There is no "Rule Zero"!

[Jay R]

Unfair DMs who want to cheat use Rule Zero as an excuse. What makes this bad isn't Rule Zero; it's unfair DMs who want to cheat.

Incompetent DMs who don't bother to learn the rules use Rule Zero as a justification. What makes this bad isn't Rule Zero; it's incompetent DMs who don't bother to learn the rules.

Excellent and creative DMs who recognize when the rules are leading the game astray use Rule Zero as a justification. What makes this good isn't Rule Zero; it's excellent and creative DMs who recognize when the rules are leading the game astray.

Bad DMs who use Rule Zero as an excuse would be bad DMs without it. Good DMs who use Rule Zero as an tool would be good DMs without it.

Rule Zero is an innocent bystander here.

[Jayabalard]

There is the passage in the DMG, which already has been quoted, stating that physics are the same unless stated otherwise.Yes... if you note, I reference this fact with "which we've already seen in this thread exists for D&D" ... I explaining how lack of proof does not prove the inverse.

Keep in mind that this is not a D&D specific thread, and that's not really sufficient to show that this is the case in most games if you've got someone who's being s stickler for proof (like Yukitsu seemed to be) .

[Eldan]

Ah, sorry. I forget.

In that case, I'd like to add that many systems I have read, e.g. Mutants and Masterminds, FATE and quite a few other, more universal systems do not present a setting at all. Physics are left up to the DM.

[Tyndmyr]

See, I disagree with this.

I used to DM a lot at a time when, as a student, I had ten to twelve hour work days in the lab. In my free time, I wanted to build worlds, maybe read some fluff, but not read rules.

Then you would probably be better served by writing about the worlds. You can build hypothetical worlds without reading any rules at all. Sci-fi authors do all the time. If that is all you want, great. You don't need to DM to do it.


I have a vague knowledge of most of the books out there, I'm familiar with a lot of the most obvious optimization and I read a lot of forums. I'd like to think I'm well familiar with the core rules.
But I certainly don't know and, most likely, won't care, what a sidebar in the the Codex Draconis Edition XVIII, page 148 says about metabreath feats when I need a dragon to breathe acid that rusts steel for a plot I'm writing. I'm taking a green dragon, slap "Rust Breath" on it and call it a day. If someone asks, I'll call it a template.

Well, there's the rust dragon. Or, if you have a green dragon with acidic breath...you could just look up the amount of damage necessary to destroy the steel, and thematically describe it as rust. It's really not rule 0 either way. It's not uncommon for there to be multiple legal ways to get a given result in D&D. You don't generally need complete knowledge of everything to set up a situation.


A lot of people don't have the time to read all the rules. Even if I did, I could, most likely, not memorize half of them. And yet, I'd still like to think of myself as a semi-adequate DM. Ask my Skype players on this forum some time, they've been coming back to my game for nearly a year now.

If you re-read, you'll note that I said "read the rules". Not "memorize the rules". And have the rules handy to look up anything that you don't know. That is not an unreasonable bar.

After all, if you don't have the time to at least read the phb and dmg, you probably don't have time to DM anyway. Certainly not well.

[obliged_salmon]

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise; just because something isn't required doesn't mean that you should strive to remove it.

There are a lot of things that aren't required in gaming; that doesn't mean that those things are bad, or that they need to be removed.

Okay, point taken.


Nor is your premise correct; even if the players and gm trust each other, that does not mean that it's never necessary for an impartial person to make a ruling about something (ie, exercise rule 0).

Ah, see, but you're coming from the perspective that the GM is the only person at the table who could possibly rule in an impartial manner. When I play, I throw my character into danger, make him make mistakes, pour suffering down his throat. Why? To make a better story. My GM trusts me to make decisions, that are to some degree, impartial, because we are both aiming for a certain type of roleplaying. Before, I didn't mean to imply this way is better, and I apologize if I came off that way.

On the other side of the coin, no ruling is ever completely impartial. You want something specific to happen any time the rules are altered.


Not at all... it only implies that the GM is the guy in the striped shirt; it implies that players are biased in a way that a non-player isn't. The mentality of Rule 0 has nothing to do with anything that you've suggested; that's just the mentality of a bad GM.

Okay, I think you're saying here that GM as referee (or arbiter) is different than GM as boss or knowing father. With both analogies, though, I'd suggest that the GM has all the power to decide what happens, who benefits from what actions.

Related, someone earlier posted that a tennis player couldn't make the call whether her serve was in bounds, a referee would be needed. Why? I'm pretty sure I've played games of tennis without referees that we didn't need outside arbitration to complete, and have fun with.


You don't have to change rules to be exercising rule 0; rule 0 also includes fiat rulings on things not covered by the rules.

I'll fall back on Tyndmyr's argument here that such rulings can be decided upon as a group, rather than sole power given to one person.

[Ytaker]

I wonder. How well does rule zero, explictly defined as such, from urban dictionary.


The Game/Dungeon Master has the right to veto anything any player says, he has the right to change any rule or make up his own, he need not explain why he choses to do these things. If players complain the GM may choose any of the following to do to the player; slap, call a dumbass, restrict snackage privileges and/or threaten injury to ingame character(be it through loss of xp, health, items or gold)

Deal with these problems, and how well do DMs deal with the problems associated with it after invoking rule zero?

1. Unbalanced players.
2. Emotional outbursts.
3. Player trust.
4. Player enjoyment.
5. DM enjoyment.
6. DM setup time.

I'm curious about people's experiences with it. Does invoking rule zero increase or decrease emotional outbursts and trust? Does vetoing a player rule interpretation enhance player enjoyment or DM enjoyment? Does it generally work when used to stop unbalanced players or reduce setup time?

I generally mean directly correlated events. Like someone having an emotional outburst over a rule zero, or being calmed down by a rule zero. Or someone directly complimenting you or blaming you for a good or bad rule zero affecting their enjoyment.

[Eldan]

Then you would probably be better served by writing about the worlds. You can build hypothetical worlds without reading any rules at all. Sci-fi authors do all the time. If that is all you want, great. You don't need to DM to do it.


But I enjoy DMing. I don't just want to write worlds, or write worlds that are enjoyable to read about. I want to read worlds that intrigue people as a setting for a game. Then I want to see how people interact with that setting. And I like other aspects of DMing as well.



Well, there's the rust dragon. Or, if you have a green dragon with acidic breath...you could just look up the amount of damage necessary to destroy the steel, and thematically describe it as rust. It's really not rule 0 either way. It's not uncommon for there to be multiple legal ways to get a given result in D&D. You don't generally need complete knowledge of everything to set up a situation.


That was just an example. I know people who play with just the core rules. They have vaguely heard of the concept of splat books, but certainly never seen any. That's not uncommon around here, as a lot of splat books were never translated into German. 4E isn't translated at all, outside the core books, as far as I know. Among these people, homebrewing is rampant. They make their own worlds (perhaps they have had a Forgotten Realms campaign setting once, but not any of the other setting books), their own monsters, their own feats, templates, classes and so on.
If one of them needs a sand worm, they aren't going to check the right splat book. They DM will make their own. And changing any rule is absolutely normal. After all, these are only vague guidelines contained in a single book of 300 or so pages.



If you re-read, you'll note that I said "read the rules". Not "memorize the rules". And have the rules handy to look up anything that you don't know. That is not an unreasonable bar.


Maybe, maybe. Still. Looking up rules at our table was actually, after some deliberation, outlawed. Because we regularly had players take out the books and spend ten minutes re-reading spells during combat. Immersion dies if you do that. Now the rule is that the books stay at home, far away from the table. I've found that even a quick check by the DM takes everyone out of the game.



Ah, see, but you're coming from the perspective that the GM is the only person at the table who could possibly rule in an impartial manner. When I play, I throw my character into danger, make him make mistakes, pour suffering down his throat. Why? To make a better story. My GM trusts me to make decisions, that are to some degree, impartial, because we are both aiming for a certain type of roleplaying. Before, I didn't mean to imply this way is better, and I apologize if I came off that way.
Okay, I think you're saying here that GM as referee (or arbiter) is different than GM as boss or knowing father. With both analogies, though, I'd suggest that the GM has all the power to decide what happens, who benefits from what actions.


Situations such as these occur, however. PVP can happen, friendly or not. A referee is not necessary as long as people agree on a ruling, but for these rare cases when you don't all agree, the DM has the veto.

[Jay R]

Related, someone earlier posted that a tennis player couldn't make the call whether her serve was in bounds, a referee would be needed. Why? I'm pretty sure I've played games of tennis without referees that we didn't need outside arbitration to complete, and have fun with.

That's not what I said. What I said was that the player couldn't be the referee.

What you described is a game without a referee, not a game where one of the players is a referee. Would you enjoy playing when the other player had the complete right to make all calls on foot faults, out-of-bounds, etc.? Remember that the hypothesis here is that it's a DM whose rulings aren't being trusted. (None of these questions come up when the players trust all the DM's decisions.)

[Jay R]

I wonder. How well does rule zero, ... [d]eal with these problems, and how well do DMs deal with the problems associated with it after invoking rule zero?

1. Unbalanced players.
2. Emotional outbursts.
3. Player trust.
4. Player enjoyment.
5. DM enjoyment.
6. DM setup time.

I'm curious about people's experiences with it. Does invoking rule zero increase or decrease emotional outbursts and trust? Does vetoing a player rule interpretation enhance player enjoyment or DM enjoyment? Does it generally work when used to stop unbalanced players or reduce setup time?

I generally mean directly correlated events. Like someone having an emotional outburst over a rule zero, or being calmed down by a rule zero. Or someone directly complimenting you or blaming you for a good or bad rule zero affecting their enjoyment.

In my experience, it usually improves player enjoyment with no other effect, because usually the DM isn't caught doing it. I will give the opposing mage a different spell, or invent a secret escape door, in order to make the game work better. I've also (once) had the bad guy not teleport away, just because the player's plan was so cool. But since the players didn't have the spell list or floor plan, they don't know it happened.

So when do the players know about it? Only when I'm doing it to stop one player's attempt at using the rules obnoxiously to gain extra power. My general reaction is one player disgruntled and everyone else pleased. But that's the same reaction I'd get if I found another way to solve it.

I've seen one DM use it to stop a problem I'd have stopped a different way. I had an esthetic, not moral, dislike of his action. But he doesn't know about, because I chose not to discuss it with him.

So all in all, it's like anything else. Used well, it's a plus. Used poorly, it's a minus.

[druid91]

I believe that the majority of people on these boards have experience with both GMing and playing. I could be wrong. I certainly have experience with both.

I'm a bit gamist. I like mastering a system. I'm also a lot narrativist. I love collaborative storytelling. I'm not sure that's what this thread is about though.

Regardless of what the true definition of Rule 0 is, it represents something I don't like. Namely, that whatever the GM wants in the game is more important than what the players want. Not PC's, players. Players want their PC's to be challenged, to suffer, and finally to overcome adversity to achieve remarkable things. Players want to engage in interesting conflicts. Players want (sometimes) to have fun learning and manipulating rules systems. Players want to create.

Rule 0 as an idea puts all of that responsibility on the GM. I would rather share that responsibility around the table.

A player should earn what he wants, You should lose several PC's trying to complete the quest. Personally I've started going back to AD&D recently... And it has been infinitely more satisfying to let the DM make up a dungeon that is unfair as all heck to mistakes... but still winnable. I have always disliked the idea of player entitlement. You trust the DM enough to game with him. trust him to make something fun. If you don't want your current DM stop playing under him. If he's the only game in town. pick up DMing for yourself a while eventually you can pass the reins to one of your new group. And hopefully you will have set a good example.

[Narren]

Well, that doesn't play nice with D&D rules at all. Killing descendants for their fathers crimes pretty much takes everything involved with alignment and destroys it.

That was kind of my point...it's a moral dilemma. Again, not a super great example, and I would put more thought into it before implementing it, but it's an example.



How do you intend to make such a thing mesh with the game world? How does it make any sense? And what other repercussions will the changes to integrate it have? What happens if players start jumping to the conclusions that curses are solved by killing relatives of the curser? Is it then rational for good players to kill off relatives that learn how to bestow curses?

It makes as much sense as fireballs coming out a wizards fingers because he's rubbing bat crap and chanting. It's magic. And it meshes because I have nothing in my game world to contradict it. And if players think they can solve all unique curses the same way, they're missing the point of it being unique.



Well, if you wanted a monster the PCs would not recognize, but would also be rules legal, I would point out that there are a ridiculous number of published monsters, which can be modified by a ridiculous number of templates, and advanced via a wild variety of classes, and you can then refluff the description.

Or I could just....make one, if I want. My players trust me to make a balanced and fun yet challenging encounter.



I'm aware that you thought of these spur of the moment, but the same is true of many rule zero things. It's one of the problems they tend to have.

It certainly can be a problem, which is why it needs to be thought out. Rigidly sticking to the rules has it's problems as well.

[obliged_salmon]

That's not what I said. What I said was that the player couldn't be the referee.

My apologies.


What you described is a game without a referee, not a game where one of the players is a referee.

Yes. That is EXACTLY what I am describing. Both in reference to tennis and roleplaying. The rules are the rules, the GM is playing, too.


Would you enjoy playing when the other player had the complete right to make all calls on foot faults, out-of-bounds, etc.? Remember that the hypothesis here is that it's a DM whose rulings aren't being trusted. (None of these questions come up when the players trust all the DM's decisions.)

Oh, I trust my GM implicitly. He and I are both working to create a wonderful story, setting, characters, conflict, etc. I do it with actions through my character. He does it through reactions to my character, for the most part. However, he never says, "no you can't do that," or "you have to do that." He says, "roll the dice." And you know, sometimes I say "I roll the dice."

Note: in the system we play, there is a rule called "say yes or roll," which implies that the GM can't say no. He can set a really high ob, but he can't say no. Also note that the existence of that rule places responsibility in my hands as player not to abuse it. I shouldn't ask for tests to conquer the world, or denounce the king as a traitor, as a single roll, for instance. I can, but I shouldn't. Trust goes both ways.

[Tyndmyr]

That was kind of my point...it's a moral dilemma. Again, not a super great example, and I would put more thought into it before implementing it, but it's an example.

[quote]It makes as much sense as fireballs coming out a wizards fingers because he's rubbing bat crap and chanting. It's magic. And it meshes because I have nothing in my game world to contradict it. And if players think they can solve all unique curses the same way, they're missing the point of it being unique.

Magic in D&D is reliable. At least, it is in 3.0 and later.

Your system overturns some of the fundamental assumptions of the game. I would be annoyed by this being sprung on me in a game. Yay, I'm a LG character, and you bent the rules to give me a situation in which I can't possibly find a correct answer. Giving players unsolvable dilemmas is not really what D&D is about, and the last thing the game needs is MORE alignment headaches.

No, if you wanna play a morally ambiguous game with horrible things being passed down through generations, play something like CoC. Then players will not be annoyed at the bait and switch.


Or I could just....make one, if I want. My players trust me to make a balanced and fun yet challenging encounter.

Honestly, refluffing an existing stat block is almost invariably the fastest way to get a balanced, challenging encounter that the PCs won't recognize.

[obliged_salmon]

A player should earn what he wants,

Respectfully disagree, but disagree HARD. The player is not the character. A CHARACTER should earn what he wants. PLAYERS should all get everything they want. They should, conversely, want the right things. Me, as a player, I want to play games (generally) where my character goes through trial after trial, beaten and scorned, and ultimately conquers in the end. The GM and I work together to make that happen. We share responsibility.

If a player wants nothing but the best possible everything, right away, for his character, then that's a very different style of play than the kind I am interested in.


You should lose several PC's trying to complete the quest. Personally I've started going back to AD&D recently... And it has been infinitely more satisfying to let the DM make up a dungeon that is unfair as all heck to mistakes... but still winnable. I have always disliked the idea of player entitlement. You trust the DM enough to game with him. trust him to make something fun. If you don't want your current DM stop playing under him. If he's the only game in town. pick up DMing for yourself a while eventually you can pass the reins to one of your new group. And hopefully you will have set a good example.

You are describing a particular style of play, and it can be very fun. In the games I like to play, we all share trust and responsibility. And I have a lot of fun in those games.

[Thiyr]

Your system overturns some of the fundamental assumptions of the game. I would be annoyed by this being sprung on me in a game. Yay, I'm a LG character, and you bent the rules to give me a situation in which I can't possibly find a correct answer. Giving players unsolvable dilemmas is not really what D&D is about, and the last thing the game needs is MORE alignment headaches.

No, if you wanna play a morally ambiguous game with horrible things being passed down through generations, play something like CoC. Then players will not be annoyed at the bait and switch.


Never really had any issues as a player with moral ambiguity in D&D, despite all the alignment-y stuff going on. Unsolvable dilemmas aren't quite right, but situations that test a characters convictions, force them to consider why they do what they do are fine. And who's to say that one must always have a "correct" solution? "Best of bad options" can make for a very good game overall, and there's nothing stopping you from doing that in D&D. As for the whole "bait and switch" thing....you're not telling them to expect any one thing. With a party of players you've never run for before, perhaps, it would be polite to tell them you intend to run a more serious, character driven game. With people you've run for before, odds are it's somewhat expected, either for good or for bad, and they're playing knowing what you will do.



Honestly, refluffing an existing stat block is almost invariably the fastest way to get a balanced, challenging encounter that the PCs won't recognize.

Ah, back to Rule0 time. Because strangely, that's what this is as far as I'm concerned. As a player, I posed an idea to my DM for a character, knowing he'd have to rule on it to allow it to work: A dragonslayer who picked a fight with the wrong dragon, and got put on the receiving end of a curse which made him that which he so despised. Functionally a dragonborn. But that's not a standard curse, nor would it fall into the purview of that. It doesn't get broken by any of the curse-breaking stuff. But still, it has always been fluffed as a curse. That was a rule0 judgement on his part, to allow that, and it's doing exactly what you suggested there.

[Narren]

Magic in D&D is reliable. At least, it is in 3.0 and later.

Perhaps the fact that I cut my teeth on 2nd edition explains our difference in taste.


Your system overturns some of the fundamental assumptions of the game.
And that's the point.


I would be annoyed by this being sprung on me in a game.
Yet my players love it.


Yay, I'm a LG character, and you bent the rules to give me a situation in which I can't possibly find a correct answer.
Sure you can solve it. You just need the blood of a MacGuffin bled on a harvest moon, but you won't know that till you find someone that can help you. That's your job to figure out who/how and then how/where to do it. And I prefer for my players to surprise me with solutions...there's rarely one correct way to do it.


Giving players unsolvable dilemmas is not really what D&D is about, and the last thing the game needs is MORE alignment headaches.

No, if you wanna play a morally ambiguous game with horrible things being passed down through generations, play something like CoC. Then players will not be annoyed at the bait and switch.

I do play CoC. And WoD. And D&D. Sometimes, we mix the themes. Sometimes, we do crazy stuff that the rules never covered. Because we want to, it's fun, and my players trust me to give them a good time if it's an idea I'm passionate about and think will work.




Honestly, refluffing an existing stat block is almost invariably the fastest way to get a balanced, challenging encounter that the PCs won't recognize.

I agree with you here. I usually do just use an existing stat block, but I'll tweak the stats in addition to refluffing. If I need to.


I think this comes down to a fundamentally difference in playing style. My players don't care if they don't know everything. Just because someone is a wizard doesn't mean they know everything about every spell/magic event ever. That doesn't mean you throw internal consistency out the window, though. My home made Lava Dragon (probably already exists somewhere, but just humor me) will probably not like ice spells too much, and fire probably won't bother him. But I won't decide mid-encounter to change this because I think he's too easy. And the next Lava Dragon will be the same as the last.

[druid91]

Respectfully disagree, but disagree HARD. The player is not the character. A CHARACTER should earn what he wants. PLAYERS should all get everything they want. They should, conversely, want the right things. Me, as a player, I want to play games (generally) where my character goes through trial after trial, beaten and scorned, and ultimately conquers in the end. The GM and I work together to make that happen. We share responsibility.

If a player wants nothing but the best possible everything, right away, for his character, then that's a very different style of play than the kind I am interested in.



You are describing a particular style of play, and it can be very fun. In the games I like to play, we all share trust and responsibility. And I have a lot of fun in those games.

I disagree. Obviously. :]

Now I'm willing to give players what they want if they earn it. Heck I have even used rule 0 to get it to them. A prime example is I sold a stripped down lucrehulk to a second level scoundrel for just about all his money. Now he has an unusable capital ship with pretty much nothing but engines and a hyperdrive. He had to wear a space suit on his first few journeys in it.

So how did he go on these journeys. He thought up the idea of getting a job from the huttsin exchange for a temporary crew ad some information. acting on that information he managed to get the ship up to full operational standards for a CIS warship in a few sessions. A couple months in game time. All him. Heearned that peice by peice by thinking. Of course now both the rebels and the empire aren't too fond of him. His response? He actually is trying to find a way to secretly restart droid manufacturing plants.

[Jayabalard]

Ah, sorry. I forget.

In that case, I'd like to add that many systems I have read, e.g. Mutants and Masterminds, FATE and quite a few other, more universal systems do not present a setting at all. Physics are left up to the DM.and GURPS, for example, varies a lot depending on exactly what rules you are using; some of the sci-fi related materials (time travel in particular) do a lot to address the various ways that things can work.


Ah, see, but you're coming from the perspective that the GM is the only person at the table who could possibly rule in an impartial manner.if you're doing it right, he is... the players should be emotionally invested in their characters, what their characters are doing, and the outcome of the game; if they're not, then you've failed as a GM. If they're emotionally invested, then they are not impartial.


I'll fall back on Tyndmyr's argument here that such rulings can be decided upon as a group, rather than sole power given to one person.That doesn't mean that fiat rulings by the GM about things that aren't covered by the rules are not applications of rule 0. Whether it can be done that way has no bearing on whether it should be done that way

I'd personally HATE being in a group that does that, as a GM or player; in either case, I want a snap decision from the GM (preferably so quickly that I don't even know that he's making a ruling), not faffing about trying to come up with a consensus. More than 3 people have trouble deciding where to have dinner, let alone deciding how X interacting with Y should work; nothing can kill the pacing of a game like stopping to work out something in the rules.


Magic in D&D is reliable. At least, it is in 3.0 and later.Sort of. The variability of spells contradicts this to a certain extent, there some room for unexpected results with certain spells (eg: wish when wishing for something beyond the specified limitations) and even in 3e you have wild magic zones. For the most part though, 3e magic is pretty reliable.

Personally I list this as one of the flaws of the 3e magic; in an effort to make the game more regular, they wound up making magic too regular. As I recall, earlier editions had a lot more unexpected behaviors built into the magic system.

[Ravens_cry]

Really? Sure, if you got hit at all in first and second edition, you lost the spell, and there was less distinguishing between fluff and crunch in the descriptive text, but all in all, unless you are using the wild magic system, a separate magic system, or trying to make a magic item, things were mostly the same. The biggest difference from what I have seen is the System Shock roll, changing your form or coming back from the dead could kill you. Again in the latter case.

[Tyndmyr]

Ah, back to Rule0 time. Because strangely, that's what this is as far as I'm concerned. As a player, I posed an idea to my DM for a character, knowing he'd have to rule on it to allow it to work: A dragonslayer who picked a fight with the wrong dragon, and got put on the receiving end of a curse which made him that which he so despised. Functionally a dragonborn. But that's not a standard curse, nor would it fall into the purview of that. It doesn't get broken by any of the curse-breaking stuff. But still, it has always been fluffed as a curse. That was a rule0 judgement on his part, to allow that, and it's doing exactly what you suggested there.

Unless there was some RAW reason why you couldn't be a dragonborn...it wouldn't really be anything more than a refluffing. If a wizard can't remove it as a standard action and the right spell, it's not REALLY a curse. But you can certainly fluff it as one.

And since it happened pregame, and was a combination of player and DM stuff, I don't think it could reasonably be considered Rule Zero even if it included homebrew.

I started with 2nd ed as well. That doesn't mean I consider 2nd ed rules inherently superior. Nor do I think magic in 2nd ed was terribly random.

[Yukitsu]

As a messenger system it's awesome. Anywhere to anywhere the line of peasants goes in a single round.

I always prefered horses. They give less of a fuss. And it's easier to get unlimited of them.

[obliged_salmon]

I disagree. Obviously. :]

Now I'm willing to give players what they want if they earn it. Heck I have even used rule 0 to get it to them. A prime example is I sold a stripped down lucrehulk to a second level scoundrel for just about all his money. Now he has an unusable capital ship with pretty much nothing but engines and a hyperdrive. He had to wear a space suit on his first few journeys in it.

So how did he go on these journeys. He thought up the idea of getting a job from the huttsin exchange for a temporary crew ad some information. acting on that information he managed to get the ship up to full operational standards for a CIS warship in a few sessions. A couple months in game time. All him. Heearned that peice by peice by thinking. Of course now both the rebels and the empire aren't too fond of him. His response? He actually is trying to find a way to secretly restart droid manufacturing plants.

Sounds like a really fun game, there. If you don't mind, I'll use it to illustrate my point a little further. It sounds like both your player and his character wanted for his character to have a cool ship. So you, as GM, put obstacles in his way, challenges, made him really work for it. Even went outside the standard price guide in the book to give him the opportunity to play this. The stuff of great stories.

Would you trust your player to push his character into making big risks for the sake of the story? To set his character up for failure, so his triumphs will be grander? If so, give him the reins on the action, and your two minds will create story twice as well as one. If not, why not?


if you're doing it right, he is... the players should be emotionally invested in their characters, what their characters are doing, and the outcome of the game; if they're not, then you've failed as a GM. If they're emotionally invested, then they are not impartial.

Why is it the GM's responsibility to keep the players emotionally invested? What I'm suggesting is that it's a shared responsibility. I as a player help to create the setting, the NPC's, the challenges. If the GM is having trouble thinking of a failure consequence (for a roll), I frequently chime in with something much worse for my character than the GM would have thought up. The point is we have to agree on the consequence before it actually happens in game.

And yes, I'm very invested. I'm biting my nails every time the dice are rolled. You know what? So is the GM. We're all rooting for my character, but we also know that the story can't be a success unless he fails sometimes. Thus, the rules decide his fate. The dice decide his path.

[Tyndmyr]

Oh, I remember the time one of my players wished for "eyes that would make him go faster".

