Discussion: Is Rule Zero passé?

[tdenmark]

Aug 22, 2024 5:41:14 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

There has been an interesting evolution in RPG style over the decades.

I've tried participating in some 5th edition forums with this new generation of players (with 5th being over 10 yrs old now they are becoming the old players...) and what has surprised me the most is what rules lawyers they are. In fact, the term "rules lawyer" isn't even used because that describes all the players.

I partially blame Magic: The Gathering for creating a generation of gamers who are exacting with rules.

[Bruce The Black]

War-gaming lead to ttrpg's and that is leading to something else. What it is I'm not sure but I wish it would hurry up and get there. Let all this go someplace else.Probably into computer games.

I think in 20 years they will have left paper products and other people far behind and D&D will be a video game where the player can play alone in his home making his character and playing with a AI DM and AI players. Probably while other people watch and provide commentary on it with YouTube videos. By that point making a character build yourself will not even be done anymore. You can just buy a book of character builds all just slightly better than the last book that came out three months ago.

OD&D 9 will be out by then and prove to be the best Retro-clone yet being made by the very first Gary Gygax A.I.
but it will only be in print for one month before it's taken down due to a lawsuit by the Lorraine Williams A.I.

[Punkrabbitt]

Aug 22, 2024 21:34:23 GMT -6 Bruce The Black said:

I think in 20 years they will have left paper products and other people far behind and D&D will be a video game where the player can play alone in his home making his character and playing with a AI DM and AI players. Probably while other people watch and provide commentary on it with YouTube videos. By that point making a character build yourself will not even be done anymore. You can just buy a book of character builds all just slightly better than the last book that came out three months ago.

This is called World Of Warcraft. There are other MMORPGs that are essentially the same thing. My wife and play a lot of World Of Warcraft together.

And this is my 600th post. Glee.

[Parzival]

I’ve DMed 5e. I won’t do it again. Ever. It’s far too character focused, and the build trees become so complicated that you can’t plan an adventure without somebody’s PC having a unique special ability that shreds whatever challenge you’ve attempted to create. And then there’s the Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic which in the end comes down to “if you have Advantage, you always succeed. If you have Disadvantage, you always fail.” (Do the math. The probs are killer.)
It’s just not fun for me.

[TheMyth]

Aug 22, 2024 20:28:18 GMT -6 tdenmark said:

Aug 22, 2024 5:41:14 GMT -6 Finarvyn said:

There has been an interesting evolution in RPG style over the decades.

I've tried participating in some 5th edition forums with this new generation of players (with 5th being over 10 yrs old now they are becoming the old players...) and what has surprised me the most is what rules lawyers they are. In fact, the term "rules lawyer" isn't even used because that describes all the players.

I partially blame Magic: The Gathering for creating a generation of gamers who are exacting with rules.

There are actually whole corners of the Internet where they argue over whether "rules lawyer" is good or bad. (Hint: they say GOOD.)

This is a corallary to my inquiry about everyone's encounters with "Rule Zero."

Seems like I am definitely Olde Schoole in my attitudes. If (and/or when) I decide to DM again, I am going to have to add a whole paragraph in the recruitment about my DMing style.

(Not that it will matter to people who don't read.)

[Bruce The Black]

This is all confirmation bias though. This is a OD&D message board. Of course the style of playing that started with OD&D is heavily favored here.

I'm sure if we went to a 5E message board ...well we would get a redirect to a "mostly abandoned by youth" 5E Discord where people would be saying that the 5E style of play is far superior.

I do however think the two styles are not just styles but a fundamental change so profound that it's easy to see the two things are different hobbies. As Different as Wargaming and Table Top Role playing.

I think at it's core the new Way of playing isn't a role playing game. Most people who play it do not even pay lip service to role playing. Instead they play themselves with special powers and the world is the modern world with the same issues they experience every day.

Orcs,Undead and Demons are all just people and society is generic modern western civilization. While the overarching adventure might be about saving the world this is largely a product of the last reminiscences of the old game clinging on and the lack of awareness by the new folks in charge.

The players do not want to save the world in general but instead to hang out together and fail their way to greatness. Each trying to out do the other in unique quirkiness."In this game I am a 12 year old winged elf demon vampire Paladin/Sorcerer with purple hair that is being hunted by his stepmothers animal creations because they made her children look bad".

*That was a actual player character from a old 5E game. I think out of the five characters in that game, this one was the most normal.

This isn't even a young verse old thing. The youngest player in that 5E group was 37.

