TheRPGSite

Without Rule Zero, there is no RPG hobby. The people who are anti rule 0 were either traumatized by bad DMs, or have self-serving motives.
#dnd       #ttrpg   #osr 

I agree with the premise, but find most of the argument irrelevant. A tool chest is not a mechanic, and the rules are a only tool for the GM to run a role playing game. No GM, no game. RAW and RAW only is a board game with or without role playing. The participants could unambitious house rule it, but at that point the original game is no longer being played.  The last option being rules by committee or distributed authority, in which case managing the fiction is the game, not role playing a character.

The miss use of rule zero comes from turning to the rules and fudging the undesired outcome, instead of adjudication the reasonable outcome as succeeding automatically or being impossible. The chief offender there were rules for automatic success or failure and players getting to roll for non sensible outcomes. Your character is not going to break his neck getting out of bed, nor will he seduce the king in front of the royal court. Neither is happening, and neither needs to be rolled for, thus there is not stupid outcome to be fudge. The GM does not need to rule zero the rules having ruled zeroed the fiction, and ruling on how the world works is going to be inherently more consistent than tried to iron out edge case.

As for some of the example story games mentioned, I think they qualify as party games, at best an excuse to play act within a framework, and not story games as they are by design on rails and produce one and only one story.

Whether or not Rule 0 should be used depends entirely on the expectations of the players. If you invite your friends over to play "Fifth Edition D&D" then you should stick as close as possible to the rules as that's what you said you'd play. But if the players knew in advance that you'd be changing stuff then Rule 0 is ok.

That being said, it is a bit silly to say that Rule 0 is the "Key" to RPGs. Any time you use Rule 0, or "Rulings not Rules" you are simply adding a new rule to the game. As the campaign continues on, you'll need to change the rules less and less until Rule 0 isn't needed at all. In effect, you either play the game RAW, or you create a new game and play this new game RAW. So RAW will be the end state of any well run RPG campaign. It isn't "fascism".

My main issue with the whole "Rulings not Rules" philosophy is that it assumes that the Game Designer and the DM are two separate people. In an ideal "old school" RPG campaign, the DM will write his own rules so the whole question of whether or not the DM can change the rules ends up as irrelevant.

In short rule 0 is axiomatic.  How so?  Well if a GM is required by the game then it is true.  Otherwise, no GM would be required to RUN the game.

So, arguments against the rule for a game like D&D are just plain idiotic and illogical. 

Quote from: hedgehobbit on July 26, 2023, 03:11:16 PM

That being said, it is a bit silly to say that Rule 0 is the "Key" to RPGs. Any time you use Rule 0, or "Rulings not Rules" you are simply adding a new rule to the game.

Well, given the FACT that no rpg has rules that cover EVERY possibility of play, Rule 0 is INDISPENSABLE if not key.

There's also that most ttrpgs other than D&D are welded to a particular campaign setting. I've encountered whole fandoms of religious cultists that hate rule zero and viciously attack you if you defy their holy canon. Normally I just don't care and I move on... but these sorts of jerkass anti-rule 0 fandoms have colonized whole genres. If you like any genre that isn't D&D-influenced fantasy, then you don't have much options.

I find it extremely frustrating. I could make my own ttrpgs if I wanted to, but I'm lazy and I want someone else to do the hard lifting for me. Unfortunately, that seems to be how everyone thinks nowadays and it results in ttrpgs being monopolistic and devoid of creative diversity. Outside of GURPS, I guess, but who really gives a fuck about GURPS? (Don't get me wrong, GURPS is useful even for non-GURPS design.)

I don't know about the key to the hobby. I just think it's a really good idea.

I also think it's weird when people claim to play by the book but disparage rule zero. At least as far as old school D&D goes, it literally is one of the rules in the book. If you ignore it, you're picking and choosing which rules to use. Which is every DM's prerogative, but you can't then claim it's a By-the-Book game. In fact, one of the duties the rules assign to the DM is that of adjudicator. If you're abdicating that duty in favor of strict execution of the black-and-white letter of the rules, you're definitely going against the rules.