Ohh, the delighted looks on all the other players faces, and all the horrifying suggestions they offered. Yeah, sometimes players gleefully embrace potentially bad things.

[Yukitsu]

No, if you want to prove a negative claim, then you generally have to demonstrate that there does not exist an X where Y is true.

That is the same as demonstrating a lack of the proof positive. If you demonstrate the positive claim is false, the inverse is supported. :smallconfused:


If he makes a positive claim, but has no proof, that isn't sufficient to prove your negative claim; All that means is that he hasn't found the proof, not that it doesn't exist. The onus is still on you to demonstrate that there does not exist a rule saying that "all known physical earth properties apply as they do in real life." (which we've already seen in this thread exists for D&D)

We haven't. The "laws of physics" apply to D&D, which I agree to. I'm disagreeing with the inclusion of all physical laws, on the point that equivocating the two is an error. In this case, the fact that no rule that includes all physical laws in D&D exists, is proof that it does not exist as a rule, and that proof is sufficient.


Now, since the rules for the game are finite, this could be done by inspection; you look at all the rules of the game and show that each one doesn't meets those conditions; at that point (and not before) your claim has been prooven.

If you were dealing with an infinite set, you'd probably want to use either a recursive proof (assuming it's countably infinite), or a proof by contradiction.

This is exactly why in any sort of disagreement, courtesy dictates the onus is on the proof positive, even if I can theoretically "prove" a negative. Especially since I'm not allowed to simply print the full rules of the game and show that none of it states all physical laws and theories apply.

[druid91]

Sounds like a really fun game, there. If you don't mind, I'll use it to illustrate my point a little further. It sounds like both your player and his character wanted for his character to have a cool ship. So you, as GM, put obstacles in his way, challenges, made him really work for it. Even went outside the standard price guide in the book to give him the opportunity to play this. The stuff of great stories.

Would you trust your player to push his character into making big risks for the sake of the story? To set his character up for failure, so his triumphs will be grander? If so, give him the reins on the action, and your two minds will create story twice as well as one. If not, why not?

Well partially because when entirely left to his own devices he comes up with some weird things.

Occasionally effective but still weird. For example This campaign started out as the dawn of defiance campaign. PbP with people I know because of distances.

Anyway, most of the admittedly small group has remained "on the rails" so to speak, following the adventure through the path described.

He did not. Now, long story short he killed a plot important NPC and dragged her body, with it's valuable plot important Datapad, with him. He then dumped it into space.

Now I ruled that the datapad fell out of the NPC's pocket. Now at first he tried to fake it and say she was alive and contacted senator organa in order to ransom her for droids, he succeeded. Then he called back and said only this "She's dead, I shot her body into space." Now what effect might this have? he did this of course because the hutts gave him a better offer.

Now, on to the wierdness. Part of the Dawn of defiance campaign is getting a defector out of imperial prison. I gave Darnak Bar(The character in question) the job of rescuing the hutts son. Who happened to be in the same prison.

I then let him plan out his attack.

We go on and I'm sending the other players through when I motion for him to describe the first phase of the attack.

"On the outskirts of camp you see several B1 battle droids disco dancing their way towards the prison"

Of course this was a distraction and the tanks/Vulture droids and Swarm of battle droids came from the opposite direction... But still. I let it go... but that is the least of the weird stuff he has done...

[Infernalbargain]

It says laws of physics of which there are few. Physical theories are a dime a dozen, and include quantum entanglement, waves, wavicles, horrible space kablooies, but those are not laws. Anti-matter/matter interaction, nuclear reactions occuring under certain (often misrepresented) conditions and other player shenanigans are not spelled out in the laws of physics..

People who don't understand physics shouldn't talk about it like they do. Technically the only truly universal physical law is conservation of energy and Hamilton's principle, everything else is conditional. Conservation of momentum is dependent on a lack of external forces. Newton's laws only apply in inertial reference frames. If you restrict things to only physical laws, then things simply don't work. Physical laws don't say that you start drowning if you're underwater; physical theories do. Physical laws don't stop you from spontaneously flying; physical theories do. Physical laws are abstract, it takes a physical theory to get back to reality. Also you don't even need for there to be any magic involved to make physics cry. Things like hulking hurler are case in point. If you were to really throw a mountain at someone, the conservation of momentum would send you into orbit with you weren't bolted to the ground or throw off Earth's orbit slightly (enough to be bad news) if you were (especially if you remember air resistance like the falling rules do).

[The Glyphstone]

Is the distinction between laws of physics and theories of physics important to anyone except physicists, though?

[Tyndmyr]

Step 1. Build a hulking hurler.
Step 2. Tie a cable from your projectile to your body.
Step 3. Throw.
Step 4. Watch your DM/D&D physics cry.


No, mixing real life physics and D&D physics doesn't work well at all. You can assume that superficially, things appear to work similarly to in real life, but you can't assume ANYTHING about why they do.

[Yukitsu]

Is the distinction between laws of physics and theories of physics important to anyone except physicists, though?

Well, my DM is a physicist, and I took up to 400 astrophysics at uni, so it's kinda hard for me to say without massive bias.


Step 1. Build a hulking hurler.
Step 2. Tie a cable from your projectile to your body.
Step 3. Throw.
Step 4. Watch your DM/D&D physics cry.

I did that once, but only as fluff for my God of throwing stuff's flight.

[Tyndmyr]

Is the distinction between laws of physics and theories of physics important to anyone except physicists, though?

I am not a physicist. None of my RL friends are, either. None of us really care that much.

[druid91]

I did that once, but only as fluff for my God of throwing stuff's flight.

God of throwing stuff?:smallconfused:

[Infernalbargain]

Well, my DM is a physicist, and I took up to 400 astrophysics at uni, so it's kinda hard for me to say without massive bias.



I did that once, but only as fluff for my God of throwing stuff's flight.

Senior physics major here.


Is the distinction between laws of physics and theories of physics important to anyone except physicists, though?

It actually isn't that important to physicists since they know the bounds of what they're talking about. It's more important to people who want to rag on physics.

[randomhero00]

Hey, I just came up with a good one, one that should replace rule zero. Rule Pi (what goes around comes around).

[obliged_salmon]

Physics is cool, but I'm not sure it has anything to do with most roleplaying game rule sets.


Well partially because when entirely left to his own devices he comes up with some weird things.

Sure. You've got to compromise when you have varying expectations around the table. One of the guys I play with loves the crazy stuff. Made a Shadowrun character based entirely off of Doc Brown from Back to the Future. The other guys at the table are much more into the dramatic RP stuff. It's hard to get everybody on the same page, playing the same game. We have to let crazy things happen sometimes, and that's cool.

There's no easy solution for this kind of thing, clashing expectations, but I would argue Rule 0 works like a bandaid at best. My experience is that giving players more freedom and more power over the story encourages them to become more responsible with it, but I realize this is not at all universal.

[druid91]

Physics is cool, but I'm not sure it has anything to do with most roleplaying game rule sets.



Sure. You've got to compromise when you have varying expectations around the table. One of the guys I play with loves the crazy stuff. Made a Shadowrun character based entirely off of Doc Brown from Back to the Future. The other guys at the table are much more into the dramatic RP stuff. It's hard to get everybody on the same page, playing the same game. We have to let crazy things happen sometimes, and that's cool.

There's no easy solution for this kind of thing, clashing expectations, but I would argue Rule 0 works like a bandaid at best. My experience is that giving players more freedom and more power over the story encourages them to become more responsible with it, but I realize this is not at all universal.

This actually happened due to a mix up, the whole party is new to gaming. Now, this mix up wasn't apparent at first with the exception of being a little odd. Then they started doing things like "I shoot the guy setting him on fire and causing him to scream in indignation."

Or "I' run until tackled by a shadowy figure." these are from another player but the point remains. They were taking the world into their own hands instead of taking their actions and trusting me to do the rest.

That's the point. The DM's rule 0 is powered by trust. If you trust the DM you are more likely to go along with what they want. If you have in the past had them use stupid rulings to punish players... not so much.

[Yukitsu]

Physics is cool, but I'm not sure it has anything to do with most roleplaying game rule sets.

It has to do with the assumption that real world physics applies in an obtuse and limited context in a manner that can be abused by players unless rule-0ed by the DM (eg. anti-osmium nonsense). The counter argument being there's nothing that lets you use actual physical principles in the game rules at all (barring the laws of physics which are mentioned, but so limited in scope as to be irrelevant for those purposes.)

The reduction is "Rule 0 is necessary to prevent people from doing things that are not mentioned in the rules."
As compared to "You don't need to rule-0 that you can't use rules that don't exist."

Some people then try to argue that ruling that a rule doesn't exist (because it doesn't) constitutes rule-0, but that is basically saying that any rules decision is rule-0. IMO, that's way, way too broad a useage of rule-0, and certainly isn't useful for discussion. That would boil down to, "Is having rules/an arbiter of the game acceptable?"

[Infernalbargain]

It has to do with the assumption that real world physics applies in an obtuse and limited context in a manner that can be abused by players unless rule-0ed by the DM (eg. anti-osmium nonsense). The counter argument being there's nothing that lets you use actual physical principles in the game rules at all (barring the laws of physics which are mentioned, but so limited in scope as to be irrelevant for those purposes.)

The reduction is "Rule 0 is necessary to prevent people from doing things that are not mentioned in the rules."
As compared to "You don't need to rule-0 that you can't use rules that don't exist."

Some people then try to argue that ruling that a rule doesn't exist (because it doesn't) constitutes rule-0, but that is basically saying that any rules decision is rule-0. IMO, that's way, way too broad a useage of rule-0, and certainly isn't useful for discussion. That would boil down to, "Is having rules/an arbiter of the game acceptable?"

If you limit things to simply the laws of physics, then you have a non-functioning world. If you ignore physical principles, then we fall through the Earth since E&M is just a physical theory whereas gravity is explicit in the rules.

[Yukitsu]

If you limit things to simply the laws of physics, then you have a non-functioning world. If you ignore physical principles, then we fall through the Earth since E&M is just a physical theory whereas gravity is explicit in the rules.

The various D&D settings aren't functioning based on any inherent principles that the real world does. Most of the as written ecologies would have collapsed or suffered complete entropy ages ago with the way D&D settings are written. The crystal spheres for example in spelljammer, or any of the infinite material planes don't conform well to physical theories. The elemental plane of fire, even as a closed system seems to be hinging on a violation of the first thermodynamic principle.

Besides, solid objects are called "impassable" and in the rules, reduce your movement of all modes through them to 0, including falling.

[tonberrian]

As for the DMing aspect, the DM doesn't have to add anything. If it doesn't let you, you can't do it.

Serious question: Why is this not Rule 0?

[Yukitsu]

Serious question: Why is this not Rule 0?

Because saying a rule doesn't exist, isn't creating a new rule.

[tonberrian]

Because saying a rule doesn't exist, isn't creating a new rule.

Sure it is. Ruling on something by definition creates a rule to follow.

[Yukitsu]

Then you're changing rule-0 to "anything tangently or directly related to any rule whatsoever" to which I'd cheerfully agree is useful in games, but as a term is completely useless.

[tonberrian]

Then you're changing rule-0 to "anything tangently or directly related to any rule whatsoever" to which I'd cheerfully agree is useful in games, but as a term is completely useless.

No, it's not. It's codifying that the DM is allowed to make or change rules to better suit the game.

If you are unhappy with what you see my definition as, though, please provide your own, so I can work with it.

[Yukitsu]

No, it's not. It's codifying that the DM is allowed to make or change rules to better suit the game.

Your argument is lit "It's a rule about a rule, ergo it's a DM made rule." which is inane. You don't invoke rule 0 when you rule that yes, spellcasters do indeed use spells. Nor are you invoking rule 0 when you point out that no rule of the game allows the player to declare themselves the legitimate ruler of a small town.


If you are unhappy with what you see my definition as, though, please provide your own, so I can work with it.

Most often when invoked, it's "The DM has the final call on all rules decisions, RAW, the players and common sense be damned."

[tonberrian]

Most often when invoked, it's "The DM has the final call on all rules decisions, RAW, the players and common sense be damned."

And by making a ruling either way on whether or not electromagnetism is present as accepted under modern physics is a rules decision, because it impacts what a player can and cannot do.

[Yukitsu]

And by making a ruling either way on whether or not electromagnetism is present as accepted under modern physics is a rules decision, because it impacts what a player can and cannot do.

No, that's referencing the rules. If I look up page 21, and dictate the content, I'm not doing anything with the rules other than pointing out that they are in fact, as they are. This includes, theoretically, going through every page and pointing out that nothing says they can either. Appealing to the book as the source of the rules as opposed to your own authority is very much against my definition, as would appealing to the players.

Second, coloumb's law is a law of physics, and hence electromagnetism should exist. You simply can't invoke the derivative theories.

[tonberrian]

No, that's referencing the rules. If I look up page 21, and dictate the content, I'm not doing anything with the rules other than pointing out that they are in fact, as they are. This includes, theoretically, going through every page and pointing out that nothing says they can either. Appealing to the book as the source of the rules as opposed to your own authority is very much against my definition, as would appealing to the players.

Second, coloumb's law is a law of physics, and hence electromagnetism should exist. You simply can't invoke the derivative theories.

No, by your own admission, there are no rules that state that the derivation of the theory of electromagnetism holds. There are also no rules explicitly to the contrary. A DM making a decision on whether or not they hold is making a ruling that impacts what the player can and cannot do - hence, it is a rules decision, thus falling under your definition of Rule 0.

[Yukitsu]

No, by your own admission, there are no rules that state that the derivation of the theory of electromagnetism holds. There are also no rules explicitly to the contrary. A DM making a decision on whether or not they hold is making a ruling that impacts what the player can and cannot do - hence, it is a rules decision, thus falling under your definition of Rule 0.

So your argument is, if the books don't say you can't, you can?

Does anyone else agree with this?

Does anyone else agree rule-0 should mean anything relating to the rules whatsoever?

[tonberrian]

So your argument is, if the books don't say you can't, you can?

Does anyone else agree with this?

Does anyone else agree rule-0 should mean anything relating to the rules whatsoever?

NO. "It doesn't say you can, so you can't" and "It doesn't say you can't, so you can" are both equally toxic to games - and Rule 0 helps with both.

I'm merely saying that until the DM, GM, Storyteller, or whatever makes a decision on what is or what isn't allowed, it both could and could not be - it's not covered by the rules. Rule 0 is a necessary tool for dealing with these situations.

[Hecuba]

So your argument is, if the books don't say you can't, you can?

Does anyone else agree with this?

Does anyone else agree rule-0 should mean anything relating to the rules whatsoever?

My understanding of his argument is "If the rules are (for whatever reason) unavailable, unacceptable, or non-existent it falls to the DM to make a ruling instead."

And yes, I would agree that if you ever have to make a ruling (not just related to the rules, but related to anything about the game), that's rule 0.

[Narren]

Most often when invoked, it's "The DM has the final call on all rules decisions, RAW, the players and common sense be damned."

If that's how you've seen it most often invoked, perhaps you need a new DM? Rule Zero can be abused. RAW can be abused just as easily.

[Yukitsu]

NO.

I'm merely saying that until the DM, GM, Storyteller, or whatever makes a decision on what is or what isn't allowed, it both could and could not be - it's not covered by the rules. Rule 0 is a necessary tool for dealing with these situations.

When something isn't covered by the rules, it's not allowed by default. That's how rules systems work. The rules of chess state my king may move exactly one square in any direction, but they don't disclude teleportation to anywhere I want on the board. This doesn't mean "It's up in the air" you simply put can't do things outside the rules of the game. Adding rules to accomodate the percieved ambiguity is changing the rules. Maintaining the status quo is not. Making decisions about the rules as they are written is not changing the rules, so long as the scope of the decision remains within the rule.

Or, throwing this out there, is it changing the rules to say there is no rule for something, when there isn't? Anyone think that's changing the rules? Or should I start winning chess by teleporting my queen onto the enemy king?

A lot of people start arguing that DMs are too hamstrung on this, but that's not really true. D&D includes specific rules stating a DM can invent monsters and spells as a seperate rule. If a DM creates a new monster he didn't have to make up any new rules, he's invoking an existing one.

[Yukitsu]

If that's how you've seen it most often invoked, perhaps you need a new DM? Rule Zero can be abused. RAW can be abused just as easily.

That's how it's invoked on the forums. Often when discussing theory about why the game is or is not balanced, or as advice to DMs who are having trouble coping with certain players. The general argument is rule 0 enforces balance. My actual DM doesn't use rule 0, because he knows the rules of the game well enough that he doesn't have to, and because my group isn't *****.

Here's an experiment for you. Start up a thread about how this one player who is using an RAW broken combination is ruining your campaign. At least one poster should bring up rule-0. Ask him what he means by that. I'd bet he says "the DM has the final call." which is a bad rule.

[Samurai Jill]

If that's how you've seen it most often invoked, perhaps you need a new DM? Rule Zero can be abused. RAW can be abused just as easily.
Like I've said in another thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=191626), the real damage isn't done by the GM abusing Rule Zero, it's done by the fact the GM can abuse Rule Zero, where it becomes an implicit threat used to keep other players 'in line'. (Also, totally in agreement with the idea that, even in the best case, it translates as "you will invent the actual rules of this game by inches.")

Okay- let's assume for the moment that there are good, productive, uses for Rule Zero, situations in which the default, standard mechanics of the game can be overruled or distorted for the betterment of all. Okay, what are those situations? What are the circumstances under which a GM might- nay, should!- want to do 'fudge' things? Can you distil some underlying patterns or principles from those observations? You can?!?! Really? Wunderbar! Why not write those up in bullet-point form as good advice for your fellow GMs? Better yet, why not formalise that advice as explicit rules for exactly how and when to apply Rule Zero? Better yet, why not keep just those rules and throw out the original Rule Zero!?

I mean, I don't have any inherent problem with the idea of 'fudging' outcomes, as long as it's done in an honest, above-board fashion that promotes trust among the players. Furthermore, I would contend that GMs who use Rule Zero wisely are already playing according to certain subconscious rules that limit and ration it's use to highly specific situations or only on rare occasions. In which case, why not make those principles conscious and articulated? Because giving one player carte blanche to do whatever they like isn't a rule- heck, it isn't even a game. It's an elaborate version of Mother-May-I.

[tonberrian]

When something isn't covered by the rules, it's not allowed by default. That's how rules systems work. The rules of chess state my king may move exactly one square in any direction, but they don't disclude teleportation to anywhere I want on the board. This doesn't mean "It's up in the air" you simply put can't do things outside the rules of the game. Adding rules to accomodate the percieved ambiguity is changing the rules. Maintaining the status quo is not. Making decisions about the rules as they are written is not changing the rules, so long as the scope of the decision remains within the rule.

Or, throwing this out there, is it changing the rules to say there is no rule for something, when there isn't? Anyone think that's changing the rules? Or should I start winning chess by teleporting my queen onto the enemy king?

A lot of people start arguing that DMs are too hamstrung on this, but that's not really true. D&D includes specific rules stating a DM can invent monsters and spells as a seperate rule. If a DM creates a new monster he didn't have to make up any new rules, he's invoking an existing one.

Your metaphor is flawed. There are very precise rules as to what each and every chess piece is capable of doing.

We don't assume that D&D is a perfect game that has an extant rule to cover every situation. We don't even assume that D&D has an extant rule to cover every situation that it allows you to get into.

For example, say I've got a mithral plate enchanted with a Permanencied Gust of Wind in a featureless plane that has Reverse Gravity with an arbitrarily large caster level, with the cubes set up in a single layer parallel to the plain. What happens?

Also, you've made a claim that whenever something isn't covered by the rules, it's not allowed by default. Citation please?

[Yukitsu]

Your metaphor is flawed. There are very precise rules as to what each and every chess piece is capable of doing.

You're half right. There are precise rules that tell you what you can do, but not detailing what they can't do. Because in the rules of chess, you can only do what they say you can.


For example, say I've got a mithral plate enchanted with a Permanencied Gust of Wind in a featureless plane that has Reverse Gravity with an arbitrarily large caster level, with the cubes set up in a single layer parallel to the plain. What happens?

Well, since magic doesn't follow any physical laws at all...

And more relevantly, it's a reverse gravity plane. You fall up to the point that the caster loses line of sight. I'm guessing you're referencing an infinite column, though again, magic doesn't reference physics, so I don't see what's wrong with them falling up an infinite value. Especially since the problem came with "arbitrary caster level" and not in the physical properties of magic.


Also, you've made a claim that whenever something isn't covered by the rules, it's not allowed by default. Citation please?

That's pretty much how all rules sets operate when they are functional. You can interpret the rules of chess as allowing actions not explicitly denied, but it quickly becomes a non-functioning system. Much like D&D becomes quickly non-functional when you can do anything not covered by the rules.

[tonberrian]

You're half right. There are precise rules that tell you what you can do, but not detailing what they can't do. Because in the rules of chess, you can only do what they say you can.

Because it says that.


And more relevantly, it's a reverse gravity plane. You fall up to the point that the caster loses line of sight. I'm guessing you're referencing an infinite column, though again, magic doesn't reference physics, so I don't see what's wrong with them falling up an infinite value. Especially since the problem came with "arbitrary caster level" and not in the physical properties of magic.

No, it's a 10' thick layer of reversed gravity covering the plain (which is on a plane). The arbitrary caster level is just to keep them up long enough to get an understanding of what happens. The mithril plate floats in the border between the reverse gravity and regular gravity. The gust of wind spell "can do anything a sudden blast of wind would be expected to do" - what does this mean in this case?


That's pretty much how all rules sets operate when they are functional. You can interpret the rules of chess as allowing actions not explicitly denied, but it quickly becomes a non-functioning system. Much like D&D becomes quickly non-functional when you can do anything not covered by the rules.

Not anything. Something. There's a distinction.

Also, assuming that D&D, or any roleplaying game, has a perfectly functioning ruleset is ridiculous. It has not been proven to be perfect, I don't know why you assume that it is.

[The Unborne]

You're half right. There are precise rules that tell you what you can do, but not detailing what they can't do. Because in the rules of chess, you can only do what they say you can.


But...they do have rules about what you can't do: illegal moves—moves/actions that do not match up with all other specified rules. Other than their own definitions though, whenever someone teaches another the rules of chess they always mention how pieces can "only" move this way or that way.

I think this is highly different from any other roleplaying game, which usually says, "This game is only limited by your imagination, have at it." Sure, there are illegal moves, but if they don't affect the enjoyment of the game people tend to look over it unlike in chess.

[Yukitsu]

Because it says that.

Ironically, it doesn't. Anywhere.


No, it's a 10' thick layer of reversed gravity covering the plain (which is on a plane). The arbitrary caster level is just to keep them up long enough to get an understanding of what happens. The mithril plate floats in the border between the reverse gravity and regular gravity. The gust of wind spell "can do anything a sudden blast of wind would be expected to do" - what does this mean in this case?

Newton's first law. Which is covered since it's a law of physics.


Not anything. Something. There's a distinction.

You're going to need to define what makes a particular something acceptable to directly state that it can't be extrapolated that anything applies by the same reasoning.


Also, assuming that D&D, or any roleplaying game, has a perfectly functioning ruleset is ridiculous. It has not been proven to be perfect, I don't know why you assume that it is.

It's honestly better than what pretty much every DM I've seen thinks is a good idea. It's the reason I absolutely despise house rules and rule 0, as most DMs are not good or even decent game developers. I'd be more amicable to houserules as made by a DM that was a talented game developer, even if not a professional one.


But...they do have rules about what you can't do: illegal moves—moves/actions that do not match up with all other specified rules. Other than their own definitions though, whenever someone teaches another the rules of chess they always mention how pieces can "only" move this way or that way.

The set I have by Eric Schiller doesn't define any movement not described as explicitly illegal. It only cites certain forms of castling and en passant as being illegal, as well as any move that puts you into check. Because reasonable people interpret the rules to disclude anything it doesn't explicitly negate.

[tonberrian]

Newton's first law. Which is covered since it's a law of physics.

You're going to have to do better than that. How much air is moved? What are the forces involved? The spell doesn't say. It just says 50 mph (or whatever in SI). You also have to follow the laws of conservation of momentum and conservation of energy, and something's gotta give somewhere.


You're going to need to define what makes a particular something acceptable to directly state that it can't be extrapolated that anything applies by the same reasoning.

You can enter the above gamestate by following RAW, and it needs arbitration. There's a difference between the the set of all situations that can be described by the string "There's no rule that describes [this]" and the situations described by the string "There's no rule that describes [this] and I can get here by RAW". I'm mostly concerned with the latter.


It's honestly better than what pretty much every DM I've seen thinks is a good idea. It's the reason I absolutely despise house rules and rule 0, as most DMs are not good or even decent game developers. I'd be more amicable to houserules as made by a DM that was a talented game developer, even if not a professional one.

But you are very clear that this applies to most, not all. Do you deny the existance of DM's that can use Rule 0 and houserules to make the game better? Do you deny the existance of DMs that can use Rule 0 and houserules to make the game better for their group?

[Swordguy]

When something isn't covered by the rules, it's not allowed by default. That's how rules systems work.

Hang on. Can you quote the rule that actually says that, please? 'Cause that's a HUGE assumption. There's two totally different ways that rulesets are designed, inclusive and exclusive:

(short version)
Inclusive: "If it doesn't say I can't, then I can."
Exclusive: "If it doesn't say I can, then I can't."

BOTH are legitimate, but simply assuming that D&D is a particular one because you prefer it that way is not. Please support your assumption, keeping in mind that the game is, and I quote, "limited only by your imagination"...which fairly strongly implies an Inclusive Rules Set in terms of designer's intent.

While you're at it, keep in mind that the designers tend to use colloquial terms, rather than technical ones. Just like 99% of the population knows what the designers meant by "the laws of physics", even if, technically, the statement doesn't really mean much of anything to an actual scientist (which the designers are not).

[tonberrian]

I was starting to wonder if there was anyone else in this thread or if we had scared them away.

[Tyndmyr]

No, it's a 10' thick layer of reversed gravity covering the plain (which is on a plane). The arbitrary caster level is just to keep them up long enough to get an understanding of what happens. The mithril plate floats in the border between the reverse gravity and regular gravity. The gust of wind spell "can do anything a sudden blast of wind would be expected to do" - what does this mean in this case?