The most outstanding player I ever meet on Roll20 was a 18 year old who is so old school he debated me for a week on the Thief in OD&D being the point where OD&D started going wrong. If not the fundamental error in mixing in skills in a class based game, then at least in the horrible percentile system method used to carry out the skills. "I think that was his argument anyway, it's been a while!"

[TheMyth]

Aug 24, 2024 6:53:31 GMT -6 Bruce The Black said:

This is all confirmation bias though. This is a OD&D message board. Of course the style of playing that started with OD&D is heavily favored here.

I'm sure if we went to a 5E message board ...well we would get a redirect to a "mostly abandoned by youth" 5E Discord where people would be saying that the 5E style of play is far superior.

I do however think the two styles are not just styles but a fundamental change so profound that it's easy to see the two things are different hobbies. As Different as Wargaming and Table Top Role playing.

I think at it's core the new Way of playing isn't a role playing game. Most people who play it do not even pay lip service to role playing. Instead they play themselves with special powers and the world is the modern world with the same issues they experience every day.

Orcs,Undead and Demons are all just people and society is generic modern western civilization. While the overarching adventure might be about saving the world this is largely a product of the last reminiscences of the old game clinging on and the lack of awareness by the new folks in charge.

The players do not want to save the world in general but instead to hang out together and fail their way to greatness. Each trying to out do the other in unique quirkiness."In this game I am a 12 year old winged elf demon vampire Paladin/Sorcerer with purple hair that is being hunted by his stepmothers animal creations because they made her children look bad".

*That was a actual player character from a old 5E game. I think out of the five characters in that game, this one was the most normal.

This isn't even a young verse old thing. The youngest player in that 5E group was 37.

The most outstanding player I ever meet on Roll20 was a 18 year old who is so old school he debated me for a week on the Thief in OD&D being the point where OD&D started going wrong. If not the fundamental error in mixing in skills in a class based game, then at least in the horrible percentile system method used to carry out the skills. "I think that was his argument anyway, it's been a while!"

I completely agree with the idea of it being "a fundamental change so profound that it's easy to see the two things are different hobbies." It truly is 2 different games. And the 2 groups do coalesce around different editions (which, let's be clear, really are all different games!).

The problems I think I see are my (and perhaps others' too?) assumption that the different player types would stay in their silos. But then some "kid" (who, as you say, could be 37!) has some idea that the middle of combat is the time to nitpick over a rules ruling (is that redundant?) because "they need to discuss this RIGHT NOW because it affects their character build!". And you're like...."Dude, this is OD&D, not 5E....you have 1 spell. You knew that when you chose to play the MU."

I think I disagree with you, though, about the purple-haired mutant not being into "role-playing." For some, it's ALL roleplay. It's acting. It's fanfic, and you're just along for the ride. Or in their way...and if you do not give them an Oompa-Loompa NOW then you're just a big bully!!!

Or, as someone else mentioned, the rpg is just like a video game to them: the DM might as well be an AI, they just go through the motions of the game, and treat everyone like an NPC instead of real, live people. (Shades of the Doctor Who episode "Dot and Bubble"...)

Well, that was more complain-y than intended. (Get off my lawn, whipper-snapper!)

But I am grateful for the perspective this thread has given me.

[xerxez]

Interesting thread.

I am in agreement with everyone here that Rule 0 is part of a fun game and necessary for a good pace.

I had a regular for years who was entrenched in Pathfinder and I played in some of his games as well. (Pre 5E).

I was not used to the level of codification covering almost every foreseeable contingency- I grew up with the DM responding to novel moves and requests with either saying something like "If you roll a nat20 I'll allow it to happen" or setting a percentage chance.

I prefer that to book scouring both as DM and player.

This guy would, at some point almost make every game tedious because he didn't like that approach; it was "not realistic" and was "arbitrary" and he always reminded everyone "You know Pathfinder has a rule for that." It became one of his personal running jokes at the table and sometimes it was funny but often it was annoying.

Sometimes other players said it as kind of a poke at him and the phrase haunted our tables for years and was good for a chuckle- it was most funny when he was not present and someone would say it and we'd have a good laugh.

Once we were eating takeout pizza at the table and debating pineapple on pizza and someone said "You know Pathfinder has a rule for that." Lol.

The irony is that no one I ever played under as a DM exemplified the term "railroading" like he did. He shut every novel idea or innovation down, ridiculed players for even thinking of it, and made you feel more like you were a character in a novel he was writing instead of a PC. And every session was a rules combing.

