Why do RPGs have rules?

[Bedrockgames]

I wouldn’t disagree with you here, although I think different games handle such flexibility in different ways. I don’t know if having a catchall phrase really helps, though, because I think it muddies the different ways that games handle this.

I think the terminology isn't as important as the idea. I see it as something that is just inherent to play because eventually the system doesn't cover something, or the system doesn't cover it in a way everyone finds satisfying, and unlike a board game, you aren't limiting to playing the rules as written. Rule zero is one expression for this I think. I usually prefer rulings over rules. But language always falls short and isn't fully comprehensive (just like rules systems!). For instance Rulings over rules can be interpreted to mean "F the rules" and I don't mean that at all. I try to run the rules as written out of fairness but I deviate when they don't work with the facts on the ground, or when the players are clearly going beyond what the rules say or they are doing something so creative and tactically sound, the rules just don't give them enough benefit mechanically. And I don't think there is a one way here. This is more just the thing I saw when I first played and something that has stuck with me as essential. But RPGs are odd and everyone seems to come to an understanding of them on their own, so I am not into prescriptive definitions of RPG terms (especially when I can see how my take on this might define out certain styles if taken too rigidly or applied universally).

The books and advice in them have been all over the map. Looking this up just to catch up and refresh for the conversation for example, I am seeing an article that contrasts Mentzer's call for fairness and involving the players with Gygax's 1E advice on the GM being sole arbiter. I tend to see the GM role as usually an important one, but I also see no reason why the thing rule zero points to (and what it points to is I think more important than rule zero itself), would be in conflict with fairness or getting player input. I tend to prioritize fairness a lot in how I approach it (and I am a very rulings over rules GM). I also am transparent about my rulings and typically ask my players if they think a particular ruling seems reasonable for what is being attempted or for what is occurring in game (this even extends to stuff like how I handle off camera battles that have relevance to what they party is doing, so it doesn't just feel like me deciding an important battle went a particular way because that is more dramatic or more what I wanted).

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm not at all sure I'm comfortable assigning this as the explicit or implicit purpose of rule zero. That's a frequent defense, but I don't think it's clearly necessary, and I think you can design a rulesets that is comprehensive for most purposes. This is usually an argument at the edges that gets elevated as if it's the primary use result of rule zero, when I think it's actually one of the more rarely used functions.

I think it is something that a lot of people see rule zero being about. I know I do. But then I am not even a huge fan of that particular term, I just think it points to something that legitimately is present in RPGs.

I like comprehensive rules systems. I actually go back and forth between more rules light and more comprehensive (and I realize rules light can still be comprehensive). But I think with RPGs, eventually you run into a situation where there either isn't a rule or the rules don't handle exactly what the players are trying to do well. You can apply the rules as written in many of those cases, but the effect, at least for me, will feel like we are being bound to a system rather than truly allowing what is happening in game to happen (I think we have all had that experience where a player describes themselves trying something that sounds spectacular, like a super lethal finishing move in a movie, and people kind of shrug their shoulders a the paltry d6 damage the rules say it would do). So for me, being able to adapt the rules to what they players say they are doing, is important to making the game different from a board game, or from a video game. I've always felt that is what rule zero seems to be about. Maybe I am missing something about how it has been used.

Looking it up this is the first definition that comes up, which I can't really object to:

Every tabletop RPG system has a Rule Zero. It usually goes like this, The Game Master may change, modify, ignore, or add to the rules as he or she sees fit to ensure the game is fun and runs smoothly. This means that if you are not sure about what the rules are for a situation, make something up.

I suppose runs smoothly and fun aren't exactly what I am talking about, those are indeed more general statements. But I would still say whether it is towards what I said, or towards fun and keeping the game smooth, it is still a similar effect that makes RPGs different from a board game (where you are supposed to follow every rule and if you don't it feels like you aren't playing the actual game). In monopoly you can't say "I leap over the counter and kill the banker!" that isn't a valid move. In an RPG you could violate the rules in that way, and it is expected the GM will try to accommodate you, at the very least make a judgement or give you a small chance of success, even if the rules themselves don't cover it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I beg to differ. People have claimed that Rule 0 has a long, storied history in D&D from the very beginning; however, as best as I know, the first explicit mention of Rule 0 in any D&D rulebook is in the 3rd Edition D&D PHB, and it doesn't say there what people assume that it says. Moreover, it's absent in a lot of the D&D books that people assume it's present (e.g., D&D 5e)!

