The Game Contradiction

It's only a game if there are rules

The final contradiction of modern gaming is the most important one. Modern roleplaying games and the styles of play they encourage contradict the nature of RPGs as, well, Gs. Modern games are not treated like games which means they occupy some kind of weird middle ground between game and collaborative storytelling. RPGs are not collaborative storytelling. They are games, wargames specifically, with an emergent narrative aspect. When you ignore the structure or deliberately attack it, you shouldn't be surprised when the whole thing collapses.

Firstly, we need to establish one thing. Games are defined by their rules. The whole point of games is to impose artificial limitations on actions which create the parameters in which players seek a certain objective. In football, teams have 4 downs to move the ball 10 yards or more with the ultimate goal of getting the ball to the end of the field where points are scored. In Monopoly, you roll dice, move your game piece and either purchase a property or deal with the consequences of a drawn card. When you agree to play these games, you agree to abide by the restrictions. You don't get 6 downs or unlimited downs to move the ball in football. You get 4. You don't get to buy Park Place if you land on Marvin Gardens. This is probably obvious to many of you and indeed it's obvious to anyone who plays football or Monopoly. However, when it comes to roleplaying games, everyone seems to be appalled by the idea that the rules are the rules.

Indeed, Dungeons & Dragons and its ilk seem to be the only games where rules don't seem to matter. The games themselves even encourage you to ignore the rules and pursue your own style of play. All of this stems from a misunderstood concept that has mutated into a Lovecraftian nightmare, Rule 0. Rule 0 began life as permission to expand upon the rules in the event that a judge couldn't not determine how a certain scenario would play out within them. By the time Moldvay B/X was released, the transformation from emergency tool to license to bend and break the rules had already begun. Nowadays, Rule 0 is commonly written and interpreted as a license to completely ignore the rules. It's become standard practice to generate book-sized documents of house rules or to just ignore rules on a whim. RPG influencer XP to Level 3 even released a video encouraging GMs to allow homebrew spells, ignore rules and not track hitpoints. His opinions are far from controversial too. In fact, telling people to read the rules will kick up a larger fuss than telling them to ignore the rules.

So what’s the problem? People are having fun, aren’t they? Firstly, I would say that the rate of campaign attrition and the shortage of GMs will tell you exactly how fun many of these games are. Secondly, even if they are having fun, they aren’t having fun playing D&D if they’ve thrown out the rules. You can have fun playing basketball but allowing people to carry the ball instead of dribbling. You aren’t playing basketball though because you’ve ignored the rules. And you can have fun running around a basketball court with golf clubs trying to keep a shuttlecock from touching the floor, but if you call it “basketball” then you’re delusional. The game happens between the guardrails that are set by the rules. Even a game that leans on imagination like an RPG still has to abide by rules lest it become a playground game of pretend. Hell, even playing pretend often has the most basic of rulesets. “We’re playing Power Rangers, so you can’t be Optimus Prime” is still a rule. When you fail to place emphasis on the importance of rules to your game, you are playing less of a game than a group of school children making explosion noises while running around the swing set.

Why is this contradiction the most important? Because it cuts at the very foundation of the game. If you eliminate rules from your game, you eliminate the game. It’s that simple. All games require rules otherwise they become unstructured improvisation with no identifiable goal to pursue. So before you start hacking away at rules and telling people that they don’t matter, consider how much damage you may be doing to the game by removing these things. Remember what G.K. Chesterton said:

“In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, ‘I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away.’ To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: ‘If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.’”