It's not like RPGs are the only games that have a rule saying you can break the rules. In the Illuminati card game from Steve Jackson games, there is an optional rule that allows for cheating. Any illegal move becomes legal if no one notices by the end of turn. When a group decides to use that rule, it absolutely has an impact on the game. Even if no player actually decides to cheat, players are still watching one another a bit more closely.

With rule zero in RPGs, even if by happenstance the GM never feels the need to actually use it, the idea is it creates a degree of trust for the players who then form the expectation that since there is a human adjudicator, as player we don't need to have precise rules knowledge, that the results, outcomes, and consequences of our choices will be reasonable and logical, and we won't get pixelbitched at for not invoking the correct mechanic. It liberates the players from metagame concerned and allows them to just play their characters.

I'm not really into "playing RAW" stuff either. I much prefer rulings, house rules, etc. Today I discussed this a bit here:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/07/rulings-on-fly-griffons-bx-dmg-4e5e.html

AD&D is great, but I'm not even sure you CAN play it RAW; e.g., Gygax recommends occasionally ignoring encounter rules in the beginning of the DMG.

Also Diversity & Dragons tweeted this:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F2A39afWUAAYmNb?format=jpg&name=small)

Is it really possible to run something like Basic without Rule 0?

Quote from: hedgehobbit on July 26, 2023, 03:11:16 PM
Whether or not Rule 0 should be used depends entirely on the expectations of the players. If you invite your friends over to play "Fifth Edition D&D" then you should stick as close as possible to the rules as that's what you said you'd play. But if the players knew in advance that you'd be changing stuff then Rule 0 is ok.

That being said, it is a bit silly to say that Rule 0 is the "Key" to RPGs. Any time you use Rule 0, or "Rulings not Rules" you are simply adding a new rule to the game. As the campaign continues on, you'll need to change the rules less and less until Rule 0 isn't needed at all. In effect, you either play the game RAW, or you create a new game and play this new game RAW. So RAW will be the end state of any well run RPG campaign. It isn't "fascism".

Did you watch my video?

Quote from: Lunamancer on July 27, 2023, 10:00:47 AM
I don't know about the key to the hobby. I just think it's a really good idea.

Did you watch the video?

I watched the video and like most of what you said about rule 0.  However, I don't think the "clockmaker deity" approach to GMing is always the best.  At that point, what separates an organic GM from the A.I. variety?

From watching the video, I disagree especially that without Rule 0, the game is under the tyranny of the game designer. Choice of rules or House Rules is different than Rule 0.

Gamers have been using house rules since long before there were RPGs and game-masters. The table can easily agree to use rules different than the ones written. The difference is that house rules are something open and agreed on. For example, I was in one campaign that completely changed rules from Fantasy HERO to Rolemaster to Fudge. That's not Rule 0, that's changing the ruleset.

A house rule is something that is openly announced and agreed on. They don't have to be written down on paper, but they could be. They could even be changed - just like we changed the campaign rules above.

Rule 0 ("The GM supercedes the rules") is about the GM changing the rules at will, without any announcement.


Back in the 1970s and 1980s, I used to use Rule 0 more, but as I got more into the nuances of RPG design, I have turned away from it more.  In some ways, it's related to dice fudging.  Going by the rules as written means that the rules are more important.  If the rules have a problem, you have to fix the rules rather than overriding them.

Rule 0 is workable and can lead to fun games, but I've come to think Rules-As-Written leads to tighter and better-written game design.

Quote from: jhkim on July 28, 2023, 07:09:07 PM
A house rule is something that is openly announced and agreed on.

Bullcrap.  House rules are just that.  99% of them I've run into in my 47 years of gaming have been made by the GM and no one ever had the players vote on it.

Quote from: RPGPundit on July 28, 2023, 04:24:50 PM

Quote from: Lunamancer on July 27, 2023, 10:00:47 AM
I don't know about the key to the hobby. I just think it's a really good idea.

Did you watch the video?

Yes.

Quote from: RPGPundit on July 28, 2023, 04:22:47 PMDid you watch my video?

Yes. That's why I put that mention of how you called people that don't play the way you prefer "fascists" (at 20 minutes in).

It is really a pointless argument. If you, like you said in the video, consider inventing a new monsters for your game an example of "Rule 0" then, of course, Rule 0 is ubiquitous. But nobody else uses the term like that. Rule 0 is specific to changing the game rules, not adding new monsters, magic items, or classes.