The ideology and thinking that informs Rule 0 may have been present from the beginning in some form or another, but Rule 0 has not been. IME, there is a heavy amount of Mandela Effect when it comes to retroactively projecting or remembering the presence of Rule 0 in the early stages of the game. Even then, the governing principle that gets referred to as "Rule 0" is inconsistent between books that have since adopted Rule 0 as a "rule."

3rd edition in general has an incredible Mandela Effect on the hobby, and especially on designers. And even what it did is often misremembered or rewritten to what people think it was, not what it actually was.

It was never the case, prior to 3e, that Fighter or Barbarian got fewer skill-like benefits than other classes. Usually the opposite! But 3e burned into folks' minds the idea that Fighters and Barbarians are just less skilled than others, to the point that 13th Age, a game generally pretty nontraditional in its design, tried to implement that. Playtesters revolted, dramatically so, and thus the designers eventually followed their lead. But this is a "tradition" that was hardly more than a decade old when 13A was being playtested!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

But I would still say whether it is towards what I said, or towards fun and keeping the game smooth, it is still a similar effect that makes RPGs different from a board game (where you are supposed to follow every rule and if you don't it feels like you aren't playing the actual game). In monopoly you can't say "I leap over the counter and kill the banker!" that isn't a valid move.

And yet people actually do break the rules of Monopoly on the regular. The "Free Parking" thing is not one of Monopoly's rules, and using it is a huge part of why Monopoly games become painfully endless: the injection of extra cash prolongs the game by preventing monopolies from driving players out of business.

 

[Aldarc]

So for me, being able to adapt the rules to what they players say they are doing, is important to making the game different from a board game, or from a video game. I've always felt that is what rule zero seems to be about. Maybe I am missing something about how it has been used.

I suppose runs smoothly and fun aren't exactly what I am talking about, those are indeed more general statements. But I would still say whether it is towards what I said, or towards fun and keeping the game smooth, it is still a similar effect that makes RPGs different from a board game (where you are supposed to follow every rule and if you don't it feels like you aren't playing the actual game). In monopoly you can't say "I leap over the counter and kill the banker!" that isn't a valid move. In an RPG you could violate the rules in that way, and it is expected the GM will try to accommodate you, at the very least make a judgement or give you a small chance of success, even if the rules themselves don't cover it.

I don't really see how that difference or what you describe here is a product of "Rule 0" in the slightest. It honestly seems unrelated. We are basically talking about the ability to make declarations about what they do in the fiction, which isn't really what Rule 0 is about, even in its fringe meanings. That seems more a simple difference that TTRPGs are concerned with the game fiction whereas Monopoly is unconcerned about the game fiction.

Likewise, there are plenty of TTRPGs that don't have a Rule 0 principle stated. Yet they may very likely have ways to resolve that. It may simply happen in a game of PbtA without any rules or rolls involved because the stakes could be non-existent in declaring that you leap over the counter and kill the banker. Declaring that as the result of an unwritten Rule 0 seems like magical thinking to me, like thanking Santa Claus for the rise and fall of tides.

Ninja'd by @EzekielRaiden on the subject matter of Monopoly and house rules.

 

[Bedrockgames]

And yet people actually do break the rules of Monopoly on the regular. The "Free Parking" thing is not one of Monopoly's rules, and using it is a huge part of why Monopoly games become painfully endless: the injection of extra cash prolongs the game by preventing monopolies from driving players out of business.

Okay but that is a house rule. That isn't the same as a player suddenly deviating from expectations of play and the it being the norm for the table to accommodate that action

 

[Aldarc]

And yet people actually do break the rules of Monopoly on the regular. The "Free Parking" thing is not one of Monopoly's rules, and using it is a huge part of why Monopoly games become painfully endless: the injection of extra cash prolongs the game by preventing monopolies from driving players out of business.

