Why do RPGs have rules?

[Maxperson]

It's hardly a full-throttled endorsement of fudging as a lynchpin of the game, but still. Do you accept then that there is no textual support for clause 3 in previous editions? This is not a trick question, I don't think it's there but I haven't re-read the older texts in a long time.

Rule 0 allows for fudging so prior editions allowed it, but it does have some big pros and big cons, which is why it's so controversial.

 

[soviet]

Rule 0 allows for fudging so prior editions allowed it, but it does have some big pros and big cons, which is why it's so controversial.

But again, where is the textual evidence for this?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I disagree. ANY such game would not be just 'complete' it would be NECESSARILY CLOSED, only being able to describe a finite number of situations, just like a board game!

This is both factually incorrect and immaterial:

1. You can still have an infinite cardinality of game states even in a board game. Consider a chess board that's infinity x infinity instead of 8 x 8. (Played with coordinate notation instead of or in addition to a physical board.)

2. Even if you couldn't, so what? How would that invalidate the clearstream's definition? You may prefer the word "closed" over "complete" but that's just arbitrary semantics, fighting over which name is better.

I suspect your real point is that, like EzekielRaiden, you dislike dictators and want the whole table to be involved in rule discussions, not solely the GM. I'm sympathetic to that viewpoint but it has nothing to do with fighting over "complete" vs. "closed".

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

I am going to say I don't find this analogy compelling at all. Microservices simply provide some capability, which business processes can invoke as-needed. So, yes, a move in DW could be seen as a 'chunk of code', but its not arranged in a service fashion where you MUST invoke some move in order to 'get service'. DW works PERFECTLY FINE without ANY moves. It might not be as interesting a game in that case, but it DOES work. Why? Because DW is a classic example of the design pattern also used in 4e, Exception Based Design. That is, every single instance of operating the core loop of the game is exactly the same, and only when some move's fictional or mechanical trigger conditions are met, does it introduce itself as an exception to the existing play loop. Thus NORMALLY if a player says "I do X" then X happens, unless it is deemed impossible. If a move matches the situation, then instead a more specific exceptional rule is invoked, which is "execute the procedure contained in move X." Note that there's NO restriction, potentially on what move X could be.

This is wny PbtA is so darn flexible and extensible, because it is just a set of exceptions, coupled with some core pure mechanical rules like how harm works, what tags mean, etc. that are customized to each agenda.

Above I wrote

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.

Mmmmmmm, I still feel like this is just a slightly variant case of the old "figure out what the fiction allows/demands here" question that arises whenever an action is taken at all. No, we don't know what 'a lot' means, but it is clearly tied to the fictional context. Its a rightward arrow from mechanics to fiction, saying "take a lot of the character's gold away." Given the rest of the agenda, and that this is a GM move which the GM agenda covers, this question can be answered in a fairly principled and definite way. What that answer is will be highly situational.

I mean, I get what you are trying to say. I think there are simply some things that can only be discovered, not quantified ahead of time. This is also merely a matter of degree, as if Ritual said 'half the character's gold' you wouldn't call it incomplete, so this is at best an extremely fine line you are drawing. Finally, its very interesting that this is about GOLD. Remember, gold is not really a big focus of Dungeon World. Its a purely fictional kind of thing that PCs may (or may not) care much about. So taking 'a lot of it' seems to me to be more like saying "this should be an inconvenience to the characters later on" more than being some 'fiat thing', as again DW exists as a recipe for narrative, not for casting magical spells.

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.

And I think it is the exception based design that does that work more than anything else. This here is just a way to state a goal in non-quantitative terms.

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.

I don't know PF well, but in 3.x if there's not a rule for something, there's no exception based design at all, you simply have no rule! There's a sort of a general "make ability/skill checks for things" rule, but it is so open-ended and vague in its application as to be virtually meaningless. The GM can call for one ability check, 2, 5, or 100 before declaring a situation resolved! 5e similarly, though perhaps the guidance on intent is articulated better (I am not much of a student of 3.x and certainly not of PF though).