I have no idea how GM rulings and house rules got to be so controversial.  Many older core books had it explicitly spelled out that the GM had the right to make changes as they see fit.  One of my favorite books for advice for running games is "Listen Up, You Primitive Screwheads" and it answers a question with the answer: "You paid your $25, play it how you want."  (That may not be the EXACT quote)

Quote from: Scooter on July 28, 2023, 09:32:07 PM

Quote from: jhkim on July 28, 2023, 07:09:07 PM
A house rule is something that is openly announced and agreed on.

Bullcrap.  House rules are just that.  99% of them I've run into in my 47 years of gaming have been made by the GM and no one ever had the players vote on it.

Sorry about the phrasing. I wasn't trying to imply that players vote on it. Just that there's a huge difference between:

1) The by-the-book GM who is really into the rules and has his twenty pages of house rules that he's constantly tweaking.

2) The Rule 0 GM who doesn't worry about it and plays fast-and-loose with the rules.

Hence, "house rules" isn't the same as "GM supersedes the rules".

Quote from: jhkim on July 28, 2023, 11:55:06 PM
Sorry about the phrasing. I wasn't trying to imply that players vote on it. Just that there's a huge difference between:

1) The by-the-book GM who is really into the rules and has his twenty pages of house rules that he's constantly tweaking.

2) The Rule 0 GM who doesn't worry about it and plays fast-and-loose with the rules.

Hence, "house rules" isn't the same as "GM supersedes the rules".

Yes it is.  WTF do you think a house rule is?  I don't know any table that runs a fun game that treats the core books as absolute.  Always it's the GM that decides what rules are used and those that aren't.  During the evolution of a campaign, it always becomes necessary to modify a rule, introduce a new rule, or ignore a rule.  Again, this needs to be a GM decision.  After all, only the GM knows what's going on in his world that he's running the game in and what things are necessary to make it work. 

In many cases, I run all kinds of mini systems behind the screen for helping me organize the game that players don't know about.  If I need to either keep a rule they don't understand or put in a rule, I need carte blanch to do just that.  If a player has an idea, I will listen but I need to be able to adjudicate it without having my decision hanging in question.  (I actually had a 9yo give me a great idea for record keeping one time.  It does pay to communicate with your players.)

Now if you have a beef with a GM that's inconsistent or is constantly throwing in random rule changes or even jumping systems all the time, that a separate issue.  Whether it's him being autistic and trying to make the ultimate RPG system or he's not focused on the game he's trying to run it can be bad for players.  A new GM that's trying to get it worked out will make some mistakes but if he's communicating with his players it will work out.

Quote from: jhkim on July 28, 2023, 07:09:07 PM
From watching the video, I disagree especially that without Rule 0, the game is under the tyranny of the game designer. Choice of rules or House Rules is different than Rule 0.

Gamers have been using house rules since long before there were RPGs and game-masters. The table can easily agree to use rules different than the ones written. The difference is that house rules are something open and agreed on. For example, I was in one campaign that completely changed rules from Fantasy HERO to Rolemaster to Fudge. That's not Rule 0, that's changing the ruleset.

A house rule is something that is openly announced and agreed on. They don't have to be written down on paper, but they could be. They could even be changed - just like we changed the campaign rules above.

Rule 0 ("The GM supercedes the rules") is about the GM changing the rules at will, without any announcement.

From listening to the video, you and Pundit are in agreement about the best approach to play, you just have different definitions of Rule 0. This is clear in the section from ca 12:30 on. Pundit's Rule 0 is your openly-declared house rules.

Yes, @jhkim , you do make an important distinction.

However it seem the current discussion is on Rule 0 x RAW.

You further divide non-RAW into Rule 0 and house rules. And you're technically right (or at least "more precise") - but this is not what people are discussing here apparently.

[Some people will further divide "house rules" from "homebrew" - e.g., new classes, spells, etc.].

In lieu of an official definition, going by google, "Rule 0 RPG" will give you:

Every tabletop RPG system has a Rule Zero. It usually goes like this, The Game Master may change, modify, ignore, or add to the rules as he or she sees fit to ensure the game is fun and runs smoothly. This means that if you are not sure about what the rules are for a situation, make something up.

And.

