Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="steenan" data-source="post: 5792743" data-attributes="member: 23240">There are two approaches to designing a game:1. Make the rules simulation-like. In perfect case, it makes the game more intuitive to play and easier to immerse in. But either the rules are very detailed, complicated and hard to remember, or they are simplified and do not take many situations into account. Rule 0 is necessary to let the GM ignore parts of the complicated rules or add to the simplified rules to keep the game flowing and make the results consistent with the gameworld.In this approach, playing well is easier and GMing well is harder (both because of additional work with adjudicating and the temptation of railroading).2. You make the rules abstract and metagame. Results of mechanical resolution never contradict the fiction, because they don't dictate detailed events, leaving a lot of space for interpretation. You don't need rule 0 for the game to work.This approach makes immersion harder to achieve, but enormously simplifies GM work and prevents many conflicts in less-experienced groups.Important note: The way I see it, it's not &quot;rule 0&quot; to change something with the whole group's consensus. If everybody wants to modify the rules, they can do it anyway, no matter what the game book says. &quot;Rule 0&quot; allows the GM to ignore or override mechanics to achieve some (more or less specified) goals.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="steenan, post: 5792743, member: 23240"] There are two approaches to designing a game: 1. Make the rules simulation-like. In perfect case, it makes the game more intuitive to play and easier to immerse in. But either the rules are very detailed, complicated and hard to remember, or they are simplified and do not take many situations into account. Rule 0 is necessary to let the GM ignore parts of the complicated rules or add to the simplified rules to keep the game flowing and make the results consistent with the gameworld. In this approach, playing well is easier and GMing well is harder (both because of additional work with adjudicating and the temptation of railroading). 2. You make the rules abstract and metagame. Results of mechanical resolution never contradict the fiction, because they don't dictate detailed events, leaving a lot of space for interpretation. You don't need rule 0 for the game to work. This approach makes immersion harder to achieve, but enormously simplifies GM work and prevents many conflicts in less-experienced groups. Important note: The way I see it, it's not "rule 0" to change something with the whole group's consensus. If everybody wants to modify the rules, they can do it anyway, no matter what the game book says. "Rule 0" allows the GM to ignore or override mechanics to achieve some (more or less specified) goals. [/QUOTE]

Verification