And importantly that Rule 0 is old enough to have arisen from games that don't even attempt to remove arbitration.

I guess any system focusing on making rules about who decides what instead of what the character has to roll to do different things

archipelago comes to mind

But yes, part of what my later drafts will communicate is that these are perceived problems and perceived solutions. The basis of my thesis is that Rule 0 is a) attempting to solve real problems with fallacious authority, and b) a rule so outdated that its application in modern gaming is equivalent to blowing on your iPhone to get it to work.

@Zachiel Two secs while I research...

I know that rule 0 was in first edition D&D. I guess it's AD&D's 1st ed because a guy I know always tells us it wasn't in D&D's 1st ed. (which I suppose is OD&D)

In archipelago one player tells a story. When (can't remember what goes here) each of the other players narrates a different outcome. The turn player must choose one.

@Zachiel Both AD&D and OD&D are explicitly unplayable without aggressive arbitration, and they put it in the hands of the GM.

but one had no explicit rule 0

This was then extrapolated as a general rule of RPGs, which is becoming increasingly pointless and actually obstructive as RPG philosophies move away from the system styles that Rule 0 was created for.

Many of the underlying issues (not necessarily problems, but facts of RPG interaction with the social construct) that Rule 0 was intended to resolve are still extant. But its application is now obstructive and twisted because it's being applied out of context.

But really, even in its heyday Rule 0 only worked when the group was healthy and had a solid understanding of when and why it should be used. It was never a panacea.

@BESW Having read an original brown pamphlet edition of D&D, I have to agree. The spells read like design notes. "A globe of light appears."

@SimonGill You're going to have a hard time making that answer more clear. It's addressing deepset social assumptions that the majority of readers on this forum don't even know are assumptions, and lack the vocabulary to address it.

@BESW Thank you, I shall leave as is then.

I read an AD&D trap that basically said "When X happens, acid flows out from under the crack in the door." What that meant was left up to the GM so much that it didn't even say "The results of this are left up to the GM."

@Zachiel Fair enough. Games whose rules relate to narrative control rather than in-game action don't seem to need very much arbitration at all.

@SimonGill I fully expect my group to constantly turn to me to say who gets to narrate what when we start FATE.

The idea that Colin could spend a FATE point to narrate what NPC Bob did last week is going to require a lot of adjudication.

If you want a game that has no rule 0 and has in-game action I suggest the burning wheel. It's quite a big book so I don't expect anyone to read it just to look for loopholes

better talk about the easy games like the pool

@Zachiel I've read MouseGuard, and it's got a ton of rule 0 potential. That's the thing: Rule 0 isn't a rule. It's an attitude that can be brought to bear (for good or ill) on ANY game.

It was given a fancy name to lend it rhetorical weight.

@BESW FATE is mostly about in-game action though. I was agreeing that games that are more like cooperative story telling need less arbitration.

yes, I guess you can manage to bring it into any game

I've heard of players using it while playing Polaris

Rule 0 is a social construct designed to provide specific powers to a member of the group in order to avoid actual or theoretical disharmony.

And they weren't having fun at all since they were trying to play a D&D "slay the dragon" quest using Polaris...

When it's treated as a rule, rather than a group protocol decision, it gets ugly.

I can just figure the monk's player in The Gamers: Dorkness Rising pointing his finger on the DMG and saying "it's in the manual!"

@SimonGill Chamorro culture is also very very big on the idea of "face," but even (or especially?) people who are steeped in it find it very hard to talk about: it's just the way things are.

@BESW Yeah, I forsee a discussion with CatLord about how Etiquette is used to determine whether someone's words are trustworthy or not.

I've seen many instances where a failure to understand the social situation results in someone saying something entirely opposite what they intended.

@SimonGill If I look you straight in the face while we're talking, that means something totally different than if I say the exact same thing while looking over your shoulder. Which is totally different than if I alternate between the two.

Do you have any funny examples you can tell?

And all of those meanings are reliant on a mutual cultural understanding of How To Talk To People.

plus, it's interesting for RP

@BESW Very true. Someone who is highly trained in Etiquette would notice that - and somebody with high Sincerity would know to do it.

There's a Dumbing of Age strip where a socially awkward girl learns you're not supposed to stare at someone's mouth when they're talking.

@BESW I still have to learn to face people and not look into the distance when I'm talking to them.... it's a bad habit.

I guess it might be taken as a compliment, depending on the lips

@Zachiel It's the staring that's the problem.

This was treated by the strip and its commenters as a clear and obvious thing, that EVERYONE knows where you should look.

But... in one culture you should keep a steady gaze on the speaker's face but not look in their eyes because that's aggressive. In another you should make constant eye contact because that shows you're paying attention. In another you should do one of the first two... unless it's an elder, in which case you don't look at their face at all.

and in most you don't have to look down too much if you're talking to a female

@Zachiel I'm not sure about funny, but...

