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="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8177635" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>Okay so...since it's a lot easier to respond to this than pick apart the full posts etc. from earlier...</p><p></p><p>What's your justification for this, beyond your bald assertion of it? Because it's pretty clear that at least <em>some</em> of the cited examples...and in particular, the image we see heading this thread...don't include any of those other things in Rule 0. "Gamer's First Law: If a rule is silly, change or ignore it--just so long as everyone knows that's what your preference is ahead of time." That's got nothing to do with <em>house-ruling</em> the game, and everything to do with addressing the situations where the rule falls down. It certainly doesn't have anything to do with kitbashing, playtesting, or a variety of other things DMs can and should do when they desire.</p><p></p><p>A problem here is that there have (apparently always?) been two different definitions, stretching <em>way</em> back. In one, Rule 0 is <em>specific</em>: it admits the rules can't be perfect, and that DMs should do what makes sense when that happens. In this definition, other specific terms exist for the other tools in the DM's toolbox, including house-ruling, kitbashing, adjudication, etc. This specificity is desirable to those who use this definition because <em>without</em> that specificity, there really isn't a singular term for "the goal/spirit of the game is paramount, and DMs not only can but should ensure the rules don't conflict with that," at least not that I'm aware of. "Infrequent rules-override," maybe?</p><p></p><p>In the other definition, Rule 0 is <em>as broad as possible</em>: it is identical to what is in other places called the Golden Rule, "Whatever the DM says, goes." Under this definition, literally every action the DM takes is an application of Rule 0, because following a rule from the book is itself a DM preference. This, if I understand correctly (since I don't hold this position), is valued because it presents the DM's role in a unified way, noting that judgment, foresight, social contract, and the ever-nebulous "fun" are always what should drive DM action, with the game rules as mere tools to achieve that end.</p><p></p><p>Personally, I don't find the latter definition of Rule 0 very useful. I think it actively muddies discussion by making what are pretty clearly distinct actions ("infrequent rules-override" vs. "inventing new rules to be adhered to" is about as opposite as you can get), and because, as stated, we don't really have a good, established term for what the narrow definition of Rule 0 covers, but we <em>do</em> have established terms for all the other stuff: kitbashing, house-ruling, adjudication, even controversial stuff like fudging and illusionism. They're all part of the DM's toolbox, even the controversial tools, and <em>equating</em> the entire toolbox with the name commonly (though, I admit, not exclusively) used for just one specific tool makes it a lot harder to discuss that one tool, or indeed any other specific tool in the toolbox.</p><p></p><p>So: Why should I accept the ultra-broad definition, particularly in light of many of the things cited in the blogpost that triggered this thread?</p><p></p><p></p><p>I mean, I don't really see how that <em>isn't</em> what you're saying....</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8177635, member: 6790260"] Okay so...since it's a lot easier to respond to this than pick apart the full posts etc. from earlier... What's your justification for this, beyond your bald assertion of it? Because it's pretty clear that at least [I]some[/I] of the cited examples...and in particular, the image we see heading this thread...don't include any of those other things in Rule 0. "Gamer's First Law: If a rule is silly, change or ignore it--just so long as everyone knows that's what your preference is ahead of time." That's got nothing to do with [I]house-ruling[/I] the game, and everything to do with addressing the situations where the rule falls down. It certainly doesn't have anything to do with kitbashing, playtesting, or a variety of other things DMs can and should do when they desire. A problem here is that there have (apparently always?) been two different definitions, stretching [I]way[/I] back. In one, Rule 0 is [I]specific[/I]: it admits the rules can't be perfect, and that DMs should do what makes sense when that happens. In this definition, other specific terms exist for the other tools in the DM's toolbox, including house-ruling, kitbashing, adjudication, etc. This specificity is desirable to those who use this definition because [I]without[/I] that specificity, there really isn't a singular term for "the goal/spirit of the game is paramount, and DMs not only can but should ensure the rules don't conflict with that," at least not that I'm aware of. "Infrequent rules-override," maybe? In the other definition, Rule 0 is [I]as broad as possible[/I]: it is identical to what is in other places called the Golden Rule, "Whatever the DM says, goes." Under this definition, literally every action the DM takes is an application of Rule 0, because following a rule from the book is itself a DM preference. This, if I understand correctly (since I don't hold this position), is valued because it presents the DM's role in a unified way, noting that judgment, foresight, social contract, and the ever-nebulous "fun" are always what should drive DM action, with the game rules as mere tools to achieve that end. Personally, I don't find the latter definition of Rule 0 very useful. I think it actively muddies discussion by making what are pretty clearly distinct actions ("infrequent rules-override" vs. "inventing new rules to be adhered to" is about as opposite as you can get), and because, as stated, we don't really have a good, established term for what the narrow definition of Rule 0 covers, but we [I]do[/I] have established terms for all the other stuff: kitbashing, house-ruling, adjudication, even controversial stuff like fudging and illusionism. They're all part of the DM's toolbox, even the controversial tools, and [I]equating[/I] the entire toolbox with the name commonly (though, I admit, not exclusively) used for just one specific tool makes it a lot harder to discuss that one tool, or indeed any other specific tool in the toolbox. So: Why should I accept the ultra-broad definition, particularly in light of many of the things cited in the blogpost that triggered this thread? I mean, I don't really see how that [I]isn't[/I] what you're saying.... [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
The Origins of ‘Rule Zero’
Top