something other people don't.