@BESW And that's why you should bank with HSBC. No, wait. Thank you for an effective advertising campaign. Gits.

@Zachiel Looking down is a sign of submission in most cultures. It's hardwired into the mammalian parts of the brain, as I understand.

An American woman meets her Persian boyfriend's mother for the first time. It's at the American's house.

As is customary in both cultures, the host offers her guest some tea. The guest politely declines.

Being an American and accustomed to people being fairly direct, the host does not bring tea.

Ten minutes later the Persian mother is very confused and a little offended; where is the tea?

@BESW Ah, the fun to be had with cross-cultural misunderstandings.

In Persian society it is entirely inappropriate to ask your host for something. It is the host's duty to offer refreshment. It is the guest's duty to decline. And it is the host's duty to serve them anyway.

I figured that

That way the host is generous and hospitable, and the guest is undemanding and unimposing.

I don't think I'm gonna let Persians in my house now that I know

Unless we're talking about cats.

Going back to the setting we were discussing - appropriate gifts in Rokugani society. What do you think they are?

[blink]

I don't have enough context.

heh, sorry, I think my need to show off my knowledge just surfaced. Ignore that one...

In Chamorro culture, a gift can be much more than a gift depending on context; if it's given at certain events, it's part of the reciprocal duty customs.

(And on some islands, that reciprocal duty can only be made in money; on others, it's made in money or labor; on still others, it's labor-only.)

The Rokugani have something similar. Gifts there are items of value because they have history. Commisioning a revered weaponsmith to make a plain and simple weapon is good - buying a new ornate one from a merchant is highly frowned up.

Anyway.... I suppose that I should go to bed now. See you guys later :)

G'night!

bye. I go too

thanks for the nice evening

@SimonGill submission response would be tied to the amygdala and hardwired, yes. Probably mammalian, but it might be reptilian also. I'm a noob to neuroscience

rpg.stackexchange.com/a/21474/1421 yay for answering questions with already accepted answers. But it was about designing cthuloid monsters in 4e, how could I pass it by.

@Magician Very nice answer.

@BESW thank you :)

Argh. My client seems to have not only been feeding me images of insufficient resolution after my repeated exhortions to the contrary, but he may be unable to produce the actual high-resolution images.

[bangs head against wall, reads DFRPG to calm down]

@Magician Much better answer than mine too.

@SimonGill What system do you use for FATE point allocations among NPCs?

@BESW As much as they need to keep things interesting.

....that's helpful. [wry]

I know, it's not very helpful.

Ah, here we go, I knew it was somewhere. FATE Core says 1 Fate Point for NPC use per player per scene + any earned from concessions the supporting and main NPCs in the scene have made.

At the end of each scene, the pool gets emptied.

Now, to be helpful and find the Dresden version of the rule.

Their main section (p351) is a bit more complex, and involves allocating FATE points to individual NPCs rather than as a pool.

DF does have a lot more FATE points floating around.

Now, here's a thing I don't understand from reading DFRPG (not yet, anyway).

I've got FATE points for my NPCs. Is that the pool I compel my players from, or do I have a separate GM pool, or do I have a Bottomless Bag of FATE Points for non-NPC-originating FATE point expenditure?

Morning all!

@Rob hi!

@BESW You have the Bottomless Bag of FATE Points for that purpose. It's much clearer in the Core version of the rules.

@SimonGill Okay, cool.

What makes DFRPG throw FATE around more than Core?

Anyone for a crazy optimisation challenge in PF?

@Rob [tags out]

@BESW Heh :)

@BESW Higher refresh. The low levels start at 7 for DF and 3 for Core.

@JonathanHobbs Heya.

@Zachiel You seemed the other day, in your wish to have something similar happen for you, to be preoccupied with the idea that there is anything particularly good about that

70 levels in the same campaign sounds completely boring

It's more likely you're looking for other stuff which that comes with (presumably, from an outsider's perspective) - like stability and a group who enjoys playing together (presumably, from an outsider's perspective)

@JonathanHobbs This.

and also a group that actually has a decent campaign going* that is pretty interesting* and which everyone actually wants to play for that long* which naturally you would want, since you're currently in a pretty crappy playing situation from the sounds of it

* (presumably, from an outsider's perspective)

Then again you're in another campaign online you're not enjoying very much which you're playing just because you've invested that much time in it, you think you'd actually be losing something by moving on. Or that was the case a couple of weeks ago. These people, 70 levels and 10 years later, could be having the time of their lives... whilst they're anywhere but at the D&D game they're only continuing because they've invested 10 years in it and don't really want to start new characters now.

I've been depressed too at times (probably nothing quite like you, but that doesn't make it any less the case) and it's lovely how one's imagination can work to make it look like everyone else is having a pretty good time just to make you feel like you're missing out on something, or you're no good, etc etc.

