Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
The Origins of ‘Rule Zero’
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="TheSword" data-source="post: 8174887" data-attributes="member: 6879661"><p>Rule Zero has been in almost every edition of the game since inception. It’s also present in some of the other RPGs I love to play. The fact that it may not of been in 4e only reinforces my opinions of 4e. I am perplexed by the pushback on it. I suspect part of this is for the same reasons as the pushback on the DM Authority thread. I notice it’s roughly the same people drawing the same lines in both. To many people to reply to individually.</p><p></p><p>The basic premise of “This is a complex game but don’t let the rules get in the way of a good fun” seems the most obvious thing to me. It’s such a harmless, non contentious approach, though it bucks against the traits of some players who want to classify, quantify, and be able to predict with certainty how things will pan out. I don’t think those posting here are That Guy, but That Guy is a real possibility. I’ve also seen players who aren’t That Guy turn into That Guy when the games rules are presented as the gospel.</p><p></p><p>Some of arguments I’ve seen here... along the the lines of “it should be possible to design a game that doesn’t require rule zero” remind me of the contempt vented at Games Workshop because the 24 factions in 40k when pitted against any one of the other 23 factions sometimes aren’t perfectly balanced. When each faction has 4-8 subfactions, plus relics, model types, equipment load outs. Absolute balance or rule simplicity is a pipe dream and even if we got it, im pretty sure we wouldn’t like it.</p><p></p><p>Complexity is not a vice when the complexity is fun. People like choices. When rules are homogenized into generic terms like has been described by Lowerdrive (and to a lesser extent 4e) any choice becomes no choice because there are no more meaningful differences. I believe this is one (only one) of the reasons 5e has been successful. There is a spectrum and 5e gives people a healthy balance of meaningful choice/complexity and streamlining. When I say people like 5e because of the rules... that’s what I mean. </p><p></p><p>If you want meaningful variation in options (be it spells, class abilities, feats, equipment) then you have to accept there will be conflicts. 99% will be fine but 1% will need considering. As forums go I find we spend a hell of lot of time arguing to throw out the 99% because the 1% doesn’t fit. The 1% dominates our discussions in fact.</p><p></p><p>My preference is to solve the 1% with rule zero.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TheSword, post: 8174887, member: 6879661"] Rule Zero has been in almost every edition of the game since inception. It’s also present in some of the other RPGs I love to play. The fact that it may not of been in 4e only reinforces my opinions of 4e. I am perplexed by the pushback on it. I suspect part of this is for the same reasons as the pushback on the DM Authority thread. I notice it’s roughly the same people drawing the same lines in both. To many people to reply to individually. The basic premise of “This is a complex game but don’t let the rules get in the way of a good fun” seems the most obvious thing to me. It’s such a harmless, non contentious approach, though it bucks against the traits of some players who want to classify, quantify, and be able to predict with certainty how things will pan out. I don’t think those posting here are That Guy, but That Guy is a real possibility. I’ve also seen players who aren’t That Guy turn into That Guy when the games rules are presented as the gospel. Some of arguments I’ve seen here... along the the lines of “it should be possible to design a game that doesn’t require rule zero” remind me of the contempt vented at Games Workshop because the 24 factions in 40k when pitted against any one of the other 23 factions sometimes aren’t perfectly balanced. When each faction has 4-8 subfactions, plus relics, model types, equipment load outs. Absolute balance or rule simplicity is a pipe dream and even if we got it, im pretty sure we wouldn’t like it. Complexity is not a vice when the complexity is fun. People like choices. When rules are homogenized into generic terms like has been described by Lowerdrive (and to a lesser extent 4e) any choice becomes no choice because there are no more meaningful differences. I believe this is one (only one) of the reasons 5e has been successful. There is a spectrum and 5e gives people a healthy balance of meaningful choice/complexity and streamlining. When I say people like 5e because of the rules... that’s what I mean. If you want meaningful variation in options (be it spells, class abilities, feats, equipment) then you have to accept there will be conflicts. 99% will be fine but 1% will need considering. As forums go I find we spend a hell of lot of time arguing to throw out the 99% because the 1% doesn’t fit. The 1% dominates our discussions in fact. My preference is to solve the 1% with rule zero. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
The Origins of ‘Rule Zero’
Top