In tabletop RPGs there’s something called the “rule zero fallacy”, which basically asserts that there’s no such thing as a problematic rule because the GM always has the ability to make an on-the-spot ruling to correct it. The usual response to this is something along the lines of “the fact that a problem has a solution doesn’t mean it’s not a problem”, but I think it goes deeper than that.
The real issue is that all game rules encode assumptions about how the game ought to be played. It’s unavoidable that they’d do so, because that’s what game rules are: a formal statement of a particular set of assumptions about what sort of game we’re playing. Making on-the-spot rulings to correct the rules when they do something daft is a fine practice in moderation, but if it’s done with any great frequency, it’s a sign that you and the rules are having a disagreement about what sort of game you’re playing. In a very real sense, there’s an argument happening at your table – and if you understand how disruptive it is to have a player argue with you every time you pick up the dice, why would you take that kind of guff from a bunch of ink and paper?
Now, this doesn’t mean that you’re obliged to play things strictly by the book – house-rule it all you want. However, among the goals of a productive house rule should be to reduce the need for on-the-spot rulings pertaining to whatever that rule is addressing. If you institute a house rule and still find yourself needing to rule-zero its outputs to get the results you want, all you’ve accomplished is switching from arguing with the text to arguing with yourself!
(This sort of thing isn’t just a problem from the GM’s side, of course. I strongly suspect it’s also the root of many players’ desire to find the perfect set of rules that will just get out of the way and let them roleplay; they’ve tried a handful of systems, found that those rules’ baked-in assumptions about how the game ought to be played are incompatible with the sort of game they want to play, and jumped to the over-broad conclusion that having rules is incompatible with roleplaying – which is a reasonable conclusion to draw if your experience is that every time you try to take the story in a direction that interests you, the rules end up getting in the way. The rule zero fallacy and the roleplaying-versus-rollplaying fallacy aren’t as unconnected as they might seem.)
titsay
romaincrisis
yousharknotpass
