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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8178325" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Nope. I, and he, have laid out a logical argument for why the term "Rule 0" should be used in the more restricted sense, to promote clear discussion and avoid conflation of legitimately different actions ("infrequent rules override" vs "house-ruling" vs "kitbashing" etc.) There is no "twisting" involved. I am not at ALL saying that the other tools in the DM's toolbox are wrong, bad, inappropriate, or anything else. I'm just saying that important utility is lost when we gloss that whole toolbox with a term that, as explicitly cited in multiple places, has both narrow and broad meanings.I (and others) call this the Golden Rule. I find it both frustrating and unnecessary to require that every possible application of "alter or deviate from the rules" be called "Rule 0." It promotes confusion rather than clarity; in the pursuit of a unified understanding, it instead creates an impenetrable wall because the term can mean so many really distinct things. It is like trying to sum up moral behavior with the single phrase "do good things." Yeah, in principle, that's what moral behavior is. But it is impenetrable and useless as a principle, because it doesn't communicate anything. It's borderline tautological. We are much, much better equipped to think and talk about moral behavior when we can be more specific than "do good."Now you're arguing with straw. I haven't seen a single person say they DISLIKE any of these specific actions you're trying to force under a single universal umbrella. What gave you the idea that either of us opposes the use of kitbashing or house-ruling?I just want "Rule 0," the term, to be useful for discussion. I have laid out my argument for why it is more useful to use the term, "Rule 0," in a narrow sense. I have recognized that there are two competing uses of the term, one narrow and one broad. And I have argued that a key reason we should use the narrow meaning is that there aren't any other good, well-known phrases for the thing to which the narrow use of the term refers.If you see opposition or hostility in that argument, that emotion is something you inserted, not something I or Pemerton have said.</blockquote>

Verification