Author Topic: Sode #24: Rule 0 (System 03)  (Read 29148 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Meg

  • Message Board Extraordinaire
  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *
  • Posts: 2069
  • Are you rapier than me?
    • Brilliant Gameologists
    • Email
Re: Sode #24: Rule 0
« Reply #40 on: October 20, 2008, 02:19:09 PM »
I would LOVE to hear if there are other references to Rule Zero and it's origins.  Research on the subject proved to be difficult.
All of my updates are on twitter! 

This is my angry voice.  Text written in red, by me, is  an official moderator "suggestion"

Want to meet me or the other Gameologists?  Check out where we'll be on the Conventions, Meetups and Events board!

runester

  • Monkey bussiness
  • *
  • Posts: 11
    • Email
Re: Sode #24: Rule 0
« Reply #41 on: October 20, 2008, 06:01:03 PM »
.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2008, 11:43:44 AM by runester »

Zeke

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Bi-Curious George
  • *
  • Posts: 540
    • Email
Re: Sode #24: Rule 0
« Reply #42 on: October 20, 2008, 06:37:29 PM »
"Check with your GM" is literally in the D&D 3.0 player's hand book and is number 0 in a numbered list of rules. It rarely gets more clear cut than that.

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: Sode #24: Rule 0
« Reply #43 on: October 21, 2008, 02:43:29 AM »
I respectfully disagree.

OK.  We have provided very clear and definitive "proof."  In order to "disprove" our position you would need to offer stronger proof.  So do you have any?

Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

jcm

  • Domesticated Capuchin Monkey
  • **
  • Posts: 99
  • I am information man
Re: Sode #24: Rule 0
« Reply #44 on: October 21, 2008, 03:59:39 AM »
"Check with your GM" is literally in the D&D 3.0 player's hand book and is number 0 in a numbered list of rules. It rarely gets more clear cut than that.

The notion of a "zeroth rule" has been around for a very long time. And I think that is why rule 0 is used to mean something more than simply "check with your gm".


Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: Sode #24: Rule 0
« Reply #45 on: October 21, 2008, 04:15:30 AM »
"Check with your GM" is literally in the D&D 3.0 player's hand book and is number 0 in a numbered list of rules. It rarely gets more clear cut than that.

The notion of a "zeroth rule" has been around for a very long time. And I think that is why rule 0 is used to mean something more than simply "check with your gm".


Source?
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

jcm

  • Domesticated Capuchin Monkey
  • **
  • Posts: 99
  • I am information man
Re: Sode #24: Rule 0
« Reply #46 on: October 21, 2008, 04:38:34 AM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeroth covers a few examples of zeroth rules.

I remember a book (I'll see if I can find it later, I think it was either one of Whiteheads essays or an article by Hofstadter) that discussed the history of number theory, when they attempted to use set theory as a foundation of the number system and basic mathematics they kept turning up paradoxes. Some people tried to fix their systems with a rule 0 that specifically disallowed paradoxical sets.

Some programmers have borrowed the zeroth law from Asimov's laws of robotics as a slightly tongue in cheek meta-rule. My guess is that Asimov himself had borrowed it from the laws of thermodynamics and logical systems.

I know these aren't exact rule zeros as applied to gaming, but I think they influence what people mean when they use rule zero. It's an escape clause. An admission that the rules can never be exact. That sometimes you need a GM who can say "you can't do that".
« Last Edit: October 21, 2008, 04:56:16 AM by jcm »

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: Sode #24: Rule 0
« Reply #47 on: October 21, 2008, 05:15:40 AM »
I know these aren't exact rule zeros as applied to gaming, but I think they influence what people mean when they use rule zero. It's an escape clause. An admission that the rules can never be exact. That sometimes you need a GM who can say "you can't do that".
Yes, we know about all that.  Zeroth law of thermodynamics and all.  Just a smokescreen.

We have what we believe to be the etymology of the term, anyone have better proof?

