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="loverdrive" data-source="post: 8174898" data-attributes="member: 7027139"><p>Nope, that's just an easy way for designers to say "ok, do whatever you want, I'm done here". What actually makes game flexible is a solid, understandable framework and loose tolerances.</p><p></p><p>Dungeon World that doesn't have rule 0, but has comprehensive GM Agenda and GM Principles is more flexible than, say, D&D 5E. You want to play a high-magic fantasy with floating ships and enormous cities, lit up by arcane lamps and with glorious Academy of Natural Philosophy, where illusionists give mind-blowing shows every now and then? It works. You want to play a low-magic game, where magic is a power beyond mere human comprehension and each wizard risks tearing the Veil between the world of the living and the world of the dead with each cast spell? It works too. You make the same Moves with accordance to the same Principles, but within different fictional contexts -- in a world of ubiquouts and well-understood magic, consequence for failing to cast a spell properly probably would be something along the lines of "While you were citing magical formulas, an ork archer shot his bow at you. What ya gonna do?", but not "You feel air around you go cold, the arcane vibrations of your spell attracted something that doesn't belong to this world. In a split-second, a horrendous canine creature, dreaded Hound of Tindalos, forms from the nearest corner and latches on your leg. What ya gonna do?".</p><p></p><p>Or, maybe you want to play a superhero game, where people are thrown through brick walls, get smacked by sledgehammers and then get up and fight, maybe bruised slightly? It works -- you just don't use long-term injuries as consequences. But in a gritty game, where ribs break, lungs get punctured, internal bleedings makes people pass out -- you do, and the system works too.</p><p></p><p>You don't make any alterations to the rules, but you make alterations to the fiction.</p><p></p><p></p><p>In a more rigidly-structured game, like, again D&D 5E (or 3.5, or AD&D 2E, or even White Box), you'd either need to brew some new rules at home, or to apply ad-hoc patches with rule zero, because there's no flexibility and no framework that goes beyond "just figure it out".</p><p></p><p></p><p>My nickname is Loverdrive. It's Overdrive, but with a little pinch of Love. But that's beside the point.</p><p></p><p>It's a false dichotomy. Simple, fiction-first games can (and do, actually, the point of fiction-first approach is to maximize amount of meaningful choices) contain choices. Complex, rules-first games can have absolutely pointless choices.</p><p></p><p>In 5E, difference between a Battleaxe and a Longsword is nonexistent, they both are Versatile weapons that deal the same damage of the same type. In Dungeon World, there's a significant difference, because Longsword and Battleaxe are inherently different weapons -- you can't halfsword and axe and you can't pull down ork's shield with a sword.</p><p></p><p>Or, a rapier or a shortsword is just plain better than a dagger as a main weapon for rogue -- it's not a meaningful choice too, because the winner is obvious. In Dungeon World? Good luck using a rapier when you're held in a chokehold by a dwarven wrestler, while grabbing a dagger from your belt can certainly work.</p><p></p><p>The thing is, any kind of rule that strives to represent fiction is inevitably going to lose some context, no matter how complex. But when you have a solid framework and a human using said framework, you can meaningfully represent even the difference between <em>sok tat</em> and <em>sok ngat </em>(both are elbow blows from muay tai), let alone something as obvious as difference between a spear and a sword.</p><p></p><p>The thing is, rule 0 is used for exactly that purpose -- to meaningfully represent fiction when the rules fail to do so.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Here's a quick fix for 5E attacking rules:</p><p>When you make an attack against a creature, and you're willing and able to inflict serious harm, roll +Attack bonus. If the result is equal or higher than the target's AC, they take damage equal to your weapon's Damage stat.</p><p></p><p>Puff! Now you don't need to invoke rule zero when someone completely caught in Web is trying to swing their sword, which seems absolutely ridiculous -- because now they are not <em>able to inflict serious harm.</em></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="loverdrive, post: 8174898, member: 7027139"] Nope, that's just an easy way for designers to say "ok, do whatever you want, I'm done here". What actually makes game flexible is a solid, understandable framework and loose tolerances. Dungeon World that doesn't have rule 0, but has comprehensive GM Agenda and GM Principles is more flexible than, say, D&D 5E. You want to play a high-magic fantasy with floating ships and enormous cities, lit up by arcane lamps and with glorious Academy of Natural Philosophy, where illusionists give mind-blowing shows every now and then? It works. You want to play a low-magic game, where magic is a power beyond mere human comprehension and each wizard risks tearing the Veil between the world of the living and the world of the dead with each cast spell? It works too. You make the same Moves with accordance to the same Principles, but within different fictional contexts -- in a world of ubiquouts and well-understood magic, consequence for failing to cast a spell properly probably would be something along the lines of "While you were citing magical formulas, an ork archer shot his bow at you. What ya gonna do?", but not "You feel air around you go cold, the arcane vibrations of your spell attracted something that doesn't belong to this world. In a split-second, a horrendous canine creature, dreaded Hound of Tindalos, forms from the nearest corner and latches on your leg. What ya gonna do?". Or, maybe you want to play a superhero game, where people are thrown through brick walls, get smacked by sledgehammers and then get up and fight, maybe bruised slightly? It works -- you just don't use long-term injuries as consequences. But in a gritty game, where ribs break, lungs get punctured, internal bleedings makes people pass out -- you do, and the system works too. You don't make any alterations to the rules, but you make alterations to the fiction. In a more rigidly-structured game, like, again D&D 5E (or 3.5, or AD&D 2E, or even White Box), you'd either need to brew some new rules at home, or to apply ad-hoc patches with rule zero, because there's no flexibility and no framework that goes beyond "just figure it out". My nickname is Loverdrive. It's Overdrive, but with a little pinch of Love. But that's beside the point. It's a false dichotomy. Simple, fiction-first games can (and do, actually, the point of fiction-first approach is to maximize amount of meaningful choices) contain choices. Complex, rules-first games can have absolutely pointless choices. In 5E, difference between a Battleaxe and a Longsword is nonexistent, they both are Versatile weapons that deal the same damage of the same type. In Dungeon World, there's a significant difference, because Longsword and Battleaxe are inherently different weapons -- you can't halfsword and axe and you can't pull down ork's shield with a sword. Or, a rapier or a shortsword is just plain better than a dagger as a main weapon for rogue -- it's not a meaningful choice too, because the winner is obvious. In Dungeon World? Good luck using a rapier when you're held in a chokehold by a dwarven wrestler, while grabbing a dagger from your belt can certainly work. The thing is, any kind of rule that strives to represent fiction is inevitably going to lose some context, no matter how complex. But when you have a solid framework and a human using said framework, you can meaningfully represent even the difference between [I]sok tat[/I] and [I]sok ngat [/I](both are elbow blows from muay tai), let alone something as obvious as difference between a spear and a sword. The thing is, rule 0 is used for exactly that purpose -- to meaningfully represent fiction when the rules fail to do so. Here's a quick fix for 5E attacking rules: When you make an attack against a creature, and you're willing and able to inflict serious harm, roll +Attack bonus. If the result is equal or higher than the target's AC, they take damage equal to your weapon's Damage stat. Puff! Now you don't need to invoke rule zero when someone completely caught in Web is trying to swing their sword, which seems absolutely ridiculous -- because now they are not [I]able to inflict serious harm.[/I] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
The Origins of ‘Rule Zero’
Top