For these reasons, to protect the sanity and well-being of the average Game Master, most tabletop roleplaying games include some version of the following rule: The Game Master is always right. Rule Zero (as this is frequently called, hence the trope name) is a reminder to the players that the GM of any tabletop game has to exercise some common sense, and is permitted to supersede the rules when the rules would ruin enjoyment and fair play.

Come to think of it, "rule 0" as opposed to RAW could be seen as a tool that allows not only house rules, rulings, interpretations, fixing omissions, and common sense, but also railroading (changing the rules in the middle of combat). So, a tool that an be misused.

With that said... it is basically impossible to run a RPG without rule 0.

EDIT: come to think of it, I did "change the rules in the middle of combat" in my last sessions and it went well... To me it was an example of Rule 0 rather than railroading. But IMMV.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on July 28, 2023, 09:57:58 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on July 28, 2023, 04:22:47 PMDid you watch my video?

Yes. That's why I put that mention of how you called people that don't play the way you prefer "fascists" (at 20 minutes in).

It is really a pointless argument. If you, like you said in the video, consider inventing a new monsters for your game an example of "Rule 0" then, of course, Rule 0 is ubiquitous. But nobody else uses the term like that. Rule 0 is specific to changing the game rules, not adding new monsters, magic items, or classes.

I think Pundit was making the argument that creating new content, such as a new monster or magic item, is inherent to RPGs, in part because RPGs can not properly function without rule zero.  Rule zero is in RPGs' DNA, which allows for not only ignoring or altering rules during a game session, but creating house-rules and writing one's own adventures, random tables, classes, etc.

I think most people assume by default that rule zero is in play. Generally if we are strictly adhering to the rules we would make a point of saying the session is RAW (and even then there is usually some amount of rule zero)

Quote from: jhkim on July 28, 2023, 11:55:06 PM


Hence, "house rules" isn't the same as "GM supersedes the rules".

Incorrect.  A house rule by a GM MEANS that the GM has overridden written rules or created NEW rules by adding their own.  ANYTHING but RAW is superseding (v. take the place of (a person or thing previously in authority or use); supplant) the rules.  E.g.  In my Cepheus Deluxe game all Type C starports have refined fuel for sale.  In the RAW they sell only unrefined fuel.  So did my house rule supersede  the RAW?  Of course it did.  That is axiomatic.

Quote from: Scooter on July 29, 2023, 11:08:41 AM
Incorrect.  A house rule by a GM MEANS that the GM has overridden written rules or created NEW rules by adding their own.  ANYTHING but RAW is superseding (v. take the place of (a person or thing previously in authority or use); supplant) the rules.  E.g.  In my Cepheus Deluxe game all Type C starports have refined fuel for sale.  In the RAW they sell only unrefined fuel.  So did my house rule supersede  the RAW?  Of course it did.  That is axiomatic.

Well, it's not superseding a rule if it never was a rule in the first place. I think that's fundamentally the issue why this doesn't feel like an example of rule zero. When I look at an RPG, I see a combination of rules, content, and rulings.

Rules are the basic procedures. I never want to change the actual rules, ever. Because I don't want to have to explain what I mean by roll initiative, make a hit roll, roll for damage, make a saving throw, and so on. I want players to know these things. Preferably before they even sit at the table.

Content is the stuff that would most obviously be customized to the individual campaign. That includes adding monsters, changing what stuff certain groups have, and even things like magic-users can't wear armor and have to memorize their spells daily.

Rulings are those calls that are made in the moment. They're for very specific circumstances. Most of what's in the 1E DMG are actually rulings, not rules. That's why most of the book seems like a collection of oddly specific things.

Rulings are where GMs have total free reign. And I'd argue you don't even need to have consistency from one ruling to the next since the nature of rulings is they apply to specific situations, and no two situations are exactly identical. So the GM in the current moment is not even under the thumb of the tyranny of that same GM from even a few hours earlier. Players can still have reasonable expectations about the outcome of their actions, despite not having the rulings in writing in advance, and despite the fact that there need be no consistency from one ruling to the next, insofar as the rulings use common sense as their basis.


As I see it, Rule Zero mainly pertains to rulings. When the game provides ready-made rulings, they tend to look a lot like rules. But if they're not a basic procedure of the game, if they're specific to some set of circumstances, and if they're not an artifact of the world build, then that fits under what I consider to be rulings rather than rules.