So, to me there is really a FUNDAMENTAL difference in terms of the 'completeness' of, say, 5e and DW. 5e is undoubtedly incomplete. DW is complete enough that you are likely to never play it to a point of real ambiguity, and there's no 'missing' rules in any substantial sense. 4e BTW achieves the same thing by virtue of SCs, as any situation can be resolved via a finite number of checks, unambiguously. This is why HoML eschews all non-challenge checks, their existence as a standard process of play can create situations outside of the rules.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

But again, where is the textual evidence for this?

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

Now and then a player will die through no fault of his own. He or she will have done everything correctly, taken every reasonable precaution, but still the freakish roll of the dice will kill the character. In the long run you should let such things pass as the players will kill more than one opponent with their own freakish rolls at some later time. Yet you do have the right to arbitrate the situation. You can rule that the player, instead of dying, is knocked unconscious, loses a limb, is blinded in one eye or invoke any reasonable severe penalty that still takes into account what the monster has done. It is very demoralizing to the players to lose a cared-for-player character when they have played well. When they have done something stupid or have not taken precautions, then let the dice fall where they may…There MUST be some final death or immortality will take over and again the game will become boring because the player characters will have 9+ lives each!

 

[Krachek]

Page 110 DMG 1ed

However, it is your right to control the dice at any time and to roll dice for the players. You might wish ta do this to keep them from knowing some specific fact. You also might wish to give them an edge in finding a particular clue, e.g. a secret door that leads to a complex of monsters and treasures that will be especially entertaining. You do have every right to overrule the dice at any time if there is a particular course of events that you would like to have occur. In making such a decision you should never seriously harm the party or a non-player characterwith your actions. "ALWAYS GIVE A MONSTER AN EVEN BREAK!"

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Chocolate is as clearly defined as , "This is your game and you can do what you want with it." and "You the players need to check with the DM to see if HE changed any rules."

You guys can misinterpret the DM being granted the power to unilaterally alter the game all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that the game gives that power to the DM.

Yes it is. It's specifically the DM having the ability to unilaterally alter the game. Google it.

That's entirely irrelevant. Rule 0 is defined, so if they are getting it wrong, then they got it wrong. It doesn't mean that Rule 0 isn't defined.

There is no viable interpretations of those passages that don't involve the DM having the authority to unilaterally alter the game. There are misinterpretations that do so, though. I mean, just look at it.

"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."

That's unilateral authority in all viable interpretations. Your DM might... You should check with(not discuss with) your DM... The DM is the ultimate authority...

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. 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!"

 

[Maxperson]

But again, where is the textual evidence for this?

The unilateral ability to change rules. This is said in some manner in every edition 1e, 2e, 3e and 5e. Maybe 4e I don't know for sure. If I have the ability to add, subtract and alter rules as I see fit, fudging is by definition legitimate. If I'm doing it, I've altered the game to allow it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

I think we're all talking about different things here, EzekielRaiden. I am getting the sense that maybe your point is that dictators are bad, and that a DM who says something like "starting now, Fighters roll HP on 1d20" is bad because it's unilateral, and players are given no recourse beyond quitting the game. If your point is that that's rude, yeah, I agree. It wasn't clear to me before that that's what you were trying to say, if indeed it is. If it's not, could you please rephrase?

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.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Its more than that, its a LOGICAL argument. If the GM has absolute Maxpersonian Rule 0 authority, then no other authority exists within the structure of the game, period! Anything that a player might do/say is completely subject to the untrammeled power of the GM in this situation. Max is trying to have his cake and eat it too! It just won't work!

And yes, the players, in the context of Real Life, will exert some check on SOME GMs to SOME degree, but lest any of us have the illusion that this is a reliable and entirely adequate state of affairs, I invite you to read @bloodtide's 'Bloodbath Thread' and witness the death of your naivety! lol.

Yes, but rule zero isn't giving the GM authority to put people into gulags is my point. I get you don't like GM authority. Fair. I won't try to dissuade. I just think this takes the argument a notch over the top