House Rules are incredibly common in Monopoly, and many people don't realize that they are playing by house rules because a super-majority of players have never read the rules of Monopoly! This is according to Hasbro's own research:

PAWTUCKET, R.I.--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- When you play a game of MONOPOLY, do you collect a pile of cash when you land on Free Parking? Do you auction off properties that people don't purchase immediately? How do you get out of Jail? While MONOPOLY fans may claim to know how to play the game, many actually incorporate their own rules, known as ‘House Rules' - whether they know it or not. In fact, in a recent survey conducted by Hasbro, 68 percent of Americans admit they've never read the official MONOPOLY rules in their entirety and 49 percent said they have made up their own MONOPOLY rules! Knowing that ‘House Rules' have long been a part of the MONOPOLY gaming tradition, Hasbro is giving MONOPOLY fans around the world an opportunity to "break the rules" by inviting them to help select the top ‘House Rules' to become a part of future MONOPOLY games.

Okay but that is a house rule. That isn't the same as a player suddenly deviating from expectations of play and the it being the norm for the table to accommodate that action

I believe that still constitutes "Rule 0," no?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Okay but that is a house rule. That isn't the same as a player suddenly deviating from expectations of play and the it being the norm for the table to accommodate that action

Then you need to articulate what the difference is between "house rules" and "using Rule Zero."

Because a lot of people, and I mean "nearly everyone," uses the two fully interchangably. And, as noted, most folks do not realize they are house-ruling Monopoly.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't really see how that difference or what you describe here is a product of "Rule 0" in the slightest. It honestly seems unrelated. We are basically talking about the ability to make declarations about what they do in the fiction, which isn't really what Rule 0 is about, even in its fringe meanings. That seems more a simple difference that TTRPGs are concerned with the game fiction whereas Monopoly is unconcerned about the game fiction.

But that concern is kind of the point. Again, my take on rule zero and why it is important is so you can accommodate what the players are trying to do. I am not saying this is the one and only way, that rule zero is the only way to conceptualize it, but there does seem to me to be something in play in RPGs where by their nature you kind of have to go beyond the rules, bend the rules, change them, etc if you really want to prioritize the ability of players to fully inhabit their characters and the setting.

Likewise, there are plenty of TTRPGs that don't have a Rule 0 principle stated. Yet they may very likely have ways to resolve that. It may simply happen in a game of PbtA without any rules or rolls involved because the stakes could be non-existent in declaring that you leap over the counter and kill the banker. Declaring that as the result of an unwritten Rule 0 seems like magical thinking to me, like thanking Santa Claus for the rise and fall of tides.

Ninja'd by @EzekielRaiden on the subject matter of Monopoly and house rules.

Sure, like I said, there are plenty of ways people approach this. I don't think I would say it is likened to santa clause though. It is just a handy way to describe the fact that the GM and the players are not beholden to the text when the text is disruptive, feels strange to what is going on, or just doesn't make sense. And this is something that crops up naturally in play, whether rule zero is explicitly stated or not. Like I said, since I first started playing it was a phenomenon you saw, even in the most comprehensive systems, and it was something I personally welcomed.

All that said, some people don't like this. I get that. And I am not saying there is anything wrong with ditching rule zero and taking another approach (I think it is likely rule zero will still emerge in various ways, but if you can find or build a system that satisfies you and doesn't need it, I say that is a good thing).

 

[Bedrockgames]

Then you need to articulate what the difference is between "house rules" and "using Rule Zero."

Because a lot of people, and I mean "nearly everyone," uses the two fully interchangably. And, as noted, most folks do not realize they are house-ruling Monopoly.

Personally I wouldn't use rule zero as my preferered term. I would use ruling. And I would say a house rule is a ruling that sticks* and gets used consistently to the point it either gets written down in the groups folders somewhere or is baked into their memory (i.e. it is now a regular feature of the system that they have attached to the game the way many people have attached free parking to monopoly---for the record I don't use Free Parking). Rulings, or rule zero, is just the ability of the GM, even the whole group, to decide the rules are inadequate for this present situation, so we are going to come up with a better way on the fly to manage it (that could be ignoring the rules, changing them, making new ones, etc).

*also just to clarify this point, it obviously could just be a rule the group establishes through discussion prior to play or something similar