Quote from: Murphy78 on August 25, 2023, 06:08:49 AM

Quote from: Murphy78 on July 31, 2023, 04:13:16 PM
I feel that Rule 0, to most people, means at least one of this four things:

1) that the GM (or the group of players) may introduce house rules;
2) that the GM may solve cases not covered by the rules through rulings;
3) that the rules are "just guidelines, suggestions";
4) that the GM may disregard any rule and the result of dice as he sees fit.

I have no objection for points 1 and 2. Not a fan of 3 and 4.

Also, I feel like if we mean one of this four thing, we could stop calling it rule 0 and talking directly  about the above features. For example, Becmi has the first two, but not the last two. 3.X probably all four, so saying "D&D has rule 0" is confusing, which edition and what Rule 0 actually means.
Many time is a broken phone game, arguing about rule 0 and then learning that we mean different thing.

  This is one of the reasons I think "Rule 0" has become less of a concept and more a shibboleth in the OSR/BrOSR squabble.

Someone needs to explain to me how the fuck exactly aren't the PC races and Monsters also part of the rules and mechanics?

As for anouncing a houserule:

It all depends, am I GMing to people who KNOW the rules? Then it's a must "In my world Only Elves and Humans can interbreed, there's NO half-anythingelse"

If the players DON'T know the rules then I also should explain but I could not, because they lack the frame of reference, but it's a good idea to do exp`lain so they don't get blindsided in a different table{campaign.

Playing RAW, been there done that, usually happens when you're new to the hobby or a religious zealot.

NO game designer could ever predict everything in every table, for instance BCT doesn't like that ALL orcs are evil, so he changes that, I like it so I don't.

As for BECMI not having a part of Rule Zero... You must mean in writting right? But BECMI didn't sprang into existence by itself, it's an evolution of the same game that has it. As ANYONE who understands evolution will tell you, you can't evolve out from your ancestors, meaning you're still a vertebrate just like vipers.

So first off, congratulations I feel are due to Pundit on his marketing success for Wilderlands. Making waves, it sounds like, which should be good for both this site and the hobby, and presumably also OSR.

Rulings not rules. I'd have to agree that this fits with the original (and perhaps arguably definitional) OSR based on the words and thread feedback I've heard about it. And I think Pundit has certainly got a handle on all that.

I will also acknowledge it puts a lot of pressure on the DM at times, though, and that maybe the OSR rule zero utilization emphasis isn't always a good fit for weaker DMs. (Possibly including myself, though I'm working on that and adapting from prior failures when next I get a shot at DMing within its paradigm.) Primarily because I feel like for the emphasis to be on rulings and not rules requires regular override and proactive adjudication of not only rules but player expectations tied into them, among other things. A good DM knows his group, knows his style, knows his world, and fits the rulings to those things with confidence and expertise. A weaker DM, might perhaps at times be better off with a set of rules that as written fit the style and world he has in mind, hopefully which will appeal to his group... but I'd agree that this pre-canned set of rules (even if you add in pre-group-confirmed homebrew like I sometimes do) and player expectations that don't change or get challenged much in play is not really OSR. An OSR world and game seems more flexible and living than that, and seems not just a style of rules or play but a style of DMing.

Likewise, as you reference in the video, even a flawless game design can only allow for the play of what was designed (*cough* which also allows for centralized mass ideological inculcation *cough*). By contrast, OSR is flexible not just because of the mechanics and blah but because of the philosophy of gaming and GMing. A philosophy which seems to acknowledge that the person who for the most part describes and adjudicates what goes on within the world in question naturally has the most power within the group as an individual as regards the development of the story. Players can leave, and roleplay their characters, and there might be multiple dms in a group even, but ultimately the story of a world and its reaction to the characters cannot continue unless the dm of that world continues it. So we need to cultivate GM excellence and make the most of what the GM power and flexibility has to offer to get to the apex of what the game can really be.

I'm not saying other methods are badwrongfun, just that they arguably aren't OSR. I myself like pre-programmed stuff by and large, both as DM and player. partly because it helps me understand and create for the former case, and because it provides a common, if less flexible, set of expectations going into things. Still, this earlier line of reasoning has its place and is the kind of game I would eventually like to succeed in having at least once. (Not least because the clockmaker god bit feels like the actualization in many ways of the simulationist/living world/consistent gaming reality stuff I often appreciate in a game whether as dm or player.)

