Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9357713" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I think the confusion is that Rule Zero is often stated in a way that elides the stuff implicit to playing in &quot;trad&quot; style, where others make the implicit explicit.Totally in the generic, Rule Zero is usually phrased as, &quot;Ignore the rules if the rules don't work for you.&quot; But who ignores the rules? I've never seen any &quot;trad&quot; playstyle or system that would accept a player ignoring a rule that they didn't like. In that style, all responsibility falls upon the GM, for both narrative and mechanical result. So it is only the GM who actually uses Rule Zero; the players must always abide by the rules unless and until the GM tells them otherwise.Obviously, in the best cases, this practice is only undertaken by a wise GM for noble reasons, backed by experience and in such a way that it actually will improve the player's experience every time it is done. The worst cases are like what was described above, the GM screwing over the players and using their unbounded authority however they like, whenever they like, for as long as they like. That's an inherent risk with any unilateral relationship that lacks checks and balances; you are completely dependent on how perceptive, attentive, respectful, and virtuous the person with uncheckable power is. My main concern with such things is not nefarious intent, but rather bungled intent, the well-meaning but merely mediocre/not-very-good GM.When recast in a neo-trad lens, there may be rules which bind the GM unless and until the players agree to unbind them. That totally changes the dynamic. Each individual participant, even the GM, may now have actual limits on what they can or can't do; only the group as a whole can act with impunity, disregarding any rules as all see fit.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9357713, member: 6790260"] I think the confusion is that Rule Zero is often stated in a way that elides the stuff implicit to playing in "trad" style, where others make the implicit explicit. Totally in the generic, Rule Zero is usually phrased as, "Ignore the rules if the rules don't work for you." But [I]who[/I] ignores the rules? I've never seen any "trad" playstyle or system that would accept a [I]player[/I] ignoring a rule that they didn't like. In that style, all responsibility falls upon the GM, for both narrative and mechanical result. So it is only the GM who actually [I]uses[/I] Rule Zero; the players must always abide by the rules unless and until the GM tells them otherwise. Obviously, in the best cases, this practice is only undertaken by a wise GM for noble reasons, backed by experience and in such a way that it actually [I]will[/I] improve the player's experience every time it is done. The worst cases are like what was described above, the GM screwing over the players and using their unbounded authority however they like, whenever they like, for as long as they like. That's an inherent risk with any unilateral relationship that lacks checks and balances; you are completely dependent on how perceptive, attentive, respectful, and virtuous the person with uncheckable power is. My main concern with such things is not [I]nefarious[/I] intent, but rather [I]bungled[/I] intent, the well-meaning but merely mediocre/not-very-good GM. When recast in a neo-trad lens, there may be rules which bind the GM unless and until the [I]players[/I] agree to unbind them. That totally changes the dynamic. Each individual participant, even the GM, may now have actual limits on what they can or can't do; only the group [I]as a whole[/I] can act with impunity, disregarding [I]any[/I] rules as [I]all[/I] see fit. [/QUOTE]

Verification