Further does anyone have anything to say about why confusing jargon might be good?
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

jcm

  • Domesticated Capuchin Monkey
  • **
  • Posts: 99
  • I am information man
Re: Sode #24: Rule 0
« Reply #48 on: October 21, 2008, 05:38:15 AM »
Further does anyone have anything to say about why confusing jargon might be good?

That's exactly my concern. Saying that rule 0 means "check with your gm" and nothing but that is just as misleading as saying that rule 0 means "ignore the rules when you need to". Rule 0 from the phb may be the most direct source, but it doesn't mean only what it says in that book. It has too many meanings to be good jargon at all - even if you try to restrict its meaning only to "check with your gm".

Talen Lee

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 447
  • Forum Ninja
Re: Sode #24: Rule 0
« Reply #49 on: October 21, 2008, 07:32:53 AM »
I believe the point of the thesis was 'Fuck Rule Zero,' not 'Fuck Rule Zero That Doesn't Mean This.'

golieth

  • Monkey bussiness
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: Sode #24: Rule 0
« Reply #50 on: October 21, 2008, 11:45:28 AM »
However, if you are more concerned with roleplaying, the rule system will always fail you.
This is patently untrue. There  are plenty of systems where the rules encourage, enforce and reward roleplaying. The notion that the roleplaying and the game are two different things is wrong.

I didn't know there was a patent on this, but I assure you I don't intend to make any money  ;)

Your answer didn't address my statement.  I never said that any RPG didn't encourage RP.  That would contradict the type of game.  However all game systems are distillations and imperfect representations of reality (sometimes by choice), because the rule system that can cover all cases will be as big as reality itself.  I do not want to play that game.  So the best we can hope for is rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty (hitchhiker's guide to galaxy reference) and let the GM rule where they exist.

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: Sode #24: Rule 0
« Reply #51 on: October 21, 2008, 12:09:00 PM »
I believe the point of the thesis was 'Fuck Rule Zero,' not 'Fuck Rule Zero That Doesn't Mean This.'
Yes you are correct, but to be a little more clear:

"Fuck the term rule zero"

Your answer didn't address my statement.  I never said that any RPG didn't encourage RP.  That would contradict the type of game.  However all game systems are distillations and imperfect representations of reality (sometimes by choice), because the rule system that can cover all cases will be as big as reality itself.  I do not want to play that game.  So the best we can hope for is rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty (hitchhiker's guide to galaxy reference) and let the GM rule where they exist.
There is a disconnect here in communications.  Mostly having to do with different game experiences.

That said, golieth there are games that are still quite simple where the GM does not have to make up new stuff by fiat constantly.
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

Meg

  • Message Board Extraordinaire
  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *
  • Posts: 2069
  • Are you rapier than me?
    • Brilliant Gameologists
    • Email
Re: Sode #24: Rule 0
« Reply #52 on: October 21, 2008, 12:19:45 PM »
That's exactly my concern. Saying that rule 0 means "check with your gm" and nothing but that is just as misleading as saying that rule 0 means "ignore the rules when you need to". Rule 0 from the phb may be the most direct source, but it doesn't mean only what it says in that book. It has too many meanings to be good jargon at all - even if you try to restrict its meaning only to "check with your gm".

That is exactly the point we made in the episode-- that the term is far to fuzzy and terrible jargon because it means something differently to everyone.  And some people are going to take extreme liberties with it whereas others may be more literal.

Which lead right to House Rules which is also bad jargon and instead we presented a couple of terms which provided more clarity for all parities.
All of my updates are on twitter! 

This is my angry voice.  Text written in red, by me, is  an official moderator "suggestion"

Want to meet me or the other Gameologists?  Check out where we'll be on the Conventions, Meetups and Events board!

Cam_Banks

  • Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
    • Margaret Weis Productions
    • Email
Re: Sode #24: Rule 0
« Reply #53 on: October 21, 2008, 02:24:43 PM »
"Check with your GM" is literally in the D&D 3.0 player's hand book and is number 0 in a numbered list of rules. It rarely gets more clear cut than that.

Must be why they took out the numbering in the 3.5 Player's Handbook!

