Why do RPGs have rules?

[hawkeyefan]

Yes.

Semantic arguments are arguments about what things are called, rather than what they do.

What's your substantive point? Are you trying to ask a question about what fiat does? (See above discussion of incompleteness, https://www.enworld.org/threads/why-do-rpgs-have-rules.697430/page-16#post-9014557 Fiat patches over incompleteness.)

I took @Aldarc ’s point to be pretty clear.

Not all instances of GM judgment should be attributed to Rule Zero.

It would see to be one example of such among many, and not as ever present as many view it.

 

[Maxperson]

A follow-up on this:

There is a "prelusory goal" for which the lusory means of the GM is permitted to author the shared fiction is, in fact, the most efficient means: namely, the goal of having the GM tell the other players a story.

It therefore seems plausible that, on Suits's account of what a game is, a RPG with rule zero isn't a game at all. Because in a RPG with rule zero, it seems that there is no "voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles" (the quote is from Suits, as per Lusory attitude - Wikipedia).

Then Suit is just flat out wrong. I've been playing games with Rule 0 since 1983 and not one single time have I ever engaged in just telling the players a story, let alone had that goal.

Since the players in a traditional game can alter the trajectory and insert their own stories via their actions even to the point of invalidating DM prep and switching to a story of their choosing via their choices and the actions of their PCs, at "worst"(in quotes because it's not at all bad) the story is a shared creation.

 

[Maxperson]

And for anyone who isn't already familiar with the concept, it's kind of useless, right? A new player might turn to the books to find it, and in most cases, they wouldn't find it.

If we're talking 5e that new player would find it at least a dozen times. He just might not recognize it as specifically Rule 0 since the instructions aren't labeled with that term. The concept would be clear, though. The DM has the power alter the rules of the game if he chooses.

 

[Maxperson]

Then you need to articulate what the difference is between "house rules" and "using Rule Zero."

Because a lot of people, and I mean "nearly everyone," uses the two fully interchangably. And, as noted, most folks do not realize they are house-ruling Monopoly.

A house rule to Monopoly is not the same as a house rule to D&D. Rule 0 can be used to enact a house rule in D&D and is used that way whenever the DM unilaterally introduces a house rule. If the group decides on a house rule then it wasn't enacted via Rule 0.

The difference is that Rule 0 is the DM's ability to unilaterally make changes to the game. A house rule doesn't have to come about via that DM power.

 

[Maxperson]

Rule Zero

0. CHECK WITH YOUR DUNGEON MASTER
Your Dungeon Master (DM) may have house rules or campaign standards that vary from the standard rules. You might also want to know what character types the other players are playing so that you can create a character that fits in well with the group.

– Character Creation, Dungeons & Dragons Player’s Handbook, Third Edition (2000).

Might be wrong, but pretty sure.

It's also in 5e several times. Here are just a few of them.

5e PHB page 5: "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."

5e 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."

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It's also in 5e several times. Here are just a few of them.

5e PHB page 5: "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."

5e 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."

Except neither of those is Rule Zero the way most folks present it, which is (often very literally), "I am altering the deal, pray I don't alter it any further." You yourself just did so.

A house rule to Monopoly is not the same as a house rule to D&D. Rule 0 can be used to enact a house rule in D&D and is used that way whenever the DM unilaterally introduces a house rule. If the group decides on a house rule then it wasn't enacted via Rule 0.

The difference is that Rule 0 is the DM's ability to unilaterally make changes to the game. A house rule doesn't have to come about via that DM power.

 

[Maxperson]

Except neither of those is Rule Zero the way most folks present it, which is (often very literally), "I am altering the deal, pray I don't alter it any further." You yourself just did so.

No. I did NOT portray it that way. I said it was the ability to do so, not that it was 1) always done that way or that 2) it was presented as Vader did.

And yes, both of those examples do in fact portray it the way I did. The first on from the PHB tells the players to check with the DM to see if the DM made changes. If you have to check, then those changes were made unilaterally. The second one from the DMG tells the DM(not the players) that he is not subject to the rules, they are subject to him. That is also the DM being able to unilaterally make changes.

Neither example, though, says that the DM is going to force horrible changes upon the players and tell them to pray that he doesn't alter things further. That's just a very uncharitable misportrayal of what I am saying.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No. I did NOT portray it that way. I said it was the ability to do so, not that it was 1) always done that way or that 2) it was presented as Vader did.

And yes, both of those examples do in fact portray it the way I did. The first on from the PHB tells the players to check with the DM to see if the DM made changes. If you have to check, then those changes were made unilaterally. The second one from the DMG tells the DM(not the players) that he is not subject to the rules, they are subject to him. That is also the DM being able to unilaterally make changes.

Neither example, though, says that the DM is going to force horrible changes upon the players and tell them to pray that he doesn't alter things further. That's just a very uncharitable misportrayal of what I am saying.