Blast of wind coming off the enchanted surfaces. If anything is in the path of the wind, it will behave normally. If light, it'll be blown about and such. Personally, I don't want to calculate exact real world physics for such a thing, especially given that I'd need to do some hazy estimating for the power of the wind.

Plus, its pretty unlikely to come up in an actual game. I can see little reason why it NEEDS arbitration if the arbitration will A. not arise or B. not matter.


Not anything. Something. There's a distinction.

Also, assuming that D&D, or any roleplaying game, has a perfectly functioning ruleset is ridiculous. It has not been proven to be perfect, I don't know why you assume that it is.

It is not a perfect ruleset, no. However, it IS a permissive ruleset. The rules give you things you can do, not lists of things you can't do. Therefore, "the rules don't say I can't" is not valid reason for a player to do something.

This is the same way essentially all rulesets anywhere are written. It is generally not explicitly stated, but it IS implicit in the format of the rules. Rules as to what cannot be done are generally stated only in confusing cases for clarification.

I should also state that the D&D ruleset is fairly decent when taken as a whole. Most of the wild exploits come about by assuming you can do hilarious things like anti-osmium, despite there being no evidence toward antimatter or osmium in D&Dland at all.

Edit: As for what type of rule system it is, players handbook, page 5, What Characters Can Do. You can do anything you can think of, but these are accomplished by using the rules. The book goes into somewhat more detail on the matter. You are told what you can do, not what you can't.

[The Unborne]

The set I have by Eric Schiller doesn't define any movement not described as explicitly illegal. It only cites certain forms of castling and en passant as being illegal, as well as any move that puts you into check. Because reasonable people interpret the rules to disclude anything it doesn't explicitly negate.

Reading through his rules, yes, you'd need some interpretation to define exactly what constitutes an "illegal move," "displacement," etc; however, this doesn't answer how people learn to play chess when taught by others: whether they be parents, chess club, or friends. When the rules are commonly taught this way there is no interpretation of what is an illegal move, it is always mentioned.

[tonberrian]

Blast of wind coming off the enchanted surfaces. If anything is in the path of the wind, it will behave normally. If light, it'll be blown about and such. Personally, I don't want to calculate exact real world physics for such a thing, especially given that I'd need to do some hazy estimating for the power of the wind.

Plus, its pretty unlikely to come up in an actual game. I can see little reason why it NEEDS arbitration if the arbitration will A. not arise or B. not matter.


One of the things I have wanted to do as a caster is to put a portable hole on that mithril disk and build a cover over the top so I can have a flying tank, which is why I brought this up.

Edit:
Edit: As for what type of rule system it is, players handbook, page 5, What Characters Can Do. You can do anything you can think of, but these are accomplished by using the rules. The book goes into somewhat more detail on the matter. You are told what you can do, not what you can't.

It says:

A character can try to do anything you can imagine, just as long as it fits the scene the DM describes. Depending on the situation, your character might want to listen at a door, search an area, bargain with a shopkeeper, talk to an ally, jump across a pit, move, use an item, or attack an opponent.

Characters accomplish tasks by making skill checks, ability checks, or attack rolls, using the core mechanic.

The rules don't limit you, they facilitate what you want to do.

[Tyndmyr]

One of the things I have wanted to do as a caster is to put a portable hole on that mithril disk and build a cover over the top so I can have a flying tank, which is why I brought this up.

Honestly, if you wanted to build a flying tank, I'd refer you directly to the SBG, which has more direct rules for flying things. The book is meant for such things.

If you headed down this path though, note that Gust of Wind states that it expels the wind at approximately 50 mph. That should be sufficient to get you started on the math, and I suspect the thrust given would be "not enough" for most practical purposes.

[Ravens_cry]

If you headed down this path though, note that Gust of Wind states that it expels the wind at approximately 50 mph. That should be sufficient to get you started on the math, and I suspect the thrust given would be "not enough" for most practical purposes.
Someone do the math, I got a bounty on Cat Girls.:smallamused:

[tonberrian]

Honestly, if you wanted to build a flying tank, I'd refer you directly to the SBG, which has more direct rules for flying things. The book is meant for such things.

Perfectly valid, though I haven't gone through that extensively, and I really want it to be a portable hole floating in mid-air.


If you headed down this path though, note that Gust of Wind states that it expels the wind at approximately 50 mph. That should be sufficient to get you started on the math, and I suspect the thrust given would be "not enough" for most practical purposes.

Sadly, it doesn't give an example of how much air it moves, limiting the math until I get a ruling on that. Mind you, that still doesn't translate well to D&D movement, simply because almost all movement in D&D has no acceleration. The only exception I can think of is falling.

[Tyndmyr]

Sadly, it doesn't give an example of how much air it moves, limiting the math until I get a ruling on that. Mind you, that still doesn't translate well to D&D movement, simply because almost all movement in D&D has no acceleration. The only exception I can think of is falling.

Right. You're starting with an approximate velocity, no acceleration, no falloff in velocity over the course of the line, and while a line will affect everyone in the 5ft line, it's not clear that the entire 5ft column of air is being moved. It's a reasonable interpretation, certainly, but I wouldn't say it's the only possible one.

For my group, if this happened, inertia is in effect, and they'd simply assume that the air expelled was based on the effective area of the spell. So, a 5ft by 5ft area. Acceleration is generally assumed to be effectively instant, since D&D is like that.

Apologies for any headaches that this induces. Many catgirls must perish to make a usable hovertank from this. For a more precisely calculatable thrust, I suggest decanters of endless x. They also have the advantage of not requiring air.

[tonberrian]

As much as it pleases me to put the gestalt hivemind of the playground to doing my bidding (Dance puppets! DANCE!!! *cough*), we're getting off topic. The example was meant to showcase that it's not difficult to come to a part of the game that needs a DM ruling to figure out what's going on. The system as it is currently designed is not well-designed (by which I mean that it is possible to come to a state not perfectly covered by the rules through a strictly RAW approach; this is not a quality judgement on the system). Since the system is not well-designed, arbitration is necessary. This arbitration creates a precedent that rules one way or another on whatever issue has arisen. Most systems put this on the DM or DM-equivalent because the usual model presents the DM-equivalent as having more responsibilities than the (other) players. This arrangement means that the DM-equivalent necessarily has more power than the (other) players, but (in accordance with the Gospel of Uncle Benjamin (http://www.schlockmercenary.com/2006-07-31)) the DM-equivalent also has more responsibility for running the game and keeping the players happy. Rule 0 is the tool that lets him/her do that.

The DM-equivalent doesn't quite play the same game as the (other) players do. Treating them as just another player requires a paradigm shift away from the standard model of Roleplaying Games, and Rule 0 is a necessary power in the current model. A good DM-equivalent is probably more likely to rule by committee, but that's not the issue at hand.

[Tyndmyr]

As much as it pleases me to put the gestalt hivemind of the playground to doing my bidding (Dance puppets! DANCE!!! *cough*), we're getting off topic. The example was meant to showcase that it's not difficult to come to a part of the game that needs a DM ruling to figure out what's going on

Nah. You've certainly shown that you can arrive at a state requiring arbitration, yes. You have not demonstrated that this arbitration has to come from the GM.

I believe in our specific case, the determination that the world had equal and opposite reactions was due to a gnome using a decanter of endless x(ok...it was butter. That was a terrible idea that led to endless hilarity) set on Geyser. Basically, someone commented that it should blast him into the air, and we all chatted about it a bit. It was decided that using this was reasonable, and furthermore, decanter jetpacks were awesome.

Note that the decanter does generate "back pressure" by RAW, which is basically the same thing. All we did was generalize from that.

Note that the second law of thermodynamics is basically shot in any game with magic in it, though.

[tonberrian]

Okay. A good (subjective quality, but whatever) game requires interest from the players, which usually requires some combination of suspence, adversity, conflict, and emotion - elements of a good story. The DM-equivalent is responsible for providing these - he manages the world, so any interaction that isn't strictly between PCs includes him, and even (especially) mostly player-driven campaigns expect that NPC's will react to the PC's in some manner and take them into account. By definition, there are things that the players do not know about, because there is no reason the characters would know them and keeping the players out of the loop as well helps them identify with the character (which I'm assuming is a desirable outcome, since these are roleplayers) and hinders metagaming, which harms suspension of disbelief and character identification.

Now, a DM-equivalent's job is harder and more time-consuming than the player's, and ruling by committee is infeasible for every possible situation that needs ruling. It bogs down the play, and sometimes it is in the best interest of the story and player enjoyment that certain rulings be made, despite temporary unhappiness at the decision. To that end, the DM-equivalent should be able to make snap decisions without necessarily consulting the players. The players are perfectly capable of protesting these decisions after (or even during, if they feel particularly vehement about it) the game session, and it would be wise for a DM-equivalent to listen to player commentary.

A DM-equivalent should have more rights than another player because he has more responsibilities and he puts more effort into the game than the others. A DM-equivalent needs different rights because he has different responsibilities and plays a different game. Rule 0 is one of these things.

Edit: Of course, this doesn't take into account the peculiarities of whatever groups you all are playing in. If you enjoy the way you play the game, fine by me. I'm not going to be the one calling the fun police. But you should really take a much closer look to see if universally effecting all games would be a good idea. Just because one dynamic works for your group doesn't necessarily mean it will work for all of them. The flexibility of being able to be modified so easily is a strength of tabletop RPG's in general, and I think that limiting that by universally removing Rule 0 is a bad thing.

[Tyndmyr]

Now, a DM-equivalent's job is harder and more time-consuming than the player's, and ruling by committee is infeasible for every possible situation that needs ruling. It bogs down the play, and sometimes it is in the best interest of the story and player enjoyment that certain rulings be made, despite temporary unhappiness at the decision.

The feasibility of this is inversely proportional to the number of rulings that need to be made. This is why I so strongly suggested reading the rules beforehand, with a special focus on things the PCs specialize in. When you have a good dilemma that the PCs give opinions on perhaps once a month, it's no big deal. If you have rules disagreements every five minutes, it is.

Learn the rules, help others learn the rules, and disruptions will drop off remarkably.


A DM-equivalent should have more rights than another player because he has more responsibilities and he puts more effort into the game than the others. A DM-equivalent needs different rights because he has different responsibilities and plays a different game. Rule 0 is one of these things.

Even without rule 0, the DM still has different rights and responsibilities. He builds the world. While doing so, he has a great deal of latitude in accordance with the rules. He gets to decide, hey, there's a city here, and so forth. This is not something players do.

Rule Zero or no Rule Zero, the DM is still doing things the players don't, using things the players are not. So, this does not provide a sufficient justification for Rule Zero in itself.


. The flexibility of being able to be modified so easily is a strength of tabletop RPG's in general, and I think that limiting that by universally removing Rule 0 is a bad thing.

Removing rule zero does not remove the ability to add house rules, etc. It simply serves as a limiting factor on the manner of introduction of those rules. In short, they cannot be imposed during by play solely because the DM wants to.

You can still use homebrew and stuff.

[Cerlis]

I keep reading references to "rule zero", in the sense of "the DM can do whatever he wants, up to and including rocks fall, everyone dies".

In the gaming circles I usually frequent, this school of thought is widely scorned.
The DM is bound by the same rules as the players. This whole "Rule Zero" crap is _so_ "20th century" and should be purged from all game books.

(Actually, in these circles, there is also a "Rule Zero", but an entirely different one: "Do not play with douchebags")

The GM (I prefer this more generic term over the D&D-specific DM) can NOT do anything he likes. The GM is a player like everyone else. If he is allowed to cheat, so is everyone else. Since that would destroy the game, the only possible consequence is: the GM must not cheat.
The GM has a lot of flexibility without cheating or bending the rules. If he wants the BBEG to have some power that's not in the books, he can create it. D&D of all games has probably the least call for this, because there are thousands of everything: PrCs, feats, spells. But that only aside.

Above all, the GM must not castrate a player character by denying him the benefit of a feature the player "paid" for, just because it would ruin his precious plot. If there's nothing in the rules that can stop the player from busting your plot -- well then build a better one for crying out loud!

D&D offers a plethora of possibilities, both to the DM and the players. It is impossible to know them all by heart. So it can very well happen that a player comes up with something that stumps you. When that happens, either concede defeat or ask for a time-out to come up with a way to continue your adventure. Over time, you will learn.

If on the other hand you are concerned that something a player does is "overpowered", it is still bad style to just forbid it. Instead of confrontation, try to build a consensus. Either let yourself be convinced that the thing is not breaking the game, or convince the player that it is. (Hint: the statement "anything you use, the NPCs may use, too" usually works wonders.)

Granted, there are a lot of ways in 3.X to take the game to a state of "What am I even doing here?". Usually it suffices to point out that the game becomes pointless and you will get your players' support to remove the broken element.
If a player _is_ hell-bent on breaking the game, invoke the new Rule Zero (regarding douchebags).

So much for now. Have fun. ^^

the idea is , in a game with freeform rules, there has to be a judge, the dm is judge, so he is rule 0

[Tyndmyr]

the idea is , in a game with freeform rules, there has to be a judge, the dm is judge, so he is rule 0

What? Freeform is not 3.5. Not even close.

I've also seen freeform done without any sort of judge at all.

[Ravens_cry]

If there is no Rule Zero, Tyndmyr, what would you do if a player brought a Theoretical Optimization build to the table?If you can't find a RAW reason to stop that build, do you just let it march all over your game? Sorry if this has been covered.
I agree that most free form games don't need a GM though. In fact, all the chat role playing games I have played have been free form and no GM. I find it a lot of fun as long as everyone remembers not to God Mod.

[Tyndmyr]

If there is no Rule Zero, Tyndmyr, what would you do if a player brought a Theoretical Optimization build to the table?If you can't find a RAW reason to stop that build, do you just let it march all over your game? Sorry if this has been covered.
I agree that most free form games don't need a GM though. In fact, all the chat role playing games I have played have been free form and no GM. I find it a lot of fun as long as everyone remembers not to God Mod.

I typically have a formal ban list in place prior to the game. It could fit on a postcard. I have no qualms allowing tier 1s with optimization. Others may feel differently. That said, as long as you have house rules given in advance, it's not rule zero. People can decide if those rules are acceptable.

That said, it isn't generally a problem. If someone wants to play pun pun, and nobody wants to play with pun pun but that guy...it's not gonna happen. If you play with somewhat mature people, they're willing to play things that work together, and do stuff everyone likes.

[Ravens_cry]

I typically have a formal ban list in place prior to the game. It could fit on a postcard. I have no qualms allowing tier 1s with optimization. Others may feel differently. That said, as long as you have house rules given in advance, it's not rule zero. People can decide if those rules are acceptable.

I do not see how that is not Rule Zero. Sure, the players get a choice whether they play or not, even provide input, but in the end, you as the DM are deciding what books are acceptable, what RULES are acceptable.



That said, it isn't generally a problem. If someone wants to play pun pun, and nobody wants to play with pun pun but that guy...it's not gonna happen. If you play with somewhat mature people, they're willing to play things that work together, and do stuff everyone likes.
Again, Rule Zero. You are saying, "No, despite what the rules say, this combination does not work."
Sure, it's a mostly theoretical question, but apparently, at least one player has tried to sneak Pun-Pun into a game, so it's not quite as theoretical as it sounds. And there are other, lesser, Theoretical Optimization builds that can break a game just as badly. Heck, some of the standard builds that float around this forum could break a less optimized game.

[Samurai Jill]

The system as it is currently designed is not well-designed (by which I mean that it is possible to come to a state not perfectly covered by the rules through a strictly RAW approach; this is not a quality judgement on the system). Since the system is not well-designed... Rule 0 is the tool that lets him/her do that.
I would dispute that 'we wind up doing things the system can't handle well' can't be interpreted as value judgement (in the same sense that a pipe wrench makes for a very poor sewing machine,) but what you are talking about is not what Rule Zero actually covers. Rule Zero gives the GM carte blanche to overrule any damn outcome or aspect of the system at any time, for any reason- not just 'unfamiliar situations that are ambiguous within the current rule framework'. If you want to say that the GM should be free to invent/adapt/extend the rules to cover unfamiliar situations (though this easily becomes Calvinball,) then say so- but that is not what Rule Zero says.

[Eldan]

Okay, then. Let me post my views on the actual usage of rule 0 at the table.

First of all, at least around my table, there were several Gentlemen's Agreements (we were all male):

-Do not antagonize players or the DM. What happens in character, stays in character. Be respectful and polite to each other. Know the difference between a jest and an insult.
-Do not try to break the game. The actual definition of break is vague, partially on purpose, partially because of difficulty defining it.
-Keep the game flowing. If you have to argue, state your point rationally and briefly.
-Study the rules before the game. Know your spells, your abilities, your skills and have your standard tactics prepared so you can act without needing the books, in most cases. The DM will do the same with all characters (which, yes, probably takes an afternoon away from the DM's time).

Now, when is rule 0 applied?

-In the event of an argument, the DM has the right to cut it off if it takes too much time or seems to be getting out of hand. Usually a minute or two, then it has to be over. He will then state his opinion on the matter.
-The DM will not, usually, apply rule 0 to change facts already established about the world in the game. If the players know something exists, it will not retroactively cease to do so without an ingame reason (i.e. The NPC Vanished without a Trace! Plot Hook!)
-Similarly, the DM will not fudge fights in his favour by changing the rules or statistics of an NPC. If something dies, it dies. Creative tactics and ways around a problem are to be rewarded, not punished.
-The DM will try to accommodate creative ideas, even if they are not covered by the rules. He will try to do this in a manner consistent with the form of the existing rules, most often by selecting appropriate skills or attributes and setting DCs for rolls.

[dsmiles]

Rule Zero gives the GM carte blanche to overrule any damn outcome or aspect of the system at any time, for any reason- not just 'unfamiliar situations that are ambiguous within the current rule framework'. However, in all of the gaming groups that I've been in over the years (decades)*cough*, this is the most commonly used aspect of Rule 0. Yeah, it's not the entirety of the rule, but it is a part of it. That being said, I don't think I've ever been in a group where Rule 0 was abused the way some of you guys/gals have seen it abused. I don't think I've ever abused it, and if I have, the players just went with the flow, and never said anything. (And believe me, I've made some pretty wonky rulings.)

[grimbold]

rule zero is what preserves the game
in 3.5 core is super broken so is everything else
even a rule lawyer must pick and choose rules at times
rule zero is the beauty of D&D it is the power that makes D&D awesome it means that anything can happen at anytime!

[Totally Guy]

Imagine how good it'd be if it wasn't all broken.

My mind is going to a lovely sunny place.

[jseah]

Note that the second law of thermodynamics is basically shot in any game with magic in it, though.
This is off-topic, but that statement is not necessarily true for all magic systems.

While I am unclear as to what a magic system that does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics would look like, most magic systems violate the 1st law as well.
One that does not would have a good chance of not violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics. And of course, the requirement for 1st law non-violation is time symmetry.

So, if you reversed time and your rules worked exactly the same, you have a 1st law non-violating magic system.
Just a bit more, you might have a 2nd law non-violating magic system.

[Eldan]

Wouldn't a magic system that moved existing energy around, instead of creating new energy, not violate it?

I mean, it wreaks havoc on the rest of physics, but does moving Fire Energy (nevermind the silliness of that idea) from one plane to another, with appropriate efficiency and losses, violate the laws?

[huttj509]

Oh, I think I'm gonna regret this...

There seems to be some disagreement on what exactly Rule 0 means. An urban dictionary definition was posted earlier, however in my experience Urban Dictionary tends to be needlessly antagonistic, or rude in its definitions. The most neutral definition it has for "Rule 0" is (bolding mine):


a.k.a. "The GM is always right."

The unwritten rule in tabletop role-playing games (such as Dungeons & Dragons) which grants the game master the right to suspend or override the published game rules whenever s/he deems necessary.

Similar to a house rule; however, rule zero may be invoked unilaterally, at any time and does not have to be agreed upon in advance by the players.

When abused, can lead to an inconsistent, confusing, or frustrating experience for the players.

However, I think there's a needless disconnect between "house rule" and "rule 0."

http://www.rule0.com/what-is-rule-0 states

3rd edition D&D popularized Rule 0 as “Have fun,” meaning that any of the other rules and trivialities could be discarded in favor of this, the main point of the game.

Some excerpts from the 3.5 DMG, chapter 1, which highlight the ideas which became known as Rule 0 (I know other systems have similar comments, but I do not have those books here to reference. I do not know of one offhand that actually uses the term "Rule 0" in the text, though I'd not be surprised if Hackmaster did, in order to explicitly say "there is no rule 0 in this game, you are not allowed to alter anything"):


When everyone gathers around the table to play the game, you're in charge. That doesn't mean you can tell people what to do outside the boundaries of the game, but it does mean that you're the final arbiter of the rules within the game. Good players will always recognize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook. Good DMs know not to change or overturn a published rule without a good, logical justification so that the players don't rebel.


If you have to make something up, stick with it for the rest of the campaign. (This is called a house rule.) Consistency keeps players satisfied and gives them the feeling that they adventure in a stable, predictable universe and not in some random, nonsensical place subject only to the DM's whims.


Beyond simply adjudication, sometimes you are going to want to change things. That's okay. However, changing the rules is a challenge for GMs with only a little experience.



Often, players want to help redesign rules. This can be okay, since the game exists for the enjoyment of all its participents,

Now, the way I've always understood Rule 0:

The DM has the final call on the rules of that game. This can include altering a printed rule.

So, say you've designed a world where there's no elves. Therefore, players cannot play an elf. But the PHB says they can play an elf. That's ok, you're allowed to change that. Why? Rule 0.

If you've decided to limit certain spells (*cough*polymorph*cough*), you can do that. Why? Rule 0.

If you make an alteration (or ruling on ambiguous wording) that will remain altered for the campaign? That's a house rule. Why are you allowed to make house rules? Rule 0.

If you make a call that's indended to last just for the session, such as to avoid prolonged rules dispute ("We'll run it this way for this session, we can work out the nitty gritty afterwards"), or to allow a move that's a bit dubious ("I'm not sure a bag of holding and a bag of tricks actually interact that way, but that's just awesome, so let's run with it for this scene."), I wouldn't consider that a house rule per se, as I feel those are more long term, but you know? You're still allowed to do that, because of Rule 0.

Can you decide on a house rule mid session? Yup. If something unexpected comes up, and you decide that's how it'll work for the campaign? You have yourself a new house rule. And you can do that.

The comments about providing a "list" of house rules ahead of time can be stated as "If you know in advance that you will be ruling some or many things differently from how they're printed, let the players know, don't surprise them if you know in advance."

The reason for the negative stigma attacked to the words "Rule 0" is that, while it's actually in effect all the time in many games, it's rarely invoked as such. If you're telling players "no elves in this world," and they say "ok," great! You're still using Rule 0, but it's not specifically mentioned, so there's little association of the Rule 0 behind the scenes of any altering of the races/classes/spells/feats/powers/skills/etc. When it's explicitly invoked is often when there's a rules disagreement in progress. Perhaps the DM wants to settle on something so the game can keep moving (good DMing, can still annoy people when their side is not chosen), perhaps the DM is flexing his authority for kicks (bad DMing, annoys many people), but that's the situation where you get "This is what it is, rule 0, end of discussion."

It also gets invoked on forums as either a shorthand for "you can change things" ("Oh, you can just rule 0 monks to be more effective"), or in anecdotes of the above mentioned disputes.



So yeah, I don't really see Rule 0 as disconnected from house rules. Rule 0 is why the games allow/encourage you to have house rules.


BTW, chess very much does have a variety of house rules, different small groups might have different variations on the game for entertainment (yay bughouse!). Tournament/ranked chess, however, does not (though there may be tournaments for some of the more popular variations). Similarly, something like convention DnD might discourage a lot of the prerogative to alter things, as the idea is to have all the characters on an even playing field.

Edit: Ewww...I was looking up quotes and typing that for an hour and a half or so...meganinja).

[The Rose Dragon]

rule zero is the beauty of D&D it is the power that makes D&D awesome it means that anything can happen at anytime!

This makes me cringe so hard it causes me physical pain.

[grimbold]

Imagine how good it'd be if it wasn't all broken.

My mind is going to a lovely sunny place.

well IMO if you are using rule zero properly and also playing the game for the love of the game and not 'to win' then D&D works out a lot better

and why do i make you cringe Rose Dragon?

[Cerlis]

What? Freeform is not 3.5. Not even close.

I've also seen freeform done without any sort of judge at all.

obviously freeform is an opinion. When i play a video game, i can not choose to walk through a wall, unless the game allows it. there is no freedom. In 3.5 I can kill a dragon with a critical hit with a wet potatoe...if the Dm allows it.

Free form. The guidebooks are...a guide. To give players an idea of how to play the game in a fair way with clear cut rules. but i believe the DMs manual even goes on to say that its just guidelines. that the players Make the rules, and as DM, the DM should usually be judge in final decisions of conflict (As opposed to say, having a player be judge)

The only other alternatives are to have someone sit on the sidelines and judge it, impartial to the DM, or for it to be a democracy of some kind based off everyone at the table. However, pretty much any educated teacher, book, or guide out there will tell you that in the case of overdone conflict, or a tie, or other circumstances, someone needs to make the final say. And that..is the DM.

Heck Rule 0 Exists in pretty much every boardgame in existance, its just that the Judge doesnt have an official title so its often more fluid how decisions go.

[Totally Guy]

well IMO if you are using rule zero properly and also playing the game for the love of the game and not 'to win' then D&D works out a lot better.

That's not a game I love. It's broken. You said so yourself.

Hey, check out this banter (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=191141&page=3) I had with Gaius a few threads back. We concluded that trying to win was pretty important.

[Eldan]

How exactly do you win DnD? It just seems a strange idea for me. I mean, you play for years and months, and it's never really over, so how?

[Pentachoron]

How exactly do you win DnD? It just seems a strange idea for me. I mean, you play for years and months, and it's never really over, so how?

You don't win D&D, that's a system, or a group of systems really. However you can certainly win adventures and campaigns, which I'm fairly certain is what Glug is referring to.

[Eldan]

Hmm. Not sure. I usually include several endings to an adventure. The current one I'm running on Skype has about half a dozen organizations the players could possibly join to "win". But then, it's more an introduction to the world than a campaign end.

[potatocubed]

"It's a strange game. The only way to win is to play."