He once accused me of preferring old and (to him) obscure systems because no one at table was familiar with the rules and that way I could call the shots.

I didn't have anyone else ever say that so I brushed it off.

I would rarely stick to my guns and that was usually on something that to me seemed too farfetched or unbalanced entirely.

I had a player once get mad because they wanted to me to roll out a fight with the city guard when instead I simply said "The guards are far too numerous and quickly overpower and disarm you." When yet he ignored the entire party and did crazy stuff like slap the captain of the guard and disrupted the game to everyone's annoyance.

In readin this thread and looking back, perhaps I should have honored his request....

[Parzival]

Never deny a player his chance to do something stupid… especially if the player is being a real you-know-what about it. And then roll out EVERY die in front of him. No fudging, no secret rolls. Every. Single. Die.

Now, if the dice kill his PC (as they probably will), hopefully he’ll have learned something about taking on unrealistic odds. If by some crazy improbable fluke he wins, you will have learned something about the realities of probability, and everybody at the table has enjoyed the nutso combat sequence. Sometimes it’s the DM who has to take the punch and suck it up.

But always grant agency to the player. Even stupid agency is more fun than no agency at all.

If you have a situation where the outcome is pre-determined, change it so it’s not. Pre-determined events are dangerous to include, and should be used sparingly, and generally only to set the adventure hook— almost never to advance the party in mid-adventure, or block them mid-adventure. When used they should be very brief— the evil wizard appears from thin air, grabs the princess, and vanishes with her to who knows where. That’s fine. But lengthy scenes will leave your players saying, “Hang on— I had my bow ready! I want to shoot him!” They’ll feel cheated, and they’ll be right. But you can still naturally block them; fudge the initiative roll, use declared surprise— for a one round action, these will satisfy them. They were surprised or they lost initiative; they understand that. It works, and forestalls argument. But if the sequence is going to last more than a round (10 seconds in classic), they need to have the opportunity to do something… even if it’s wrong. Impossibility should be reserved for truly impossible things— they jump off a 500’ high tower, they die. You don’t need to roll (although 50d6 might be a fun drop). Improbable things… let ‘em try. Who knows? That swan dive off a 100’ tower might wind up with a roll of 10 single pips, and a story for the PC to tell at the tavern. “By Mithra, I walked away… limping a good bit, I confess, but alive!”

But none of that is really rules lawyering— it’s just trying for agency. Sometimes you do have to make it clear that the scene in question isn’t going to have agency in it. When the walls are lined with crossbows pointed at the heroes, and the wizard is glaring from across the courtyard, and the king is fronted by his bodyguard… that should be clear to the players that agency is not in play here, save in what they choose to say. If they don’t get that, you may have to break character and say, “Guys, this is the hook scene. You wanna get back at the king later, fine. But here… just go with it so we can play the adventure I have ready tonight, okay?” But that sort of thing is obviously best avoided in the first place.

I guess that’s the reverse Rule Zero for DMs— player agency is paramount— allow it, and plan for it.

[tkdco2]

In my experience, the players who are against the DM always having the final say are the ones who want to abuse the rules without repercussions. I used to be more tolerant of that, but no longer. I now make it explicitly clear that Rule Zero will be enforced.

[aramis]

From where I sit, Gygax's Rule 0 is not a good fit for modern rulesystems and players.

I much prefer Crane/Olavsruud/Sorenson's Rule 0: Don't be a dick.

I prefer to have the group be the final authority, not the GM, tho' the GM gets a vote and to break ties. First amongst equals, not lone authority. Groups are collaborations at their core, and the adversarial nature of Gygax's Rule 0 has lead to a lot of sub-par experiences. And a lot of "voting with one's feet."

[TheMyth]

Sept 7, 2024 0:51:24 GMT -6 aramis said:

From where I sit, Gygax's Rule 0 is not a good fit for modern rulesystems and players.

I much prefer Crane/Olavsruud/Sorenson's Rule 0: Don't be a dick.

I prefer to have the group be the final authority, not the GM, tho' the GM gets a vote and to break ties. First amongst equals, not lone authority. Groups are collaborations at their core, and the adversarial nature of Gygax's Rule 0 has lead to a lot of sub-par experiences. And a lot of "voting with one's feet."

For many of us, this is the fundamental difference between th assumption between the 2 groups (types? generations?) of gamers.

Is the DM in charge of the group?

Or is the group in charge of the DM?


Btw, DMs can also "vote with their feet.". And that's left a lot of players with NO GAME to play.

