Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8174699" data-attributes="member: 42582">A group of friends playing a game together is free to adopt whatever rules they prefer.A group of strangers playing a game together will need some sort of framework (eg Hoyle) to settle on the rules that govern the game, if they want to avoid potential instability and even fallings out.Rule zero is pointless pedantry for the first group. And is unhelpful for the second group.As [USER=7027139]@loverdrive[/USER] has posted not far upthread, the useful function of "rule zero" is to acknowledge the limitations of a certain sort of game design, that has its origins in wargames and so (i) is oriented towards a limited range of fictional concerns (eg terrain matters; the colour of shoelaces typically doesn't) and (ii) has a tendency to work by way of "subsystems" - for movement, for fire, for morale, for casualty clearing stations, etc.I'm currently GMing a RPG that is designed somewhat along these lines: Classic Traveller. The game comes with a pretty good range of subsystems to deal with the range of fictional concerns that might come up in play, but it's not complete. For instance, in our first session I had to invent an ad hoc subsystem for recruiting a broker to assist in the sale of commercial quantities of ambergris. The rulebooks expressly contemplate this as the sort of thing the referee might have to do. There are some other subsystems that have been part of our game from the beginning but are taken not from "official" Traveller rules but Andy Slack's articles in White Dwarf, eg for criminal trials.I think it's a strength of Classic Traveller's design that its range of subsystems is pretty solid in its coverage of the sorts of fiction the system can produce, and that some of them generalise nicely (eg we have generalised the system for small craft evasion to work for other contexts, like ATVs trying to evade orbital bombardment). Conversely, I think a reason that "rule zero" figures so prominently in the context of "classic" D&D is that the classic D&D subsystems are pretty narrowly focused - eg there is no system for races/chases other than the outdoor evasion rules - and generalise poorly (eg due to different rules for dice, for stat mods, for the importance of level, etc).As [USER=7027139]@loverdrive[/USER] says, an express "rule zero" would add nothing to a system with comprehensive and/or general resolution processes. In addition to the games s/he has mentioned, I would add D&D 4e.</blockquote>

Verification