The express function of the rules as written expect GMs to create their own worlds, monsters, magic, and so forth, and for players to create their own characters. No such permission to do these things needs to be given via a rule zero. In fact, I can cite examples where the rules not only tell you you can create your own content, but even provide advice or sometimes even a system for doing it. Rule zero  is neither necessary nor sufficient for creation of custom content for the game.

Quote from: Lunamancer on July 29, 2023, 09:08:06 PM

Quote from: Scooter on July 29, 2023, 11:08:41 AM
Incorrect.  A house rule by a GM MEANS that the GM has overridden written rules or created NEW rules by adding their own.  ANYTHING but RAW is superseding (v. take the place of (a person or thing previously in authority or use); supplant) the rules.  E.g.  In my Cepheus Deluxe game all Type C starports have refined fuel for sale.  In the RAW they sell only unrefined fuel.  So did my house rule supersede  the RAW?  Of course it did.  That is axiomatic.

Well, it's not superseding a rule if it never was a rule in the first place.

RSo, if I'm running an AD&D game and I rule that Gnomes cannot jump (there's no rule saying they can) that is what you are talking about?  Well, you must be VERY inexperienced because about 95+% of house rules DO supersede existing rules. Almost none don't interfere with an existing game rule.

Quote from: Scooter on July 29, 2023, 09:11:53 PM
RSo, if I'm running an AD&D game and I rule that Gnomes cannot jump (there's no rule saying they can) that is what you are talking about? 

Nope. I'm saying I can flat out say you can't play gnomes at all, even though the book says you can, if there are no gnomes in my game world. Because I don't consider the gnome option to be a rule in the first place. I consider it content.

QuoteWell, you must be VERY inexperienced because about 95+% of house rules DO supersede existing rules. Almost none don't interfere with an existing game rule.

No, I'm actually extremely experienced which is why I can appreciate the distinction between rules, content, and rulings, and not view them all equally under the umbrella of "rules" just because they're all crammed into a rulebook together. Because calling them all rules just because they're in a rulebook is a fairly superficial way of parsing what's there, which is exactly what I'd expect out of a rookie who doesn't yet have eyes for what's going on in the game.

Rule Zero isn't fundamental to RPG play, but it is necessary to keep the game functioning for any real length of time. No matter how great a game's rules are, player are intelligent and the rulebook itself is not, and the definition of intelligence is being able to think outside and around complex rule systems to manipulate them for fun and for profit.

You are stuck either exiting RAW at some point to incorporate homebrew elements, or not fully utilizing player intelligence.

Game Mastery inherently has something between a toe and a leg in game design because the combination of in-game fiction, the out-of-fiction table operation rules, the way you arrange the authority of players, GMs, and the rulebook, and the intelligence of the players and the GM forms a Strange Loop. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_loop (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_loop)) It doesn't really matter how you arrange the heirarchy, either; the problem is that intelligent players need to take structural cues from the rulebook, but the players are intelligent and can break the rules with an act of the will. In fact, there are two different ways to break the rules; deliberately exiting the rules the designer provided, or forcing the rules into an equivalent of a divide by zero error. 

The problem with Rule Zero is that the GM almost always has less game design experience than the game designer, and almost certainly has less experience designing for the particular tropes the RPG their group is playing was built with. This might not be true for super-common RPG core mechanics, but as soon as you venture into damage or roleplay subsystems, you are basically guaranteed the designer knows more than the GM, and because of that, the GM is more likely to break things than they are to improve the game. What's worse is that it really isn't practical for the game designer to add a Designer's Notes section explaining why every rule in the game is the way it is, so to some extent the GM is always at risk of changing something and breaking things.

As to players voting on rules-changes; I tend to implement rules changes with a call for a House Rule where the GM votes double. I do things this way because players will remember voting to pass a homebrew rule better than they will me announcing a change. It's very rare for players to actually vote against the GM, and it typically means I need to change something.