[grimbold]

some people i know think that 'winning' is beating the campaign and killing all the monsters and ticking off your GM, i find that to be just part of the joy, but i feel that i never 'win'

[The Rose Dragon]

and why do i make you cringe Rose Dragon?

Well, phrases like "the beauty of D&D" and "makes D&D awesome" kind of trigger a lot of alarms in my mind.

[Tyndmyr]

I do not see how that is not Rule Zero. Sure, the players get a choice whether they play or not, even provide input, but in the end, you as the DM are deciding what books are acceptable, what RULES are acceptable.

It's along the lines of "hey guys, feel like playing Catan tonight?" That's not rule zero. People say yea or nay, and based on that, we play Catan. We determine things like basic campaign idea based on a similar informal system. "Hey, I've got a megadungeon idea worked up, wanna try it? No? How bout a political adventure?" Who DMs is not constant.

Rules cover what happen inside the game only. Such is their nature. Therefore, the decision about what to play is obviously outside their purview.


[B]Again, Rule Zero. You are saying, "No, despite what the rules say, this combination does not work."
Sure, it's a mostly theoretical question, but apparently, at least one player has tried to sneak Pun-Pun into a game, so it's not quite as theoretical as it sounds. And there are other, lesser, Theoretical Optimization builds that can break a game just as badly. Heck, some of the standard builds that float around this forum could break a less optimized game.

And again, this has never come up in my games, because the players are sufficiently mature to NOT try to sneak pun-pun into games. This is a superior fix to trying to solve said problem with rules alone. Good players are vastly more important than good rules.

As for lesser TO builds, Wizard/Incantatrix/Iot7v is legit. Early entry MT is legit. Factotum with font of inspiration and heavy int optimization is legit. DMM and persist is legit...and is actually going to be used shortly by another player in a campaign another member is DMing. We probably play at a higher point on the power curve than average, but that's all relative. Your group can set the limitations wherever they find comfortable.


As for magic systems...let me rephrase. I have never seen a published magic system anywhere that took the laws of thermodynamics seriously. I've played a *lot* of magic systems.


obviously freeform is an opinion.

No, Freeform is a type of roleplaying. It is a type with no or minimal rules and a general lack of mechanics. D&D 3.5 is not like this at all.


When i play a video game, i can not choose to walk through a wall, unless the game allows it. there is no freedom. In 3.5 I can kill a dragon with a critical hit with a wet potatoe...if the Dm allows it.

Well, yes. You can technically do anything if the DM allows it and rules are ignored. This is not in any way specific to 3.5, and furthermore, says little about the value of it. Is wet potato combat desirable? The part of me that likes adventures to retain a slight bit of seriousness is screaming no.


Free form. The guidebooks are...a guide. To give players an idea of how to play the game in a fair way with clear cut rules. but i believe the DMs manual even goes on to say that its just guidelines. that the players Make the rules, and as DM, the DM should usually be judge in final decisions of conflict (As opposed to say, having a player be judge)

Ah, but if the DM can and does change rules at will at any time, then, as someone else stated earlier, anything can happen at any time. He seemed to believe this was, for some reason, desirable. I have not the slightest idea why.

The only way a universe can be understood is if things are observable and repeatable. IE, they follow a consistent set of rules. If the universe cannot even be understood due to "anything happening at any time", then the adventure purply radish eating Cthulu F'tahgn splorch.

Translation: Nothing makes any sense.


The only other alternatives are to have someone sit on the sidelines and judge it, impartial to the DM, or for it to be a democracy of some kind based off everyone at the table. However, pretty much any educated teacher, book, or guide out there will tell you that in the case of overdone conflict, or a tie, or other circumstances, someone needs to make the final say. And that..is the DM.

Not at all. Conflict resolution need not be a majority vote. Other systems exist. For instance, my group decides things by mutual consent. We don't bother with formal voting, we just talk about what we think it should be and why. Someone convinces everyone else, and that's that.


Heck Rule 0 Exists in pretty much every boardgame in existance, its just that the Judge doesnt have an official title so its often more fluid how decisions go.

As an actual, explicit rule? No. This is quite rare in boardgames. Having a GM like player at all is rare in board games. Not even all RPGs have it.

[druid91]

It's along the lines of "hey guys, feel like playing Catan tonight?" That's not rule zero. People say yea or nay, and based on that, we play Catan. We determine things like basic campaign idea based on a similar informal system. "Hey, I've got a megadungeon idea worked up, wanna try it? No? How bout a political adventure?" Who DMs is not constant.

Rules cover what happen inside the game only. Such is their nature. Therefore, the decision about what to play is obviously outside their purview.



And again, this has never come up in my games, because the players are sufficiently mature to NOT try to sneak pun-pun into games. This is a superior fix to trying to solve said problem with rules alone. Good players are vastly more important than good rules.

As for lesser TO builds, Wizard/Incantatrix/Iot7v is legit. Early entry MT is legit. Factotum with font of inspiration and heavy int optimization is legit. DMM and persist is legit...and is actually going to be used shortly by another player in a campaign another member is DMing. We probably play at a higher point on the power curve than average, but that's all relative. Your group can set the limitations wherever they find comfortable.


As for magic systems...let me rephrase. I have never seen a published magic system anywhere that took the laws of thermodynamics seriously. I've played a *lot* of magic systems.



No, Freeform is a type of roleplaying. It is a type with no or minimal rules and a general lack of mechanics. D&D 3.5 is not like this at all.



Well, yes. You can technically do anything if the DM allows it and rules are ignored. This is not in any way specific to 3.5, and furthermore, says little about the value of it. Is wet potato combat desirable? The part of me that likes adventures to retain a slight bit of seriousness is screaming no.



Ah, but if the DM can and does change rules at will at any time, then, as someone else stated earlier, anything can happen at any time. He seemed to believe this was, for some reason, desirable. I have not the slightest idea why.

The only way a universe can be understood is if things are observable and repeatable. IE, they follow a consistent set of rules. If the universe cannot even be understood due to "anything happening at any time", then the adventure purply radish eating Cthulu F'tahgn splorch.

Translation: Nothing makes any sense.



Not at all. Conflict resolution need not be a majority vote. Other systems exist. For instance, my group decides things by mutual consent. We don't bother with formal voting, we just talk about what we think it should be and why. Someone convinces everyone else, and that's that.



As an actual, explicit rule? No. This is quite rare in boardgames. Having a GM like player at all is rare in board games. Not even all RPGs have it.

Well I don't know about your players... But I'd try pun-pun and then attempt to figure exactly how much I'd have helped without being a god. And do that + mess with everyone.

[grimbold]

Well, phrases like "the beauty of D&D" and "makes D&D awesome" kind of trigger a lot of alarms in my mind.

fair enough
would replacing all those 'D&D's' with the phrase 'RPG games' make you happier?

[Pentachoron]

Hmm. Not sure. I usually include several endings to an adventure. The current one I'm running on Skype has about half a dozen organizations the players could possibly join to "win". But then, it's more an introduction to the world than a campaign end.

Sure, but just because there's 20 ways to win doesn't mean that you can't "win" the game. Quite the opposite really.

[Tyndmyr]

Well I don't know about your players... But I'd try pun-pun and then attempt to figure exactly how much I'd have helped without being a god. And do that + mess with everyone.

Ignoring the fact that we invariably include the "no infinite loops", and we never select Faerun for the setting, so this is outright impossible...

I suspect that anyone who wants simply to gain as much power as possible and "mess with everyone" would not be popular in our group. This would remain true regardless of if we used rule zero or not.

[druid91]

Ignoring the fact that we invariably include the "no infinite loops", and we never select Faerun for the setting, so this is outright impossible...

I suspect that anyone who wants simply to gain as much power as possible and "mess with everyone" would not be popular in our group. This would remain true regardless of if we used rule zero or not.

Do you ever reach epic levels? Or play planescape?

Your group must be rather serious. In my old table group messing with each other and every NPC around was common. We invented a game called lightning tag.

[Britter]

fair enough
would replacing all those 'D&D's' with the phrase 'RPG games' make you happier?

No, frankly. The scope of RPG games covers so many different underlying mechanics and designs that lumping them all together and assuming they all have, need, require, or specifically provide for a Rule Zero-like option is making too broadly sweeping a statement.

DnD is a subset of RPGs. It is a large, popular subset, but the assumptions and mechanics of DnD are not representative of the entire genre.

[obliged_salmon]

Well I don't know about your players... But I'd try pun-pun and then attempt to figure exactly how much I'd have helped without being a god. And do that + mess with everyone.

Wait...so if Tyndmyr as GM came to you and said "want to play in my DnD game? You get as much a say as me and everyone else as to the kind of game we're playing." You would purposefully bork it up for jollies?

No you wouldn't. Nor would 99/100ths of people over age 14, I should think. The remaining 1/100th will be booted unanimously from the group.

It's fine for children to test the limits of the rules that confine them. Adults should be able to responsibly choose and stick to their own limits.

Anyway, I propose Rule Infinity. Anyone at the table can change the rules of the game or make rulings not covered in the book at any time, provided they can convince everyone else at the table to agree.

[druid91]

Wait...so if Tyndmyr as GM came to you and said "want to play in my DnD game? You get as much a say as me and everyone else as to the kind of game we're playing." You would purposefully bork it up for jollies?

No you wouldn't. Nor would 99/100ths of people over age 14, I should think. The remaining 1/100th will be booted unanimously from the group.

It's fine for children to test the limits of the rules that confine them. Adults should be able to responsibly choose and stick to their own limits.

Anyway, I propose Rule Infinity. Anyone at the table can change the rules of the game or make rulings not covered in the book at any time, provided they can convince everyone else at the table to agree.

Actually your right. I wouldn't normaly. But he just outright said the only reason he hasn't dealt with pun-pun is because his players haven't tried. I would try. Now would I do as I said and use infinite cosmic power to play pranks? probably not. Hell I wouldn't give up such a golden opportunity to prove that with proper thought even the most broken of builds can contribute without dominating. That first post was something of a kneejerk considering I normally play comic relief types.

[Eldan]

Actually, the way I see it...

The d20 system has two rules I see as fundamental:

"You have six attributes"
and
"You roll a d20, then add one attribute modifier and certain other modifiers against a set DC to see if you succeed at a task".

Everything else is just added on to give you an idea on what the DCs should be for certain tasks, and what you can and can not do easily.


Anyway, I propose Rule Infinity. Anyone at the table can change the rules of the game or make rulings not covered in the book at any time, provided they can convince everyone else at the table to agree.


That goes without saying, really. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. Wouldn't it be rule -infinity?


Sure, but just because there's 20 ways to win doesn't mean that you can't "win" the game. Quite the opposite really.


Is it a win? None of the groups in the adventure exactly loses anything. They finish one round of plotting and go to the next. The characters move on to their next adventure, a bit richer in experience and loot, as well as friends and enemies. The game goes on, it is not won.

And now, between this and the Morrowind Lore thread, I'm wondering what a Dragon Break of Desire and the Dead would look like.

[Volthawk]

I like Rule 0, as it gives the DM license to throw in some unusual stuff, stuff that I don't know about, so it makes the game more interesting for me as a player.

[tonberrian]

No, frankly. The scope of RPG games covers so many different underlying mechanics and designs that lumping them all together and assuming they all have, need, require, or specifically provide for a Rule Zero-like option is making too broadly sweeping a statement.

So why is the assumption that they all don't have, don't need, don't require, or don't specifically provide for a Rule Zero-like option not such a broadly sweeping statement?

[jseah]

Wouldn't a magic system that moved existing energy around, instead of creating new energy, not violate it?

I mean, it wreaks havoc on the rest of physics, but does moving Fire Energy (nevermind the silliness of that idea) from one plane to another, with appropriate efficiency and losses, violate the laws?
Not quite. The thing that transfers energy itself has to come from somewhere, and doing so will cost energy.
Some form of barrier must separate the two planes with different energy levels (or the energy will bleed over and everything goes up in flames), and overcoming that requires energy too.
That energy has got to come from somewhere, and it all ends up as heat.

Besides, you need to make sure that you don't generate information out of nowhere, since that's organization. Bye-bye 3/4 of every single divination spell that is not Detect X.

[grimbold]

No, frankly. The scope of RPG games covers so many different underlying mechanics and designs that lumping them all together and assuming they all have, need, require, or specifically provide for a Rule Zero-like option is making too broadly sweeping a statement.

DnD is a subset of RPGs. It is a large, popular subset, but the assumptions and mechanics of DnD are not representative of the entire genre.
yes but the vast majority of rpgs have some sort of GM and in the vast majority of those rpgs the gm is allowed to fudge whatever he feels neccesary
admittedly some rpgs have tighter restrictions on rule zero than others
a lot of it depends on how you read/understand the rules and how you want to play the game

[Britter]

So why is the assumption that they all don't have, don't need, don't require, or don't specifically provide for a Rule Zero-like option not such a broadly sweeping statement?

Because I am not using DnD as a generic term for Roleplaying Games. The poster I quoted was prosping that his statement about how Rule Zero is what makes DnD beautiful be changed to Rule Zero makes Roleplaying Games beautiful.

Having played at least twenty game systems in my life, and read another 30 or so, and being familiar, if only in passing, with maybe another dozen, I feel that it is reasonable to state that they operate on a variety of different principles.

In essence, my "broadly sweeping statement" is saying that equating all RPGs to DnD is a flawed line of thought. I am making a broad statement that DnD does NOT have the market cornered on how to build a game mechanic.

[Britter]

yes but the vast majority of rpgs have some sort of GM and in the vast majority of those rpgs the gm is allowed to fudge whatever he feels neccesary
admittedly some rpgs have tighter restrictions on rule zero than others
a lot of it depends on how you read/understand the rules and how you want to play the game

Apologies for doubleposting.

I am disagreeing with your specific intention to equate DnD to a universal concept of RPG. Many RPGs do have much in common with DnD, including a Rule Zero analouge. Many RPGs have very little in commomn with DnD. Assuming that all RPGs are similar enough to DnD to merit a sweeping statement is, frankly, not an accurate assumption.

[tonberrian]

True.

However, you are in support of the opinion that Rule Zero is not necessary. Do believe that it isn't necessary for a certain set of systems, or do you believe that no system needs any Rule Zero analogue?

[Tyndmyr]

Do you ever reach epic levels? Or play planescape?

Your group must be rather serious. In my old table group messing with each other and every NPC around was common. We invented a game called lightning tag.

Epic level games are exceedingly rare. They tend to result in running out of things to accomplish after a coupla levels because, well, it's epic. Planescape is not common, though it's come up. Campaigns almost invariably start at level 1 anyway, though, so such high level craziness doesn't come up for a bit.

All Pun-Puns depend on access to a Sarrukk, though, and using an infinite combo to gain an arbitrarily large amount of power. Therefore, the "no infinite combos" rule handles that. It also neatly handles wish loops, chain gating, etc.

Well, as mentioned earlier, there was the decanter of endless butter. There's a great deal of joking and what not, but the actual plot/world tends to be fairly serious.

[Pentachoron]

Is it a win? None of the groups in the adventure exactly loses anything. They finish one round of plotting and go to the next. The characters move on to their next adventure, a bit richer in experience and loot, as well as friends and enemies. The game goes on, it is not won.

And now, between this and the Morrowind Lore thread, I'm wondering what a Dragon Break of Desire and the Dead would look like.

It depends on what you're defining as a win. I mean if, for example, the goal of an adventure was to get the MacGuffin and you ended the adventure with the MacGuffin, I'd call it a win.

[Eldan]

It depends on what you're defining as a win. I mean if, for example, the goal of an adventure was to get the MacGuffin and you ended the adventure with the MacGuffin, I'd call it a win.

Didn't really give them a goal, though. I gave them various groups offering them various jobs. Money in exchange for services. True, some of those could count as goals, but really, the adventure doesn't even really have an end in the classical sense.

[obliged_salmon]

True.

However, you are in support of the opinion that Rule Zero is not necessary. Do believe that it isn't necessary for a certain set of systems, or do you believe that no system needs any Rule Zero analogue?

I'll jump in here if that's all right.

My opinion is that no system needs rule 0, but all systems need rule infinity.

Yes, I'm going to keep using the term "rule infinity" in the hopes it'll stick.

Caveat: some playstyles require rule 0 to some degree or another. My preferred playstyle does not.

[Eldan]

So, in the end, every RPG becomes a game of Democracy Nomic, starting at different initial conditions and expectations. Works with me.

[Britter]

True.

However, you are in support of the opinion that Rule Zero is not necessary. Do believe that it isn't necessary for a certain set of systems, or do you believe that no system needs any Rule Zero analogue?

That is a fair question.

When I ran DnD and Shadowrun, I used a lot of Rule Zero-style rulings. I believe that for those systems, and similar systems, such rulings may in fact have a place. The reason they are needed is that systems like that tend to have vast, sprawling, unconnected rulesets that no single human being can possibly memorize or have a complete grasp upon (I am sure that there is someone who can quote me chapter and verse on Shadowrun/3.5/whatever. If so, you are a better person than I). In order to deal with the places where those divergent mechanics intersect, the GM does need an override mechanism.

HOWEVER.

Putting that override into the hands of a single player at the table can, and often does, lead to a sort of tryanny. I know that, despite being a good DM by all accounts and playing with people I like and consider friends, I would use Rule Zero to get my way whenever I wanted to. Every GM I have played under in a traditional game, no matter how much I liked them as a person, every one of them used a Rule Zero style Ruling to screw a player at some point. I did it. My friends did it. It happens everywhere.

I think that the issue with Rule Zero is that it is neccessary in a poorly designed system, but only to deal with the intersection of unrelated or confusing rules. I think that DnD is a poorly designed system, no matter what edition (and I have played them all). Please don't take that as implying it can't be fun and enjoyable - it certainly can be! But there are so many different mechanics and subsystems with very little commonality and a high degree of precision that to run the game requires you to fudge. Because you really don't know the rules. (and again, I know there are people who do know them, front and back. It is my experience that none of my DnD DMs have ever actually known the rules in any detail. I include myself in that statement).

There is no need to learn the rules of DnD is you are a casual DM. You just sort of know the major stuff (roll a d20, add some modifiers, roll some damage. Fake the rest). You then Rule Zero your way through confusing, challenging, or disliked mechanics.

In a more tightly designed system, with more consistent rules, clearly defined guidelines, and proper mechanical structure (informed by Game Theory usually...and I don't mean GNS, I mean the actual math of Game Theory) the need to make up what happens at the fringes of system interaction is greatly lessened. Rule Zero stops being neccessary. If it remains in those systems, the only purpose it serves in my opinion is to be tryanical towards players and get your way as GM. In systems like that, it can be, should be, and often is discarded.

There are a number of other issues about what sort of play a game supports, who has authority in world building and setting control, who has narrative power, etc that can affect the appropriate or inappropriate nature of Rule Zero in a game.

I don't think that Rule Zero is being invoked when a GM improvises events or characters into the game, or when the GM builds the world, or when house rules are esthablished, or when ban lists are put in place. That is a GMs job, to facilitate the game and create an environment that achieves the games ends. Some folks think that those items are Rule Zero. Obviously, if you think that you need rule Zero. I disagree with that interpretation.

I also feel that if you fully understand the rules of a game, and their interaction, you will need Rule Zero less and less.

Finally, I believe that a games rules create behavior in play. Games are designed to get you to do things, in the game, that you might not do in real life. If you have a rule that says "You can ignore all the rules whenever you want to have things go your way" then, guess what? People will ignore the rules whenever they want to get their way. That is bad behavior to instill in the guy who is supposed to be an impartial moderator of the events in game, neh?

I think all games would be better of with either no Rule Zero, or a better understanding of it's actual role in their game of choice and a strong set of restrictions on it's use.

Hopefully that helps illustrate my points. Thanks for the question.

[Pentachoron]

Didn't really give them a goal, though. I gave them various groups offering them various jobs. Money in exchange for services. True, some of those could count as goals, but really, the adventure doesn't even really have an end in the classical sense.

Right, I understand that. There can be instances where there isn't necessarily a "win condition" for individual games in the system. I'm just saying that typically a game is winnable as a general rule, or at the very least people that scoff at the idea of "winning the game" aren't looking at it the same way people who desire to are.

[Eldan]

I see how an adventure can be considered won, really. But "The Game"? The goal of the game, for me, is not to win it, not even when I'm a player instead of a DM. It's to get together and have a good time. If the dragon eats you at the end, but it was dramatic, and interesting, and made sense, so be it.

[grimbold]

I see how an adventure can be considered won, really. But "The Game"? The goal of the game, for me, is not to win it, not even when I'm a player instead of a DM. It's to get together and have a good time. If the dragon eats you at the end, but it was dramatic, and interesting, and made sense, so be it.
exactly
as someone said earlier on
'tis a strange game you win by playing'
i think this is exactly the spirit of RPGs you dont need to worry so much about killing the dragon as much as having fun
rule zero can facilitate fun as it can help fight off railroading

[Britter]

rule zero can facilitate fun as it can help fight off railroading

In my experience, the most common use of Rule Zero is to railroad. How do you think it facilitates fun? Can you provide some examples from play where that happened? Thanks.

[Pentachoron]

I see how an adventure can be considered won, really. But "The Game"? The goal of the game, for me, is not to win it, not even when I'm a player instead of a DM. It's to get together and have a good time. If the dragon eats you at the end, but it was dramatic, and interesting, and made sense, so be it.

I tend to view it differently. I see D&D as a system in which to make individual games, much like the old RPG Maker on the PSX.

As far as the getting together and having a good time, that's pretty well the goal of any game. The latter most certainly is. It's more of a meta-goal I think, though, since you can certainly win a game that you've had no fun at and the two are fairly disconnected.

[Tyndmyr]

rule zero can facilitate fun as it can help fight off railroading

How does this work?

Seriously, railroading is a GM error. Players can't use rule zero. I don't see your logic.

[grimbold]

In my experience, the most common use of Rule Zero is to railroad. How do you think it facilitates fun? Can you provide some examples from play where that happened? Thanks.
rule zero can be used against railroading in cases when the players essentially break the campaign, at this point the DM needs to figure something out yes he can use rule zero to railroad in one of two ways. Sometimes railroading is a good thing if the campaign is destroyed. A bad Dm will just say 'rocks fall' however if he is a good DM he can use rule zero to allow what the players did to pass and then find the good in the situation and use rule zero to gently guide the players towards the campaign that rose from the ashes of the failed one

[Tyndmyr]

rule zero can be used against railroading in cases when the players essentially break the campaign, at this point the DM needs to figure something out yes he can use rule zero to railroad in one of two ways. Sometimes railroading is a good thing if the campaign is destroyed. A bad Dm will just say 'rocks fall' however if he is a good DM he can use rule zero to allow what the players did to pass and then find the good in the situation and use rule zero to gently guide the players towards the campaign that rose from the ashes of the failed one

Er, players breaking the game is not at all railroading. It's bad, yes...but it's an entirely different kind of bad.

[Britter]

rule zero can be used against railroading in cases when the players essentially break the campaign, at this point the DM needs to figure something out yes he can use rule zero to railroad in one of two ways. Sometimes railroading is a good thing if the campaign is destroyed. A bad Dm will just say 'rocks fall' however if he is a good DM he can use rule zero to allow what the players did to pass and then find the good in the situation and use rule zero to gently guide the players towards the campaign that rose from the ashes of the failed one

Respectfully, you just said the DM can use rule zero to railroad people back onto his plot once they have gone off the rails.

While that may be fun (I have played in games on rails and enjoyed them) I don't see how it is combatting railroading.

Also, who is to say the campaign has been "destroyed"? Are the players still having fun?

This is my most disliked version of Rule Zero. If the players went off your rails, improvise away, bring the events back to the fore if you can, but don't force the players back on your rails and invalidate all of their play. Let them go where they are going, and work to make that interesting for them.

[grimbold]

ack!
what i was trying to say was that there are two types of railroading
good railroading in which you dont realize you're being dragged along and bad railroading where it is all too clear Rule zero can be used for either of these, so yes i suppose you were correct and i was wrong rule zero is often a railroading tool
however if there was absolutely no railroading then you would have a sandbox campaign, admittedly those are good but usually if you want an epic story then you have to do a bit of railroading

[Tyndmyr]

Having a plot is not the same as railroading.

[grimbold]

too some degree it is because the characters need to follow the series of plot hooks, however we only call it railroading when you are blatantly forced to do something and are given no other options

[Tyndmyr]

It's only railroading when you are forcing your PCs to stay on the rails. In short, depriving them of choice.

If they have choices, and they choose to follow epic plotline x, then no, you're not railroading them at all. So, yes, you can have plot and not railroad at all.

[grimbold]

you can have a plot and not railroad at all, that statement is true depending on how you look at the definition of railroading
for me railroading is technically whenever you are required to follow a plot to get a story, in short for me all story based campaigns have railroading but i dont care because they are reasonably flexible rails. Still i am forced to get there in the end. We only complain about railroading when we are forced to continue on a path and we do not want to take the path

[Tyndmyr]

No...just because I have a plot does not mean the characters must be forced down it in the end. That is not a given at all.

Often, I include multiple plots, and the players may or may not explore them all. There is no need for me to force them to do anything.

[tonberrian]

I think all games would be better of with either no Rule Zero, or a better understanding of it's actual role in their game of choice and a strong set of restrictions on it's use.

Hopefully that helps illustrate my points. Thanks for the question.

Okay, can you give an example of game systems you think that, run as written, comes closest to your ideal use of Rule 0? I'm only particularly familiar with Exalted and D&D 3.5, and you've obviously had more experience with various systems than I.

[The Big Dice]

No...just because I have a plot does not mean the characters must be forced down it in the end. That is not a given at all.

Often, I include multiple plots, and the players may or may not explore them all. There is no need for me to force them to do anything.

From a player perspective, you just said you don't bother with plots.

Think about it. Characters are made, then players do stuff more or less as they choose. They roam around, get into trouble, lurch from one disaster to another and generally do like an adventuring party. But there's no connections between anything and the GM doesn't encourage people in any direction at all. Instead, he plays a completely reactive game, responding but not guiding.

I'd say there's no plot there.

But then, I'd say that even thal level of player control (which I really don't think is as good a thing as some people make out) has inevitable railroading involved. Because the moment that you as a GM say "This will happen" you've put rails on things.

Just as by creating a ban list before play starts, you're exercising Rule 0.