[xerxez]

Sept 7, 2024 0:51:24 GMT -6 aramis said:

From where I sit, Gygax's Rule 0 is not a good fit for modern rulesystems and players.

I much prefer Crane/Olavsruud/Sorenson's Rule 0: Don't be a dick.

I prefer to have the group be the final authority, not the GM, tho' the GM gets a vote and to break ties. First amongst equals, not lone authority. Groups are collaborations at their core, and the adversarial nature of Gygax's Rule 0 has lead to a lot of sub-par experiences. And a lot of "voting with one's feet."

HERESY! REBELLION!

Just kidding aramis.

When I ran lots of games I both used "Rule Zero" and collaboration.

I very seldom adamantly refused player innovation- and I would also welcome them to completely change course and change the story.

I just liked a quick resolution to these matters instead of argument and long drawn out rules scouring- still got a bit of that anyway! Once in awhile it was even funny--we paused to argue and people would get to show a stubborn person up on a point of rules.

Usually we accepted a "ruling" and then debated it after and I have been known to magically alter things as a DM when some-one showed me I was incorrect. Its not like any of this stuff actually happened- we can revise things a bit and move on, we can pretend things went down a different way.

[Parzival]

Some of what we’re describing as negative is really a case of poor social skills. That in the text the DM sets the rules isn’t a problem, it’s a feature, intended to make the game play quickly and fairly. It only becomes a problem if the DM himself (or herself) is using the concept as some way to dominate others. That’s the DM having poor social skills, not the rule being bad. Similarly, the rules lawyer is the same thing, arising on the players’ side of the DM screen. There’s nothing wrong with being familiar with the rules and asking a pertinent question if a ruling and the understanding are in conflict— as, say, the player interprets the text of a spell to mean one thing and the DM rules another way, particularly in a way that the PC should have known would be the result. In that instance, raising the point is valid. But the rules lawyer is the player who demands that the DM and the other players agree with his own interpretation of the rules— again, a case of wanting to dominate others, i.e., poor social skills (egregiously poor).

So what’s really needed is a clear discussion prior to the first session, where the players agree to what game will be playing, the level of DM’s authority (or not), the level of player authority (or not), and what everyone expects from the game. Start with everyone on the same page, and most likely everyone will have fun, and the idea of Rule Zero isn’t going to be necessary.

[geoffrey]

It is significant that the DM has a HUGE job: the creation of a world. The player simply makes a character. Of course the guy who does 99% of the work gets to be in charge of the game.

[tkdco2]

I have no problem with people voting with their feet; I've done that myself. In my experience, most of the folks who do that are the ones I'd rather not GM for anyway. YMMV.

[tkdco2]

Here's a great explanation about Rule Zero and its importance.

[Bruce The Black]

Sept 7, 2024 0:51:24 GMT -6 aramis said:

From where I sit, Gygax's Rule 0 is not a good fit for modern rulesystems and players.

I much prefer Crane/Olavsruud/Sorenson's Rule 0: Don't be a dick.

I prefer to have the group be the final authority, not the GM, tho' the GM gets a vote and to break ties. First amongst equals, not lone authority. Groups are collaborations at their core, and the adversarial nature of Gygax's Rule 0 has lead to a lot of sub-par experiences. And a lot of "voting with one's feet."

I can only agree with the Don't Be a Dick as a general rule. I mean, your playing a game, it should go without saying that you should not go out of your way to make the game a bad experience.

That said....Don't be a Dick as a rule zero is BAD. Why? Because you can't control what others feel. Some players think you are being a Dick by not giving them the magic items they want or by not letting them beat the big bad the first time they meet. Some players think your a Dick if you show them any consequences for their actions in the game.

Some think your a Dick for not letting them break a rule they don't like.

A DM's job is to be a Dick a lot of the time. I mean every DM should be a horrible prick to just about every player character! You are trying to challenge them every day!

I once had a player tell me I was being a Dick for asking the party what their plans were for the next game. I wanted to know what to work on for next week and she was offended!

Gygax's Rule 0 has lead to millions of awesome experiences! The entire hobby he helped create has been life changing for so many people and I think in general we all have a lot to be thankful to him for. I know I am. Dave and Gary both have a seat of honor at every table I run. I mean I DM mostly online these days so it's really more of a picture of them both on the sidebar with the tittle "Thanks Dave and Gary" but the thought is there.

