Why do RPGs have rules?

[Thomas Shey]

I have decided that rule zero is nonsensical jargon of the worst order. Waffle is already taken, so I think it’s best dubbed as “trad pancake”.

I'm going to get into this a bit because, while I understand where you're coming from (in that its often thought to point to something more concrete and spelled out than is the reality), I think its possible to be too dismissive of the real phenomenon that term has become attached to.

First, it absolutely is a term that is sometimes used in game; its become well enough known that game designers will use it as header for the phenomenon without probably thinking about it.

That said, while its a term that appears to have been invented by the D&D 3e designers, it represented a set of expectations that had been epidemic in the D&D sphere (and sprawled out from there to some extent in other games the way all kinds of things from D&D did to one degree or another). Frankly, I don't have much sign that for most of the life of the game system it was not assumed to be the default in the general culture of D&D players. That didn't mean it was universal, but it was so much assumed that even challenging that assumption was often treated as a moral failing.

So while its origin is not as clearcut as it could be, its a term who's meaning and the expectations go with it are about as common as any general-use term in the hobby is, and people are absolutely representing a common game culture (and sometime overt rules advice) phenomenon when talking about it and the implications in the wild.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'm going to get into this a bit because, while I understand where you're coming from (in that its often thought to point to something more concrete and spelled out than is the reality), I think its possible to be too dismissive of the real phenomenon that term has become attached to.

First, it absolutely is a term that is sometimes used in game; its become well enough known that game designers will use it as header for the phenomenon without probably thinking about it.

That said, while its a term that appears to have been invented by the D&D 3e designers, it represented a set of expectations that had been epidemic in the D&D sphere (and sprawled out from there to some extent in other games the way all kinds of things from D&D did to one degree or another). Frankly, I don't have much sign that for most of the life of the game system it was not assumed to be the default in the general culture of D&D players. That didn't mean it was universal, but it was so much assumed that even challenging that assumption was often treated as a moral failing.

So while its origin is not as clearcut as it could be, its a term who's meaning and the expectations go with it are about as common as any general-use term in the hobby is, and people are absolutely representing a common game culture (and sometime overt rules advice) phenomenon when talking about it and the implications in the wild.

Meh. It’s inconsistently defined quite a bit. It’s also like a soft term for a harder idea. Absolute GM Control sounds potentially negative, depending on the context. Rule Zero, though… that doesn’t sound problematic at all!

 

[Thomas Shey]

Meh. It’s inconsistently defined quite a bit. It’s also like a soft term for a harder idea. Absolute GM Control sounds potentially negative, depending on the context. Rule Zero, though… that doesn’t sound problematic at all!

Fight the tide if you want, man, but that's the term you're going to see used for it more often than not, and getting up people about it is only going to make you come across as a crank. What words get assigned to things never cares a lick whether they're the most appropriate or not.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Fight the tide if you want, man, but that's the term you're going to see used for it more often than not, and getting up people about it is only going to make you come across as a crank. What words get assigned to things never cares a lick whether they're the most appropriate or not.

Oh I really don’t care what terms people use. It’s just interesting to me what jargon gets accepted, and what doesn’t.

Clearly, I get what Rule Zero is commonly code for. It’s not something I think is universal to RPGs nor even to D&D. I’m not a fan. I also think it’s application renders false a lot of other claims folk make about their games.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Oh I really don’t care what terms people use. It’s just interesting to me what jargon gets accepted, and what doesn’t.

Clearly, I get what Rule Zero is commonly code for. It’s not something I think is universal to RPGs nor even to D&D. I’m not a fan. I also think it’s application renders false a lot of other claims folk make about their games.

Maybe you just don't like GM authority.

 

[Enrahim2]

The motivation for play isn't provided by any of (i) to (iii), I don't think. That's already presupposed, insofar as the players have turned up to the session. The introduction of the hooks that underpin (i) to (iii) is done following the usual rules of the game.

I'm missing the connection between this and rule zero.

