Why do RPGs have rules?

[Umbran]

The selection of a rules system at all is a declaration by the GM. "World building" is a set of declarations by the GM.

Neither is universally true.

I frequently select rules by asking my players what they'd like to play, having some discussion of options, and abiding by their choice.

There are games that make world building a minigame by the players, of whom the GM is at most one participant.

 

[Umbran]

I doubt an engineer could give you a proper answer about is the function of something when you haven't defined to the engineer what exactly the thing is, as even slightly different things can have functions with different purpose(s) for various end users.

Yeah, in RPGs, we often play fast and loose with nomenclature - we call everything "game design". But, in most other spaces, there's a difference between design and engineering - design tells us why, engineering tells us how.

 

[innerdude]

The rule itself is not saying that you the player are the one who can declare fiction, though.

... Snip ...

3) The DM narrates the result of the adventurers' actions.

This, right here, is the crux of @pemerton 's thesis. The problem is that "GM narrates results" is NOT ACTUALLY WHAT HAPPENS.

What actually happens is, "The GM makes a follow on proposal upon which the group must either agree or negotiate the resolution before play can continue."

The fact that the vast majority of time that there's no active negotiation doesn't remove that step from the process. If the players instantly, silently agree, they've still made an evaluation---they see that no negotiation is needed, and make an active choice of agreement.

@pemerton 's point is that all rules exist to serve a purpose in that negotiation phase prior to agreement.

In combat, it's to ease the negotiation between, "your character took 18 hit points of damage," and "your character is dead." As a GM, though, I can at any time unilaterally declare "your character is dead." But I'd better be prepared for the negotiation to follow if that declaration was made unmediated by rule.

The vast majority of rules, though, are PC/DM neutral and are not about who determines what is happening in the fiction

Well, yes, I suppose, if you mean that ultimately there must be some arbitration of what is true, and that it's assumed the arbitration is usually handled by a single person. A game that states that the GM has final authority on determining the "truthiness" of declarations is making a broad assumption that can be misleading. Full group assent is required of the fictional state truthiness, no matter what the rules say.

There's never going to be a rule that states precisely who introduces what, when. The rules are for the mediative act. If only one party can introduce truth to the fiction, there's no need for rules to intermediate.

 

[kenada]

My idea, and the reason I bring up D&D, is that rules might be the point in themselves.

Much of this discussion is on rules as a means to an end. Which makes obvious, intuitive sense. But what I am mulling is that D&D, likely inadvertently, created a set of rules that are an end unto themselves. This makes it difficult to compare it, or games built in its image, to games that are more "elegantly" designed, e.g. where there is a clear continuum from rules to game. Rules as means.

So in direct response to the thread title, I am postulating that one reason for many of the rules in RPGs, going back to the first RPG, is that rules are fun. In themselves. Outside of whatever other goals the designer may or may not have had in mind.

I think this is clear distinction between games like DW, MH, Fiasco, etc. and games like D&D.

I’m a bit behind, so I just saw this as I’m catching up. The purpose of having defined character customization in D&D (or any other game) is to provide a shared understanding of the rules elements they embody. I don’t think D&D was designed with rules as an end unto themselves (even if people have fun playing with them). OD&D was pretty rules minimal. When AD&D was released, Gygax actually touched on the shared understanding aspect in the preface on page 7 of the DMG.

Returning again to the framework aspect of ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, what is aimed at is a “universe” into which similar campaigns and parallel worlds can be placed. With certain uniformity of systems and “laws”, players will be able to move from one campaign to another and know at least the elemental principles which govern the new milieu, for all milieux will have certain (but not necessarily the same) laws in common. Character races and classes will be nearly the same. Character ability scores will have the identical meaning — or nearly so. Magic spells will function in a certain manner regardless of which world the player is functioning in. Magic devices will certainly vary, but their principles will be similar. This uniformity will help not only players, it will enable DMs to carry on a meaningful dialogue and exchange of useful information. It might also eventually lead to grand tournaments wherein persons from any part of the U.S., or the world for that matter, can compete for accolades.​

 

[Maxperson]

This, right here, is the crux of @pemerton 's thesis. The problem is that "GM narrates results" is NOT ACTUALLY WHAT HAPPENS.

What actually happens is, "The GM makes a follow on proposal upon which the group must either agree or negotiate the resolution before play can continue."

This is false in D&D. That agreement was made to follow that prior to the first session of the campaign. You agree by virtue of playing the game. It does not happen every time the DM narrates a result, or even the first time the DM narrates a result.

There are times when it appears like the DM is either abusing his authority OR has simply misremembered a rule and the players will stop and bring that up, but absent that there's no negotiation going on.