Quote from: Lunamancer on July 29, 2023, 09:28:27 PM

No, I'm actually extremely experienced which is why I can appreciate the distinction between rules, content, and rulings, and not view them all equally under the umbrella of "rules" just because they're all crammed into a rulebook together. Because calling them all rules just because they're in a rulebook is a fairly superficial way of parsing what's there, which is exactly what I'd expect out of a rookie who doesn't yet have eyes for what's going on in the game.

Huge fail for moving the goal posts after you've been shown to be wrong.  OMG, a sure sign of insanity

Quote from: Fheredin on July 30, 2023, 05:44:35 PM
Rule Zero isn't fundamental to RPG play, but it is necessary to keep the game functioning for any real length of time. No matter how great a game's rules are, player are intelligent and the rulebook itself is not, and the definition of intelligence is being able to think outside and around complex rule systems to manipulate them for fun and for profit.

You are stuck either exiting RAW at some point to incorporate homebrew elements, or not fully utilizing player intelligence.

AND you are stuck being limited by the rules (that have to cover an entire game world worth of activity) as a GM.  Rules would have to be infinite in order to cover all possible game play.  So it is fundamental to running a game as you state.

Quote from: Scooter on July 30, 2023, 06:16:44 PM
Huge fail for moving the goal posts after you've been shown to be wrong.  OMG, a sure sign of insanity

Um, no. That's exactly what the goal posts originally were. It's not my fault you're too stupid and dishonest to get that right.

Quote from: VengerSatanis on July 28, 2023, 04:42:31 PM

I watched the video and like most of what you said about rule 0.  However, I don't think the "clockmaker deity" approach to GMing is always the best.  At that point, what separates an organic GM from the A.I. variety?

Well, the GM still has to interpret the events, and portray the NPCs

Quote from: Lunamancer on July 28, 2023, 09:32:33 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on July 28, 2023, 04:24:50 PM

Quote from: Lunamancer on July 27, 2023, 10:00:47 AM
I don't know about the key to the hobby. I just think it's a really good idea.

Did you watch the video?

Yes.

Well then you should know what was my real argument about that.

Quote from: RPGPundit on July 30, 2023, 11:44:26 PM
Well then you should know what was my real argument about that.

Real argument about what? I didn't make any argument at all about it not being key. All I said is that I don't think it is key, and then went on to give a few of the reasons why I think rule zero is good. You have absolutely no basis at all for concluding I didn't watch your video or didn't consider your "real" argument.

Quote from: Lunamancer on July 31, 2023, 07:01:48 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on July 30, 2023, 11:44:26 PM
Well then you should know what was my real argument about that.

Real argument about what? I didn't make any argument at all about it not being key. All I said is that I don't think it is key, and then went on to give a few of the reasons why I think rule zero is good. You have absolutely no basis at all for concluding I didn't watch your video or didn't consider your "real" argument.

You don't understand... Pundit is always right. Anyone who doesn't agree is just too unenlightened to understand his real arguments... and probably a fascist. [/sarc]

Quote from: RPGPundit on July 30, 2023, 11:42:17 PM

Quote from: VengerSatanis on July 28, 2023, 04:42:31 PM

I watched the video and like most of what you said about rule 0.  However, I don't think the "clockmaker deity" approach to GMing is always the best.  At that point, what separates an organic GM from the A.I. variety?

Well, the GM still has to interpret the events, and portray the NPCs

Yes, and interpreting events is what GMs do when they change, alter, or nudge the game's reality in order to facilitate a better story.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on July 28, 2023, 09:57:58 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on July 28, 2023, 04:22:47 PMDid you watch my video?

Yes. That's why I put that mention of how you called people that don't play the way you prefer "fascists" (at 20 minutes in).

It is really a pointless argument. If you, like you said in the video, consider inventing a new monsters for your game an example of "Rule 0" then, of course, Rule 0 is ubiquitous. But nobody else uses the term like that. Rule 0 is specific to changing the game rules, not adding new monsters, magic items, or classes.

The point I made is that rule 0 is the foundation for innovation. D&D could have been a game like monopoly or chess, where there is a single defined idea of what the game is like; but it was never going to be that, not even from the start, because even the creators themselves kept right on innovating, as did everyone else; and that was hardwired in actual play, as GMs tried out ideas with rules in their own games that (some of them) would later make into new rulebooks.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on July 28, 2023, 09:57:58 PM
It is really a pointless argument. If you, like you said in the video, consider inventing a new monsters for your game an example of "Rule 0" then, of course, Rule 0 is ubiquitous. But nobody else uses the term like that. Rule 0 is specific to changing the game rules, not adding new monsters, magic items, or classes.