[Tyndmyr]

Negative. Players will jump at things that interest them. Once you find out what motivates them, you can lure them to one plot or another fairly easily.

And giving a choice of plots is not the same as no plot. Not at all. It's merely a way of offering choice and teasing out player preferences.

"this will happen"? How so...I don't set future actions in stone...player actions can change them. Consider, boiled down to a very simple level, many plots are "foil the BBEGs evil plan". Precisely how this is done, and if it's done at all depends on the players. Offering a choice of adversaries, plans and plots is not the same as offering none.

A ban list before play is not rule zero. Look at the words "before play". Do the rules govern what happen outside of the game itself? No, of course not. D&D does not dictate your life. They govern what happens when you sit down to play.

[The Big Dice]

Negative. Players will jump at things that interest them. Once you find out what motivates them, you can lure them to one plot or another fairly easily.

And giving a choice of plots is not the same as no plot. Not at all. It's merely a way of offering choice and teasing out player preferences.
Look at it from the player perspective, as I said. A Gm who isn't actively encouraging people to pick up on plot hooks may as well go and write a book. An ignored plot is a waste of your time creating. And time is a valuable resource without coming up with ideas that are never going to get used because some players aren't interested.


"this will happen"? How so...I don't set future actions in stone...player actions can change them. Consider, boiled down to a very simple level, many plots are "foil the BBEGs evil plan". Precisely how this is done, and if it's done at all depends on the players. Offering a choice of adversaries, plans and plots is not the same as offering none.
So you never plan anything in advance? No encounter design, no NPC schemes, no NPC antagonising PCs? Nothing at all prepared, you just go on a wing and a prayer?

Because any prep, and by that I mean any, is limiting player freedom and narrowing options down. In other words, it's the very definition of railroading. And arguing that it isn't is nothing more than semantics. If you have a plan, you have a railroad. It might be a ricketty and dangerous railroad, it might be more rigid and substantial. It may or may not have stops along the way or it might have an emergency break.

But it has rails and it has wheels. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck...

A ban list before play is not rule zero. Look at the words "before play". Do the rules govern what happen outside of the game itself? No, of course not. D&D does not dictate your life. They govern what happens when you sit down to play.
How is it not Rule 0? As someone mentioned earlier, you say there are no Elves in this world. I say I want to play an Elf. The book says I can play an Elf. It's right there on page 15 of the 3.5 PHB, complete with all the rules I need.

But you as GM exercise your right to change the rules of the game, removing those specific to playing an Elf. And again, we have a situation where saying this isn't a use of Rule 0 is nothing more than semantics. Because the game starts at the moment character creation starts. If it doesn't, then character creation isn't part of the process of playing a roleplaying game. Which is indisputably not the case.

[Tyndmyr]

Look at it from the player perspective, as I said. A Gm who isn't actively encouraging people to pick up on plot hooks may as well go and write a book. An ignored plot is a waste of your time creating. And time is a valuable resource without coming up with ideas that are never going to get used because some players aren't interested.

I encourage them to pick up a hook. Not any particular hook. Encouragement is fairly minor, as they are there to adventure, and thus, leap for things they find interesting.

An ignored plot is not a waste of my time. It's simply a plot I don't use that game. It's not like I can never, ever use it in a different game.


So you never plan anything in advance? No encounter design, no NPC schemes, no NPC antagonising PCs? Nothing at all prepared, you just go on a wing and a prayer?

What? How do you get that from "choice of plots"? Yes. Each plot has a certain level of preparation. It may not *all* be prepared in advance, but I'm certainly prepared enough for players to take any path.


Because any prep, and by that I mean any, is limiting player freedom and narrowing options down. In other words, it's the very definition of railroading. And arguing that it isn't is nothing more than semantics. If you have a plan, you have a railroad. It might be a ricketty and dangerous railroad, it might be more rigid and substantial. It may or may not have stops along the way or it might have an emergency break.

No. Preparation is not railroading. That's ludicrous.


But it has rails and it has wheels. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck...

What? This makes no sense.


How is it not Rule 0? As someone mentioned earlier, you say there are no Elves in this world. I say I want to play an Elf. The book says I can play an Elf. It's right there on page 15 of the 3.5 PHB, complete with all the rules I need.

If a guy says "hey, I wanna play D&D, but not Eberron(one of my players hates it)", that's cool. I have no banned races, so that's never come up, but it's not intrinsically different from choice of setting. Or choice of location. "I'm not gonna play if it's at X's house, cause it's too far a drive" is legit. You hash out what you wanna do before the game even starts. The rules do not govern this.

Furthermore, rule zero is exclusively a GM tool. I don't think you've really understood the concept of players giving input on rules. Regardless, you cannot plausibly call a restriction invented by a player "rule zero".


But you as GM exercise your right to change the rules of the game, removing those specific to playing an Elf. And again, we have a situation where saying this isn't a use of Rule 0 is nothing more than semantics. Because the game starts at the moment character creation starts. If it doesn't, then character creation isn't part of the process of playing a roleplaying game. Which is indisputably not the case.

I don't do that. No, the ban list is very small. There are no races on the ban list at all. The list consists solely of things the group in general dislikes and agreed to ban.

That is not rule zero. I have not forced a single change on them.

[The Big Dice]

No. Preparation is not railroading. That's ludicrous.
How is planning specific things that will happen in-game, something you said you don't do just a few posts back, not restricting freedom of choice?


What? This makes no sense.
It makes perfect sense. If something meets all the criteria to be something, even if it is not recognised, it is still that something that it meets all the criteria for.


If a guy says "hey, I wanna play D&D, but not Eberron(one of my players hates it)", that's cool. I have no banned races, so that's never come up, but it's not intrinsically different from choice of setting. Or choice of location. "I'm not gonna play if it's at X's house, cause it's too far a drive" is legit. You hash out what you wanna do before the game even starts. The rules do not govern this.
Irrelevant.

Furthermore, rule zero is exclusively a GM tool. I don't think you've really understood the concept of players giving input on rules. Regardless, you cannot plausibly call a restriction invented by a player "rule zero".
A restriction chosen by a player and self enforced isn't a restriction by the rules. It's a choice made by a player that nobody else has to abide by. If the GM backs that choice and makes it into something more substantial, it becomes a rule. Rule 0 is by definition ivoked, as the GM is changing the rules of the game.


I don't do that. No, the ban list is very small. There are no races on the ban list at all. The list consists solely of things the group in general dislikes and agreed to ban.

That is not rule zero. I have not forced a single change on them.
Race, feat, class, skill, any aspect of the printed game that you alter or restrict is a use of Rule 0. Again, you're arguing semantics, Because I used a race as an example, but you don't ban races, doesn't mean that by banning other things you are not using your right as a GM to change the game as you see fit.

In other words, you use Rule 0. The degree the concept is invoked by makes no difference, You either use it, making changes to the rules, structure or other aspects of the game world and/or system. Or you don't. In which case you play according to strict RAW, only going by what is in print.

And even then there are times that as a GM you will have to make a ruling. Which means that Rule 0 is an unavoidable fact of life in an RPG.

[Yukitsu]

Someone do the math, I got a bounty on Cat Girls.:smallamused:

Unecessary. Newton's third law of equal force, and the rules for a medium creature getting hit mean you simply move d6x5 feet per round.

The problem comes when you're in a body tight wind tunnel, and 1 medium creature moves 30 feet, as do the guys in the other body tight wind tunnel 12 deep. But again, don't worry about physics when dealing with magic.

[Totally Guy]

Okay, can you give an example of game systems you think that, run as written, comes closest to your ideal use of Rule 0? I'm only particularly familiar with Exalted and D&D 3.5, and you've obviously had more experience with various systems than I.

I've got one! One I've never played but it's on my shelf... Burning Empires! Burning Empires is a game where the GM and the players battle for the survival of a planet against the Vaylen threat. Vaylen are a race of worms that enter the brain to possess the population. It's unique. :smallsmile:


All of the GM’s points, pools, figures of note and characters serve one purpose: to provide opposition, create adversity and foment conflict for the players. The GM, whether playing human or Vaylen, is the foil to the other side. His role is to get in their way and challenge them.

The GM is not the sole arbiter of the rules. He may not disregard rules as he sees fit and may not add others as he chooses. The rules are meant to stand on their own. Both player and GM abide by them—and call each other on breaking or bending them. Nor is the GM’s role to “create the story.” The story will emerge on its own as the GM challenges the players and as both sides push toward their respective objectives.

The GM’s role in this game is quite fun. Since he doesn’t have to worry about playing God, he’s freed up to play the game. He gets to make a few characters, strategize his long-term plan and play the game to win.

That’s right, win. If the GM doesn’t play to win in this game, he’s doing the players a disservice. Quite possibly, he’s killing their fun. Does it mean he can just drop space rocks on the player characters, kill them and win by fiat? No. Are there any rules for winning by fiat in this game? No. The GM’s got to see his plans made fruitful via the conflicts and the Infection. If he wants to bombard the planet with space rocks, that’s a Gambit, Inundate or Take Action maneuver. The bombardment’s effect is determined by the resolution of the action. But even being successful isn’t enough. If he wants to win, he must reduce the players’ disposition to zero. Then and only then does he win.

[Tyndmyr]

How is planning specific things that will happen in-game, something you said you don't do just a few posts back, not restricting freedom of choice?

You've misread me. I do not plan things that WILL happen. I plan things that may happen. Depending on how things go, they may not ever impact the PCs.

This does not deprive them of freedom of choice at all. They have the choice to do anything legal in the rules.


It makes perfect sense. If something meets all the criteria to be something, even if it is not recognised, it is still that something that it meets all the criteria for.

It doesn't meet the critera. DM planning does not have to remove player choice.


A restriction chosen by a player and self enforced isn't a restriction by the rules. It's a choice made by a player that nobody else has to abide by. If the GM backs that choice and makes it into something more substantial, it becomes a rule. Rule 0 is by definition ivoked, as the GM is changing the rules of the game.

You are stuck on a GM-centric worldview. Not all games run that way. It is not made into something substantial because the GM backs it. It's made into something substantial because we generally agreed we liked or did not like x.


Race, feat, class, skill, any aspect of the printed game that you alter or restrict is a use of Rule 0. Again, you're arguing semantics, Because I used a race as an example, but you don't ban races, doesn't mean that by banning other things you are not using your right as a GM to change the game as you see fit.

There is nothing that I, as a GM, have personally have banned. There are a number of things that nobody wants to see. There is one specific thing on the list that only one player wanted. General agreement determines what gets banned.


In other words, you use Rule 0. The degree the concept is invoked by makes no difference, You either use it, making changes to the rules, structure or other aspects of the game world and/or system. Or you don't. In which case you play according to strict RAW, only going by what is in print.

And even then there are times that as a GM you will have to make a ruling. Which means that Rule 0 is an unavoidable fact of life in an RPG.

Negative. We play almost straight RAW...but occasionally someone will come up with something. Two weeks ago, a noob player brought in a homebrewed class. The GM passed around the class and asked us what we thought of it. We gave our opinions, and generally agreed we were ok with it. We allowed it, with slight modifications(additional DR). I suggested the fix, and other people agreed with it.

The GM did not have to make the ruling. SOMEONE had to make the ruling. We did so by general agreement.

[obliged_salmon]

A restriction chosen by a player and self enforced isn't a restriction by the rules. It's a choice made by a player that nobody else has to abide by. If the GM backs that choice and makes it into something more substantial, it becomes a rule. Rule 0 is by definition ivoked, as the GM is changing the rules of the game.

What if any given player at the table has veto power? Is it still rule 0? Player 1 suggests the idea, GM agrees, but player 2 thinks it's dumb so it doesn't go through. In this case, I wouldn't call rule changes rule 0, because GM doesn't have final say.

Edit: In response to Glug's post.
Luke Crane ftw.

[Tyndmyr]

Oh yeah, for this campaign, the GM did say something about all human, IIRC. That got shut down pretty quick. One player wanted an elf, one wanted a gnome. They are now playing those characters.

Had the GM attempted to say "No, you have to be human", and gotten it to stick, it WOULD have been rule zero. But that's not how it works. We're flexible, though. We let him rule out half-orcs for this adventure. Because nobody wanted to play half-orcs. *shrug*

[The Big Dice]

Negative. We play almost straight RAW...but occasionally someone will come up with something. Two weeks ago, a noob player brought in a homebrewed class. The GM passed around the class and asked us what we thought of it. We gave our opinions, and generally agreed we were ok with it. We allowed it, with slight modifications(additional DR). I suggested the fix, and other people agreed with it.

The GM did not have to make the ruling. SOMEONE had to make the ruling. We did so by general agreement.
Bolded for emphasis.

Almost means that the Gm had to be the final arbiter of whether or not a things was to be altered or excluded. That or the GM in question is in fact nothing more than a slave to the desires of his players. And quite frankly, a GM who isn't in charge of his game isn't a GM at all. There's no mastery involved, be it by force, skill, respect or whatever.

There is simply pandering.

What if any given player at the table has veto power? Is it still rule 0? Player 1 suggests the idea, GM agrees, but player 2 thinks it's dumb so it doesn't go through. In this case, I wouldn't call rule changes rule 0, because GM doesn't have final say.
Again, is the GM the master of the game, or is he there simply to pander to the players?

Because every argument I've seen against Rule 0 is either abdicating responsibility, refusing to accept where the buck actually stops or semantics. Often all three. Especially as house rules, alterations to the rules or choices on what material will or will not be allowed, are by definition uses of Rule 0.

[Hecuba]

True.

However, you are in support of the opinion that Rule Zero is not necessary. Do believe that it isn't necessary for a certain set of systems, or do you believe that no system needs any Rule Zero analogue?

Any rule system that is not fully self-consistent and self-complete will have the potential for arbitration to become necessary. If you would prefer that that arbitration be handled by someone other than the GM, it's still arbitration and it's still serving the same basic function.

Personally, I would prefer it sit with the GM: by the nature of the GM's position, we already invest a great deal of trust in their judgment (encounter design, world design, setting DCs/dice pool modifiers, etc.). With or without the GM being the rules arbiter, I would be unwilling to play with a GM whose judgment I didn't trust. In contrast, there are several situations in which I might play a game or 10 with a fellow player whose judgment I felt was lacking.

[Tyndmyr]

Bolded for emphasis.

Almost means that the Gm had to be the final arbiter of whether or not a things was to be altered or excluded. That or the GM in question is in fact nothing more than a slave to the desires of his players. And quite frankly, a GM who isn't in charge of his game isn't a GM at all. There's no mastery involved, be it by force, skill, respect or whatever.

No. It means you need a method of arbitration. It does not mean the GM has to be that method.


There is simply pandering.

Again, is the GM the master of the game, or is he there simply to pander to the players?

No to both. He is a player of the game, with a different role.


Because every argument I've seen against Rule 0 is either abdicating responsibility, refusing to accept where the buck actually stops or semantics. Often all three. Especially as house rules, alterations to the rules or choices on what material will or will not be allowed, are by definition uses of Rule 0.

Can rule 0 be used by players? Can you find any justification for this idea in 3.5?

If not, then you have utterly failed to address the issue, and are simply calling everything rule zero.

[Axolotl]

I've got one! One I've never played but it's on my shelf... Burning Empires! Burning Empires is a game where the GM and the players battle for the survival of a planet against the Vaylen threat. Vaylen are a race of worms that enter the brain to possess the population. It's unique. :smallsmile:After reading that description I have to ask. What makes that an RPG?

It just sounds like a strategy board game (albeit one without a board) wrapped up in RPG nomenclature.

[Tyndmyr]

After reading that description I have to ask. What makes that an RPG?

It just sounds like a strategy board game (albeit one without a board) wrapped up in RPG nomenclature.

It's not that unusual. 7th Sea cautions heavily against the use of fiat. Granted, they include the usual disclaimer that if the rules prevent fun, the rules are wrong...but it's clear that they do not intend the ST to rampantly change the rules while in play.

In fact, rule zero is hardly a constant between all systems. Even among those who have such a rule, the way it is phrased is frequently very different. Consider the infamous page 42 in D&D 4e. Is this not fairly different than other uses of rule zero?

Trying to draw an equivalence between every single situation in which something other than the rule as written in every RPG ever is...fairly broad. I'd say almost uselessly so.

[Britter]

Okay, can you give an example of game systems you think that, run as written, comes closest to your ideal use of Rule 0? I'm only particularly familiar with Exalted and D&D 3.5, and you've obviously had more experience with various systems than I.

Based on my play experience, reading the rules, and discussions with the designer, I think my ideal is best achieved by the Burning Wheel, at least at the moment.

[Yukitsu]

Hang on. Can you quote the rule that actually says that, please? 'Cause that's a HUGE assumption. There's two totally different ways that rulesets are designed, inclusive and exclusive:

(short version)
Inclusive: "If it doesn't say I can't, then I can."
Exclusive: "If it doesn't say I can, then I can't."

BOTH are legitimate, but simply assuming that D&D is a particular one because you prefer it that way is not. Please support your assumption, keeping in mind that the game is, and I quote, "limited only by your imagination"...which fairly strongly implies an Inclusive Rules Set in terms of designer's intent.

While you're at it, keep in mind that the designers tend to use colloquial terms, rather than technical ones. Just like 99% of the population knows what the designers meant by "the laws of physics", even if, technically, the statement doesn't really mean much of anything to an actual scientist (which the designers are not).

For one, you can never make the statement, "I don't understand what the term means, so they obviously meant what I do" when getting into the technicals. Sure, maybe they wanted to extend "the laws of physics" into supersymmatry, but that seems neither necessary nor likely. And as was stated, imagination is to be confined by the rules, otherwise you may as well be free-forming.

For the remainder, inclusive rules sets, in my recollection, have never made quality games. Rules are designed by their nature to set boundaries and limitations. If the rules don't actually impose any limits, then they don't function, and unless a rule set is incredibly, unecessarily wordy, it won't provide any limitations while being inclusive.

I would love to see an example of a game designer who states they create written rule sets to be inclusive. They would have to have a 20 page booklet just to describe how pawns move.


Reading through his rules, yes, you'd need some interpretation to define exactly what constitutes an "illegal move," "displacement," etc; however, this doesn't answer how people learn to play chess when taught by others: whether they be parents, chess club, or friends. When the rules are commonly taught this way there is no interpretation of what is an illegal move, it is always mentioned.

That's only generally because the player will ask if he can do X and the teacher will say no, it's illegal. The teacher who is saying this isn't actually doing the player any favours, it's much faster, more efficient and usually more correct to say "you can only do what the rules state you can."

[tonberrian]

For the remainder, inclusive rules sets, in my recollection, have never made quality games. Rules are designed by their nature to set boundaries and limitations. If the rules don't actually impose any limits, then they don't function, and unless a rule set is incredibly, unecessarily wordy, it won't provide any limitations while being inclusive.

The rules of D&D 3.5 explicitly state that a character can try to do anything the player can imagine, so long as it fits within the scene the DM has described. The only mention of rules in that section is that they serve to facilitate a character's actions by providing guidelines on how to determine success or failure.


I would love to see an example of a game designer who states they create written rule sets to be inclusive. They would have to have a 20 page booklet just to describe how pawns move.

You're missing the point. Chess has already been designed, and it has been designed through the exclusive approach - the only moves that a piece have been already been determined. You cannot use an inclusive approach to design "chess" because you would end up with an entirely different game. This isn't an approach as to how the system is described.

[Totally Guy]

After reading that description I have to ask. What makes that an RPG?

It just sounds like a strategy board game (albeit one without a board) wrapped up in RPG nomenclature.

That's a really good question.

Burning Empires is a role playing game in my opinion. You take the roll of a character and you play it. The GM challenges your character concept by opposing ideals you hold dear. The world is there, everything that happens in the game is true to that world, actions have consequences. It could be considered a dice game that gets fluff mapped onto it, I can totally conceive of that interpretation. But the character motivations are all considered and matter.

D&D could be played as a board game. You make characters and see if they can beat the dungeon that the GM has prepared. It could considered to be a dice game with fluff mapped onto it.

It's a question with a lot of mileage to it. Good on you for raising it.

[Tyndmyr]

The rules of D&D 3.5 explicitly state that a character can try to do anything the player can imagine, so long as it fits within the scene the DM has described. The only mention of rules in that section is that they serve to facilitate a character's actions by providing guidelines on how to determine success or failure.

In fairness to the designers, D&D 3.5 really was designed with the idea of having rules covering essentially everything. There's a reason I have three entire shelves devoted to 3.x books.

So, the statement that you can do anything you imagine is not inconsistent with exclusive design. Sure, it might be overstatement, and it's certainly quite broad...but that's the nature of the early statements in the rulebook, and 3.5 really does try to do the "specific rule for everything" rather hard.

[druid91]

Oh yeah, for this campaign, the GM did say something about all human, IIRC. That got shut down pretty quick. One player wanted an elf, one wanted a gnome. They are now playing those characters.

Had the GM attempted to say "No, you have to be human", and gotten it to stick, it WOULD have been rule zero. But that's not how it works. We're flexible, though. We let him rule out half-orcs for this adventure. Because nobody wanted to play half-orcs. *shrug*

To me that just sounds like a DM not doing his job.

He is the Dungeon Master. He is master of the dungeon. he is the rules. That is clear in the rules.

[Tyndmyr]

To me that just sounds like a DM not doing his job.

He is the Dungeon Master. He is master of the dungeon. he is the rules. That is clear in the rules.

We don't use those rules. Why are those rules more sacred than any others? DM is just a title. You don't NEED to take it literally, any more than you need to use the title of Storyteller to have all your players put down their dice and listen while you spin them a tale.

[druid91]

We don't use those rules. Why are those rules more sacred than any others? DM is just a title. You don't NEED to take it literally, any more than you need to use the title of Storyteller to have all your players put down their dice and listen while you spin them a tale.

Because that is the cornerstone. That rule is the basis for all the others. every other rule could go and it would still be recognizabe as D&D.

But without a master... It isn't D&D any more than english is latin.

[Pentachoron]

Because that is the cornerstone. That rule is the basis for all the others. every other rule could go and it would still be recognizabe as D&D.

But without a master... It isn't D&D any more than english is latin.

I severely disagree, there is really no need for the DM to have every last ounce of the power in a game.

I'm currently DMing for a campaign in which the players are designing the setting and the overarching plotline, I'm responsible for side quests and designing all the enemies. I don't have final say in areas I didn't design. It's still D&D.

[The Glyphstone]

Creation rights and power aren't necessarily the same thing, as others have pointed out. If, when you all start playing in this grand communal world, and some situation comes up that the rules don't cover and for which a compromise cannot be found (whatever that might be), then if you're the DM, you'll be the one forced to make the final decision. DMing is a responsibility as much as a right.

[dsmiles]

DMing is a responsibility as much as a right.DMing is punishment for those who don't know when to quit. :smalltongue:

[Yukitsu]

Because that is the cornerstone. That rule is the basis for all the others. every other rule could go and it would still be recognizabe as D&D.

But without a master... It isn't D&D any more than english is latin.

Sure it is. A smart enough group of individuals who are completely devoid of pride can create a complete set of randomly generated encounters to move through an ever growing dungeon, where they find some tropeable end piece, where the entire thing is governed by the players. If it's using D&D rules, classes, archetypes and setting, it'll be pretty readily recognized as say, not FATAL (since I did say "smart"). DMs are only necessary because generally someone has to generate the plot, NPCs, setting and play the encounters, but random analogues can handle that job as well.

Rules disputes don't have to be arbitrated by the DM in this case, and frankly giving all of the rules decisioning to one person decreases fun, not increases it, because if you're ruling one way, and the majority of the table is arguing the other, it's pretty clear your authority is not being used to increase the net fun of the table. And honestly, when everyone disagrees with you is the only time you'd ever have to say "DM is always right." because if most of them agreed with you, WTF are you invoking rule 0 instead of just asking?

[Tyndmyr]

Because that is the cornerstone. That rule is the basis for all the others. every other rule could go and it would still be recognizabe as D&D.

But without a master... It isn't D&D any more than english is latin.

No, if you got rid of every other rule, it'd be freeform with a GM. It wouldn't be particularly D&Dish at all.

After all, it's not like D&D is the only game with rule zero.

[druid91]

No, if you got rid of every other rule, it'd be freeform with a GM. It wouldn't be particularly D&Dish at all.

After all, it's not like D&D is the only game with rule zero.

No. The rules have been overhauled befoe and they will be again. This is why fourth and 3.5 aren't compatible.

Having a DM is part of D&D. It is the only inherent rule, aside from having players.

[Yukitsu]

The rules of D&D 3.5 explicitly state that a character can try to do anything the player can imagine, so long as it fits within the scene the DM has described. The only mention of rules in that section is that they serve to facilitate a character's actions by providing guidelines on how to determine success or failure.

I'm having a very, very hard time finding material evidence that this is a rule. Can I get a citation here?

And besides that, yes, a player can ask "can I do X" but there is absolutely no rule stating they need a greater than 0% chance at succeeding at it. Basically, that exists solely as a means of player generated house-rules that the DM or group can choose to incorporate to cover for anything that somehow falls outside the rules on page 6, which say, use the rules where possible, don't make up or change the rules lightly.

[Tyndmyr]

It's on...page 4 or 6. Yknow, the early part of the book with such Chestnuts as "what is a roleplaying game".

Clearly it's meant to be parsed as an exaustive commentary on all rules in all of D&D. :smallconfused:

[Yukitsu]

It's on...page 4 or 6. Yknow, the early part of the book with such Chestnuts as "what is a roleplaying game".

Clearly it's meant to be parsed as an exaustive commentary on all rules in all of D&D. :smallconfused:

That's listed under "how to teach the game" and relates only to asking the players what they want to do, then telling them how to apply the rules to what they want to do, or that you should try to apply the game rules (not real world logic!) to situations that fall outside the rules. Not that they can suddenly do anything they want based solely on the results of a die roll. I'm assuming he must have meant somewhere else.

[Tyndmyr]

Well, no other area has been cited thus far.

I find it terribly odd how those who cling to rule zero as essential are so casual about other rules. It seems like it must be a power thing.

[The Glyphstone]

Well, no other area has been cited thus far.

I find it terribly odd how those who cling to rule zero as essential are so casual about other rules. It seems like it must be a power thing.

How is that a contradiction? The essence of rule zero is exactly that - no other rules are truly sacred, since 0 can override them if necessary. It's entirely consistent for them to be thinking that way.