[tkdco2]

The problem with "don't be a dick" is that some folks just can't help being dicks. I've left groups where most of the members were dicks. In my experience, unfortunately, that has been the norm rather than the exception. And yes, some folks think a DM is a dick for not letting them get away with murder. The DM has to be a dick sometimes, but he shouldn't abuse his authority. "Tough but fair" is part of the job requirement for a DM.

[howandwhy99]

Rule Zero was a new DMG philosophy in 3.0. "Throw up your hands and all the rules mean nothing." It was a very poor decision.

It is a bad creation stemming from the misguided gaming philosophies in the 2nd edition DMG. I would advise against it.

[TheMyth]

Sept 16, 2024 19:05:48 GMT -6 howandwhy99 said:

Rule Zero was a new DMG philosophy in 3.0. "Throw up your hands and all the rules mean nothing." It was a very poor decision.

It is a bad creation stemming from the misguided gaming philosophies in the 2nd edition DMG. I would advise against it.

But the idea is anything but new. Anyone who read Gary's published advice "back in the day" knows it is as old as the game.

And since when did it entail tossing all known rules?

I think you're thinking of something else.

[Parzival]

Mathematically, there can be no Rule Zero.

[Starbeard]

I think there was a time when the Rule 0 / First Rule / Golden Rule / Whatever was something more like, "By the way, if the game isn't doing what you want, or doesn't address something you want to address, feel free to change any or all of it." Another one common from the 90s was, "If the dice say something that will ruin the experience, ignore them."

These are closely related to what seems like the current take, but not quite. The fact that the subtlety of the argument has changed over time is in itself interesting and probably implies something, but I'm not sure what.

[Starbeard]

Bruce The Black I think you're onto something with the track from wargames to RPGs. My experiences with players and games on Roll20 have been exactly the same as yours, down to the last word.

The way I see it, 3.5/PF started, then 4e and 5e cemented, a way of playing that goes full circle back to what had already happened in wargames back in the 1970s. When D&D came out wargames were still very bespoke and fluid, with clubs choosing to make up their own rules just as often as purchasing an "official" game, but the tide was already changing and within a few years the idea of competitive play, without need for referees and organizers, became forever dominant. Now referees are seen as largely superfluous for most wargaming, and the unabashed goal is to understand the implications of the rules better than your opponent. Host even a friendly game of Fire & Fury but change up all the rules without prior warning, and you will have a terrible experience and maybe lose gaming partners.

We usually point to videogames as the culprit for this attitude in RPGs, and maybe that's so, but it's also a full circle backward. Playing online with fixed rules scripts, focusing on character and rule interactions, reducing as many ambiguities in wording as possible, borrowing from programming language to describe rules… all of that leads to a player sentiment that the rules are the game, not the framework within which to play a game.

The result is that this Rule 0 concept becomes taken less and less seriously. Like, "Obviously yes you can do what you want; but why would you? Do you insist on changing the rules of Magic you don't like? Do you insist on making your chess opponents play shogi instead?"

[b9anders]

I have two rules in this regard:

Rule 0: What the DM says, goes.
Rule 1: Strive to give your players a good time.

That's the social contract at the table. Players abide by Rule 0 so long as the DM abides by Rule 1.

If Rule 1 is not being followed, then the solution is not to abolish Rule 0, but to find a DM that will abide by Rule 1.

[b9anders]

Sept 16, 2024 19:05:48 GMT -6 howandwhy99 said:

Rule Zero was a new DMG philosophy in 3.0. "Throw up your hands and all the rules mean nothing." It was a very poor decision.

It is a bad creation stemming from the misguided gaming philosophies in the 2nd edition DMG. I would advise against it.

Holy historical anachronism, Batman!

Rule zero has been the explicit philosophy of classic D&D from the outset.

AD&D 1e was made as RAW tournament rules set. This was reinforced by Gygax many times over in Dragon Magazine, that houseruling meant no longer playing AD&D.

The classic line however continued as a line made for flexibility, hand-waving and houseruling. Also something editorially reinforced in dragon magazine columns by its editors.

[howandwhy99]

I think you could look at my own record to see I claim the OD&D game to be a game kit to build as one sees. AD&D was the official rule set perhaps, for tournaments, but if you remember the '80s you know hand waving and breaking rules in the middle of a game were not acceptable.

I mean, these rules were supposed to be learned through play anyways. But their consistent application allows for D&D to be a game.

Edit:
Perhaps you remember the late-80s to early-90s, when one of the common community debates was how DMs didn't need a pre-written adventure to run a game. (they do) A kind of excuse to claim the new "storytelling" conception was what people were actually doing. "You're all just pretending to be elves in your mother's basement" curse. As opposed to a strategy game rewarding broad imagination and mental acumen.

