Credibility of the rules as written

[coxcomb]

It seems like this topic has about run its course, and I certainly don't want to argue the metphysical nature of "authority" with anyone here. I am interested in the subject of the success of D&D and Vapire that crept in here, but it probably belongs on a different thread.

Anyway, as a last part of my argument that the written rules do have authority assignedby virtue of RPGs being "games", here is an actual play (albeit not of an RPG) example.

The other night I played the wonderful board game, The Traders of Genoa, with some friends. I explained the rules, being the most familiar with them, and we got going. Part way through the game, one of the players didn't like the way a rule affected him. He started by asking the human authority (me), "are you sure...". When I confirmed, he grabbed the rules to look it up.

Sure, board games and RPGs are very different, but I have seen this same scenario a thousand times in RPG play. The group accepts the authority of the experienced player (usually the GM) until something in the game makes them unhappy. Then they start leafing through the rulebook to check the rule. The authority of the rules trumps the authority of the human authority--but most of the time you don't need to refer to the rules, because you don't have a problem.

So I think that a group selecting a game to play means that, at the social contract level, they are agreeing to give the rules of that game authority over play. This is particularly important when a traditional GM is present, because the players are agreeing to give the GM power over the SIS in exchange for his agreement to at least appear to be playing by the rules (I say appear to be playing by the rules, because lots of things can happen behind the GM screen that have nothing to do with the rules, but that is a topic for another thread.)

[Callan S.]

they are agreeing to give the rules of that game authority over play

It sounds like your saying everyone would always do this.

If I join a game and the GM says 'My word always comes before those in the book' and I accept that, then I've accepted it. I can't then go and grab the book and spell out rules to him...that's an SC violation.

Sure, I might reflexively reach for the book every so often during such play. But that's not because the rules have intrinsic authority...that's because I'm used to an SC where everyone agrees (including the GM), that the rules can trump the GM's word.

Just because I'm used to it, doesn't make it a reality.

[Callan S.]

There seems to be a mix up between "This text has authority that I grant it" and "This text has (intrinsic) authority that it then grants to me"

The latter is incorrect. But rewind me to 10 years ago and I wouldn't have said that. Instead as I reflexively said they had intrinsic authority, as much as I had no control over that reflex, I granted them authority. Since I reflexively gave it and didn't instead pause, think and then consent to grant it, in a way they had authority whether I liked it/consented or not.

Wow.  In my experience, that's peculiar.  Virtually everyone I have known in gaming had house rules and/or fudging.  As far as I know, this has been true since the start of the hobby.  For example, Gary Gygax was near-universally mocked for his "play by the book" rants.  I believe that you unquestioningly played exactly as written -- it's just that it is very different from what I have seen of gaming.

To clarify, I would have said they stand up once put into place. See, even as I set up SC (ie, what rules we would abide by), I didn't acknowledge the existance of SC.

Fudging was a 'wait, that's wrong...wait, that's also right? Huh?' confusion which in part lead me to what I know today, about rules.

but the players grant that authority the moment they say, "We want to play D&D." To play D&D, you check the authorities on how D&D is played, and those authorities are the rule books.

Yes. Unless we all just decide to stop checking them, mid game. Then no.

Every second they have to be granted cred, in order to have authority. You can't just grant it once and the rule keeps the cred/authority. I mean, it's clear when one person throws up their hands mid game and says 'Ah, this rule sucks" and then everyone pauses, thinks then nods and they ignore it, exactly how unintrinsic the authority is.

Strangely, they are actually sticking tightly to SC there. Because usually people are commiting credibility to some other goal that's higher in rank. "Having fun" is a vague, but common one.

The SC rule with higher rank cut the supply line of credibility to the book rule.