As it stands, it was only a note to check with the DM to make sure he doesn't have any house rules for character generation, like "all of your stats are 18" or "no dark elf rangers." So any other use of it in regard to D&D is a stretch.

Cheers,
Cam
Managing Editor & Community Manager | Margaret Weis Productions

runester

  • Monkey bussiness
  • *
  • Posts: 11
    • Email
Re: Sode #24: Rule 0
« Reply #54 on: October 21, 2008, 02:43:46 PM »
.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2008, 11:43:33 AM by runester »

jimmersault

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 53
Re: Sode #24: Rule 0
« Reply #55 on: October 21, 2008, 02:47:26 PM »
I appreciate what you guys are trying to do here, but I'm tainted toward almost not caring as I doubt that clearing up the jargon will help those who have the propensity to abuse it in this way in the first place. This is a threadkiller and maybe off-topic, but I only meant to bring up the value of the discussion (this part of it anyway) jargon with those who didn't care in the beginning. Clearing this up to stop those who would abuse it is like signing a peace treaty with communists. It's almost an invitation for them to abuse you in new ways in the future. These people are jerks. While I approve of the point and YOU ARE RIGHT, I don't know what it will do to help anyone, except provide a new method by which we can weed out the jerks.

James
Actual table rule, we had to get Zeke to stop interfering [mock humping] with the person trying to take their turn.

jimmersault: Zeke is my new hero.

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: Sode #24: Rule 0
« Reply #56 on: October 22, 2008, 12:39:42 AM »
"Check with your GM" is literally in the D&D 3.0 player's hand book and is number 0 in a numbered list of rules. It rarely gets more clear cut than that.
As it stands, it was only a note to check with the DM to make sure he doesn't have any house rules for character generation, like "all of your stats are 18" or "no dark elf rangers." So any other use of it in regard to D&D is a stretch.
OK. 

Question: Do you think this statement places you 'for' or 'against' our position?



So, following your example, it should be possible to write a 'reasonable' definition of 'Rule Zero'.
Not really.  The terms are very different.  But biggest of all Rule 0 is treated as an armor plated excuse for everything.  Compound that with the fact that the term brings nothing to the table and the word is uneeded.

Quote
"The single most important aspect of Gamemastering is the ability to improvise. Sadly, this ability cannot be taught. Good Luck!" ~ ROBERT KIRKMAN, QAGS Second Edition by Hex Games, Page 58.

"Rule Zero: Whatever else you do, enjoy it." ~ James "Grim" Desborough, XPress Core by Postmortem Studios, Page 4
These quotes may have been taken out of context, but I will assume they say what the author meant. 

Improvisation can be taught, quite simply because it is. 

Of course you should enjoy the playing of games, dumb-ass.  That does not mean you ignore the game.

These are the kind of old idea fools that we at BG like to kick to the curb.  No offense.
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

Cam_Banks

  • Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
    • Margaret Weis Productions
    • Email
Re: Sode #24: Rule 0
« Reply #57 on: October 22, 2008, 03:11:24 AM »
OK. 

Question: Do you think this statement places you 'for' or 'against' our position?

Was I being unclear?

I think using the term Rule Zero to describe anything in D&D other than "players should check with the DM to make sure there aren't any house rules they should know about when making characters" is a misuse of the term. They should call that something else.

So, I am pretty sure this agrees with your position.

I also think it's kind of a storm in a teacup, really. There are bigger problems out there than semantics.

Cheers,
Cam
Managing Editor & Community Manager | Margaret Weis Productions

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: Sode #24: Rule 0
« Reply #58 on: October 22, 2008, 05:44:07 AM »
I also think it's kind of a storm in a teacup, really. There are bigger problems out there than semantics.

Rome wasn't built in a day.
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

Cam_Banks

  • Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 325
    • Margaret Weis Productions
    • Email
Re: Sode #24: Rule 0
« Reply #59 on: October 22, 2008, 09:43:47 AM »
Rome wasn't built in a day.

It wasn't sacked in a day, either, but we don't talk about that.

Cheers,
Cam
Managing Editor & Community Manager | Margaret Weis Productions