There is no "Rule Zero"!

[MeeposFire]

The 4e DM guide has a good section on this about different types of gamers and game styles that these conversations remind me of.

[Totally Guy]

I find that talking about fun is unproductive. I still lack deeper satisfaction in a game I consider fun. It's like eating lots of sweets.

[Killer Angel]

When you're playing a game, fun is usually the point.


Isn't "fun" reductive?
Sometime, to have satisfaction is the point. I've had a painful session, where there wasn't much fun and we were chased by stronger opponents, and in the end we barely escape, losing precious resources but still alive.
Frustrating, but very satisfying in the end.

[BayardSPSR]

I guess this is the part where I apologize to the universe for opening Pandora's Box...?

Aside from that, I'd like to thank you all for taking time out of your busy days to debunk GNS theory for me. I honestly haven't read IT, just read ABOUT it, so that might explain why it seemed like a generally good idea to me. You'd think I'd know better than to bring up an established idea I haven't fully examined in a forum about the subject of that idea... :smallwink: The responses have been illuminating - I didn't know it actually tried to divide games cleanly into those categories, or claim that there were no other factors...

Tyndmyr's critiques of my last post are all accurate, so far as I can tell.

In response to The_JJ: thank you.

My only remaining question is: Are we going to end here, or push for fifty pages? I officially endorse neither, of course, and ask as a matter of interest.

[Killer Angel]

My only remaining question is: Are we going to end here, or push for fifty pages? I officially endorse neither, of course, and ask as a matter of interest.

The thread lives it's own life.
If we stay somehow on (or near the) topic, and peoples debate it, we can reach 50 pages, and then open a new thread.
Basically, a thread can die in 2 ways: no one cares to post anymore in it, or a Mod jumps in and close it (for various reasons, including "this thread has gone too far off topic, please open a new thread on the new subject")

[The Big Dice]

While I've always found that GNS was a bit useless for examining players, I do think the basic idea makes a decent framework examining things as you're looking at rules (both ones you make and the one's you're judging the merits of).
Let's take D&D as an example. Is it Gamist, Narrativist or Simulationist?

That's the problem, because it's all three at once, with a slight lean towards Game (which isn't used to mean game system in GNS, or not quite) and away from Narrative (which isn't really used to describe story elements either).

GNS even describes chess and Magic: The Gathering as roleplaying games. And then goes on to "explain" why there will be problems is you try and do it wrong by GNS standards. It uses five dollar words to explain one dollar concepts with the conceit that redefining those words will somehow give the idea credibility.

It also doesn't help GNS with it's credibility that the early articles talk about classifying gamers, while the later ones talk about classifying games. But they all use the same terminology. If you want to read mor eon it, you can go here (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/). But bear in mind that nothing has been added since 2004 or so, and much that is there is a thinly veiled snobbery directed at the D20 system. Or anyone else that has published a successful RPG.

[Eldan]

Pish. There are four.

Real Men
Roleplayers
Loonies
Munchkins

There's also the quiet/forgetful guy. "Wait, my turn? Uhmm..." "Hmm? The King asks me? Oh..."

[dsmiles]

It's like eating lots of sweets.
There's...something wrong with eating a lot of sweets?

[Killer Angel]

Again on Rule 0 (and sorry if it was already asked).

Shouldn't a DM assign circumstance bonuses or penalties on skill checks?
Sometime, those situational modifiers are given by the system (distance for spot/listen), sometime they're not, and can be assigned for or a good/bad roleplaying (for example, in situations involving Bluff or Diplomacy).

Isn't this Rule 0? Isn't this the difference (one of the many differences) between role-playing and roll-playing?

[Tyndmyr]

Ssshhh...that was supposed to be a secret derail. :smallwink:

I'm tired of talking about rule 0, anyway. Some people use it, some don't. It's not always a good thing, it's not always a bad thing. All that matters is that the group you're in has fun.

Yeah, I think we've pretty much said everything about rule zero itself that can be said.

Personally, I think the "if you're having fun, you're doing it right" is a bit of a simplification in general, though. Fun isn't binary. Some things are a little bit fun, some things are a ton of fun. You can be having fun with something, and still find ways to improve it.