And in almost 50 years I've never seen a game being played for any length of time where the GM hasn't changed any rules; NOT just creating new things).  Thus Rule 0 is the rule not the exception

Quote from: VengerSatanis on July 31, 2023, 10:55:45 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on July 30, 2023, 11:42:17 PM

Quote from: VengerSatanis on July 28, 2023, 04:42:31 PM

I watched the video and like most of what you said about rule 0.  However, I don't think the "clockmaker deity" approach to GMing is always the best.  At that point, what separates an organic GM from the A.I. variety?

Well, the GM still has to interpret the events, and portray the NPCs

Yes, and interpreting events is what GMs do when they change, alter, or nudge the game's reality in order to facilitate a better story.

I know what you meant (or at least I'm presuming to), but it's something I'm beginning to chafe at in these discussions (I agree with you and Pundit on this)... but the use of "story" to describe the in-game narrative is what ultimately confuses players and GM's less experienced in what you're really talking about.

What you really mean is that GM's (via rule zero) interpret rolls and events and their expressions in order to better facilitate the setting's representation to the players. The *story* is always what happens after those facts.

My core GMing thesis is that it's the job of the GM to represent their setting/world to the players authentically. The system is secondary (but important), and Rule Zero is an *absolute* requirement in the prosecution of this concept.

Quote from: tenbones on July 31, 2023, 11:24:59 AM

I know what you meant (or at least I'm presuming to), but it's something I'm beginning to chafe at in these discussions (I agree with you and Pundit on this)... but the use of "story" to describe the in-game narrative is what ultimately confuses players and GM's less experienced in what you're really talking about.

I noticed this incorrect use of the word "story" creep into TTRPGs about 15 years ago.  I think it is because the people starting to play around that time had the actual education level of a small child and of course the vocabulary level to match.  One isn't telling a story when GMing.  One is responding to actions the players take in the game world.  One MAY create a story around what HAS (past tense) transpired in an adventure. 

Quote from: tenbones on July 31, 2023, 11:24:59 AM

Quote from: VengerSatanis on July 31, 2023, 10:55:45 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on July 30, 2023, 11:42:17 PM

Quote from: VengerSatanis on July 28, 2023, 04:42:31 PM

I watched the video and like most of what you said about rule 0.  However, I don't think the "clockmaker deity" approach to GMing is always the best.  At that point, what separates an organic GM from the A.I. variety?

Well, the GM still has to interpret the events, and portray the NPCs

Yes, and interpreting events is what GMs do when they change, alter, or nudge the game's reality in order to facilitate a better story.

I know what you meant (or at least I'm presuming to), but it's something I'm beginning to chafe at in these discussions (I agree with you and Pundit on this)... but the use of "story" to describe the in-game narrative is what ultimately confuses players and GM's less experienced in what you're really talking about.

What you really mean is that GM's (via rule zero) interpret rolls and events and their expressions in order to better facilitate the setting's representation to the players. The *story* is always what happens after those facts.

My core GMing thesis is that it's the job of the GM to represent their setting/world to the players authentically. The system is secondary (but important), and Rule Zero is an *absolute* requirement in the prosecution of this concept.

Jumping in for an opinion; I don't really see "story" and "mechanics" as things you should see in isolation. It's more like a bonsai artist wiring a tree. Pardon me as I post some large images to act as a visual metaphor.

(https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0891/6016/files/chinese_maple_bonsai_wired_grande.jpg?v=1490810906)

If you aren't familiar with bonsai, wiring is literally wrapping the trunk and branches of a bonsai with copper wire to act like orthodontic braces; they exert a slight, but constant pressure on the tree which slowly bends the tree into the shape you are looking for. This is why bonsai trees can have some shockingly intense shapes and are not just tiny vertical saplings.

