Wait, so is Rule 0, "The game rules are fluid," or is Rule 0, "The GM is the final arbiter?"

I believe every RPG should just go ahead and explicitly state the former. I can't find one of our beloved SR2 main books - Paul's got them - but here is the equivalent from Earthdawn:

QuoteAs with all the rules in this book, treat the following as guidelines. If you and the players don't like the way a rule works or feels, feel free to change it. This game is yours. You spent your own money for it, and no one, not even us, can tell you how to use it. Besides, no one is going to stop by your house in the middle of the night to check on how you're playing Earthdawn. FASA hasn't finished checking up on all its Shadowrun players yet.

Maybe it's because I grew up with Shadowrun [which had a similar caveat] but I always assumed both rules fluidity and GM fiat were automatically assumed in an RPG. Are there RPGs out there which do not allow rules alteration, or in which the GM is not final arbiter?

I think where you're getting confused on the Rule 0 issue Engine, is in assuming an RPG savvy audience like ourselves.

What the concern is actually about is what a lack of such philosophy means for the prospective player base to be gained from those who either don't play RPGs, or are relatively inexperienced.

You may not see Rule 0 as anything important, because you take it for granted, but it is.

Quote from: J ArcaneI think where you're getting confused on the Rule 0 issue Engine, is in assuming an RPG savvy audience like ourselves.

Yeah, but I wasn't savvy when I started playing, and we just knew this stuff. Of course, it was expressly written in our books, because we were playing Shadowrun [clearly superior to D&D!].

Quote from: J ArcaneYou may not see Rule 0 as anything important, because you take it for granted, but it is.

Oh, I think it's very important, but I also don't see its lack. If Rule 0 is "GM is arbiter," then most every RPG ever explicitly says so. [4e does.] If Rule 0 is rules fluidity, then I guess my question is, why wouldn't someone change a rule they don't like? Does anyone have to tell you, "Hey, if you think this is bollocks, don't use it." How would they stop you?

Quote from: EngineYeah, but I wasn't savvy when I started playing, and we just knew this stuff. Of course, it was expressly written in our books, because we were playing Shadowrun [clearly superior to D&D!].

That's rather exactly my point.

QuoteOh, I think it's very important, but I also don't see its lack. If Rule 0 is "GM is arbiter," then most every RPG ever explicitly says so. [4e does.] If Rule 0 is rules fluidity, then I guess my question is, why wouldn't someone change a rule they don't like? Does anyone have to tell you, "Hey, if you think this is bollocks, don't use it." How would they stop you?

The concept of game rules being that fluid is rather unique to roleplaying, at least in so far as popular forms are concerned.  There's some of the more obscure forms of wargaming that still possess it.  

It's perfectly plausible to someone not inured to the Rule 0 philosophy to treat the game the same way they'd treat Chess.  I don't recall ever sitting down at a table to play chess and being informed that "Oh, bishops work different in our game", or one of the players suddenly deciding "Pawns are boring, lets do this to make them more interesting."

That is a common event in RPGs, but it's not the sort of thing that happens often in other games, and when it does pop it's head up in the form of house rules, even those are usually well defined in advance and agreed upon by all parties before play even begins.

Quote from: J ArcaneThat's rather exactly my point.

Oh. Well, mine, too.

Quote from: J ArcaneI don't recall ever sitting down at a table to play chess and being informed that "Oh, bishops work different in our game", or one of the players suddenly deciding "Pawns are boring, lets do this to make them more interesting."

You know, I'd never considered that. Interestingly, while cutting up the quote tags and moving things about, it occurred to me that I've probably never sat down to play Monopoly and not had someone list their house rules! Do you suppose it's rules complexity that makes people willing to make alterations, or is it just that chess is old and we're traditional? Why do people houserule Monopoly, but not other board games?

Perhaps more importantly, beyond just expressly stating that the rules are fluid, is there some common element of Monopoly and other commonly houseruled games which could be identified and used in roleplaying games to encourage this kind of modification?

In my own experience, the only real house rule I ever have seen commonly implemented in Monopoly was the "Free Parking" rule, which has become so wide spread that it's actually printed as an optional rule in some manuals with the game.  

There were also a few in Risk that were written in the book as optional rules that we used when I played as a kid.

Can't really recall any other games I've ever played where house rules were ever utilized at all.

Quote from: J ArcaneI don't recall ever sitting down at a table to play chess and being informed that "Oh, bishops work different in our game", or one of the players suddenly deciding "Pawns are boring, lets do this to make them more interesting."

That doesn't preclude it from ever happening. Or mean that it can't, or must not happen.

I've played games of chess, risk, even cards where the rules change based on who's playing. Hell, in a few cases where we were playing played a factor into how we played.

Quote from: J ArcaneSounds like Rule 0 to me.  Why he's being so cagey as to not repost it here I don't really understand.

It's not cageyness. I've been posting to all the 4e threads and bouncing around so much I've lost track of what I've quoted where. I stated the right to house rule here, but didn't give a full quote because I'd forgotten where I was and made the mistake of thinking just saying something was enough.

Quote from: EngineI think all that looking at the 4e DMG is probably burning him. Actually, it's burning me, too.

I haven't looked at it much. I scanned the Adventures chapter, and read two paragraphs of the House Rules section. I liked everything I saw, but that doesn't mean much given how little I've seen.

Quote from: J ArcaneThat is a common event in RPGs, but it's not the sort of thing that happens often in other games, and when it does pop it's head up in the form of house rules, even those are usually well defined in advance and agreed upon by all parties before play even begins.

This is a good suggestion for all games -- even RPGs.

Quote from: EngineMaybe it's because I grew up with Shadowrun [which had a similar caveat] but I always assumed both rules fluidity and GM fiat were automatically assumed in an RPG. Are there RPGs out there which do not allow rules alteration, or in which the GM is not final arbiter?

My memory may be faulty so don't take my word for it but I believe Synnibar had something to say about this.

I might very well be wrong. It was a long time ago and I thankfully forgot everything I ever knew about it.

Quote from: StuartThis is a good suggestion for all games -- even RPGs.

And it's how we do it! So yeah I second that! Motion carried.

Quote from: J ArcaneCourtesy of Mr. Mcmurray:



Sounds like Rule 0 to me.  Why he's being so cagey as to not repost it here I don't really understand.

The right to change the rules is not exactly like the right to make a ruling.

I've been told that the section on how to handle rules lawyers is very telling...

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditThe right to change the rules is not exactly like the right to make a ruling.

I've been told that the section on how to handle rules lawyers is very telling...

RPGPundit

Step 1: Read the text
Step 2: Comment on the text

Do we need some game book to tell us to ignore the game book if we want to?

Quote from: Kyle AaronDo we need some game book to tell us to ignore the game book if we want to?

That too.