Why do RPGs have rules?

[AbdulAlhazred]

So I've been thinking a bit more about the need/prerogative to have an assumed Rule Zero.

It feels like we've generally uncovered at least 3 core purposes to include a Rule Zero.

(A) to always have a backstop such that a scene can/must move forward. This seems to be necessary in circumstances where player action declarations can be negated purely on intent, based on hidden backstory --- i.e., a declaration is necessarily a failure based on a game state variable known only to one participant. In this case, a Ruling of Zero is needed to prevent play devolving into a mother-may-I guessing game.

I must say I cannot understand this. MMI is PRODUCED by falling onto a rule 0 type of facility! Rule 0 has little to nothing to do with moving scenes forward.

(A.a) Could also be a result of a "neutral state" failure. If a player declaration is ruled to be a purely neutral failure (action fails, no meaningful change to fiction), the same situation applies. The player can either continue to guess at an appropriate means to change the fictional state, or an appeal to a Ruling of Zero is made (GM "makes a move").

Still not sure what rule 0 has to do with this...

(B) to ensure that rules arbitrations don't favor one or another of the players. But consider the difference between pick up basketball and a fully refereed NBA game. One crucial difference is that in a pickup game, players are assumed to collectively be in charge of adhering to the "lusory means" ("travelling" and "carry" and out of bounds rules are enforced, etc.). In the same regard, Rule Zero isn't strictly necessary to ensure rule compliance. In my experience, while it does happen, it's pretty rare for pickup basketball to go completely degenerate. Player to player arbitration is usually sufficient, unless there's a desire to ensure there's always a failsafe, final arbiter who can't be gainsaid.

Pickup basketball doesn't have refs with authority, so rule 0 is not even a thing. I mean, I guess players could agree to an all-powerful ref...

(C) to ensure consistency of rulings vis-a-vis the assumed fiction. Meaning, since the GM is keeper of the fiction, including secret backstory, there's an emphasis/importance to keep future fiction states in accordance with the previously established fiction --- especially if the previously defined fiction was generated by one individual long before play starts.

This emphasis on "consistency of fiction" seems to be a relevant application for sim, if you assume that "consistency of fiction" is a necessary precondition of "immersion". If the fiction is "inconsistent", it is ostensibly harder to drift into an immersion thought state. Players are fighting too hard mentally to reconcile "I'm immersed as my character" against "This situation doesn't make sense".

In cases of (C), it feels like Rule Zero's importance can diminish greatly in the absence/lessening of GM authored fiction prior to play and/or deprioritization of "immersion" through a sim agenda.

I'm bringing this all up in service to a final question---is Rule Zero a strictly necessary precondition for immersion? Absent Rule Zero, is there too much burden assumed to be put back on the players, in terms of authoring and making rulings, that they are unable to drift into the immersive mindset? Is the "immersion thought state" so temporary and fragile as to brook any interruption? It can't be easily toggled between authoring/ruling thought state and back?

In short, the answer is 'no'. lol.

When immersion is an apex priority, the chain of requirement for Rule Zero seems to be:

Consistency of fiction >> reduce player need to adjudicate >> reduce player need to toggle/switch out of "immersive thought state"

But if this the case, what is the GM's purpose relative to immersion? If the GM is only serving the needs of the immersion thought state (ITS) for the players, the GM themselves is necessarily not participating in that immersion thought state. The GM's role at that point is to provide an experience in which they will never participate. So it must therefore be assumed that the GM must find satisfaction in some other set of play conditions, since they cannot participate in the ITS.

Can you see where I'm going with this? If you claim that yes, a GM can participate in the immersion thought state (ITS) while remaining GM, why cannot the players do the same and remove much of the need for heavy handed applications of Rule Zero?

As Pemerton has clearly argued, the GM cannot really be considered a player in this sort of scheme at all.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Fighting against that is the simple fact that it's far less work to bend a known system to a new task than it is to learn a whole new one.

I completely disagree. I mean, its POSSIBLE, if you have a system that is close to what you need, then maybe you can make that work. Often it isn't possible. VERY often this is because people are too set in their approaches to playing game X, it will always end up pretty much the same.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This is an empirical claim. In my experience it is obviously false.

This is an empirical claim too, and taken at face value, as a generalisation of tendency, in my experience it is false.

For instance, Prince Valiant is a far "lighter" RPG than AD&D. I've had no issues playing Prince Valiant. It is significantly more robust than AD&D., in terms of enabling decisions about "what happens next" that are apt to carry the table and not break down into moment-by-moment social negotiation.

Honestly? In terms of flexibility and applicability to more situations, lighter systems which eschew the 'bolt on a subsystem for every need' kind of model generally are superior.

 

[loverdrive]

I'm bringing this all up in service to a final question---is Rule Zero a strictly necessary precondition for immersion? Absent Rule Zero, is there too much burden assumed to be put back on the players, in terms of authoring and making rulings, that they are unable to drift into the immersive mindset? Is the "immersion thought state" so temporary and fragile as to brook any interruption? It can't be easily toggled between authoring/ruling thought state and back?

