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

[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 It's outdated and unnecessary.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.

[dorchadas]

That's a bit extreme. It's like arguing that any successes the players have are at the GM's whim because they could have a squad of dragons attack at any time, or (in an argument that I've heard multiple people make), any successes PCs in Exalted have is at the GM's sufferance because the GM doesn't have the leader of the anti-Solar conspiracy show up and use Creation-Slaying Oblivion Kick to wipe them out the moment they got their powers, even though it's possible.

The fact that a game might have a rule saying, "You can't ignore the rules and must play using all of them as written" (e.g. Burning Wheel) doesn't matter at all because it won't stop groups that don't want to use rules from not using them (and vice versa, of course). Rule 0 is more of an acknowledgement of this fact rather than an attempt to lay out a code of individual group conduct. Of course it's not necessary, but for some groups it's the best route through to the fun

[sabrecat]

Aha, but you're talking about groups. It makes sense to acknowledge that a group can decide to modify the rules of the game they're playing. The Rule 0 I'm hating on isn't "people might not play this game exactly as written"--it would be silly and naive to deny that, I agree. What I take issue with is the Rule 0 that instructs/allows the GM to change the game however he feels like, with or without consulting the rest of the table

[dorchadas]

True. Games that don't allow it tend to be more tightly focused, though--stuff like Witch Mountain or Panty Explosion, with a defined conflict and setting already presented.

Well, the reason I'm talking about groups is because that's where the problem really lies. Assholes don't need Rule 0 to cause problems--I was just reading a thread on RPG.net where someone mentioned a character who drowned in a two-foot wide stream. Character tries to jump, fails. GM asks for swimming roll, character critically fails. GM invokes drowning rules, character dies.

I do agree that, if you assume a group that sticks to what's written in the book only, Rule 0 has more potential for abuse than a lot of other formulations of social contract rulings. I just think that the ultimate problem lies with group dynamics and people being dicks, and not the existence or lack thereof of Rule 0.

[sabrecat]

Whoops. That was me, obviously :P