The satisfaction point is also good. Having a character die certainly does not always into the fun category...but PC deaths can make the campaign as a whole more meaningful or satisfying.

At the risk of getting derailed back on topic, Mama Bitterleaf's Secret Ingredient(+2 circumstance modifier) is derived from a rule. True, it's a rule that in itself requires adjudication, but since it's an actual rule, rule zero is not needed to apply it. Certainly, getting rid of rule zero would not dispose of all subjectivity within D&D.

[The Big Dice]

Personally, I think the "if you're having fun, you're doing it right" is a bit of a simplification in general, though. Fun isn't binary. Some things are a little bit fun, some things are a ton of fun. You can be having fun with something, and still find ways to improve it.
It's up to each individual to decide, but I'd say that if you're not having furn then get out. I've never subscribed to the idea that bad gaming is better than no gaming. Even if my own personal gaming circumstances can get complicated sometimes.

As for fun, what you're talking about is the difference between long term satisfaction and short term gratification. And there is quite a sizable difference between the two.

[Tyndmyr]

It's up to each individual to decide, but I'd say that if you're not having furn then get out. I've never subscribed to the idea that bad gaming is better than no gaming. Even if my own personal gaming circumstances can get complicated sometimes.

Would agree. I fully approve of getting out of gaming groups that are terribly unfun, and kicking out people that ruin the fun for everyone else. Some things can be fixed, but sometimes, people just don't get along, and the best solution is separating them.


As for fun, what you're talking about is the difference between long term satisfaction and short term gratification. And there is quite a sizable difference between the two.

Right. Hell, even individual preferences for each vary. It's pretty hard to objectively define fun, but you can get some rough correlations. I mean, I wouldn't consider balance to be inherently fun, but it can certainly be useful in building a fun gaming atmosphere.

Half of what makes things fun is the people, anyhow, not the system. It doesn't matter what system you play if the people are just terrible.

[BayardSPSR]

How about 'if you're having fun, you're not doing it wrong'?

[Karoht]

It's up to each individual to decide, but I'd say that if you're not having furn then get out. I've never subscribed to the idea that bad gaming is better than no gaming. Even if my own personal gaming circumstances can get complicated sometimes.Fair enough. Sometimes I'm willing to stick it with a bad group because, like bad relationships, we think we can change people.
It's also a badge of honor to say you survived something in spite of the poor group, which presents a challenge unto itself in most respects.




As for fun, what you're talking about is the difference between long term satisfaction and short term gratification. And there is quite a sizable difference between the two.Bingo.

[Tyndmyr]

How about 'if you're having fun, you're not doing it wrong'?

Forget right and wrong. Think in terms of better and worse. There are not merely two ways to play.

You can sometimes improve upon a game in which people are having fun and make it more fun.

[BayardSPSR]

Forget right and wrong. Think in terms of better and worse. There are not merely two ways to play.

You can sometimes improve upon a game in which people are having fun and make it more fun.

Exactly! Hence the negative argument, rather than the positive one.

[Tyndmyr]

Exactly! Hence the negative argument, rather than the positive one.

Eh, I still think the argument still frames it in terms of right and wrong, though. I don't think that's a very accurate way to describe it. I'll admit that there are some gaming styles bad enough to generally be considered as "wrong", but you're not really going to be able to get any objective criteria for that.

Consider the extreme example of a GM that enjoys killing people off. He typically does so at least once per session. He's never actually bothered to read the books much, so the games tend not to make a great deal of sense by any evaluation of the rules. He calls it D&D though, and while he suffers a lot of turnover, recruiting a dozen+ people ensures that he always has enough people hanging around. He laughs when people quit in tears and has a reputation as (various expletives I probably shouldn't repeat here), but hey, one player played with him long enough, and got on well enough to marry him. This is, unfortunately, not a hypothetical example.

He has a great deal of fun gaming. Some other people apparently enjoy it enough to game there routinely. Is he doing it right? wrong? I dunno, but I certainly see room for improvement.

[Karoht]

Forget right and wrong. Think in terms of better and worse. There are not merely two ways to play.