When immersion is an apex priority, the chain of requirement for Rule Zero seems to be:

I honestly can't comprehend why authoring things can possibly contradict immersion. I'd say the ability to bring the things you want to see up without having to resort to purely meta-game talk is a prerequisite for immersion.

 

[loverdrive]

You also see this same issue play out with rules light systems. Simplicity is expensive, and you end up paying for it somewhere.

That heavily depends on what you view as "rules light system" here. If it's something like "lol, roll dice and the GM will decide", yeah, it's false economy.

If it does have a structure, though, even if it's not written for a damn computer to parse, then I disagree. Like, vehemently disagree.

 

[Bedrockgames]

This simply isn't true. Burning Wheel is comparable, in mechanical "heft", to RQ or even RM.

I am not arguing that "light" is better than the alternative. Rather, an assertion was made that simplicity generates costs. I'm saying that, in my experience, that just isn't true.

Prince Valiant is simpler, mechanically, than BW. My group plays Prince Valiant as a type of BW-lite. But we don't pay any cost for that - the game is different from BW, but not "expensive" in some not-immediately-obvious-but-will-spring-out-later-like-a-jack-in-the-box fashion.

I have to agree with Pemerton that light/simplicity doesn't have to generate costs. Personally I like both types of systems: light and heavy. But having run many light RPGs, I find the simplicity tends to make things easier and a well done light system can still cover a lot of ground with broad principles if people are equating something like having to fit a situation to the system on the fly as a cost.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This simply isn't true. Burning Wheel is comparable, in mechanical "heft", to RQ or even RM.

I am not arguing that "light" is better than the alternative. Rather, an assertion was made that simplicity generates costs. I'm saying that, in my experience, that just isn't true.

Prince Valiant is simpler, mechanically, than BW. My group plays Prince Valiant as a type of BW-lite. But we don't pay any cost for that - the game is different from BW, but not "expensive" in some not-immediately-obvious-but-will-spring-out-later-like-a-jack-in-the-box fashion.

As I said, I think you feel that you're not paying any cost because the game aligns with your preferences. If it didn't, the cost might very well be higher.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Honestly? In terms of flexibility and applicability to more situations, lighter systems which eschew the 'bolt on a subsystem for every need' kind of model generally are superior.

How is that not an opinion dressed up as a fact? Claiming one system is just "superior" to another without any qualifier is just bad rhetoric, and I wouldn't expect anyone who doesn't already agree with you to accept it. This is worse than your claim that there's no such thing as simulation-based play.

 

[clearstream]

There are probably other reasons too why RPGs have rules, other things that those rules can do.

To roll up several posts into one convenient summary starting with the reason from the OP...

1. The emotionally fraught, where participants would be reticent to say the unwelcome and the unwanted; especially that had the potential to upset every single person at the table.

2. The systematically complex, where there are too many mechanics interacting in too many ways for participants to maintain and operate them purely mentally; especially in diverse circumstances over multiple sessions.

3. The competitively robust, where participants want fair outcomes influenced by their dissimilar choices in contests between them (PvP, PvE), especially as disparities widen between outcomes and participants want to play their hands vigorously.

4. The subversively creative, where participants desire to work creatively within the game's limits, including subversively and with inventive interpretations of the rules.

5. The unpredictable, where participants want shared uncertainty about the contours of future game state, especially where they want capacity to influence its distribution.

Did anyone notice any other reasons?

 

[innerdude]

I must say I cannot understand this. MMI is PRODUCED by falling onto a rule 0 type of facility! Rule 0 has little to nothing to do with moving scenes forward.

I posited this idea because when Rule Zero + hidden backstory are both in effect, ultimately it is the GM's job to eliminate standstill. The players can only guess for so long at the hidden backstory elements that are preventing them from achieving their goals.

A Rule Zero GM must at some point break the barrier by either providing new vectors of information, or reframing scenes in a way that make new player action declarations possible.

This is interestingly no different than the stated GM agenda for PbtA play --- "adhere to your GM principles and make your moves".

The difference is that PbtA provides additional player side authority to largely eliminate stalemate play from appearing in the first place.

But in Rule Zero play, it's all on the GM. (S)he is fully responsible for developing valid game states that grant the ability for players to make action declarations.

If the goal is to avoid stalemate / "rowboat world" play, a Rule Zero game must rely on the GM.

I think one of the reasons sandbox play has largely never taken over as the primary mode of play (vs. trad) is that GMs regularly fail to recognize this responsibility. If you take away player inputs to change the fiction, then some other inputs must fill in. Yet IME "rowboat world" GM-ing is largely the result of sandbox play, because it appears to offer "You can go anywhere!" freedom while slyly subverting control of the available actions to nearly exclusively the GM.