Yes, these two paragraphs matches up. (ii) enables the gameplay of making informed pre adventure choices. (iii) Is about the immersive aestetics of a continous in fiction experience unbroken by undue meta game exposition. The fundation for my thesis was that this is qualities that indeed is part of what brings the players back to the table for session after session. If you reject this thesis then indeed my proposed connection to rule zero falls appart for this particular situation.

To try to clarify the connection. The claim was that GM s are not really playing a game if a wide interpretation of rule 0 is in effect. I agreed to that claim if one assume that the goal of the GM were taken to be the standard proposed goal of RPGing. However when GMing I feel like I am playing a game, but on introspection what I try to acheive is different from when I am a player. As a player what I normally focus to acheive is clearly changes in fiction states to states I am liking, like make sure the bad guy do not do more bad stuff, and retrieve lost priceless artifacts to the betterment of humanity. And the means to acheive that is the application of my character's abilities, which is highly inefficient compared to free god-like narration.

However as a GM my focus is elsewhere. Most of the effort and challenge is in what I would consider the pure "administrative" tasks associated with running and refereeing the game. However there are times there arises situations where I have a goal state in mind that I want to acheive, but feel really challenging even with full ability to dictate the fiction. Getting the players to eagerly enter the dungeon is one such example. Another classic is dropping a new clue when the players are stuck on the mystery while still making the players feel like they deserved it. Another is how to offer an out in a way that do not cheapen the game for the players when they have gotten in over their heads.

All of these are challenges a GM can face in a game where rule zero is not in effect as well. For other games one or more of these might not be part of the GM gameplay at all, as the rules are dictating how to handle these situations to the point where applying it become purely administrative. The point is that this indeed is situations that come up in play where the property that the player state of mind is an essential part of the goal make even the mean of dictating the fiction not a fully effective mean to acheive those goals. And as such, if these goals are accepted as a valid basis for play, the GM can still be considered to be playing a game even with full rule zero in effect.

 

[clearstream]

Meh. It’s inconsistently defined quite a bit. It’s also like a soft term for a harder idea. Absolute GM Control sounds potentially negative, depending on the context. Rule Zero, though… that doesn’t sound problematic at all!

Clearly, I get what Rule Zero is commonly code for. It’s not something I think is universal to RPGs nor even to D&D. I’m not a fan. I also think it’s application renders false a lot of other claims folk make about their games.

To me this touches on a problem with the vagueness of the label. No one exercises Absolute GM Control: there are always additional principles and rules that limit unadorned rule zero. Up-thread I found this comment striking -

If I want to tell the social contract to go hang (which I would never do), then by RAW I can unilaterally enact whatever rules changes or additions I want

Absolute GM Control appears to be being advocated, but turns out to be limited by the social contract. They may feel that they could abolish the contract, but they never would. Principles and rules aren't all equal: they're categorically weighted... some more entrenched than others.

My R is expressed in austere terms to allow examination. It's not what folk typically label as rule zero. It's common to see half-a-dozen rules bundled up into one and still find that's not the end of what's included. The claims folk make about their games rest upon those additional elements: they cannot be assessed unless one first in each individual case teases out everything included under and bearing on the label.

 

[pemerton]

Yes, these two paragraphs matches up. (ii) enables the gameplay of making informed pre adventure choices. (iii) Is about the immersive aestetics of a continous in fiction experience unbroken by undue meta game exposition. The fundation for my thesis was that this is qualities that indeed is part of what brings the players back to the table for session after session. If you reject this thesis then indeed my proposed connection to rule zero falls appart for this particular situation.

I just don't see what it has to do with rule zero. As GM, I'm following the rules of the game. I'm not exercising a power to change the default rules.

The claim was that GM s are not really playing a game if a wide interpretation of rule 0 is in effect. I agreed to that claim if one assume that the goal of the GM were taken to be the standard proposed goal of RPGing. However when GMing I feel like I am playing a game, but on introspection what I try to acheive is different from when I am a player. As a player what I normally focus to acheive is clearly changes in fiction states to states I am liking, like make sure the bad guy do not do more bad stuff, and retrieve lost priceless artifacts to the betterment of humanity. And the means to acheive that is the application of my character's abilities, which is highly inefficient compared to free god-like narration.