[b9anders]

Oct 8, 2024 3:45:32 GMT -6 howandwhy99 said:

I think you could look at my own record to see I claim the OD&D game to be a game kit to build as one sees. AD&D was the official rule set perhaps, for tournaments, but if you remember the '80s you know hand waving and breaking rules in the middle of a game were not acceptable.

I mean, these rules were supposed to be learned through play anyways. But their consistent application allows for D&D to be a game.

Edit:
Perhaps you remember the late-80s to early-90s, when one of the common community debates was how DMs didn't need a pre-written adventure to run a game. (they do) A kind of excuse to claim the new "storytelling" conception was what people were actually doing. "You're all just pretending to be elves in your mother's basement" curse. As opposed to a strategy game rewarding broad imagination and mental acumen.

breaking rules. No. Houseruling on the fly? Sure. Making rulings that may incidentally end up breaking the rules? It happens.

We ran a lot of non-prewritten adventures back then. Unless you consider a basic sandbox prewritten.

I think mostly I consider it strange to lay this at the feet of 3rd edition. No other version of the game rewarded system mastery the way it did and encouraged by-the-book play as a result. It shifted the balance between players and DMs towards the players more than any other edition IMO.

[howandwhy99]

Oct 8, 2024 4:15:20 GMT -6 b9anders said:

[breaking rules. No. Houseruling on the fly? Sure. Making rulings that may incidentally end up breaking the rules? It happens.

We ran a lot of non-prewritten adventures back then. Unless you consider a basic sandbox prewritten.

I think mostly I consider it strange to lay this at the feet of 3rd edition. No other version of the game rewarded system mastery the way it did and encouraged by-the-book play as a result. It shifted the balance between players and DMs towards the players more than any other edition IMO.

3e made up the term Rule Zero to my knowledge. It was new for the 3e DMG and many customers approved it. But this was after the 2e 90s when the 2e DMG had inverted the game's purpose of design.

Yes, sandbox means the game board behind the screen. What an adventure is not is a pre-written script. (Also a '90s mistake, but from the D&D community side). It is a neologism from the computer game hobby terming a phenomenon found an early tabletop RPGs, but with less comprehension as to that practice's game balance and design. If the DM prepared balanced game design prior to play, then you probably weren't hand waving things at the table. Otherwise, why bother at all?

System mastery is what the term role-play gaming mean in D&D. It's class mastery which is also termed role mastery. If you are role-playing in D&D you are mastering the gameplay of your class. The entire game is about improving the player's ability to score points at this, a limited kind of system mastery based on perspective and goals. Even if that system is fully masqueraded as a mechanical simulation of an imaginary world.

[b9anders]

Oct 8, 2024 4:40:34 GMT -6 howandwhy99 said:

3e made up the term Rule Zero to my knowledge. It was new for the 3e DMG and many customers approved it. But this was after the 2e 90s when the 2e DMG had inverted the game's purpose of design.

Yes, sandbox means the game board behind the screen. What an adventure is not is a pre-written script. (Also a '90s mistake, but from the D&D community side). It is a neologism from the computer game hobby terming a phenomenon found an early tabletop RPGs, but with less comprehension as to that practice's game balance and design. If the DM prepared balanced game design prior to play, then you probably weren't hand waving things at the table. Otherwise, why bother at all?

System mastery is what the term role-play gaming mean in D&D. It's class mastery which is also termed role mastery. If you are role-playing in D&D you are mastering the gameplay of your class. The entire game is about improving the player's ability to score points at this, a limited kind of system mastery based on perspective and goals. Even if that system is fully masqueraded as a mechanical simulation of an imaginary world.

Interesting factoid about the origin of the term itself, I did not know that. I looked it up:

"0. CHECK WITH YOUR DUNGEON MASTER
Your Dungeon Master (DM) may have house rules or campaign standards that vary from the standard rules."

This seems wholly in line with how the game has been played from the outset, with Gygax' expectation that AD&D be played strictly by the book, the only real exception to this. I must admit, I am confused at how you interpret rule 0. How is it you think rule zero has been applied by modern gamers after " 2e DMG had inverted the game's purpose of design"?


I think your definition of system mastery is stretched to a point beyond what most would agree on as a suitable definition. Or me at any rate. Claiming "roleplaying = system mastery" is a definition that obfuscates a lot of conversation about the dynamics between rules and role-playing.