The fact that the vast majority of time that there's no active negotiation doesn't remove that step from the process. If the players instantly, silently agree, they've still made an evaluation---they see that no negotiation is needed, and make an active choice of agreement.

That step doesn't even exist as the players agreed that it doesn't before ever playing the game. Unless of course there is a negotiation prior to play that the DM will do things differently and run a non-standard game.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This is false in D&D. That agreement was made to follow that prior to the first session of the campaign. You agree by virtue of playing the game. It does not happen every time the DM narrates a result, or even the first time the DM narrates a result.

There are times when it appears like the DM is either abusing his authority OR has simply misremembered a rule and the players will stop and bring that up, but absent that there's no negotiation going on.

I wouldn't say that. I've negotiated outcomes in D&D plenty of times, both as GM and as player. Very often it's not necessary, because there are clear rules involved.... attack rolls, ability checks, saving throws... these work as defined.

But pretty much anytime the GM makes a ruling of some sort because the rules don't specifically address the situation in play, the decision involves some negotiation.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I wouldn't say that. I've negotiated outcomes in D&D plenty of times, both as GM and as player. Very often it's not necessary, because there are clear rules involved.... attack rolls, ability checks, saving throws... these work as defined.

But pretty much anytime the GM makes a ruling of some sort because the rules don't specifically address the situation in play, the decision involves some negotiation.

A ruling by the DM can involve negotiation, but it absolutely doesn't require it. It's just that some people really want it to.

 

[Maxperson]

I wouldn't say that. I've negotiated outcomes in D&D plenty of times, both as GM and as player. Very often it's not necessary, because there are clear rules involved.... attack rolls, ability checks, saving throws... these work as defined.

But pretty much anytime the GM makes a ruling of some sort because the rules don't specifically address the situation in play, the decision involves some negotiation.

I don't necessarily agree with that. The group has agreed before the first game session via the social contract that the DM has the ability to make these rulings and that absent some sort of abuse of power or major mistake, it will be accepted. For games other than D&D or games where the DM is playing a non-standard version of the game, this might not hold true as a different social contract has been agreed to for those.

 

[innerdude]

This is false in D&D. That agreement was made to follow that prior to the first session of the campaign. You agree by virtue of playing the game. It does not happen every time the DM narrates a result, or even the first time the DM narrates a result.

I think if you analyze your own play, you'd probably find there's significantly more negotiation happening between participants than you imagine.

But even regardless of that, the principle holds true. Play cannot continue until all parties agree upon the current game state.

A player who continuously disagrees is likely to eventually become a non-player, at which point their disagreement is meaningless, but the principle stands.

But the truth of the matter is, either all players agree to the transformation of the game state, or one or more players change into non-players.

Enough disagreements, with enough player dissent, and there's no longer a game to be played, only the GM rolling dice and carrying out wish fulfillment in an empty room.

There are times when it appears like the DM is either abusing his authority OR has simply misremembered a rule and the players will stop and bring that up, but absent that there's no negotiation going on.

I happen to disagree. I think there's a significant undercurrent, nearly continuously, of player negotiation.

*Edit: this doesn't mean that the stakes of the negotiated fictional "truthiness" is always high. Most of the time the negotiated elements are probably fairly small details. But the act is continuous.

I'd also add that an unwillingness to negotiate---from any player, GM included---ultimately proves to be toxic to play.

 

[Maxperson]

I think if you analyze your own play, you'd probably find there's significantly more negotiation happening between participants than you imagine.

But even regardless of that, the principle holds true. Play cannot continue until all parties agree upon the current game state.

A player who continuously disagrees is likely to eventually become a non-player, at which point their disagreement is meaningless, but the principle stands.

But the truth of the matter is, either all players agree to the transformation of the game state, or one or more players change into non-players.

Enough disagreements, with enough player dissent, and there's no longer a game to be played, only the GM rolling dice and carrying out wish fulfillment in an empty room.

If this is true, then it's an utterly worthless distinction as every social situation in life involves this level of negotiation at every decision point. There's no point in even considering it if it's around 100% of the time in every game, life situation, or whatever.

I happen to disagree. I think there's a significant undercurrent, nearly continuously, of player negotiation.

What does it matter if it's around no matter what whether you are playing the game or not?

At least if you accept that the players have agreed via the social contract to accept these rulings, you can then have a discussion about when negotiation is necessary and to what degree. There's an actual discussion to be had. Instead you are assuming that the players are breaking the social contract at every possible opportunity and having a negotiation that they agreed not to have and are tacitly allowing it to happen.

I'd also add that an unwillingness to negotiate---from any player, GM included---ultimately proves to be toxic to play.

Sure, which is why when negotiation actually happens(such as a bad decision or mistake with the rules), the DM should listen and discuss.