You can sometimes improve upon a game in which people are having fun and make it more fun.

Forget right and wrong? Not two ways to play? That certainly hasn't been the discussion we've had so far. And you've certainly been arguing that Rule Zero = Wrong for most of this thread.
The Worse option is the Wrong option when a Better option exists.


Either way, if you're having fun, you're doing it right-ish. But then again, fun is a subjective term in RPG's all around. Some people's only idea of fun in an RPG is kill stuff get loot, and anything other is utterly boring. Some people don't like combat, some people enjoy challenging themselves to play certain concept characters, etc. There's the bad kind of fun, where players only have fun when loot is being handed to them and there is no sense of accomplishment, or when a player at the table is being disruptive or offensive, or downright bully's and browbeats another player. The bad kind of fun IS worse, and there is a better option.

But that is mostly off-topic rambling of mine.

[Tyndmyr]

Forget right and wrong? Not two ways to play? That certainly hasn't been the discussion we've had so far. And you've certainly been arguing that Rule Zero = Wrong for most of this thread.
The Worse option is the Wrong option when a Better option exists.

On the contrary, I've been arguing that reducing use of rule zero is generally an improvement.

And also that use of no rule zero at all is possible.

I have repeatedly stated that there are multiple ways to play, and multiple solutions, such as using formalized ajudication/fiat systems instead of the open endedness that is the informal rule zero.

[The Big Dice]

On the contrary, I've been arguing that reducing use of rule zero is generally an improvement.

And also that use of no rule zero at all is possible.

I have repeatedly stated that there are multiple ways to play, and multiple solutions, such as using formalized ajudication/fiat systems instead of the open endedness that is the informal rule zero.

Where I've been arguing that you should use Rule 0 where you need it and not as a general purpose fix for anything and everything. In and of itself, Rule 0 isn't a bad thing. It's when it goes from a useful tool into Oberonni Fallacy territory that it becomes an issue.

[Hecuba]

It also doesn't help GNS with it's credibility that the early articles talk about classifying gamers, while the later ones talk about classifying games. But they all use the same terminology. If you want to read mor eon it, you can go here (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/). But bear in mind that nothing has been added since 2004 or so, and much that is there is a thinly veiled snobbery directed at the D20 system. Or anyone else that has published a successful RPG.

Oh, I don't disagree that the actual body of GNS work is largely without merit. I would also agree that players and games is probably beyond the scope of a categorization schema: categorization schemes are useful primarily for examine discrete elements, whereas player preferences and game systems tend to have significant emergent trends at levels above where we can reasonably make discrete divisions.

Too often (for my tastes, anyways), however, I tend to see this presented with the implicit idea that a categorization schema can never be useful in game design. Miscategorization is a fallacy that's always a concern when using such a tool, but the tool itself can have uses.

I do think that there are elements of operational and functional level game design where a categorization schema can be a useful conceptual tool, and I think that the categories that GNS uses (though not what it uses them for) do have some merit for use on examining individual rules.

[Tyndmyr]

Where I've been arguing that you should use Rule 0 where you need it and not as a general purpose fix for anything and everything. In and of itself, Rule 0 isn't a bad thing. It's when it goes from a useful tool into Oberonni Fallacy territory that it becomes an issue.

Right. We're not on opposite ends of the spectrum of rule 0 use...we merely have different ideas of the optimal amount of use of it. I hold that the optimal amount is zero...but I recognize that due to game shortcomings, new DMs, or other factors, that may not be at all possible. So, the practical approach is to strive to reduce it.



Hecuba, categorization schema's are potentially useful...but they serve mainly a descriptive purpose, not a proscriptive one. It's useful to describe a movie as horror, or action, or drama...it is not useful to demand that all movies slot themselves into one of those types. In fact, I would expect that following such a policy would affect quality pretty adversely. I take a similar view on GNS and game systems.

[Hecuba]

Hecuba, categorization schema's are potentially useful...but they serve mainly a descriptive purpose, not a proscriptive one. It's useful to describe a movie as horror, or action, or drama...it is not useful to demand that all movies slot themselves into one of those types. In fact, I would expect that following such a policy would affect quality pretty adversely. I take a similar view on GNS and game systems.

