Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Campbell" data-source="post: 8346438" data-attributes="member: 16586">Here are my thoughts on Rule Zero : It's true when playing any game not enforced by binary code we can collectively agree either implicitly or explicitly to play a game with a different set of rules than the formal rules of the game. That's a given for any game from pickup basketball to poker to Risk to Apocalypse World. However in the sense that the GM has the right to change rules on whim or even through a formal house rule process where they dictate the changes they are making without the assent of their fellow players that's frequently a feature of roleplaying games, but is not a given. Some groups may informally add that to their social contract for games where it does not otherwise apply, but it is not a given. Sorcerer, Burning Wheel, and especially Apocalypse World explicitly say it is not part of the game's social contract that you can just change the way the rules work on whim.I'm mostly fine playing D&amp;D under those circumstances, but given the more expressive powers a game like Apocalypse World grants GMs to inflict consequences I would be much more hesitant to play in a game that keeps that broad authority over what happens to the PCs without the safety net of the principles/MC chapter. It would be the worst of all worlds in my opinion.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Campbell, post: 8346438, member: 16586"] Here are my thoughts on Rule Zero : It's true when playing any game not enforced by binary code we can collectively agree either implicitly or explicitly to play a game with a different set of rules than the formal rules of the game. That's a given for any game from pickup basketball to poker to Risk to Apocalypse World. However in the sense that the GM has the right to change rules on whim or even through a formal house rule process where they dictate the changes they are making without the assent of their fellow players that's frequently a feature of roleplaying games, but is not a given. Some groups may informally add that to their social contract for games where it does not otherwise apply, but it is not a given. Sorcerer, Burning Wheel, and especially Apocalypse World explicitly say it is not part of the game's social contract that you can just change the way the rules work on whim. I'm mostly fine playing D&D under those circumstances, but given the more expressive powers a game like Apocalypse World grants GMs to inflict consequences I would be much more hesitant to play in a game that keeps that broad authority over what happens to the PCs without the safety net of the principles/MC chapter. It would be the worst of all worlds in my opinion. [/QUOTE]

Verification