Rule Zero

[sabrecat]

SabreCat:

Mike Mearls has been writing a series of articles on the design of D&D, from as baseline of core principles as he can puzzle out. They're quite fun, and have generated a lot of forum buzz, which is no doubt their intent.

His most recent, "The Rules", mentions "Rule 0." I have an intense dislike of Rule 0, to the point where just seeing

Comments

[arinwolfe]

I'm all for having a "house rule" in terms of how games work, but like you said it has to be above the table, not "because I said so" I also don't mind the occasonal fudged roll on the GM's part-- not always, and certainly not even usually, but occassonally

[sabrecat]

And that's all well and good, but there are lots and lots of ways to address those things as mature adults without handing absolute tear-the-foundation-out authority to one person at the table. See my reply to dorchadas below for examples!

[dorchadas]

That makes me think, hey, why does Rule 0 exist at all?

Because it's impossible for the rules to cover every eventuality, and because the more rules a game includes in an attempt to do so, the more likely there will be unforeseen interactions between those rules that destroy the balance, fun or both of the game. This is more of a problem in point-build games, but witness Pun-Pun, the 1.5 million damage Hulking Hurler build or the Omniscificer for 3.5 for some D&D examples, or even stuff like the less-ludicrously overpowered Spiked Chain/Improved Trip/Move Attack combo.

Also, it's not necessarily opposed to "don't be a dick" if you assume that "Don't be a dick" is a higher-level rule, which goes against the name "Rule 0," but whatever. :p

[sabrecat]

Indeed. My point (or, given the above was a rant rather than an essay, my "feeling"?) is not that we don't need meta-rules. We very much do: inherent in gathering a group of people for RP is a social contract that includes, at the bare minimum, "let's play this game together." Rather, I find Rule 0 as it's usually written, putting veto power over anything and everything in one person's hands, to be a singularly terrible way of addressing the need for social contract. It's outdated and unnecessary.

Games like Burning Empires and Dogs in the Vineyard give the GM most of the authority traditionally vested in the role (playing NPCs, setting difficulties, providing opposition and adversity) without giving carte blanche to shift the goalposts out from under the players. Agon and Primetime Adventures give the GM-figure currency whose expenditure is required to hose the players. Games like Universalis or my own Blazing Rose don't even feature a GM role at all; everyone has equal authority over the fiction. Apocalypse World and others make

[dorchadas]

I wouldn't say "better," I'd say "different," precisely because there's a large cadre of players who do not want that sort of power or responsibility. That and most of the time the traditional Rule 0 isn't phrased as "You can do whatever you want, WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE" but more like, "If a rule isn't working for you, change it," which is deliberately more limited in scope and frequently also includes some note about how the primary delimiter for what should be changed and what shouldn't should be what increases the fun for the group as a whole.

It also depends on GNS, I suppose. I tend towards the Narrative, where the rules are there mostly to serve as a framework to tell the story (but at the same time, with my players a shared-GM-responsibility-style game wouldn't work because they expect the GM to provide the lion's part of the story while they fill in the details). It's the kind of thing that should be discussed with your players beforehand, but that's irrespective of whether Rule 0 is in force or not.

[dorchadas]

Rule 0 is inimical to GNS-style Narrativism. You can tell a story using it, sure, but it's the GM's story, and any contribution the players make to the story is at his whim and blessing.

Several of the games I mentioned don't give the players any greater responsibility than usual (Apocalypse World, Agon). Some do, but only in incremental ways that don't put the players on the spot all that often (Burning Empires). You don't need Rule 0 to keep players doing what they do.

And that's what I'm saying, really, however impassioned I feel about it. You can have a great game where Rule 0 is invoked often and freely. But you don't need it. And given it tears out the philosophical foundation of, the very idea behind, "playing a game together" (not to mention gives ammunition to jerk GMs and people who think an unexamined ruleset is most worth playing), a game as a whole better off without it.