I would agree, to a point. However, when you are designing something complex, I do feel that being able to describe what you are attempting to accomplish with the design of the smaller parts thereof is an important part making a good functional/operational design process.

I find that categorization is a good tool for streamlining that when dealing with large numbers of fairly discrete elements, such as the individual operational level rules in a tabletop game (as opposed to the core system rules: i.e. the specific rules for drowning in 3.5 as opposed to the D20 core mechanic).

To put it another way, if we are creating rules we are designing tools to fit some purpose. By including a descriptive phase in that design process, we force ourselves to formulate a concrete idea of what we are trying to accomplish (and ideally, how it relates to other goals we have for the game).

I've never found a situation where I was worse off having asked myself how specifically some action I am considering would further my overall personal goals.

[Tyndmyr]

I'm not against categorization in general, but the entire purpose is to make it clearer, simpler to understand, etc. Consider TVTropes(no, no links, for the love of god). Whatever problems tropes have, they at least make it easy to refer to some topic by a label instead of describing it. Nice, for making conversations briefer and easy to follow.

That all pretty much goes away when you redefine words as GNS does. When I hear the word "incoherent" describing a rule book, I picture a grotesque mess of generally unusable drek, not a ruleset that happens to combine say, a concern for balance with a strong narrative. That's because the way the word is used in GNS doesn't at all match general usage...though I can't help but suspect that choosing a derogatory term to redefine for the types of games they dislike was intentional.

[Fhaolan]

When I hear the word "incoherent" describing a rule book, I picture a grotesque mess of generally unusable drek, not a ruleset that happens to combine say, a concern for balance with a strong narrative.

I generally picture AD&D 1ed DMG. Fascinating, but poorly edited with no apparant organization. :smallsmile:

[The Big Dice]

I generally picture AD&D 1ed DMG. Fascinating, but poorly edited with no apparant organization. :smallsmile:
That's the one I tend to think of too. There's gold in there, but it's often buried in a mess of stuff that's something to do with things that should have been in two chapters. Or two chapters ago.

[stainboy]

That all pretty much goes away when you redefine words as GNS does. When I hear the word "incoherent" describing a rule book, I picture a grotesque mess of generally unusable drek, not a ruleset that happens to combine say, a concern for balance with a strong narrative. That's because the way the word is used in GNS doesn't at all match general usage...though I can't help but suspect that choosing a derogatory term to redefine for the types of games they dislike was intentional.

Worst part is, GNS redefines words in ways that make no sense. Narrativism doesn't mean story focused, as Ron Edwards points out in that giant GNS essay. I don't know why you'd use the word narrativism if not to mean "primarily concerned with narratives."

Ask the average person what GNS terms mean and they'll give you something like this:

Gamist - Focused on game mechanics.
Narrativist - Focused on story.
Simulationist - Focused on verisimilitude or an internally consistent world.

None of these are "correct," and I think half the appeal of GNS for Forge-ites is that they get to correct other people on it.

[Tyndmyr]

Yeah...and thus the banging the head against the wall begins when talking to a GNS adherent. Nothing makes a conversation so fruitless as people both using different definitions for words.

[Talakeal]

So are those three things supposed to be exclusive or something? I think they are all necessary to a good game.

Although, looking back on my previous statements in this thread about what constitutes a traditional RPG, I think it is actually a lack of "simulationist" aspects that hurt both rules heavy (D&D 4th ed where you forget powers after using them) or rules story heavy (Modern GM less games where I am told you can't use established powers or tools to affect the plot without spending a point of some kind) systems in my mind, so maybe that is what I am, although my friends all tell me I am a storyline guy, and I do prefer a lot of rules in my games, so maybe not by much.

On a similar topic more at home in this thread, when I write a rule, either using the dreaded rule 0 or in my homebrew systems, I use a similar 3 point scale to determine how good the rule is.

Fair: Will characters interacting with the rule be at an advantage / disadvantage to those using a different rule of the same sort.