[Britter]

I find it terribly odd how those who cling to rule zero as essential are so casual about other rules. It seems like it must be a power thing.

My opinion is that the rule is defended so vigorously because it is the only rule people, on average, actually know. I do realize that this is a blanket statement that does not apply evenly. But look around at all the threads every day about how to apply rules, or the constant mistakes like the ever prevalent "1s auto-fail, 20s auto succeed on skill checks". People really don't know the rules. They only have a vague idea of the other rules of DnD (thats my situation, even after years of running 3.5. I only know the basics in broad strokes).

I posit that if every DM knew the majority of the rules of DnD, they would need to invoke Rule Zero considerably less often. It would lose it's sacred cow status, and that would be, imo, a good thing.

[Gnoman]

I, personally, would NEVER play in a game where rule 0 was not in effect, much less DM one, and I *DO* know most of the rules without reference, even aerial combat and grappling. Rule 0's "sacred cow" status comes not from a lack of understanding of the rules, but from the fact that it is impossible for RAW to cover every possible action, and it is too easy for rule interactions to produce uninteded results. This is not just insane things like drown-healing or wish engines, but things like the wall of iron + fabricate exploit. Not to mention that, unless you are a lawyer and your market exists solely of lawyers it is impossible to write a ruleset with no ambiguity. *That* is what rule 0 is for. Some of you say that you've had sucess with doing things democratically, but, even when one of the players *isn't* trying to run an exploit, if you're in a large group, this will just take far too long.

[tonberrian]

That's listed under "how to teach the game" and relates only to asking the players what they want to do, then telling them how to apply the rules to what they want to do, or that you should try to apply the game rules (not real world logic!) to situations that fall outside the rules. Not that they can suddenly do anything they want based solely on the results of a die roll. I'm assuming he must have meant somewhere else.

:confused:

It's listed under "Playing The Game" under "Introduction". It is in the section that explains the core mechanic, so the "you can try to do whatever could fit in the scene" is at least as important to the entirety of the game. Regardless of what RAI may or may not be, RAW is clear that characters can try to do whatever they want, and the rules are meant to facilitate that. Why is that so bad?

[Swordguy]

:confused:

It's listed under "Playing The Game" under "Introduction". It is in the section that explains the core mechanic, so the "you can try to do whatever could fit in the scene" is at least as important to the entirety of the game. Regardless of what RAI may or may not be, RAW is clear that characters can try to do whatever they want, and the rules are meant to facilitate that. Why is that so bad?

Because the existence of Rule 0 takes away from the players ability to get what they want by abusing RAW, and the desires of the GM be hanged. To quote someone else upthread:



It seems like it must be a power thing.

Specifically, the GM has it and the players want it. For the players to get it, Rule 0 has to go. That's the only explanation I can think of at this point in the thread.

[Yukitsu]

:confused:

It's listed under "Playing The Game" under "Introduction". It is in the section that explains the core mechanic, so the "you can try to do whatever could fit in the scene" is at least as important to the entirety of the game. Regardless of what RAI may or may not be, RAW is clear that characters can try to do whatever they want, and the rules are meant to facilitate that. Why is that so bad?

PHB, I had thought you were referencing the DMG. No, instead of arguing about this, why don't you quote the full passage, as that resolves some of the issue. Notably that whatever you imagine has to conform to the core mechanic in accordance to that passage.


Because the existence of Rule 0 takes away from the players ability to get what they want by abusing RAW, and the desires of the GM be hanged. To quote someone else upthread:

Thorough rules knowledge and setting knowledge eliminate "RAW" abuses (most actually violate one or two rules). For example, knowing that not all items have to be available at any time can mitigate candle problems (stating all items are available at all times is not a rule), not playing in Faerun stops pun-pun, not playing in planescape eliminates "pazuzu pazuzu pazuzu", an extended logic on "can't wish for more wishes" eliminates wish abuse etc. Hence why when my players do try anything of this sort, I don't have to worry, because I know why it's illegal. Specific to the campaign I ran, I knew why locate city bombs are illegal, and thus didn't have to rule-0 them away, I just had to point out that the rules don't let you.

A ton of things DM's gripe about being far too powerful and setting breaking, like Cindy, the Mailman build, (IIRC, both require Faerun anyway) are manageable if you care to put in any effort. The only reason you would ever have to ban it is if the rest of the party is so far behind that their enjoyment is diminished. If they're all like that, or they're all having a blast anyway, it is not your perogative to start rule 0ing everything, and honestly, if you're willing to take a group that is having fun, and take their fun away, you're a bad DM.


Specifically, the GM has it and the players want it. For the players to get it, Rule 0 has to go. That's the only explanation I can think of at this point in the thread.

My argument is the books and the game designers should have it, not the people at the table.

[druid91]

Thorough rules knowledge and setting knowledge eliminate "RAW" abuses (most actually violate one or two rules). For example, knowing that not all items have to be available at any time can mitigate candle problems (stating all items are available at all times is not a rule), not playing in Faerun stops pun-pun, not playing in planescape eliminates "pazuzu pazuzu pazuzu", an extended logic on "can't wish for more wishes" eliminates wish abuse etc. Hence why when my players do try anything of this sort, I don't have to worry, because I know why it's illegal. Specific to the campaign I ran, I knew why locate city bombs are illegal, and thus didn't have to rule-0 them away, I just had to point out that the rules don't let you.

A ton of things DM's gripe about being far too powerful and setting breaking, like Cindy, the Mailman build, (IIRC, both require Faerun anyway) are manageable if you care to put in any effort. The only reason you would ever have to ban it is if the rest of the party is so far behind that their enjoyment is diminished. If they're all like that, or they're all having a blast anyway, it is not your perogative to start rule 0ing everything, and honestly, if you're willing to take a group that is having fun, and take their fun away, you're a bad DM.

Ok, You aren't playing faerun? You have delayed Pun-pun. It now takes until epic levels but still if someone want's pun-pun they can get pun-pun.

That extended logic is a use of rule 0.

And city bombs are illegal because???:smallconfused: Last I checked they worked without a hitch.

And the game designers are expected to think of every single eventuality that will come into effect in every single game ever? That, my friend strains credibility.

[tonberrian]

PHB, I had thought you were referencing the DMG. No, instead of arguing about this, why don't you quote the full passage, as that resolves some of the issue. Notably that whatever you imagine has to conform to the core mechanic in accordance to that passage.

I did. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10610843#post10610843)


A character can try to do anything you can imagine, just as long as it fits the scene the DM describes. Depending on the situation, your character might want to listen at a door, search an area, bargain with a shopkeeper, talk to an ally, jump across a pit, move, use an item, or attack an opponent.

Characters accomplish tasks by making skill checks, ability checks, or attack rolls, using the core mechanic.

It only says that you accomplish tasks by using the core mechanic. It does not limit you to only the things that are described in the book; moreover, it implies (verging on outright saying) that there will be things that don't neatly fall under RAW and that they should be adjucated by using the core mechanic. You have yet to provide any evidence that we are to take the entirety of 3.5 D&D's RAW as exhaustive on the options a character can take, in spite of evidence to the contrary.

[Yukitsu]

Ok, You aren't playing faerun? You have delayed Pun-pun. It now takes until epic levels but still if someone want's pun-pun they can get pun-pun.

Actually, nearly everyone is pun-pun at epic levels. I think most people agree that epic is just completely non-functional, and I have said that bad rules require rule 0.


That extended logic is a use of rule 0.

Not really.
You can't wish for more wishes
I wish for X
Does it come with wishes
Yes
Then it violates the first premise.

The only reason anyone thinks it is legal, is that they fall into the fallacy of composition. Wishing for thing+wishes doesn't mean you're not wishing for wishes, even if the term used in the technicals doesn't contain the components. It's like if I wished for a wish sandwich, the addition of a sandwich to the wish doesn't suddenly put me in the clear. The only real exception "problem" are candles, under the common assumption that djinni are in some sort of perpetual limbo doing nothing at all until called.


And city bombs are illegal because???:smallconfused: Last I checked they worked without a hitch.

Explosive spell doesn't allow circles as a viable area type. You have to specifically houserule them in, which is kind of a bad idea.


And the game designers are expected to think of every single eventuality that will come into effect in every single game ever? That, my friend strains credibility.

I still haven't been asked something that isn't covered by rules already mentioned. And when someone finally does, I'll just cite page 6 of the DMG, which just tells DMs to assign it a skill and existing mechanic (ie. "refluffing") And if somehow the core mechanic doesn't apply, what are the odds it should be allowed in the game at all?

[tonberrian]

I still haven't been asked something that isn't covered by rules already mentioned. And when someone finally does, I'll just cite page 6 of the DMG, which just tells DMs to assign it a skill and existing mechanic (ie. "refluffing") And if somehow the core mechanic doesn't apply, what are the odds it should be allowed in the game at all?

Disregarding the fact that I created a scenario that does require adjudication (because the laws of physics simply don't allow it yet the game rules do), how is this refluffing not an exercise in Rule 0? Especially since that section introduces the concept.

[Infernalbargain]

For one, you can never make the statement, "I don't understand what the term means, so they obviously meant what I do" when getting into the technicals. Sure, maybe they wanted to extend "the laws of physics" into supersymmetry, but that seems neither necessary nor likely. And as was stated, imagination is to be confined by the rules, otherwise you may as well be free-forming.

There's really no need to go beyond classical theories unless you want to hit people with time dilation for planar travel or teleportation. Just electromagnetism and some decently advanced classical mechanics are necessary. Maybe thermodynamics if Timmy wants to know how hot his fireball is ("It can melt metals with low melting points such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze" allows you to calculate the heat). I personally simply keep quiet about everything that can be done with a sophisticated application of classical mechanics. Also never ever, ever allow players to buy magnets, with enough of them, they will find a way to break the game in half. Also adding the sufficient physics allows you to adjudicate crazy situations.

[Yukitsu]

Disregarding the fact that I created a scenario that does require adjudication (because the laws of physics simply don't allow it yet the game rules do), how is this refluffing not an exercise in Rule 0? Especially since that section introduces the concept.

I already mentioned, gust of air, equal opposite reaction to the action, Newton's third law. The fact that we're all too lazy to do the math, or calculate the variables doesn't mean there is no law governing it.

And using a mechanic, then describing it differently isn't altering the rules. If I change chess pieces from black and white to blue and red, it's not changing any rule (at least that I'm aware of) but just the appearance of the application of the rules.

[tonberrian]

I already mentioned, gust of air, equal opposite reaction to the action, Newton's third law. The fact that we're all too lazy to do the math, or calculate the variables doesn't mean there is no law governing it.

It patently violates the Law of Conservation of Energy, which it has to follow to calculate via momentums, and it does not give a mass (or even a volume!) of air that it moves. There is no way to apply Newton's laws without some sort of arbitration.

[Yukitsu]

There's really no need to go beyond classical theories unless you want to hit people with time dilation for planar travel or teleportation. Just electromagnetism and some decently advanced classical mechanics are necessary. Maybe thermodynamics if Timmy wants to know how hot his fireball is ("It can melt metals with low melting points such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze" allows you to calculate the heat). I personally simply keep quiet about everything that can be done with a sophisticated application of classical mechanics. Also never ever, ever allow players to buy magnets, with enough of them, they will find a way to break the game in half. Also adding the sufficient physics allows you to adjudicate crazy situations.

I'd honestly like to hear some examples where theoretical physics helped, because I only ever got the supersymmetry one.


It patently violates the Law of Conservation of Energy, which it has to follow, and it does not give a mass (or even a volume!) of air that it moves. There is no way to apply Newton's laws.

Magic explicitly violates all laws. That's pretty much what it's for.

[druid91]

Actually, nearly everyone is pun-pun at epic levels. I think most people agree that epic is just completely non-functional, and I have said that bad rules require rule 0.



Not really.
You can't wish for more wishes
I wish for X
Does it come with wishes
Yes
Then it violates the first premise.

The only reason anyone thinks it is legal, is that they fall into the fallacy of composition. Wishing for thing+wishes doesn't mean you're not wishing for wishes, even if the term used in the technicals doesn't contain the components. It's like if I wished for a wish sandwich, the addition of a sandwich to the wish doesn't suddenly put me in the clear. The only real exception "problem" are candles, under the common assumption that djinni are in some sort of perpetual limbo doing nothing at all until called.



Explosive spell doesn't allow circles as a viable area type. You have to specifically houserule them in, which is kind of a bad idea.



I still haven't been asked something that isn't covered by rules already mentioned. And when someone finally does, I'll just cite page 6 of the DMG, which just tells DMs to assign it a skill and existing mechanic (ie. "refluffing") And if somehow the core mechanic doesn't apply, what are the odds it should be allowed in the game at all?

So you agree rule 0 is necessary.

That's flawed. It does not "come with wishes" It has the ability to use wish. You are wishing for something that happens to have the ability to grant wishes, not wishing for more wishes.

Ah you meant the boom variant. What about the wightpocalypse variant?

[tonberrian]

Magic explicitly violates all laws. That's pretty much what it's for.

Then you need a ruling to decide what it does!

[Yukitsu]

So you agree rule 0 is necessary.

Well, I don't play epic often, because it's a badly written game, so no. Just don't play games that are that poorly written.


That's flawed. It does not "come with wishes" It has the ability to use wish. You are wishing for something that happens to have the ability to grant wishes, not wishing for more wishes.

That depends on what you're using. The one you're arguing only applies if you rule that all djinni do nothing all day but sit on their thumbs, are functionally infinite in numbers, patient, altruistic, and can't cast spells, and if all those conditions somehow apply, then you may as well rule they all have infinite wishes for a candle, because at that point why not?


Ah you meant the boom variant. What about the wightpocalypse variant?

Actually, that's what I recommended while I was telling them the other didn't work, so I can't really fathom why I'd consider it a problem.

[druid91]

Well, I don't play epic often, because it's a badly written game, so no. Just don't play games that are that poorly written.



That depends on what you're using. The one you're arguing only applies if you rule that all djinni do nothing all day but sit on their thumbs, are functionally infinite in numbers, patient, altruistic, and can't cast spells, and if all those conditions somehow apply, then you may as well rule they all have infinite wishes for a candle, because at that point why not?



Actually, that's what I recommended while I was telling them the other didn't work, so I can't really fathom why I'd consider it a problem.
What's so badly written about it?

Well what else are they gonna do? There are thousands of them and they are immortal. And if they aren't altruistic or patient what happens?

Fair enough.

[Thufir]

Oh yeah, for this campaign, the GM did say something about all human, IIRC. That got shut down pretty quick. One player wanted an elf, one wanted a gnome. They are now playing those characters.

Had the GM attempted to say "No, you have to be human", and gotten it to stick, it WOULD have been rule zero. But that's not how it works. We're flexible, though. We let him rule out half-orcs for this adventure. Because nobody wanted to play half-orcs. *shrug*

What if the DM has created a campaign setting in which those races don't exist? Is it rule zero then? If so, surely pretty much all design of campaign settings is rule zero, since the DM will always have to choose to include some things and not others? But you have to have a campaign setting, otherwise you don't really have that much of a game.


No. It means you need a method of arbitration. It does not mean the GM has to be that method.

But if not the DM, who else? One of the big reasons why a DM is required is because someone needs to be able to apply the rules, or make decisions about things not covered by the rules, impartially. In my experience, players can be trusted not to let their personal desires get in the way of fairness most of the time, but not 100%.


That's listed under "how to teach the game" and relates only to asking the players what they want to do, then telling them how to apply the rules to what they want to do, or that you should try to apply the game rules (not real world logic!) to situations that fall outside the rules. Not that they can suddenly do anything they want based solely on the results of a die roll. I'm assuming he must have meant somewhere else.

I'm confused. How are you supposed to apply the rules to situations which fall outside the rules?


I still haven't been asked something that isn't covered by rules already mentioned. And when someone finally does, I'll just cite page 6 of the DMG, which just tells DMs to assign it a skill and existing mechanic (ie. "refluffing") And if somehow the core mechanic doesn't apply, what are the odds it should be allowed in the game at all?

As mentioned, this is use of rule zero. The rules say what each skill check is used for, you are deciding it can be used for something else.

[Yukitsu]

What's so badly written about it?

Spell seeds mostly. Epic spells are very nearly unworkable, often in both directions at the same time.


Well what else are they gonna do? There are thousands of them and they are immortal. And if they aren't altruistic or patient what happens?

They block planar travel (this denies calling of those individuals) in their cities, and stop going out of town. I think at some point in there history, it's reasonable that they were getting caught daily by planar binders, but it's not reasonable that a chaotic species wouldn't get tired of it, nor do I think it's reasonable for the players to be the first group to think of it.


Then you need a ruling to decide what it does!

Spells don't follow physical laws.

The physical effects created by spells are beholden to physical laws.


I'm confused. How are you supposed to apply the rules to situations which fall outside the rules?

Generally poorly. I tend to find DMs who still need more versatility after the rules "The DM is free to create any monster" and "The DM is free to make any spell (and by extension magic item)" simply didn't read enough of his rule books.


As mentioned, this is use of rule zero. The rules say what each skill check is used for, you are deciding it can be used for something else.

Only if the DM is trying it, or is arguing that whatever it is the group is trying to do, he gets final say on it. If it's coming from the players, it's not really rule-0.


What if the DM has created a campaign setting in which those races don't exist? Is it rule zero then? If so, surely pretty much all design of campaign settings is rule zero, since the DM will always have to choose to include some things and not others? But you have to have a campaign setting, otherwise you don't really have that much of a game.

If players are expressing an interest to do things that don't fit with your idea of a good campaign world, you shouldn't play that campaign world.

spoiled players, sense of blah blah blah. Look, there's 4 of them, 1 of you. IF you're having fun at the expense of 4 other people, you're a ****, DM or not. If you can't have fun running a campaign the group wants, pass over that DM mantle to someone that wants to run a campaign the other 3 and you would want to play in, deal with conflicts between the interests of the different players and get on with life.

[tonberrian]

Spells don't follow physical laws.

The physical effects created by spells are beholden to physical laws.

It still needs a ruling because there's no way to calculate the mass necessary to use Newton's laws.

[Yukitsu]

It still needs a ruling because there's no way to calculate the mass necessary to use Newton's laws.

Uh, why isn't it? Mass doesn't have to be in units to function in a Newtonian equation, they can be represented as fractions, so long as you remember to express that in the final unit. Just figure out how many like sized air elementals you weigh at sea level and go from there.

Just because the gravitational constants may be different doesn't mean mass suddenly stops being calculable, you just can't rely on weight values or express it in standard units. Nor is it impossible to get relative mass from weight under identical gravity.

[druid91]

Spell seeds mostly. Epic spells are very nearly unworkable, often in both directions at the same time.



They block planar travel (this denies calling of those individuals) in their cities, and stop going out of town. I think at some point in there history, it's reasonable that they were getting caught daily by planar binders, but it's not reasonable that a chaotic species wouldn't get tired of it, nor do I think it's reasonable for the players to be the first group to think of it.

If players are expressing an interest to do things that don't fit with your idea of a good campaign world, you shouldn't play that campaign world.

spoiled players, sense of blah blah blah. Look, there's 4 of them, 1 of you. IF you're having fun at the expense of 4 other people, you're a ****, DM or not. If you can't have fun running a campaign the group wants, pass over that DM mantle to someone that wants to run a campaign the other 3 and you would want to play in, deal with conflicts between the interests of the different players and get on with life.

I like epic spells.... Though I've never gotten to play with them.

And then the armies of wizards pop in and smash them. Now they are entirely enslaved instead of getting the equivalent of jury duty now and again.

Or they should suck it up and try something different. The DM is the one who does all the work. So if he asks to run something odd now and again you shouldn't complain.

And who's to say they won't have fun? I get shot down all the time by DM's when I ask for stuff. I still have fun playing.

[tonberrian]

Uh, why isn't it? Mass doesn't have to be in units to function in a Newtonian equation, they can be represented as fractions, so long as you remember to express that in the final unit. Just figure out how many like sized air elementals you weigh at sea level and go from there.

Just because the gravitational constants may be different doesn't mean mass suddenly stops being calculable, you just can't rely on weight values or express it in standard units. Nor is it impossible to get relative mass from weight under identical gravity.

You don't understand. We don't lack units of mass. We lack any indication of how much air is moving. We have no means of determining the ratio of the mass of the air moved to the mass of the disk. You need a ruling to determine that.

[Thufir]

Only if the DM is trying it, or is arguing that whatever it is the group is trying to do, he gets final say on it. If it's coming from the players, it's not really rule-0.

I'm not clear on what you mean by "if it's coming from the players". It may be coming from the players in the sense that a player says "I do [action]", but then when the DM goes "OK, looks like there aren't any rules for that, so I'll say just make a [skill] check," the DM has just made a rule zero decision.


If players are expressing an interest to do things that don't fit with your idea of a good campaign world, you shouldn't play that campaign world.

spoiled players, sense of blah blah blah. Look, there's 4 of them, 1 of you. IF you're having fun at the expense of 4 other people, you're a ****, DM or not. If you can't have fun running a campaign the group wants, pass over that DM mantle to someone that wants to run a campaign the other 3 and you would want to play in, deal with conflicts between the interests of the different players and get on with life.

Oh, I agree. You're missing the point. The point is that inevitably the creation of a campaign setting will choose some elements over others. For example, Tyndmyr mentioned in that post that they weren't having any half-orcs, because no-one wanted to be one. So, say their DM decides half-orcs don't exist in the campaign setting, they're probably still not bothered. Then the DM has exercised rule zero to say that half-orcs do not exist, despite the fact the rules kinda say they do. This could be applied to other races, or to including homebrewed races or suchlike.
In fact, since Rule Zero includes making decisions on things not covered by the rules, well, unless you're using a published setting, the contents of the world aren't really specified by the rules at all - the DM invents them. The DM creates the world and controls everything in it other than the PCs, when they fit into the framework of the rules and when they don't, and when it's ambiguous. I can't decide if this is the full expression of Rule Zero or if Rule Zero is an extension of this, but this is basically what it boils down to. The DM creates the world and they decide the fine details of how it works.

[Yukitsu]

I like epic spells.... Though I've never gotten to play with them.

Yeah, well I have. They are bad. Like, truenamer bad, but more so. Basically anyone that's a full caster is running around as pun-pun.


And then the armies of wizards pop in and smash them. Now they are entirely enslaved instead of getting the equivalent of jury duty now and again.

That's fine, and would make for an interesting campaign setting, either with the players trying to do it for their own greedy reasons, or as a historic thing that either is true that you're taking advantage of or trying to stop. But honestly, declaring war on powerful outsiders who can themselves take class levels isn't really something that you can assume the wizards should win or would have automatically won.

And here, in game solutions providing a world. Isn't it a wonderful thing?


Or they should suck it up and try something different. The DM is the one who does all the work. So if he asks to run something odd now and again you shouldn't complain.

And who's to say they won't have fun? I get shot down all the time by DM's when I ask for stuff. I still have fun playing.

Was refering to people rebelling against the setting. If people don't want to play an all human campaign, and are vocal about it, in general, you have to ask yourself "why am I trying to do something the players don't want." and if the answer is setting, then you should probably consider a different one. Unlike saying a power is such or such which lasts until they adjust their tactics (which I still don't ever think is necessary) the setting being opposite the player's wishes will basically last the entire game. Why do you think so many people come here whining that "my players don't want to role play the political intrigue, they just want to kill and loot stuff, how do I make them change?"


*Post

Just going to reduce all this down, but you're assuming any rule change is rule-0. Rule-0 only comes as a direct result of the DM citing his authority over the rules. If the rules are agreed upon, you don't need to cite any authority or rule-0, because your authority regarding that rule is irrelevant.


You don't understand. We don't lack units of mass. We lack any indication of how much air is moving. We have no means of determining the ratio of the mass of the air moved to the mass of the disk. You need a ruling to determine that.

However much moving at that speed is required to move a medium sized creature d6x5 feet on impact. I don't really see what's hard about this. :smallconfused:

[Infernalbargain]

I'd honestly like to hear some examples where theoretical physics helped, because I only ever got the supersymmetry one.

I'm very skeptical that SUSY was ever useful in any situation in D&D. Physics allows you to assign reasonable collision damage by comparing normal velocity to the velocity required for the various increments of falling damage. There's also adjudicating DC for breaking various exotic things such as a guy just snapping your sword in half like a twig. There's also using unseen servant to reduce falling damage (though this would only be significant if you're like a gnome or halfling without much gear) by supplying an additional upward force to supplement the air resistance (which D&D does use because it caps falling damage to simulate terminal velocity). Also just about any situation where telekinesis is involved to do anything fancy. There is also seeing how much people can push / pull up / down hills.

Like I said, a healthy understanding classical mechanics is helpful. SUSY, not so much. While I admit that you can just quickly rule zero those things, it does give reason you to say no to stupid PC plans. It also opens up a set of plot devices that don't require the BBEG being a caster (evil Rube Goldberg machine of doom anyone?). Not to mention a bit of thought allows for some truly vicious traps.

[tonberrian]

However much moving at that speed is required to move a medium sized creature d6x5 feet on impact. I don't really see what's hard about this. :smallconfused:

Medium creatures can be anywhere from 82 lbs naked to 288 lbs plus 400 lbs of equipment at level 1 without magic. That's an awful lot of variance there, and there's no way to determine exactly what percentage of the produced wind actually effects the target and what just blows by.

[faceroll]

Disregarding the fact that I created a scenario that does require adjudication (because the laws of physics simply don't allow it yet the game rules do), how is this refluffing not an exercise in Rule 0? Especially since that section introduces the concept.

Refluffing is Rule 0. It's just not considered that on the boards, because optimizers find it much easier to ignore those rules, for whatever reason. Maybe because if you could ignore the crunchy bits, they would have a harder time achieving real ultimate power. CharOp has a set of assumptions that maximize what you can squeeze out of a build. Just look at how many require specific magic items as linchpins, but where's the rule that says anyone can get anything? The only time fluff shows up is "well, I'll just plane shift to sigil and buy what I want." Welll, actually, sigil is fluff, DM gonna refluff sigil into tentacle rape. Sorry bro.

[Thufir]

Just going to reduce all this down, but you're assuming any rule change is rule-0. Rule-0 only comes as a direct result of the DM citing his authority over the rules. If the rules are agreed upon, you don't need to cite any authority or rule-0, because your authority regarding that rule is irrelevant.