It doesn't matter whether the changes are horrible or not. It is the declaration that this is a unilateral power from on high that is the problem. It is this dogged insistence in the utterly unassailable, unmoving, unquestionable sovereignty. I, like Gregory the Anarchist, do not scorn it for being cruel, nor (though I might) for being kind. I scorn it for being dictatorial.

It is possible for someone to be a benevolent dictator, and certainly a hell of a lot easier to be one when it's just you and a few friends playing pretend elfgames. That does not, in any way, lessen the fact of the benevolent dictator's dictatorial power. And I am opposed to dictatorial power on principle alone.

If there are no rules of engagement--if there is nothing whatever beyond the good graces of the person with unilateral power--I see a pretty big problem with that. I would have a problem with it even if I could know, with absolute and ironclad certainty, that that power would never be used for hurtful ends. There is only one Unilateral Power I'm willing to accept, and I'm afraid He isn't really interested in DMing (unless you take a rather oddball view of the nature of Creation, I guess.)

 

[Bedrockgames]

It doesn't matter whether the changes are horrible or not. It is the declaration that this is a unilateral power from on high that is the problem. It is this dogged insistence in the utterly unassailable, unmoving, unquestionable sovereignty. I, like Gregory the Anarchist, do not scorn it for being cruel, nor (though I might) for being kind. I scorn it for being dictatorial.

It is possible for someone to be a benevolent dictator, and certainly a hell of a lot easier to be one when it's just you and a few friends playing pretend elfgames. That does not, in any way, lessen the fact of the benevolent dictator's dictatorial power. And I am opposed to dictatorial power on principle alone.

If there are no rules of engagement--if there is nothing whatever beyond the good graces of the person with unilateral power--I see a pretty big problem with that. I would have a problem with it even if I could know, with absolute and ironclad certainty, that that power would never be used for hurtful ends. There is only one Unilateral Power I'm willing to accept, and I'm afraid He isn't really interested in DMing (unless you take a rather oddball view of the nature of Creation, I guess.)

This is where these conversations go off the rails. If you don't like GM authority, that is totally fair. There are plenty of reasons to dislike GM authority and while I like games where the GM is granted more control, I get why a lot of people wouldn't want that, or want it spread more evenly (or through another method). But I think when we start comparing it to real life dictatorship, that's where I find it becomes too histrionic

 

[clearstream]

The problem with your question is that you presume that all rules can only take one form: discrete, individual chunks that explicitly approve of, define, or delimit single acts. And, if that assumption is granted, you are quite correct that no system could ever even hope to be comprehensive, because you would need infinitely many narrow, specific rules to cover even a small range of situations, let alone the dizzying variety of unexpected things players might want to do.

I feel like PbtA fits with contemporary thinking on information architectures, that avoid complex systems and entanglements across entities formed by rules. Something like a microservices architecture: each move does one job.

I can ask if the current set of rules meets all of my requirements? That is the kind of test my dwarf wizard example represents. If my requirements include a dwarf wizard and the current set of rules doesn't support it, then the set is incomplete as measured against my requirements.

One way to achieve completeness would be to limit my requirements. But TTRPGs like DW are open-ended: I feel able to enumerate requirements endlessly. Thus no finite TTRPG text can be complete by this measure. And describing a procedure for completion does not make it complete. That's what the rough beast slouching in alludes to. GM-fiat can be used as one such procedure.

But that assumption is incorrect. There is at least one other shape rules can take, which evades this problem. I don't know if there is any kind of official term, but my term is "extensible framework rules." That is, a rule designed so that, without creating any new content (not even to the limited degree of my Teleportation move above), you can apply one rule to a diverse and infinite set of situations. 4e's Skill Challenge rules are an example of this. Dungeon World's Undertake a Perilous Journey and Ritual moves are other examples (the former being what it says on the tin, expeditions into dangerous territory on land or sea; the latter being the catch-all for producing magical effects that aren't codified as moves or spells.) These structures make a different kind of sacrifice, if one can call it that: they are necessarily slightly more abstract than individual, discrete rules would be, so they can work across a diverse and non-finite set of circumstances.

Above I wrote

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.

So this is a different test of completeness. Above I gave the example of deciding how much is "a lot" in the Ritual move. In this case, it's incomplete because a game parameter is left undefined. It's not that there isn't a move doing the job of Ritual, it's that the move itself is incomplete.

To me, this shows why I should feel comfortable with incompleteness. I agree with your extensible framework characterisation, and that doesn't make Ritual complete. Rather it is the incompleteness of Ritual that gives it versatility.

A ruleset that employs a mix of both discrete-individual rules and extensible-framework rules can actually achieve comprehensive coverage, or at least something like it.

I would again say that it shows incompleteness is an advantage in TTRPG rules so long as

• What is afforded by the rules meets my highest priority requirements, and
• I have a satisfactory procedure for updating the rules to meet any new requirements

I can like the DW procedure and dislike that in Pathfinder. That doesn't make DW complete and Pathfinder incomplete, but it does mean that if using the latter I have no procedure that satisfies me for sustaining completeness against requirements.