On the flip side, yeah, DM as author and diminished player agency can arguably at times be the result of too much rule zero in play, especially wherein previously stated rules and expectations are overturned without reason or justification beyond dm fiat, and without players being on board properly. Difficult balancing act, and it requires both skill and courage to properly pull it off.

IDK. Most of this was just written as a stream of consciousness collection of sentences mid-video, so it may be a bit disjointed in message and presentation, though I tried to clean it up.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on August 25, 2023, 08:08:53 AM

Quote from: Murphy78 on August 25, 2023, 06:08:49 AM

Quote from: Murphy78 on July 31, 2023, 04:13:16 PM
I feel that Rule 0, to most people, means at least one of this four things:

1) that the GM (or the group of players) may introduce house rules;
2) that the GM may solve cases not covered by the rules through rulings;
3) that the rules are "just guidelines, suggestions";
4) that the GM may disregard any rule and the result of dice as he sees fit.

I have no objection for points 1 and 2. Not a fan of 3 and 4.

Also, I feel like if we mean one of this four thing, we could stop calling it rule 0 and talking directly  about the above features. For example, Becmi has the first two, but not the last two. 3.X probably all four, so saying "D&D has rule 0" is confusing, which edition and what Rule 0 actually means.
Many time is a broken phone game, arguing about rule 0 and then learning that we mean different thing.

  This is one of the reasons I think "Rule 0" has become less of a concept and more a shibboleth in the OSR/BrOSR squabble.

It's essentially a test word as to whether you believe that the central authority in RPG play should be the Game Mechanics (which is actually to say, the game designer; or in some cases like the BroSR, a supposed 'authority figure' that interprets the design of a game, as Jeffro does with his bullshit pseudohistory and weird interpretations of the text of AD&D), or if it should be the DM of a gaming group, tailoring the rules to his campaign and to the players he actually knows.

Quote from: RPGPundit on August 29, 2023, 08:17:20 PM

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on August 25, 2023, 08:08:53 AM

Quote from: Murphy78 on August 25, 2023, 06:08:49 AM

Quote from: Murphy78 on July 31, 2023, 04:13:16 PM
I feel that Rule 0, to most people, means at least one of this four things:

1) that the GM (or the group of players) may introduce house rules;
2) that the GM may solve cases not covered by the rules through rulings;
3) that the rules are "just guidelines, suggestions";
4) that the GM may disregard any rule and the result of dice as he sees fit.

I have no objection for points 1 and 2. Not a fan of 3 and 4.

Also, I feel like if we mean one of this four thing, we could stop calling it rule 0 and talking directly  about the above features. For example, Becmi has the first two, but not the last two. 3.X probably all four, so saying "D&D has rule 0" is confusing, which edition and what Rule 0 actually means.
Many time is a broken phone game, arguing about rule 0 and then learning that we mean different thing.

  This is one of the reasons I think "Rule 0" has become less of a concept and more a shibboleth in the OSR/BrOSR squabble.

It's essentially a test word as to whether you believe that the central authority in RPG play should be the Game Mechanics (which is actually to say, the game designer; or in some cases like the BroSR, a supposed 'authority figure' that interprets the design of a game, as Jeffro does with his bullshit pseudohistory and weird interpretations of the text of AD&D), or if it should be the DM of a gaming group, tailoring the rules to his campaign and to the players he actually knows.

Meh... I've seen what I GM who thinks he knows his players continually fiddling with the rules leads to; players unable to make informed decisions about common tasks because the very "physics" of the universe varies from session to session.

It has been my consistent experience across nearly four decades that players prefer consistency of rulings (even if the rule is bad) to recurring GM fiat.

This isn't to say a GM can't change the rules*, but he should really only do so at a campaign's start (setting the initial rules that players can then trust to be enforced) or if something arises that is so broken it could actually wreck the entire campaign.

Consistency is key to player engagement.

* this is distinct from making rulings for poorly covered actions by extrapolating from the existing rules; even then it's good to keep track of your rulings so that if the situation comes up again the players can expect a similar ruling to the last time it came up.