(https://transcode-v2.app.engoo.com/image/fetch/f_auto,c_lfill,w_300,dpr_3/https://assets.app.engoo.com/images/5K344knyTt5ti2BFtAdC6m.jpeg)

Game mechanics are wires you wrap around the trunk of the RPG game (the player experience and story) to shape it into something over time. The GM doesn't necessarily need to be able to write the RPG rules which shape the player experience like this, but the GM does need to know what direction the mechanics are intended to go in so that they don't invoke Rule Zero in a way which conflicts with the intended experience outcome of the game.

Quote from: Fheredin on July 31, 2023, 12:44:11 PM
Game mechanics are wires you wrap around the trunk of the RPG game (the player experience and story)

What story?

Quote from: Scooter on July 28, 2023, 09:32:07 PM

Quote from: jhkim on July 28, 2023, 07:09:07 PM
A house rule is something that is openly announced and agreed on.

Bullcrap.  House rules are just that.  99% of them I've run into in my 47 years of gaming have been made by the GM and no one ever had the players vote on it.

In my gaming group, when a house rule was presented, it was voted on to use it.
You must of had some pretty shitty DMs then.

Quote from: blackstone on July 31, 2023, 03:16:38 PM
In my gaming group, when a house rule was presented, it was voted on to use it.
You must of had some pretty shitty DMs then.

Yes, Gary and Dave Hargrave weren't that good.  LMAO at children

Gary who?  ;)

I don't understand why you're being so argumentative. What's the deal?

(oh I'm 52. Not a child by a long shot)

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.

Quote from: blackstone on July 31, 2023, 03:23:22 PM

Guess

Quote from: Scooter on July 31, 2023, 04:17:47 PM

Quote from: blackstone on July 31, 2023, 03:23:22 PM

Guess

Not going to play your guessing game. Please say exactly what's the deal. If not, then let's move on. Ok?

I'm assuming he is referring to the creator of Arduin.

There's an interesting discussion on RPGPub about PbTA, and a PbTA fan points out that rule 0 is explicitly NOT part of PbTA.

Quote from: blackstone on July 31, 2023, 07:38:09 PM

Not going to play your guessing game. Please say exactly what's the deal. If not, then let's move on. Ok?

Good idea. You haven't the Int score for it.

Quote from: PencilBoy99 on July 31, 2023, 08:09:14 PM
There's an interesting discussion on RPGPub about PbTA, and a PbTA fan points out that rule 0 is explicitly NOT part of PbTA.

Well, at least people are starting to admit that storygames aren't actual RPGs, hence the fact that they preclude Rule 0...

The same posters state that in PBTA the GM is restricted such that he/she can't deny any suggested action by saying it will just fail.

However, having played some PBTA the GMs I played with ran it more like a traditional game, so who knows.

Quote from: PencilBoy99 on August 01, 2023, 09:58:54 AM
The same posters state that in PBTA the GM is restricted such that he/she can't deny any suggested action by saying it will just fail.

However, having played some PBTA the GMs I played with ran it more like a traditional game, so who knows.

That poster is either a no-games that wants to be in the discussion or someone more autistic than I am.

Seriously, those that demand you run a game RAW aren't there for the fun of playing or for the immersion.  Reddit stories about tricking the GM have done a lot of damage to the hobby.

Quote from: Scooter on July 31, 2023, 08:56:55 PM

Quote from: blackstone on July 31, 2023, 07:38:09 PM

Not going to play your guessing game. Please say exactly what's the deal. If not, then let's move on. Ok?

Good idea. You haven't the Int score for it.

Why are you being such a dick? What the fuck did I do to you?

Quote from: blackstone on August 01, 2023, 11:19:01 AM
Why are you being such a dick? What the fuck did I do to you?

He's just lashing out because he's the weakest of the GoBots.

Quote from: Lunamancer on August 01, 2023, 12:31:47 PM

Quote from: blackstone on August 01, 2023, 11:19:01 AM
Why are you being such a dick? What the fuck did I do to you?

He's just lashing out because he's the weakest of the GoBots.

I just watched the latest Arbiter of Worlds video on YouTube and, as usual, Alex manages to hit a few points that I had not considered before.

https://youtu.be/3bIDVPbSGrk

Quote from: PencilBoy99 on July 31, 2023, 08:09:14 PM
There's an interesting discussion on RPGPub about PbTA, and a PbTA fan points out that rule 0 is explicitly NOT part of PbTA.

pubtah is not an RPG.

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.

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.