Excuse me, but that's not "reducing all this down." That is a generic statement, nitpicking the definition of Rule Zero, which does not address anything I said in my post.

Also, said nitpicking leads to a terrible definition. Since, in fact, the DM is the one who applies the rules, any rule change does have to be applied by the DM, who is thus asserting their authority over the rules. This is the case regardless of whether or not all the players agree with it. But according to what you say here, it's not Rule Zero if the rules are agreed upon. So what if the DM makes a rules decision, either changing a rule or dealing with something not covered by the rules? Rule Zero. But if you agree with the ruling, then the rules are agreed upon and it's not Rule Zero apparently.
By that definition, Rule Zero is any ruling with which you disagree.

[druid91]

Was refering to people rebelling against the setting. If people don't want to play an all human campaign, and are vocal about it, in general, you have to ask yourself "why am I trying to do something the players don't want." and if the answer is setting, then you should probably consider a different one. Unlike saying a power is such or such which lasts until they adjust their tactics (which I still don't ever think is necessary) the setting being opposite the player's wishes will basically last the entire game. Why do you think so many people come here whining that "my players don't want to role play the political intrigue, they just want to kill and loot stuff, how do I make them change?"

Or you could ask why they want what they want... Do they really want to be an elf? Or do they want Elven abilities? If the First You or them is out of luck. If the second A human who lived a similar life to canon elves could have the same racial traits. And still be human.

[Yukitsu]

I'm very skeptical that SUSY was ever useful in any situation in D&D.

It wasn't. The theoretical analogue (ie, moving as though we were in a Feynman diagram) of it was simply the solution to a very poorly recieved riddle. But really, riddles are a whole other goat.


Physics allows you to assign reasonable collision damage by comparing normal velocity to the velocity required for the various increments of falling damage. There's also adjudicating DC for breaking various exotic things such as a guy just snapping your sword in half like a twig. There's also using unseen servant to reduce falling damage (though this would only be significant if you're like a gnome or halfling without much gear) by supplying an additional upward force to supplement the air resistance (which D&D does use because it caps falling damage to simulate terminal velocity). Also just about any situation where telekinesis is involved to do anything fancy. There is also seeing how much people can push / pull up / down hills.

Aren't most of these an application of Newton's third, simply taking into account all of the force variables? A hill for example is simply adding an opposed or assisting gravity force determined by the angle, then changing around the friction variables? Most of classical mechanics as far as I recall are simply applications of Newtonian laws aren't they?


Also, said nitpicking leads to a terrible definition. Since, in fact, the DM is the one who applies the rules, any rule change does have to be applied by the DM, who is thus asserting their authority over the rules. This is the case regardless of whether or not all the players agree with it. But according to what you say here, it's not Rule Zero if the rules are agreed upon. So what if the DM makes a rules decision, either changing a rule or dealing with something not covered by the rules? Rule Zero. But if you agree with the ruling, then the rules are agreed upon and it's not Rule Zero apparently.
By that definition, Rule Zero is any ruling with which you disagree.

Yeah, no. Bolded is why I disagree with you here. There's no reason you can't have a group decision on which rules should be applied, and there's no reason a DM should be the final judge jury and executioner.


Or you could ask why they want what they want... Do they really want to be an elf? Or do they want Elven abilities? If the First You or them is out of luck. If the second A human who lived a similar life to canon elves could have the same racial traits. And still be human.

Given humans are the most powerful race bar none, I'm going to have to guess it was for the fluff, not the crunch.

[Infernalbargain]

It wasn't. The theoretical analogue (ie, moving as though we were in a Feynman diagram) of it was simply the solution to a very poorly recieved riddle.

Yeah... sounds like bad GM'ing


Aren't most of these an application of Newton's third, simply taking into account all of the force variables? A hill for example is simply adding an opposed or assisting gravity force determined by the angle, then changing around the friction variables? Most of classical mechanics as far as I recall are simply applications of Newtonian laws aren't they?

First is conservation of energy, second is using Young's modulus, the rest are more closely tied to Newton's second, but the third is formally used.

Most of what's in first semester physics is just Newtons laws. Fancy contraptions require Hamiltonian mechanics. One such situation is a ball rolling down a ramp that's supported by a spring (think of the ramp kinda like a fireplace bellow and the ball's weight will cause it to compress).

[Thiyr]

Yeah, no. Bolded is why I disagree with you here. There's no reason you can't have a group decision on which rules should be applied, and there's no reason a DM should be the final judge jury and executioner.

Whereas I've always felt that, even in a group which works as a group to come up with these decisions, the DM still should be, and has the right to be, the final arbiter. Ultimately, while the group's consensus should, for the most part, be respected, the DM still has veto power. To the player's Congress, the DM is the President. The players have power, but the DM still gets to say no. He doesn't say no for everything, or he's gonna have a lot of enemies, and won't have that power for long. But at times it gets exercised. Why does the DM get that power? Because he's the guy building and running the world for the most part, so that's a responsibility he holds.

In this view of things, the power still lies entirely behind the DM. If the players suggest something, he can do it, or he can go against it. If he wants to do something, he can simply do it. This can be rejected by the players (signified by them leaving the game), which is his incentive not to do that (We recently had a game get quite literally taken over by another player. DM made a ton of bad calls like that, as well as being a jerk outside of game, so another player started running it and the first DM was given the boot). However, under this interpretation, regardless of if the ruling is supported or rejected by the players, the final call still comes down the the DM, be it a cosmetic refluff, saying you can't do 126d6 damage by using expansion and falling on an enemy via the falling damage rules, saying you can't become pun-pun, or anything inbetween (126d6 was the damage that would have been done by our psywar in that situation. While the party wanted it to happen just that once, DM lowered it to 20d6 anyway, and we respected that). And when the DM makes a ruling like that, regardless of the player's input on it in agreement or disagreement, it is rule 0 (in my mind, and in the way it is portrayed in core, as per the quotes given earlier in the thread). The DM is god of the game...but gods lack power without sufficient followers.

[The_JJ]

RE: GM vs. Players and arbitration.

I view there is no distinction between the two at heart. No one is forcing anyone to the table at gunpoint. It's mere the case that, in many groups, players cede arbitration power to a reasonable authority figure. The GM is the logical candidate for this as world builder, story crafter, etc. It's not some abuse of power, it's the exercise of freely given authority. This is why and how 'free' societies have these things called rules. That said, a system with 4 to 7 people who think in the same way might not need to follow such methods. Giving the GM leeway can open up options, giving the player's leeway opens up others.

Everything else is matter of degrees and preferences.

Also, RE, Physics:

It's a stupid argument based on a particularly inane reading of a colloquial term as literal meaning. The decision to read precise dictionary Capital Letter Terminology Laws of Physics rather than idiomatic English is an application of Rule 0.

[Vemynal]

3 points

1) DM = sublime deity of the universe the players are in and controller of all

2) Being a supreme entity can get very boring when you have no one who's willing to exist in your world (players don't wanna play)

3) Thus the solution is to have the DM work with the players and *not* against them.


my question to you; when and why did D&D become "DM vs. the players"?
So much better to have the DM work with the players

[Yukitsu]

my question to you; when and why did D&D become "DM vs. the players"?
So much better to have the DM work with the players

I'd guess somewhere along the way where they decided the DM is supposed to control everything, and the players are supposed to have fun, which are often enough contradictory goals. I suspect there'd be less a problem if the goal were simply, "everyone should have fun" instead of "you be in control" "you guys have fun."

I suspect it was necessary because too many players that you simply should just not put up with, insisted anti-osmium, pun-pun in greyhawk, and locate city bombs were totally allowed.

I lastly guess if you have a good group, you can replace DM authority with "have fun" since my second guess wouldn't apply.

[The_JJ]

I'd guess somewhere along the way where they decided the DM is supposed to control everything, and the players are supposed to have fun, which are often enough contradictory goals. I suspect there'd be less a problem if the goal were simply, "everyone should have fun" instead of "you be in control" "you guys have fun."

Often enough, the right GM can use that power without compromising, often to the benefit of fun. It's a matter of cans and ifs and saying that one is clearly inherently better than the other, and then citing player enjoyment as proof is self evidently wrong, because each side is able to explain how theirs maximizes their fun, and the other minimizes it. In the end it comes down to personal preferences.

[Toofey]

The whole point of tabletop gaming is that you should be stuck with a finite set of options. Without rule 0 the DM doesn't have the flexibility they need to make this possible. If you can't deal with the person WHO SPENDS THEIR TIME AND ENERGY ENTERTAINING YOU having a certain latitude over the rules, go play your playstation.

[Ravens_cry]

my question to you; when and why did D&D become "DM vs. the players"?
So much better to have the DM work with the players
This actually seems to be the older viewpoint, where the Dungeon Master was just , that, they ran the dungeon against the players, a battle of wits and dice. Tomb of Horrors is basically the endgame of that mentality, the pinnacle of DM vs. Player attitude.

[Toofey]

Seriously everyone who has spent time arguing with the DM because they don't like something they did in play should go and thank them for spending time entertaining you. Without a DM the game isn't possible, and as much as some players (typically the ones who either Munchkin or Min/Max the hell out of their characters then can't stand when the dm tries to restrain their power in game play) don't want to admit it.

You don't like how your DM does it then go DM your own game. I am so sick of seeing spoiled players complaining that their DMs don't listen to them about how the game should work.

[Tyndmyr]

How is that a contradiction? The essence of rule zero is exactly that - no other rules are truly sacred, since 0 can override them if necessary. It's entirely consistent for them to be thinking that way.

But *why*? Why can't you rule 0 rule 0?


My opinion is that the rule is defended so vigorously because it is the only rule people, on average, actually know. I do realize that this is a blanket statement that does not apply evenly. But look around at all the threads every day about how to apply rules, or the constant mistakes like the ever prevalent "1s auto-fail, 20s auto succeed on skill checks". People really don't know the rules. They only have a vague idea of the other rules of DnD (thats my situation, even after years of running 3.5. I only know the basics in broad strokes).

Well, I'll certainly admit that if I had a dollar for every time I heard someone stating that nat1s/nat20s on skill checks was "the rules", I'd...have a lot of dollars.



I posit that if every DM knew the majority of the rules of DnD, they would need to invoke Rule Zero considerably less often. It would lose it's sacred cow status, and that would be, imo, a good thing.

Absolutely. I find that those DMs that know the rules least use rule zero as a patch. Now, I realize not everyone is going to know *all* the rules while just starting out, but it's my experience that a lot of people who have DMed for quite a few years have never bothered to continue to learn the rules.



Ok, You aren't playing faerun? You have delayed Pun-pun. It now takes until epic levels but still if someone want's pun-pun they can get pun-pun.

That extended logic is a use of rule 0.

It's rule 0 to not play in faerun? What? Dude, that's crazy. Setting is a choice. Faerun isn't even the default setting.

And yeah, you can get ridiculous things with epic spellcasting. The game breaks apart into little pieces after you get that. Personally, I've never played far into epic because it's got a lot of issues.

And even in Faerun, level 1 pun pun isn't at all guaranteed by RAW.


And city bombs are illegal because???:smallconfused: Last I checked they worked without a hitch.

Locate city bombs? They have RAW problems. I'm not gonna get into it here, it comes up in *every* locate city bomb thread. That said, I don't have a problem with them in general. It's an impressive, but generally impractical build for players to actually take.


And the game designers are expected to think of every single eventuality that will come into effect in every single game ever? That, my friend strains credibility.

In an ideal world, they would design the rules such that bad interactions of rules don't exist. Honestly, for a ruleset as large as 3.x, I don't think they did so terribly. Sure, there's the occasional problem, but it's not THAT bad. In 3.5, rules do exist for a terribly wide variety of things, and only a couple of them are really problematic.


It patently violates the Law of Conservation of Energy, which it has to follow to calculate via momentums, and it does not give a mass (or even a volume!) of air that it moves. There is no way to apply Newton's laws without some sort of arbitration.

Yes, conservation of energy is clearly not expected to exist in D&D. It contains magic that can produce information(yay divination), it can create a fireball producing energy from nothing, it can create magic items that produce things from nothing.

However, this doesn't mean you need to throw out newton's third law of motion. It's supported by game rules, too. See also, decanter of endless water.

Note that since specific overrides general, as per the rules, spells can pretty much break all rules of physics. There is no inconsistency in that by RAW. Yes, teleport can make you move faster than light....that's what it DOES.


What if the DM has created a campaign setting in which those races don't exist? Is it rule zero then? If so, surely pretty much all design of campaign settings is rule zero, since the DM will always have to choose to include some things and not others? But you have to have a campaign setting, otherwise you don't really have that much of a game.

Other people have argued that campaign design is rule zero. I say this is silly, because you need a setting to play, and the rules heavily assume that the DM is free to create or modify a setting. I don't consider this to be a use of rule zero unless you are changing setting elements DURING PLAY. Rule zero covers exceptions. It doesn't cover normal things that other rules already cover, and the DM certainly has the power to create adventures and such by RAW.

Hey, look at monster manual page 295. That, by RAW, allows the DM to create entirely new monsters.

DMs have lots of power in 3.5 by RAW even without rule zero.


But if not the DM, who else? One of the big reasons why a DM is required is because someone needs to be able to apply the rules, or make decisions about things not covered by the rules, impartially. In my experience, players can be trusted not to let their personal desires get in the way of fairness most of the time, but not 100%.

We do it by general agreement of the players. If there's a disagreement on rules or what not, we chat about it briefly and come to a decision. It's not terribly formal, but it works. We are probably fortunate in that even the new guy, who's played a whopping two sessions, read through the entire phb and understands the rules quite well.

Sure, players are not perfect...but no more so than DMs. People are people. They all make mistakes from time to time. It's less likely that everyone in the group wants to make the same mistake at the same time.


It still needs a ruling because there's no way to calculate the mass necessary to use Newton's laws.

Nah. Gust of wind will shove a medium creature x far. While this is not a precise number, you can, via newtons third law, determine the rough thrust from this by estimating the weight of a medium creature.


Or they should suck it up and try something different. The DM is the one who does all the work. So if he asks to run something odd now and again you shouldn't complain.

Eh, it's my experience that most players like the occasional odd thing to spice life up. They only tend to object when the DM is getting some rule horribly wrong, or doing something outright bad. With a friendly group, the latter case is pretty rare.


You don't understand. We don't lack units of mass. We lack any indication of how much air is moving. We have no means of determining the ratio of the mass of the air moved to the mass of the disk. You need a ruling to determine that.

No you don't. And it's not a given that a constant mass of air is always moved by gust of wind. Consider different altitudes, with different air densities. The total volume affected by the spell remains constant. Therefore, the actual amount of air is variable.

This is, fortunately, consistent with the fairly generic effects of the spell. The spell provides you the information needed, just with a terrible degree of precision. Such is life. While inconvenient for the aspiring hovertank designer, that's a limitation you just have to work with.

In practical terms, it means that using decanters of endless x are a much more cost and area efficient way to get thrust.



Oh, I agree. You're missing the point. The point is that inevitably the creation of a campaign setting will choose some elements over others. For example, Tyndmyr mentioned in that post that they weren't having any half-orcs, because no-one wanted to be one. So, say their DM decides half-orcs don't exist in the campaign setting, they're probably still not bothered. Then the DM has exercised rule zero to say that half-orcs do not exist, despite the fact the rules kinda say they do.

But you're missing the point. It's not rule zero since it's a group decision. We're ok with a lack of half-x, because it doesn't particularly affect us anyhow, but we wanted specific other races. So, everyone chats about what they want and why, and we come to a conclusion.

This DM is quite solid, and hasn't tried to impose rule zero on the group. A previous DM did. It was pretty terrible. We had to tell him no a lot. Eventually, everyone decided he was a terrible DM, and had me replace him, and the campaign went on. It eventually came out that he didn't mesh with the rest of the group as a player either, and had to be kicked entirely. Such is life. Sometimes someone just doesn't want the same things out of a game you do. Rule zeroing your way through conflicts is not the best way to handle that.


Refluffing is Rule 0. It's just not considered that on the boards, because optimizers find it much easier to ignore those rules, for whatever reason.

Phb 110 contains the relevant rules. Note that even players are explicitly given access to it.


This actually seems to be the older viewpoint, where the Dungeon Master was just , that, they ran the dungeon against the players, a battle of wits and dice. Tomb of Horrors is basically the endgame of that mentality, the pinnacle of DM vs. Player attitude.

I don't actually have a problem with either viewpoint. They're very different styles of games, but both can be fun. Personally, I love Tomb of Horrors and wish there were more dungeons like it.



Seriously everyone who has spent time arguing with the DM because they don't like something they did in play should go and thank them for spending time entertaining you. Without a DM the game isn't possible, and as much as some players (typically the ones who either Munchkin or Min/Max the hell out of their characters then can't stand when the dm tries to restrain their power in game play) don't want to admit it.

You don't like how your DM does it then go DM your own game. I am so sick of seeing spoiled players complaining that their DMs don't listen to them about how the game should work.

Hold on there. I think you're generalizing from players you've experienced to EVERYONE who happens to disagree with you.

It's possible to have a 'lil disagreement with a DM, and for it to be nothing to do with being "spoiled" or a munchkin. And yes, I, and I assume most of the other people here have DMed plenty. Let's hold off on the personal attacks, k?

[Thiyr]

I'd guess somewhere along the way where they decided the DM is supposed to control everything, and the players are supposed to have fun, which are often enough contradictory goals. I suspect there'd be less a problem if the goal were simply, "everyone should have fun" instead of "you be in control" "you guys have fun."

I don't think anyone's really suggesting the DM is supposed to control everything though, nor do I find in my experience that to be a common mindset. So long as the DM isn't being excessively controlling, there is no reason for those two goals to be in conflict (this is typically how I see it occurring). So if the goal of the DM is "I want to be able to control everything", that is, yes, a problem. But that's A) not what we're suggesting, and B) not tied inherently to rule 0. In fact, that's simply another way of describing the problem as described earlier as being merely the ABuse of r0, merely one way it can be used. But the more common situation that we're all seeming to go for is, as you put it, "everyone should have fun", which has no direct tie to the presence or absence of r0.

TL;DR: The problem isn't r0, the problem is when the DM is being power-hungry at the expense of fun. This power-hunger has no connection to the presence or absence of r0, even if such hunger causes him to abuse r0.

[The Big Dice]

TL;DR: The problem isn't r0, the problem is when the DM is being power-hungry at the expense of fun. This power-hunger has no connection to the presence or absence of r0, even if such hunger causes him to abuse r0.
This. Combined with the assumption that one person did it once means that everyone who uses Rule 0 will abuse it automatically and as a matter of course. Which is of course a No True Scotsman situation in itself.

[Tyndmyr]

This. Combined with the assumption that one person did it once means that everyone who uses Rule 0 will abuse it automatically and as a matter of course. Which is of course a No True Scotsman situation in itself.

That's not what that fallacy is at all.

[The Big Dice]

That's not what that fallacy is at all.

Claiming that because someone did something once, all people who have the opportunity will do the same thing is an attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.

Which is exactly what the No True Scotsman Fallacy Fallacy is.

[Tyndmyr]

Claiming that because someone did something once, all people who have the opportunity will do the same thing is an attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.

Which is exactly what the No True Scotsman Fallacy Fallacy is.

First off, Fallacy Fallacy is just...bad.

You can learn about No True Scotsman here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman). It has to do with avoiding counterexamples.

Claiming all people will always misuse rule zero(a claim I think would be extreme even for this thread) might be false, but it has nothing to do with that fallacy.

Incidentally, when something is a fallacy, it is generally considered good form to point out WHY it fulfills the criteria of the fallacy. Yelling "fallacy!" does not win you the internet.

[Totally Guy]

We had No True Scotsman a few pages back. I quoted Burning Empires as an RPG without rule zero and the only actual resonse it was asking whether it counted as a role playing game.

(I then misread the answer though... I thought the person was asking "What makes a game a role playing game?" but it was actually "What makes this game a roleplaying game?")

[Tyndmyr]

We had No True Scotsman a few pages back. I quoted Burning Empires as an RPG without rule zero and the only actual resonse it was asking whether it counted as a role playing game.

Perfect example, actually. The whole "every game has rule zero" has had that come up.

The same is not true about what Big Dice is talking about though. Entirely different.

[The Big Dice]

Incidentally, when something is a fallacy, it is generally considered good form to point out WHY it fulfills the criteria of the fallacy. Yelling "fallacy!" does not win you the internet.
Nor does repeatedly making the assumption that your experience is universal win you the internet.

Making the claim that a good GM does not use Rule 0 is simply replacing the word 'true' with the word 'good.' So rather than reading "No true Scotsman would do that," we instead see "No good GM would do that."

There's no difference, so therefore the claim that using Rule 0 makes someone a bad Gm because someone else who used it was a bad GM is a logical fallacy.


We had No True Scotsman a few pages back. I quoted Burning Empires as an RPG without rule zero and the only actual resonse it was asking whether it counted as a role playing game.

(I then misread the answer though... I thought the person was asking "What makes a game a role playing game?" but it was actually "What makes this game a roleplaying game?")
I'd say a game that hinges on "Say Yes or roll the dice" and picking the most appropriate skill and inventing a Difficulty is in fact a game that relies on Rule 0.

You're assuming that the GM is competent to assign the required parameters, and that is an expression of Rule 0.

[Tyndmyr]

Nor does repeatedly making the assumption that your experience is universal win you the internet.

Making the claim that a good GM does not use Rule 0 is simply replacing the word 'true' with the word 'good.' So rather than reading "No true Scotsman would do that," we instead see "No good GM would do that."

There's no difference, so therefore the claim that using Rule 0 makes someone a bad Gm because someone else who used it was a bad GM is a logical fallacy.

No. You would need the following exchange.

A: "No good GM uses rule 0"
B: So and so is a good GM, and he uses rule 0.
C: So and so is not a true good GM because he uses rule 0.

Note that no true Scotsman is a fallacy because it is inherently circular. The claim "No good GM uses rule 0" alone, while rather broad and hard to support, is not sufficient. It's just a statement.

[The Big Dice]

No. You would need the following exchange.

A: "No good GM uses rule 0"
B: So and so is a good GM, and he uses rule 0.
C: So and so is not a true good GM because he uses rule 0.

Note that no true Scotsman is a fallacy because it is inherently circular. The claim "No good GM uses rule 0" alone, while rather broad and hard to support, is not sufficient. It's just a statement.

Again we see semantics in place of debate.

Edit: let me illustrate further, taken from here (http://www.tektonics.org/guest/scotty.htm).

The NTS fallacy is a type of non sequitur; a logical fallacy in which one reaches a conclusion that is not in any factual or logical way an extension of the premise. The story goes:


Macgregor and McDougal are drinking tea. Macgregor notices that McDougal takes his tea with cream.

“No true Scotsman drinks his tea with cream!” says Macgregor.

“I drink my tea with cream!” McDougal answers.

“As I said,” replies Macgregor, “no true Scotsman drinks his tea with cream.”

The logic of this story, a fallacy, is expressed thusly:

1. No true Scotsman drinks his tea with cream
2. MacDougal drinks his tea with cream

… MacDougal is no true Scotsman
Let's change that a little.

Tyndmyr and The Big Dice are discussing GM techniques. Tyndmyr notes that The Big Dice is an advocate of using Rule 0.

"A good GM doesn't use Rule 0, he has a democratic meeting and lets the players decide on what should and should not be changed."

"I use Rule 0," states The Big Dice.

Can you see a pattern emerging here? There's no need for circularity.

[Totally Guy]

I'd say a game that hinges on "Say Yes or roll the dice" and picking the most appropriate skill and inventing a Difficulty is in fact a game that relies on Rule 0.

You're assuming that the GM is competent to assign the required parameters, and that is an expression of Rule 0.

I can't consider that to be rule zero becuase it's also a written rule that the GM is responsible for doing those things. If the rule says that the GM chooses something and the GM does it then it's not rule zero. It's the rule on page 234... For example.

The players buy into the fact that this rule, along with all the others, are in place before the game.

[Tyndmyr]

Again we see semantics in place of debate.

That is exactly what labeling something a fallacy and not explaining it is, yes. If you wish to avoid this, I suggest either avoiding the practice of labeling things fallacy, or learning which fallacies are which. The latter is immensely helpful if you do value debate.

In any case I do not need to argue that every single DM ever has always misused rule 0. That's unnecessary.

I only need to argue that there is an alternative to rule 0(and this has been pointed out), and that there are reasons why this alternative may be preferable. There are many pages of this.

I would agree with Glug. Some rules say "The DM decides the result of x". If that's the case...that's the rule. Just because rule 0 requires arbitration and another rule requires arbitration doesn't make them the same rule.

[The Big Dice]

I would agree with Glug. Some rules say "The DM decides the result of x". If that's the case...that's the rule. Just because rule 0 requires arbitration and another rule requires arbitration doesn't make them the same rule.
All rules require arbitration. Rule 0 is simply the logical conclusion of this line of reasoning. Also, note that it's a fairly new addition to RPGs. Even the old editions of Chaosium games, when they used to list things as Rule 1, Rule 1.1, Rule 1.0.2 and so on never needed to codify it.

It was implicit in roleplaying games that the writer would say the rules are all optional, the GM is free to use or drop them as he sees fit. Claiming that Rule 0 isn't needed, even though you've given concrete examples of where you've used it, is a blinkered look at things.

[Samurai Jill]

However, in all of the gaming groups that I've been in over the years (decades)*cough*, this is the most commonly used aspect of Rule 0. Yeah, it's not the entirety of the rule, but it is a part of it. That being said, I don't think I've ever been in a group where Rule 0 was abused the way some of you guys/gals have seen it abused.
Good for you, but again, this is missing the point. Having established that there are both productive and abusive uses for Rule 0, the smart thing to do would be to distill and separate the productive uses, and use them to replace Rule Zero. Assuming that we can even distinguish between abuse and non-abuse, why should be the GM be able to abuse Rule Zero in the first place?

It's like this idea that a benign dictatorship can be a wonderful form of government because a well-meaning, enlightened and strong-willed leader can solve all the country's problems. That's great if you've fortunately happened to stumble upon such a leader. But why not just isolate the kinds of decision-making that effectively solve problems in the first place, formalise those as legal institutions, and do away with the concept of dictatorship, benign or otherwise?