Fun: Is it easy to use, will it slow the game down, will is cause hurt feelings?

and Realistic: Does it approximate real world natural laws, or in the case of something supernatural is it consistent with the guide lines set down by the setting.

It's a tough balancing act between all three sometimes.

[Tyndmyr]

So are those three things supposed to be exclusive or something? I think they are all necessary to a good game.

In GNS theory, yes. Games that mix them up are labeled as "incoherent", which is generally a bad thing, even in their wording.

I have nothing against small, focused games, but I disagree that it's the only right way to design an RPG. I'd expect any game aimed at a wide market to support a variety of different playstyles and player motivations.

Consider also the explorer. The guy who may not be after character development as such, but who loves finding new things, and is captivated by an unusual new find. I see this element occasionally in players(though generally it's not the only motivation), and it doesn't fit their descriptions well. In fact, almost every actual player I've ever met had multiple motivations for playing. People are complex beasts.

[Frozen_Feet]

Out of curiosity, what are the GNS definitions for G, N and S? o_O

[Tyndmyr]

Gamism: It's all about winning
Narrativism: Impossible. GM is the author of the story, player direct actions of characters, and these two are at odds with each other. Centers on character development.
Simulationism: Never found a good definition. Simulationism appeared to be the other category where they threw everything they didn't like. A quote from wikipedia about it: "Much of the Simulationist aesthetic revolves around promoting the daydream of a self-contained bubble universe that operates independently of player volition, with the result that many Simulationist techniques are both deterministic and relatively hands-off: events unfold on the basis of internal rules, not because the player decides it."

The more normal, non GNS understanding of these words would be something like:
Gamism: Focus on the rules for the sake of designing a fun game.
Narrativism: Focus on the narrative.
Simulationism: Realism.

[stainboy]

Simulationism focuses on Exploration. Capitalized.

There are five kinds of Exploration, each of which has its own long and pedantic definition. Premise, setting, story, characters, and system, or something like that.

[Yukitsu]

Out of curiosity, what are the GNS definitions for G, N and S? o_O

Grognardism, for players who are utter over competetive twits.
Ninnies, for those pansies who only like melodrama as a story.
Suck, for any game Edwards doesn't like.

You can see why mixing them in his mind, would be a bad thing. It's important to limit how many terrible things you want seeping into your game.

I recommend not worrying about the actual words they use in their description of the terms, they don't consistently use them through their essays anyway.

[Frozen_Feet]

O.... kay? Based on those definitions, the GNS theory doesn't seem to describe real games or describes just a tiny portion of possible games. It doesn't seem hugely useful for anything.

[Tyndmyr]

O.... kay? Based on those definitions, the GNS theory doesn't seem to describe real games or describes just a tiny portion of possible games. It doesn't seem hugely useful for anything.

Yup. Keep in mind that it was not designed as an explanation of existing games, or based on data from gamers or anything of that nature. It's more or less a huge thought experiment on how games *should* be designed. And, as with any grand plan not based on actual, real world stuff at any point, it's very easy to get entirely lost.

You can read a lengthier explanation at the original source (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/3/), but the more you dig into it, the more unusable it is. At around chapter 5, when he gets into coherence, the crazy starts to really make itself shown.

[MeeposFire]

It sounds more useful in a way that the authors don't want to use. For instance gamist, narratavist, and simulationist can be used to describe how much of each are found in a particular game (use the normal understanding not their terms and I don't buy that any RPG game is "pure" gamist, narrativist, or simulationist. I think each game has levels of each and emphasize one more than the other compared to other games).

For instance if you compare 4e D&D to 3e D&D you will find that 4e has more of a gamist (and narrativist from most people I have talked to but considering I think that is the area that is most ill defined it is best to not really go into that area) while 3e emphasizes simulationism more than 4e does. As an example 3e has rules for different types of "bonuses" for different situations such as higher ground, flanking, prone, flat footed AC, touch AC, and miss chance which helps simulate how each of these influence combat to different degrees. 4e uses combat advantage to represent all of these in game as it makes it more standardized and easier/faster in game. In that case they trade some simulation for ease of the game rules.

