Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9020884" data-attributes="member: 42582">Your "R" is just an abstract schema.You are asking me whether I think there are instances of that schema that are consistent with a RPG being a game. My answer is "maybe", even "probably".For instance, the normal rule in classic D&D (ie Gygax/Moldvay-style play), for determining a creature's reaction, is either that the GM has made a note in their key, or else the reaction dice are rolled. Under certain conditions, though, a player may have, on their list of resources, a Charm Person spell. I'm not going to try and spell the rule out in perfect technical detail, but the player who has this resource on their list is permitted, under certain conditions (some are fictional positioning eg a certain proximity to the creature to be charmed; some are mechanical, eg as governed by the initiative rules), to suspend the usual means of determining a creature's reaction and replace it with the following rule: (i) the GM rolls a saving throw, and (ii) if that fails, the creature's reaction is automatically friendly.There are many other spells in classic D&D that work similarly as "rule-changing rules" - ie they confer on the player of the spell caster the power to change the usual processes of, or constraints on, resolution. I think Fly, Passwall, Part Water etc are all best analysed this way, for instance: they change the usual rules that constrain where a player is permitted to say that their PC moves to.Are these consistent with D&D being a game? Yes (at least until the MU becomes high level and hence is no longer constrained by less efficient means, as the supply of these power-conferring resources becomes effectively unlimited). But there is a problem with them: namely, there is a tendency in contemporary D&D play, which one can see beginning in the notes on spell use in Gygax's DMG, to treat these spells as primarily operating to change fictional position, rather than as power-conferring rules. Treating them as changing fictional position is what causes such debates as whether one can use Passwall to sink a ship - treated as a power-conferring rule, whose function is to enable the player of the MU to change the rule about where PCs can move, it obviously has no implications for sinking ships (and whoever's job it is can create some appropriate fiction to support that should the matter ever arise); whereas treated as simply permitting a change in fictional position ("Now where there was a solid surface, there is a hole") makes it over-powered in naval adventures and tends to therefore make the RPG no longer a game. (Or, at least, makes it a broken game.)I think the above explains two things: (1) why skilled D&D players in the classic era tended to prefer MUs as their PCs; and (2) why modern D&D generates so many of the rules debates that it does, as game elements that once had a clear place and function within the rules (even if it was often implicit rather than expressly stated) are redeployed in new ways (eg as concerning fictional positioning rather than conferring a power to change certain rules) without any real thought being given to whether or how that will make for fun game play.The content that would fill in the schema: under what conditions does someone enjoy a power to suspend or change a rule that otherwise would apply? which rule can they suspend or change? what are the parameters of such suspension or change? etc.Edwards gives, as <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/5/" target="_blank">a simple example</a>, Prince Valiant storyteller certificates (which despite the name are a non-GM player resource):Resolution systems often include metagame mechanics, as mentioned above, which permit a player to over-ride the "usual" resolution system of the game. These are found in a wide variety of combinations in functional terms as well as DFK terms. <ul style="margin-left: 20px"> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The over-ride may occur before, after, or in place of the regular system mechanic.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The over-ride may or may not rely on resources of some kind.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The over-ride's version of DFK may mirror the usual system's version of DFK, or it may differ dramatically.</li> </ul> Example #1: a certificate in Prince Valiant may be redeemed (lost) for a player to state that the character instantly subdues an opponent. The mechanic replaces the usual resolution system (comparing tossed coins), which is simply ignored. This illustrates a Drama metagame mechanic replacing a Fortune baseline mechanic and relying on an irreplaceable Resource.We might say that Rule Zero is a rule that permits the GM to replace the usual resolution system with Drama (ie sheer narration) whenever the GM wants to, without having to spend a resource.The most common principle that I see mentioned is "for the good of the game" or "to make things more fun". I don't think these are very effective principles, and I think they are in obvious tension with "less efficient means".A principled statement of a rule-changing power is found in the early pages of Gygax's DMG (p 9):[T]he rules call for wandering monsters, but these can be not only irritating - if not deadly - but the appearance of such con actually spoil o game by interfering with an orderly expedition You have set up an area full of clever tricks and traps, populated it with well-thought-out creature complexes, given clues about it to pique players’ interest, and the group has worked hard to supply themselves with everything by way of information and equipment they will need to face and overcome the imagined perils. They are gathered together and eager to spend an enjoyable evening playing their favorite game, with the expectation of going to a new, strange area and doing their best to triumph. They are willing to accept the hazards of the dice, be it loss of items, wounding, insanity, disease, death, as long as the process is exciting. But lo!, everytime you throw the ”monster die” q wandering nasty is indicated, and the party’s strength is spent trying to fight their way into the area. Spells expended, battered and wounded, the characters trek back to their base. Expectations have been dashed, and probably interest too, by random chance. Rather than spoil such an otherwise enjoyable time, omit the wandering monsters indicated by the die. No, don’t allow the party to kill them easily or escape unnaturally, for that goes contrary to the major precepts of the game. Wandering monsters, however, are included for two reasons, as is explained in the section about them. If a party deserves to have these beasties inflicted upon them, that is another matter, but in the example above it is assumed that they are doing everything possible to travel quickly and quietly to their planned destination. If your work as a DM has been sufficient, the players will have all they can handle upon arrival, so let them get there, give them a chance. The game is the thing, and certain rules can be distorted or disregarded altogether in favor of play. But precisely because it is principled, this is a very particular rule. For instance, it doesn't have any application, at least that I can see, in contemporary D&D that takes it for granted that the GM (rather than the players) exercises primary control over scene-framing; or that the GM is largely at liberty to change the backstory, and bring bits of the backstory onto the "stage", at will.So it seems to me to be a long way from "rule zero" as that seems to be commonly understood.</blockquote>

Verification