However as a GM my focus is elsewhere. Most of the effort and challenge is in what I would consider the pure "administrative" tasks associated with running and refereeing the game. However there are times there arises situations where I have a goal state in mind that I want to acheive, but feel really challenging even with full ability to dictate the fiction. Getting the players to eagerly enter the dungeon is one such example. Another classic is dropping a new clue when the players are stuck on the mystery while still making the players feel like they deserved it. Another is how to offer an out in a way that do not cheapen the game for the players when they have gotten in over their heads.

I don't disagree with any of this, I don't think. The roles of player and GM are asymmetrical.

That doesn't mean the GM doesn't have the lusory attitude - I mean, consider the goalie in football, or the coxswain in rowing.

So I'm still missing the connection to rule zero.

All of these are challenges a GM can face in a game where rule zero is not in effect as well.

Quite. Burning Wheel doesn't have "rule zero", but it has a page setting out the GM's responsibilities, and then a different page setting out the players' responsibilities.

Torchbearer has extensive discussions of the responsibility of both categories of game participant.

The point is that this indeed is situations that come up in play where the property that the player state of mind is an essential part of the goal make even the mean of dictating the fiction not a fully effective mean to acheive those goals. And as such, if these goals are accepted as a valid basis for play, the GM can still be considered to be playing a game even with full rule zero in effect.

I think I follow. But I still don't think I agree. The way the GM establishes the players' interest in the fiction seems to be exactly by narrating fiction! (I mean, that's what is happening in my Torchbearer example.)

 

[clearstream]

All of these are challenges a GM can face in a game where rule zero is not in effect as well. For other games one or more of these might not be part of the GM gameplay at all, as the rules are dictating how to handle these situations to the point where applying it become purely administrative. The point is that this indeed is situations that come up in play where the property that the player state of mind is an essential part of the goal make even the mean of dictating the fiction not a fully effective mean to acheive those goals. And as such, if these goals are accepted as a valid basis for play, the GM can still be considered to be playing a game even with full rule zero in effect.

I have something like this in mind, too. Further above I laid out several contentions, and I did not see them as being necessarily at odds. "GM" is yet another vague label with ambiguous contents. I accept a possibility that the label "GM" sometimes refers to GM-as-referee and sometimes to GM-as-player.

It might be that a tautology applies. GM can only become a player by virtue of accepting lusory-means i.e. adopting a lusory-attitude. If so, then that means accepting limits on R*. Seeing as I observe limits to be in place anyway, I find it plausible that "GM" can accept sufficient limits to wield powers derived from R inefficiently. One adjustment to R in such cases can be to exercise different levels of reluctance or be obliged to take various factors into account in its wielding across explicitly or tacitly arranged categories.

*I'll use my R here as I find it a lot clearer than the vague label "rule zero". R is an exemption from my F, which is the agreement to suspend use of the preexisting capacitiy of homo ludens to form and modify rules. "Rule zero" in the domain is a complex or compound rule that incorporates R, but is defined differently by different users.

 

[Enrahim2]

I think I follow. But I still don't think I agree. The way the GM establishes the players' interest in the fiction seems to be exactly by narrating fiction! (I mean, that's what is happening in my Torchbearer example.)

I am confused as to where you think there might not be an agreement, as your follow up seem to be matching exactly my point? We appear to fully agree natrating fiction is the mean games generally provide for establishing players' interest. That is if in the ludic mode, it can be argued that the GM should avoid means like hyping, bribery or reference to YouTube reviews to establish such interest, even if that otherwise might have been more effective means to the end goal.

Having full authorship isn't required for enabeling a GM to engage in such "gameplay". Rather my point is that full authorship isn't obviously detrimental to it.