However it would be wrong to say 4e is 0% simulationist as it does attempt to follow those principles, it just does it less than some games such as 3e D&D. It would also be wrong to say that 3e D&D is not gamist at all. Heck compared to earlier D&D games it is far more gamist it just isn't as specialized in that as 4e D&D.

To be clear this is my opinion on these relative levels and could surely be argued though that is an argument that is not important to this thread itself.

[Tyndmyr]

Absolutely. It might be a lot more useful if you stuck to more traditional definitions and goals.

[stainboy]

Grognardism, for players who are utter over competetive twits.
Ninnies, for those pansies who only like melodrama as a story.
Suck, for any game Edwards doesn't like.

Man it's a shame there's no way to make N Neckbeardism. Your garden-variety neckbeard despises N.

[Talakeal]

Man it's a shame there's no way to make N Neckbeardism. Your garden-variety neckbeard despises N.

What the heck does that term even mean? I get fatbeard, but what's a neckbeard?

[Gnoman]

It's a beard on the neck.

[Talakeal]

I normally hear people referred to as neck beards, and it clearly has more of a conotation than the obvious. Besides, aren't almost all beards (partially) on the neck?

[The_JJ]

I normally hear people referred to as neck bears, and it clearly has more of a conotation than the obvious. Besides, aren't all lmost beards (partially) on the neck?

Indeed. The hypothetical 'neckbeard,' however, exists only on the neck.

[Hecuba]

O.... kay? Based on those definitions, the GNS theory doesn't seem to describe real games or describes just a tiny portion of possible games. It doesn't seem hugely useful for anything.

It's worth noting that if you can get past the (probably intentionally) loaded names and the heaping piles of bias that GNS tried to bake in, these aren't horrible things to examine. This issue is in how GNS tries to extrapolate it into "this is makes a good game" and "all players are one of these".

For an example, consider what kind of conflict/difficulty a group of players might be expected to overcome:

A "gamist" conflict would be something where the conflict and difficulty is imposed and/or overcome primarily by the structure of the rules. This would probably be better labeled as "strategic" or "tactical" instead of "gamist."

Play-by-Post Arena
Char-op contests
A standard, combat played with at least a minimal eye towards strategy


A "narrative" conflict would be one imposed and/or by narrative elements. That can mean something from the overall plot to something self-imposed through characterization. I actually see this is perhaps the least intentionally oaded of the terms GNS uses, probably because it's the ideal the bulk of the proponents liked.

Stop Xykon from controlling the gate.
Be better than Greysky City.


A "Simulationist" conflict is one imposed and/or solved by following some element to it's logical conclusion ("exploration"). "Simulationist" is probably a decent term for this, but a large portion of GNS work is fairly dismissive of it.
Trying to survive in a Tippyverse* ("system exploration")
World design followed by sandbox ("setting exploration")

__________________________________________________ ___________________________________
Where GNS really falls apart (well, other than the huge steaming pile of bias) is when it starts dealing with "incoherence." Essentially, it says "well, we've described these elements, now we're going to tell you they right way to use them."

I can understand, to an extent, the basis of this. It's easy enough to imagine a situation where it might be a problem:

One player is trying to solve a given conflict using wargame-like tactics
One is trying to use a commoner rail gun
One is trying to exploit the economy and solve it with cash
The GM is assuming they're going to solve it with the power of plot.

If they all go gung-ho and make no aim to balance these play styles, no one is going to end up happy.
GNS seems to have responded to scenarios like this and posited that a good game is, definitionally, the polar opposite of the that scenario: that the only good game is one where potentially competing goals are not allowed to exist.

But it is perfectly possible to, by being forthright, include elements that will make every one of those people happy and not break the game. GNS discards that as a legitimate goal and pronounces games that try to accomplish it "incoherent."

It's fine with the idea that you can want bananas, or want cherries and whipped cream, or want vanilla ice cream. It it would be silly, however, for someone to want a banana split: there can be no good banana split, and no one should reasonably expect to enjoy bananas and ice cream at the same time. In addition, banana flavored ice cream is pointless, and cherries are for plebs.




*Is that the right spelling? I know it came from this forum, but until recently, my participation here was mostly second hand.