TTRPGs are Law! (and why no one cares)

12 Feb, 2024

Introduction

I was recently discussing with my friend Ocean over at A Fistful of Scrolls the dominance of normative discussion within our general analysis of the OSR (Old-School Revival). By normative I am here referring to "ought" statements, i.e. what "ought" to be. This at first appears to be a rather banal claim (and perhaps it is), but our discussions seem disproportionate to the wider realm of jurisprudence - the philosophy of law. After all, there's is much depth of study related to a purely analytical (what "is") view of law, notably in the positivist movement¹. I am in this post trying to unpack, with a good splash of conjecture and gung-ho legal positivism, why this might be the case. I am looking at the differences between the rules of TTRPGs and law as it is more generally conceived to see what leads to skipping the analytical step and going straight for the moralistic jugular (facetiousness notwithstanding).

A Brief Note on Positivism

It strikes me that the large majority of the readers of this blog won't have been forced to sift through reams of largely indigestible early 20th century texts fuelled on a couple of eggs and a hangover², so allow me to illuminate the positivist position a little bit.

Positivism is not only legal - it is simply the view that scientific knowledge is the only true knowledge, and this knowledge comes from the 'positive confirmation of theory by the application of of rigid scientific methods' ³. It is essentially an analytical empiricism, though this is a tad reductionist.

The aspect of legal positivism I am engaging with in this post is that, broadly, legal positivists believed law could be seen "as it is", as opposed to what it ought to be.

A Hart of XP Gold

I begin here with an analytical discussion of whether TTRPGs can be seen as a system of laws through H.L.A. Hart's positivism. Hopefully this illuminates how TTRPGs can be analysed in a jurisprudential manner in the first place.

H.L.A Hart was a key early legal positivist. He saw law as a social phenomenon, where a fundamental social practice lends validity to the system as a whole - this he called the Rule of Recognition⁴. This is similar to a (probably just as unquestioned) fundamental to roleplaying games - there is a fundamental social agreement amongst participants that the game shall be ruled.

Recognising Rules

Within the introductory pages of plenty of rulebooks lie hints to these ties that bind individuals in the game. A paragraph or so usually describes a DM, subservient players, dungeons, monsters, etc., but what truly pins them together is the implicit agreement between participants: "this is what we are doing, as ascribed by X⁵". Such a social agreement is analogous to the Rule of Recognition.

Route to the Internal World

For Hart, a legal system exists where there is a Rule of Recognition and primary rules⁶ recognised by officials. 'Officials' need not really be defined past the GM (or everyone in GMless play). The final thing officials must do is adopt an 'internal point of view'; to explain the nature of rules we need to examine them from the point of view of those who 'experience' them.⁷

This is perhaps why Hart is so applicable to the TTRPGs - he introduces a level of normative analysis into positivism in order to illustrate that there is a social source of legal rules distinct from mere command. In TTRPGs, this 'internal' social source of validity is readily apparent as we all experience the rules routinely through play. Considering the empowering nature of most TTRPG rulesets also, in that they tell the participants what they can do as opposed to what they can't do, this is doubly relevant⁸.

Rulings over rules?

‘[T]he shared morality of a group’ consists in a ‘consensus of independent convictions manifested in the concurrent practices of the group’⁹. Indeed, Hart is fine with rulings or RAW: the legal system is affirmed merely by group acceptance; the internal point of view.

So, TTRPGs are law?

Well, from Hart's perspective, yes. Or at least they are predicated upon very similar stuff. In fact, TTRPGs are perhaps a stronger example of legal positivism functioning convincingly than when applied to actual law. Take the Rule of Recognition: in a TTRPG this is clear and pragmatic. There is a fundamental social practice accepted by players who already necessarily possess an internal point of view.

What of the real world? The Rule of Recognition in England lies somewhere in the realm of Royal Assent, in parallel with the precedent set by the courts. This uncertainty alone is enough to call such an assertion into question. Can this really be said to lend validity to the existence of a legal system? Is such a rule even practicable on a social level? Moreover, does anything change when its validity is called into question? If the answer you are coming to is 'this is entirely unclear', I would tend to agree with you.

You valid fr.

I think the dividing line is the gravity of the stuff, unsurprisingly. The validity of rules in TTRPGs is hard to question, but the importance of its validity isn't. On the other hand, the validity of law in the real world is obviously important, but its validity is naturally harder to ascertain. The validity of rules in TTRPGs comes indisputably, predicating the experience. Why bother discussing whether it is a valid rule when you can discuss if it should be a rule at all? After all, if the internal view of the participants is what manifestly matters, it is understandable in the circumstances to take this normativity and run.