In reality you're far better off just concerning yourself with what you want to do, and finding out what to do about getting it. You want a decent D&D game. Go find one. You don't really want to play with your friends, or play this one online - but you've invested a lot of time in it, and feel like you'd be losing something by stopping. What are you losing exactly? That invested time was invested in the past, and what you do now is irrelevant to it.

There's a girl I find rather inspirational I read about in a magazine a couple of years ago. She was in her mid-20s and had completed a bachelor or finance or business or some such and had scored a rather successful job and reached a six figure salary.

Then she decided to pursue another job which would earn her at least twice as much. That job was as... an escort. Relevance to her previous job and education? Very little. That wasn't a reason for her not to do it - a lot of people would think so, but what is she losing exactly?

In the interview, she was already lining up her next job after that (something equally irrelevant) and had a long-term plan for where she wanted to be a few years after that.

All along, simply doing what mattered: making a decent living and enjoying life.

Moral of the story: the only thing anchoring you to what you've done up to this point is nothing at all and your choice.

@Phil DFRPG 179 has a half-page sidebar about how spellcasters might have "blind spots" in their casting: Harry isn't too good at subtle stuff, for example, and his subtle spells are usually subpar at best. This is the result of compels on an aspect of the character that implies this blind spot: in Harry's case, Not So Subtle, Still Quick To Anger.

So that supports the idea that a skill can have the same blind spots: Your Scholarship might be great, but an aspect that implies linguistic limits can be compelled gleefully to prevent your effectiveness with the Languages application of the skill. So hooray for citations on something I kinda winged.

@BESW Isn't it a general rule in broad-skill systems that you get to decide what you're good at within the skill?

Urgh, that comment thread on the sincerity question is going to get very long and confusing fast.

@JonathanHobbs that is quite deep.

hmm.

Sometimes I wonder if the current Mutants and Masterminds Campaign im participating in is frustrating or If im fine with it.

all the heros had to have themes which in and of itself is fine. the Gm had a crap ton of restrictions and limitations some of which were OK.

no Mind controll/reading/possession

no luck feat

he didnt want damage powers at the maximum allowed if at all possible.

neither did he want maximum stats in all stat

he also wanted us to pick jobs which made sense. and build a story around them.

he didnt want a concept that could be generalized and have a broad spectrum of abilities.

and his final ruling was: no children of gods/demigods/other immortal beings. he explained this one. I agreed.

all in all the restrictions are agreeable but didnt allow for some characters I would have loved to bring back from previous campaigns

I miss Lina Grey A.k.a Lumina and her "Sister" Selene. Most complex Character concepts I ever built. 3 more characters tie into those two for a complete Character Arc.

One day I will write a comic based on it. If I ever learn to write good stories and draw.

i can write but not in the style nessecary for comics

sometimes you put so much effort into a characters background that it evolves into something else entirely and becomes a part of you.

sorry to bother you with my nostalgia.

@Novian There is only one person who can make that determination... and it's not me :P

true

@SimonGill Yes, but Phil (coming from a granular system) was hoping to find some way to reflect that mechanically.

@SimonGill If I knew L5R I might be able to help.... alas.

From an L5R first edition glossary: "The nobility of Rokugan do not value honesty, they value sincerity: the ability to give the appearance you believe what you are saying. Characters with Sincerity are the most skilled in this respect."

In that sense it is irrelephant whether you're telling the truth or not, and question "How do you really roll to tell the truth and logically fail?" should be answered "Easily, when you're using the wrong skill."

Sincerity sounds to me like a social performance skill. You don't roll it to tell the truth, you roll it to give the impression of the truth in a certain social context. Rolling it vs Investigation sounds like trying to roll Perform instead of Bluff or Diplomacy.

It's just... not the right skill for the context.

this is interesting

@Novian ?

[snerk] Actual quote from a friend's new gaming group: "So is 4e closer or further from OD&D than AD&D?"

@JonathanHobbs This maxim would apply for any relationship, really. Invested time should have a return, whether fun or emotional involvement (positive emotions :P) or personal evolution. A seventy level campaign would risk stagnation immensely, so it wouldn't be odd for it to succumb to such

@LitheOhm This is why by level 70 I'd expect to be planeshopping into entirely different systems. Just to keep things fresh.

@BESW Thanks for the info on that - it makes the whole broad skill range thing seem much more sensible

@Phil No problem. I'm still reading through the books myself.

SimonGill is right too, though; in systems like FATE where the skills are almost ridiculously broad, it's kind of assumed that the player can choose, if he wishes, to simply ignore any facet of a skill he doesn't want his character to have.

(Note to self: scale back the "kinda.")

@BESW the topic of conversation. Unfortunatley I couldnt weigh in due to obligations.

Sincerity? Yeah. If I knew anything about L5R I'd throw in my two cents.