I'd say a game that hinges on "Say Yes or roll the dice" and picking the most appropriate skill and inventing a Difficulty is in fact a game that relies on Rule 0.

You're assuming that the GM is competent to assign the required parameters, and that is an expression of Rule 0.
This is absurd. The in-game text goes to considerable lengths to give sample difficulties for various forms of skill-based tasks. It's not an arbitrary decision, it's a consultation of the rules. The GM doesn't just haul the necessary skill tests out of his or her ass, you make a Sailing test because you are trying to sail across an ocean.

It's like saying that all role-playing games are expressions of Rule Zero, because some designer somewhere sat down to type out words that made up the original game text, and possibly- *gasp*!- even refined and modified them on the basis of feedback from playtesting. This is accurate but meaningless- by that standard, what, exactly, doesn't count as an expression of Rule Zero? If it applies to everything, if effectively applies to nothing.

[Totally Guy]

All rules require arbitration.

I don't have the time and energy to do that. I might not even have the brainpower to figure out all the implications in most cases. I buy game books that have rules in them so that I don't have to do it.

[true_shinken]

Not every encounter you run needs to be epic, not everything has to go according to your plans, and if you screw up, there's no reason to not just run with it and get to the next encounter. If that wizard is gimped by your lack of knowledge of your party's character sheets, then let him be gimped with it. You shouldn't be invested in that NPCs survival, and you can always recycle it later on changing what you learned.

I'm not talking about this. I never once mentioned NPCs surviving.
I'm talking about consistency and verossimilitude.
If someone with high Wisdom takes a foolish decision, I would tell the player 'are you sure? that sounds foolish because of X and Y'. I find to be just fair that I'd do the same for NPCs.

[Tyndmyr]

I don't have the time and energy to do that. I might not even have the brainpower to figure out all the implications in most cases. I buy game books that have rules in them so that I don't have to do it.

This. If I were going to have to arbitrate every single instance where any rule came up...I'd be pissed and try to return the rulebook. The whole point of a rulebook is so I can actually use the rules contained within.

[The Big Dice]

Good for you, but again, this is missing the point. Having established that there are both productive and abusive uses for Rule 0, the smart thing to do would be to distill and separate the productive uses, and use them to replace Rule Zero. Assuming that we can even distinguish between abuse and non-abuse, why should be the GM be able to abuse Rule Zero in the first place?
For the same reason that anyone is able to abuse any rules. A combination of power trip and competitive attitude.


It's like this idea that a benign dictatorship can be a wonderful form of government because a well-meaning, enlightened and strong-willed leader can solve all the country's problems. That's great if you've fortunately happened to stumble upon such a leader. But why not just isolate the kinds of decision-making that effectively solve problems in the first place, formalise those as legal institutions, and do away with the concept of dictatorship, benign or otherwise?
You could go play Ars Magica. Or you could accept that there is one person who has a different set of rules and expectations on them and at their disposal.

This is absurd. The in-game text goes to considerable lengths to give sample difficulties for various forms of skill-based tasks. It's not an arbitrary decision, it's a consultation of the rules. The GM doesn't just haul the necessary skill tests out of his or her ass, you make a Sailing test because you are trying to sail across an ocean.
What if you've built a land yacht and are tying to sail across the polar ice? Or you're trying to build that land yacht in the first place? At some point, you're going to have to improvise. The game might give you the tools you need, in the same way that learning songs and solos gives a guitarist the ability to improvise. BUt you'll still be on your own.

It's like saying that all role-playing games are expressions of Rule Zero, because some designer somewhere sat down to type out words that made up the original game text, and possibly- *gasp*!- even refined and modified them on the basis of feedback from playtesting. This is accurate but meaningless- by that standard, what, exactly, doesn't count as an expression of Rule Zero? If it applies to everything, if effectively applies to nothing.
Actually, have you ever seen 0E D&D? The famous White Box edition? All RPGs came about because of the inspiration of that trio of booklets, and the entire basis of the hobby is Rule 0.

It might be more of a consensus these days that what is written is what is, rather than juist what is written. But the entire basis of the hobby is "The GM say things work like this. What do you want to do?"

[Malevolence]

Let's first begin by defining what Rule Zero is and is not.

Rule Zero is not house rules. Those are designed in advance, typically before the game, or at the very latest after a given thing proves problematic. They come with explanations behind their inclusion, and detailed reasoning behind their construction.

Rule Zero is something that comes up with little thought, typically as a knee jerk reaction to something. But even if it isn't a knee jerk reaction, it is still not a well considered decision, because it is a decision that is made quickly.

Rule Zero, by its very nature is used as a stand in for actual rules.

As such, all of the following are true:

Inexperienced DMs are much more likely to invoke it than experienced ones, as experienced ones are going to be more familiar with the actual rules, which probably provide a solution to whatever it is you are doing.

DMs who refuse to learn the rules are also far more likely to invoke it as a stand in.

Bad DMs are much more likely to invoke it than good ones, because it lets them get away with more.

Is Rule Zero automatically bad? No.

Is it something to be wary of? Yes.

Either by incompetence or malice, Rule Zero is much more likely to be invoked for harmful purposes than helpful ones. If the good DMs need to make a change, they use house rules to do so. And while it's just as possible to screw the players entirely within the bounds of the rules, those with the screw the players mindset rarely have the drive and desire to actually learn the rules for the game they are playing, and as such you can be reasonably certain that those that could screw you over in this manner are not likely to actually do so. And if for some reason one did, then at least playing within the bounds of the rules means you have a known, counterable threat. There is still a problem with the DM vs player mindset though. There really isn't any recourse to the rocks fall, everyone dies type except to get a new DM.

Think of Rule Zero as driving down a slippery road at normal speed. Will it definitely result in you losing control and crashing? No. Can it? Yes. Will it? Very likely, and much less likely if you slow down.

[Eldan]

However, in your example: there might be sample difficulties for different situations. But not every possible case will have it's difficulties defined in the book. While in many situations, the difficulty will be relatively clear, there will still be cases when it falls more or less in between two difficulties.

In that case, wouldn't the DM decide which difficulty to use?

[Tyndmyr]

For the same reason that anyone is able to abuse any rules. A combination of power trip and competitive attitude.

And are not rules in almost any activity meant to curb such undesirable behavior? Even in the most competitive of sports, are not rules selected to minimize abuse?

It's easy to establish that not all rules are equally good.


You could go play Ars Magica. Or you could accept that there is one person who has a different set of rules and expectations on them and at their disposal.

Er, that's a seperate issue entirely. Even if the "rule zero" section of every D&D book vanished instantly, DMs would still be under different rules and expectations from players.

Can DMs, by RAW, invent monsters? Page 295 of the monster manual says yes.

Can players? Well, with epic spells and DM approval...


Actually, have you ever seen 0E D&D? The famous White Box edition? All RPGs came about because of the inspiration of that trio of booklets, and the entire basis of the hobby is Rule 0.

I am aware that rule 0 has a strong basis in history. So does dysentery. Age does not make something desirable.


It might be more of a consensus these days that what is written is what is, rather than juist what is written. But the entire basis of the hobby is "The GM say things work like this. What do you want to do?"

Presumably you mean jist...aka, slang for RAI. The thing with RAI is, it's remarkably squishy. All kinds of people have different ideas about what it means.

[The Big Dice]

Let's first begin by defining what Rule Zero is and is not.

Rule Zero is not house rules. Those are designed in advance, typically before the game, or at the very latest after a given thing proves problematic. They come with explanations behind their inclusion, and detailed reasoning behind their construction.
In my experience, house rules usually come about as a reaction to dissatisfaction with the printed rules. They aren't thought out in advance, unless you're returning to a system you're familiar with.

So I'd say you're exactly wrong there.

Rule Zero is something that comes up with little thought, typically as a knee jerk reaction to something. But even if it isn't a knee jerk reaction, it is still not a well considered decision, because it is a decision that is made quickly.
Again, in my experience, Rule 0 is invoked when time is a real world importance. It might be to avoid looking something up and breaking immersion. It might be because a specific is in a book that hasn't been brought that night, or in one that doesn't have an index.

And the speed a decision is made at has little to do with how considered a decision is. Especially when the decision is made by someone experienced and familiar with the kind of situation at hand.

Rule Zero, by its very nature is used as a stand in for actual rules.

As such, all of the following are true:

Inexperienced DMs are much more likely to invoke it than experienced ones, as experienced ones are going to be more familiar with the actual rules, which probably provide a solution to whatever it is you are doing.
Citation?

DMs who refuse to learn the rules are also far more likely to invoke it as a stand in.
In your opinion.

Bad DMs are much more likely to invoke it than good ones, because it lets them get away with more.
Again, your opinion. Posts in this thread put the lie to that statement.

Is Rule Zero automatically bad? No.

Is it something to be wary of? Yes.
It's a tool. Nothing more, nothing less. Are you wary of your screwdriver? Because that's how wary you need to be of Rule 0.

Either by incompetence or malice, Rule Zero is much more likely to be invoked for harmful purposes than helpful ones. If the good DMs need to make a change, they use house rules to do so. And while it's just as possible to screw the players entirely within the bounds of the rules, those with the screw the players mindset rarely have the drive and desire to actually learn the rules for the game they are playing, and as such you can be reasonably certain that those that could screw you over in this manner are not likely to actually do so. And if for some reason one did, then at least playing within the bounds of the rules means you have a known, counterable threat. There is still a problem with the DM vs player mindset though. There really isn't any recourse to the rocks fall, everyone dies type except to get a new DM.
This is pure conjecture with no actual basis outside of opinion.

Think of Rule Zero as driving down a slippery road at normal speed. Will it definitely result in you losing control and crashing? No. Can it? Yes. Will it? Very likely, and much less likely if you slow down.
Think on not having Rule 0 as driving a car down a road you know well. A car with no brakes. At some point, you're going to run into an unexpected situation and not be able to deal with it.

And are not rules in almost any activity meant to curb such undesirable behavior? Even in the most competitive of sports, are not rules selected to minimize abuse?
You're all about the abuse and the need to curb it. But I say that abuse is as abusers do. As has been observed several times, a GM doesn't need Rule 0 to be abusive. Just as players can be abusive without any help.

So what you're actually saying is, given the opportunity, all GMs will be abusive. And all players need to be sure that their GM is playing by exactly the same rules as them.

Which is ridiculous.

It's easy to establish that not all rules are equally good.
You still haven't come up with a definitive reason why Rule 0 is bad. It's all possibility, supposition and assumption that a GM using it will be a power tripping monster. I'm sorry you had such a hard time of things during your time as a gamer, but that doesn't excuse your reliance on a logical fallacy to make your point.


Er, that's a seperate issue entirely. Even if the "rule zero" section of every D&D book vanished instantly, DMs would still be under different rules and expectations from players.
And they have different requirements from the rules. BUt games like D&D force the Gm to use the same system for NPC and monsters as the PCs use for their characters.

Remind me why I need such a time consuming and involved system to keep track of abilities, AC, hit points and magic items again.

Rule 0 is a useful tool.

Can DMs, by RAW, invent monsters? Page 295 of the monster manual says yes.

Can players? Well, with epic spells and DM approval...
Again, the buck stops with the GM.


I am aware that rule 0 has a strong basis in history. So does dysentery. Age does not make something desirable.
Nor does newness make something desirable.
However, all RPGs are based on the consensus that the GM is the final arbiter of rules and events. The player might be able to convince the GM to decide in his favour. But at the end of the day, the GM has the last word.

Or he's not a GM, he's some poor individual that's been browbeaten into submission by abusive players.


Presumably you mean jist...aka, slang for RAI. The thing with RAI is, it's remarkably squishy. All kinds of people have different ideas about what it means.
When you don't know what the RAI were and the RAW doesn't make sense for your situation, what do you do without Rule 0?

Other than that, I have no idea what you're talking about here.

[Totally Guy]

Here's a thought...

If I was powerhungry and competative and I wanted to run a game, which system should I use? What sort of thing should I be looking for?

[potatocubed]

But why not just isolate the kinds of decision-making that effectively solve problems in the first place, formalise those as legal institutions, and do away with the concept of dictatorship, benign or otherwise?

Practicality. And the same for RPGs.

The good uses of Rule 0 are the ones where it is recognised that the rules of the game are not supporting the objectives of the game, and the rules are then changed (temporarily or permanently) to reflect that.

So you either have to design a perfect system (where all rules support the objectives of the game at all times) which will weather whatever abuse players heap on it, or an adaptive, self-regulating system that changes according to how the players play.

Also, you have to make it one that's simple enough to play.

We retain human oversight over systems because systems are imperfect. That oversight need not be dictatorial - you might be able to get away without a GM - but Rule 0 By Committee is still Rule 0.

Unless part of your definition is that it's only Rule 0 when the GM does it. (It's not part of my definition, but whatever.) Then you're just arguing about how much power is okay to leave in the hands of the GM and how much to decentralise.

[Samurai Jill]

For the same reason that anyone is able to abuse any rules. A combination of power trip and competitive attitude.
I can't even begin to respond to this. What the hell does this mean? How do you abuse the rules of chess, exactly? By trying to win? Isn't that the point?

I'm not saying the purposes of RPGs is to 'win' by any stretch. (It can be, but it's not a universal, and if it is, sulking when you lose is just being a poor sport. You accept that when you sit down at the table, or there's no point to even playing.) But whatever the purpose of your role-playing is (and please don't say 'to have fun', because that means radically different things to different people,) it is possible to design rules that will either eliminate or at least minimise the likelihood of a particular players' privileges/responsibilities being abused. Again, how is giving one player carte blanche to do whatever they like somehow a good thing?

You could go play Ars Magica. Or you could accept that there is one person who has a different set of rules and expectations on them and at their disposal.
'Different' does not necessarily mean superior or more. A democratically elected official has 'a different set of rules and expectations on them and at their disposal', but they are still held accountable for their decisions and subject to the rule of law.

What if you've built a land yacht and are tying to sail across the polar ice? Or you're trying to build that land yacht in the first place? At some point, you're going to have to improvise...
In the somewhat bizarre situation where this comes up- given that creating a working land-yacht could well take years of research and development in in-game time- then I would work out the new rules with the players on an iterative trial-and-error basis. I'm not going to pretend to certainty where none exists, or make a decision by fiat.

Actually, have you ever seen 0E D&D? The famous White Box edition? All RPGs came about because of the inspiration of that trio of booklets, and the entire basis of the hobby is Rule 0.
That's my point. Your description of the role of Rule Zero is so general as to be vacuous. It doesn't tell me anything useful.

[obliged_salmon]

This is absurd. The in-game text goes to considerable lengths to give sample difficulties for various forms of skill-based tasks. It's not an arbitrary decision, it's a consultation of the rules. The GM doesn't just haul the necessary skill tests out of his or her ass, you make a Sailing test because you are trying to sail across an ocean.

It's like saying that all role-playing games are expressions of Rule Zero, because some designer somewhere sat down to type out words that made up the original game text, and possibly- *gasp*!- even refined and modified them on the basis of feedback from playtesting. This is accurate but meaningless- by that standard, what, exactly, doesn't count as an expression of Rule Zero? If it applies to everything, if effectively applies to nothing.

Exactly. If rule 0 can be defined as "playing the game according to the rules of the game," then what's the term for "GM can overrule anything, ever?"

Someone mentioned congress and presidential veto power a while back. That's not what rule 0 is about. Rule 0 is about dictatorship. The GM has ultimate power over the game. Players can't do anything without his say-so. You can have fun in this game style, again, as Samurai Jill says, if the GM is awesome.

The other point I'll make here is that RPG's are games, not government administrations. If players are relying exclusively on the GM for their entertainment, maybe they should consider playing the game, instead? You know, the one specifically designed to entertain them?

[Samurai Jill]

We retain human oversight over systems because systems are imperfect. That oversight need not be dictatorial - you might be able to get away without a GM - but Rule 0 By Committee is still Rule 0.
No, it is not. It is radically different from Rule Zero as it is stated in the great majority of texts. So, too, is this idea that it should only be brought out when the rules are inadequate or ambigious, or only in order to preserve the PCs from looming death, or only used very occasionally.

I don't inherently disagree with all these caveats and provisions and addenda! Many of them are excellent advice! BUT THEY ARE NOT WHAT RULE ZERO ACTUALLY IMPLIES.

[The Big Dice]

I can't even begin to respond to this. What the hell does this mean? How do you abuse the rules of chess, exactly? By trying to win? Isn't that the point?
You're trying to compare chess to an RPG. Or, comparing a car to a horse. Both are on the surface similar, but the two are so different as to have nothing in common.

I'm not saying the purposes of RPGs is to 'win' by any stretch. (It can be, but it's not a universal, and if it is, sulking when you lose is just being a poor sport. You accept that when you sit down at the table, or there's no point to even playing.) But whatever the purpose of your role-playing is (and please don't say 'to have fun', because that means radically different things to different people,) it is possible to design rules that will either eliminate or at least minimise the likelihood of a particular players' privileges/responsibilities being abused. Again, how is giving one player carte blanche to do whatever they like somehow a good thing?
Again, the obsession with abuse. Where is this coming from?

I'm aware that most gamers go through a stage of shall we say morally dubious activity. But some people get fixated to the point of obsession on abuse. All I can say is, if your friends are routinely abusing your friendship, they aren't very good friends. And if your gaming group routinely abuses relationships and game systems, maybe the problem isn't in the game.


'Different' does not necessarily mean superior or more. A democratically elected official has 'a different set of rules and expectations on them and at their disposal', but they are still held accountable for their decisions and subject to the rule of law.
You're confusing a nation with a gaming table. The two are totally unrelated.

You come to my gaming table. Do you accept the house rules and other conditions that are part of the social contract between player and GM? If you don't, maybe roleplaying isn't for you. If you're paranoid about abuse, maybe counselling is what you need.

In the somewhat bizarre situation where this comes up- given that creating a working land-yacht could well take years of research and development in in-game time- then I would work out the new rules with the players on an iterative trial-and-error basis. I'm not going to pretend to certainty where none exists, or make a decision by fiat.
Except that's exactly what you just described. The Gm makes a decision to handle a situation that isn't explicitly covered by the rules. What is that if it isn't a use of Rule 0?

That's my point. Your description of the role of Rule Zero is so general as to be vacuous. It doesn't tell me anything useful.
Your understanding of Rule 0 is, as with so many other things that are far simpler than they seem, cluttered by preconceptions. Learn to see gaming for what it is, rather than what you think it is and it all becomes very obvious.

Or, I could be talking out of my hat. The answer is yours.

[Eldan]

Someone mentioned congress and presidential veto power a while back. That's not what rule 0 is about. Rule 0 is about dictatorship. The GM has ultimate power over the game. Players can't do anything without his say-so. You can have fun in this game style, again, as Samurai Jill says, if the GM is awesome.


Not really. It's a dictatorship where the citizens can argue the laws and are not controlled by a military or police force. It's a dictatorship where, at any point, the citizens say "We don't want you to rule us anymore, Mr. King President Prime Minister for Life" and the dictator then steps down. It's a dictatorship where the citizens are free to leave, if they don't like the country anymore, or just found their own country in the same spot.

[Malevolence]

How exactly do you win DnD? It just seems a strange idea for me. I mean, you play for years and months, and it's never really over, so how?

What are your character's goals? Are you successfully achieving those goals?

If yes, you are winning. If no, you are losing. This will involve winning many combats, even if your goals are not related to killing things. It will also involve taking the stuff from those things. But that is merely a means to the end here. The goal here is to accomplish your goals.

[Eldan]

I don't agree. It's entirely possible to fail every possible goal your character started with, and still have a great time in the game. Paranoia is a blast, but y'll lose at least half your clones, and probably not achieve anything. In Call of Cthulhu you'll most likely end up mad or dead. People still play it.

[Samurai Jill]

You're trying to compare chess to an RPG. Or, comparing a car to a horse. Both are on the surface similar, but the two are so different as to have nothing in common.
Your statement was 'any rule can be abused', and I would like to see some evidence in support of that rather broad assertion.

I can agree that competitive attitudes are often disruptive when the GM or other players really want the game to be about something other than competition, but competition in itself is not abusive, any more than chess is somehow 'abusive'. I absolutely agree that choosing the right company is integral to enjoyment of play as a group, but that doesn't mean folks who don't 'fit' with a given group are somehow morally reprehensible.

For a particular group, competition may well be the point, and lots of groups have fun doing exactly that, either against other players or a steady stream of NPC opponents, especially when the rules are actually designed to accomodate it.

You're confusing a nation with a gaming table. The two are totally unrelated.
They are not unrelated. They are both expressions of an underlying social contract. Saying 'if you come to my table you accept my absolute authority' is basically imposing dictatorship as a precondition of play, and may well account, in part, for why more people don't join the hobby in the first place. They walk away, and don't come back.

Except that's exactly what you just described. The Gm makes a decision to handle a situation that isn't explicitly covered by the rules. What is that if it isn't a use of Rule 0?
Because I consult with the other players. Because it's a process, not an off-the-cuff decision. None of this is specified within Rule Zero, and if you DO specify this, it ceases to BE Rule Zero.

What is so hard to understand about this?

[Pentachoron]

I don't agree. It's entirely possible to fail every possible goal your character started with, and still have a great time in the game. Paranoia is a blast, but y'll lose at least half your clones, and probably not achieve anything. In Call of Cthulhu you'll most likely end up mad or dead. People still play it.

I think you're focusing too much on equating "winning" with having fun. I never win any games of Call of Duty, but I still play because I'm having fun with my friends.

[Eldan]

I would compare a DM with rule 0 not to a dictator, but to a judge. In a specific case, i.e. a court case, the judge considers the sides, looks at earlier decisions on similar cases, reads the laws and constitution, and then makes a decision. That doesn't make him a dictator.

Edit @ Duncan: True, term confusion. So, both winning/losing and enjoying/not enjoying are possible in an RPG, but you can have one without the other.

[Jayabalard]

Because I consult with the other players. Because it's a process, not an off-the-cuff decision. None of this is specified within Rule Zero, and if you DO specify this, it ceases to BE Rule Zero.

What is so hard to understand about this?It's not hard to understand, it's just a completely undesirable situation. The people who disagree with this don't want a process; they're not there to play Rules Lawyer: The Sleepening...they're there to play their character Joe the barbarian.


This will involve winning many combats, even if your goals are not related to killing things. It will also involve taking the stuff from those things. Not necessarily; there are certainly games where combat is a rare occurrence (and even somewhere it doesn't happen at all). Violent hobo syndrome isn't even required in D&D.


The goal here is to accomplish your goals.Are you channeling the spirit of John Madden?

[Eldan]

Yes. A discussion at the game table should be about planning the next action, an in-game dispute, perhaps a fluff discussion among characters. Discussing rules is boring and takes a lot of time away that could be spent on actually playing. Having someone able to resolve these discussions quickly is, to me, desirable.

[Samurai Jill]

It's not hard to understand, it's just a completely undesirable situation. The people who disagree with this don't want a process; they're not there to play Rules Lawyer: The Sleepening...they're there to play their character Joe the barbarian.
(A) Then maybe they should pick out a rule-set that already has reasonably comprehensive rules for the things Joe the Barbarian is likely to want to do, and not attempt bizarre, outré stunts not covered by the rules.
(B) If they're happy with what the GM suggests, well and good. What I am saying is that the player should have a recourse when they don't like what the GM suggests.

[Eldan]

Really, the basic d20 rules system is very simple. "Roll d20, add modifiers, achieve target number". That's about as simple as it gets, and intuitive. And with this simple mechanic, most of the things a player will want to do are covered. Most of the time, it's physical attributes or the skills depending on them.
D&D just confuses this simple rule by adding on endless layers of classes, powers, spells, feats and so on. But the core mechanics stays the same. As long as the DM has a good look at what his players are building, he should be able to keep track of most of it.

[Jayabalard]

(A) Then maybe they should pick out a rule-set that already has reasonably comprehensive rules for the things Joe the Barbarian is likely to want to do, and not attempt bizarre, outré stunts not covered by the rules.
(B) If they're happy with what the GM suggests, well and good. What I am saying is that the player should have a recourse when they don't like what the GM suggests.A). No; that's not necessary, or even desirable. Adding more rules doesn't necessarily make things any better and can (in fact) make things worse, since it makes the system itself more complicated; the general tendency that I've seen is that more rules = slower play.

B). They do; it's the same recourse that you have if you don't like what any other of your elected officials do: you can convince them that they are acting in a manner that you don't approve of and that you won't re-elect them if they continue, and then you can follow through with that. Just like in D&D, it's not appropriate to walk into congress and start arguing with them about their recent decisions; you write them letters and they read them between sessions.

This has nothing to do with Rule 0.


'Different' does not necessarily mean superior or more. A democratically elected official has 'a different set of rules and expectations on them and at their disposal', but they are still held accountable for their decisions and subject to the rule of law.

Someone mentioned congress and presidential veto power a while back. That's not what rule 0 is about. Rule 0 is about dictatorship. The GM has ultimate power over the game. Players can't do anything without his say-so. You can have fun in this game style, again, as Samurai Jill says, if the GM is awesome.No, these are not correct; it's not a dictatorship, it's a representative democracy. You choose (elect) your GM, just like you would a president or congressman. Once you've elected him, he makes the decisions; your only option if you don't like what he's doing is kick him out and elect someone new, which you can always do.

It would only be a dictatorship if the GM prevents you from picking another GM... which has nothing to do with rule 0.

[Samurai Jill]

A). No; that's not necessary, or even desirable. Adding more rules doesn't necessarily make things any better and can (in fact) make things worse.
The example you mentioned is adding more rules- it's simply being done in an ad-hoc fashion that may not meet with the players' approval or even be consistent with the other rules or other ad-hoc rulings in similar situations. I was talking about finding a suitable system before play.

B). They do; it's the same recourse that you have if you don't like what any other of your elected officials do: you can convince them that they are acting in a manner that you don't approve of and that you won't re-elect them if they continue, and then you can follow through with that. THis has nothing to do with Rule 0.
If your solution to persistent rule-disagreements is to dissolve the group, I would argue that the rules are not doing their job very well. It's like saying 'wait until the market crashes' is a substitute for economic regulation, or that a bloody revolution is the solution to a poor government. It's technically accurate, but most of us would prefer a more nuanced methodology for smoothing over procedural disagreements. If the overall level of interpersonal tension has risen to the point where the GM has to be ousted, then there is likely to be serious fallout.