Rule Zero and DM's Discretion, does it go too far?

If you’ve been playing TTRPGs for any length of time over about a year you’ve possibly heard “Rule Zero” rolled out in defense of a system and its poor rules. To put it simply, Rule Zero is an unofficial rule in the community that means to snip out rules or change them in a game as you and your table sees fit in order to have the most fun possible. Generally, most versions of D&D encourage you change rules as you see fit, as do most other RPGs. I agree with this rule... to a point.

I have a personal policy that if I am going to pay money for the books of a system, I will use minimum 98% of the rules. For many properties that are mainstream such as D&D, Pathfinder, anything from Fantasy Flight, etc., you are dropping between 25-50 dollars a book. For anything over ten I feel I should be able to use the system as designed. I feel the biggest culprit for this was 3.5, where it seemed like every game followed different levels of rules. It made play tedious and having players join my own sessions only to find I followed most of the rules was a chore. If I need to slim down a system or make sweeping changes, I will look for a system that fits my needs. I want my money to go to people who put time into systems I like to use, and I want my friends at the table to go down the same road with me.

Some systems require some “DM’s Discretion” on how to handle certain rulings. I have no issue with this for certain situations such as enemies attacking players, but I do have a huge issue with it when it comes to anything else. I always felt that if a part of a system required a player to roll a dice to determine the outcome, the system should provide a means to execute the results. If there are no guidelines for the result of the roll, then remove the roll! Some systems have optional rules (5^th Edition, Hackmaster 5e are two good examples) which provide additional rules to substitute a current rule, or to make certain aspects of the game more complicated. I think this is a great way to handle certain systems that often get house ruled in past editions. It’s the developers offering alternatives that may help a current set of rules work for a group better, or add an extra layer of complexity that a group may wish to have.

A personal metric I use when discussing a system in length with someone is how well they know the rules off the top of their head (basics). If I hear that a good portion of the rules are “not worried about” or “well it depends”, then I check out from being interested. I see a lot of systems put on a pedestal, but they come with a laundry list of home changes or rules to ignore to make them “enjoyable or playable”. Pathfinder is the biggest offender in recent memory with many locals I know ignoring a lot of the finer rules and forgetting basic ones and some groups making changes to everything from wealth per level to Base Attack Bonus values per level. Some groups ignore ranged penalties and dual wield penalties. Most groups completely disregard anything involving encumbrance, ammo tracking, spell durations, and anything regarding environmental hazards such as thirst and hunger. What you are left with is a basic d20 system with some classes that have modifications. For many this is 100% fine and I can understand that it’s still a framework to work off of, but there are probably other options out there where you can avoid the need to re-write things to make it work.

I do believe in playing a system that you and your friends enjoy, but if you cut out a chunk of it, please avoid selling its virtues to others as a “great system” when you have a laundry list of changes.