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) 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.