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:

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.