NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9021296" data-attributes="member: 42582">I don't see how your "ordinary refereeing" has anything to do with rule zero.Fair enough.But if their functions are dictating the state of the shared fiction at any time, that does raise a question as to what the players' functions are!In the most canonical version of "rule zero" heavy, GM-driven play, the function of the players - it seems to me - is to provide suggestions to the GM as to what the shared fiction should be.Now in the past, when I have suggested the above, it has been regarded as controversial. But if the players' contributions to the shared fiction are not merely suggestions to the GM, that must mean that at least in some cases the GM is bound to accept them. In which case, there is a rule that governs the GM, and that the GM can't suspend at will. Which means that the game does not include "rule zero".Introducing talk of "making the game better", or "only using rule zero in a principled fashion" (see eg [USER=23751]@Maxperson[/USER] not far upthread) doesn't change this, if better or in a principle fashion are themselves things for the GM to judge. (If they're for the whole table to judge, then of course it's not rule zero at all - the capacity of the table to consensually change the rules they are using or the content of the shared fiction (outside of a tournament-type context) is not in doubt.)Taking suggestions is not an inefficient means of crafting a shared fiction.The point about rule zero is that it permits the "referee" to validate their own moves! Which has the consequence I've described just above.</blockquote>

Verification