The "I Didn't Comment in Another Thread" Thread

[Thomas Shey]

Yea. Absolutely.

But rule zero, or it’s lack, won’t really help anyone here.

I bet the conversation would be a lot different if the big dog in the hobby said "In the end, anything important must be decided by the group, not just the GM". But that's not the case, and the colors the majority of people's expectations and the whole tone of the discourse.

 

[payn]

Can we keep pineapple in the pineapple thread, please?

 

[Ryujin]

That can work as long as you're willing to roll things back if necessary. Otherwise, its potentially a problem that's just going to propagate down the length of a campaign, because the decision has ongoing effects.

I have in fact done so, a couple of times, when the ruling at the time had significant negative impact. Minor deviations were left alone and we just watched out for the same thing, in future.

 

[darjr]

All I can say is I've seen plenty of rank-and-file GMs decide that because they were told Rule Zero was their right, they should use it even when multiple players disagreed with them. If you didn't have that presented in the hobby as "the way things are done" where do you think one guy in a group hobby would decide that was the case?

I've run a lot of public games and I've ever only seen rule zero invoked explicitly because things were going badly and people wouldn't let go. In a few cases I've seen things resolved out side of the event. I'm fairly certain they were all resolved after. In some that resolution meant those particular people didn't game together again.

 

[dragoner]

People will argue about nothing. Even if they are wrong they will argue just to be annoying.

 

[overgeeked]

There is. Being mature about things.

Look I’ve seen people say Rule Zero makes fir bad GMs. I think that’s the cart before the horse. Bad GMs do not need rule zero. Not even a little bit.

We really do need to come up with a name for the "rules protect players from bad referees" fallacy.

 

[trappedslider]

People will argue about nothing. Even if they are wrong they will argue just to be annoying.

No they won't

 

[Thomas Shey]

I have in fact done so, a couple of times, when the ruling at the time had significant negative impact. Minor deviations were left alone and we just watched out for the same thing, in future.

Which is absolutely a fine way to deal with it. I've just seen a lot of "We'll talk about it later," followed later by "Well, its done now" when what was done had ongoing effects. Your methodology doesn't have the knock-ons that can have.

 

[Hussar]

We really do need to come up with a name for the "rules protect players from bad referees" fallacy.

Eh? That’s not a fallacy. Rules are there to facilitate a game. If the rules create a fun game, then as long as the rules are followed, people will have a good time.

Rules absolutely protect players from bad referees.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I've run a lot of public games and I've ever only seen rule zero invoked explicitly because things were going badly and people wouldn't let go. In a few cases I've seen things resolved out side of the event. I'm fairly certain they were all resolved after. In some that resolution meant those particular people didn't game together again.

But that's the point; it doesn't have to be explictly evoked most of the time because so most people take it as Just How Things Are. Implicit applications of it don't really change anything.